Sociology-XI English Ver 17.Cdr
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Série Antropologia 103 Three Essays on Anthropology in India
Universidade de Brasília Instituto de Ciências Humanas Departamento de Antropologia 70910.900 – Brasília, DF Fone: +55 61 3307 3006 Série Antropologia 103 Three essays on anthropology in India Mariza Peirano This issue brings together the translation into English of numbers 57, 65 and 83 of Série Antropologia. The present title replaces the former “Towards Anthropo- logical Reciprocity”, its designation from 1990 to 2010. 1990 Table of contents Introduction .............................................................................. 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................. 7 Paper 1: On castes and villages: reflections on a debate.............. 8 Paper 2: “Are you catholic?” Travel report, theoretical reflections and ethical perplexities ………………….. 26 Paper 3: Anthropological debates: the India – Europe dialogue ...................................................... 54 1 Introduction The three papers brought together in this volume of Série Antropologia were translated from Portuguese into English especially to make them available for an audience of non- Brazilian anthropologists and sociologists. The papers were written with the hope that a comparison of the Brazilian with the Indian academic experience could enlarge our understanding of the social, historical and cultural implications of the development of anthropology in different contexts. This project started in the late 1970’s when, as a graduate student at Harvard University, I decided to take a critical look at the dilemmas that face -
When Do People Trust Their Social Groups?
When Do People Trust Their Social Groups? Xiao Ma1y, Justin Cheng2, Shankar Iyer2, Mor Naaman1 {xiao,mor}@jacobs.cornell.edu,{jcheng,shankar94}@fb.com 1Jacobs Institute, Cornell Tech, 2Facebook y Work done while at Facebook. ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION Trust facilitates cooperation and supports positive outcomes Trust contributes to the success of social groups by encour- in social groups, including member satisfaction, information aging people to interpret others’ actions and intentions fa- sharing, and task performance. Extensive prior research has vorably, thereby facilitating cooperation and a sense of com- examined individuals’ general propensity to trust, as well as munity [5, 22, 32, 54, 60, 76]. In groups, trust increases mem- the factors that contribute to their trust in specific groups. ber satisfaction and task performance [79], reduces con- Here, we build on past work to present a comprehensive flict [32, 79], and promotes effective response to crisis [52]. framework for predicting trust in groups. By surveying 6,383 Previous research has examined how different factors such Facebook Groups users about their trust attitudes and ex- as size [13, 21, 85], group cohesiveness [37], and activity [79] amining aggregated behavioral and demographic data for may impact people’s trust in their social groups, both on- these individuals, we show that (1) an individual’s propensity line [38] and offline [67]. However, previous studies tend to trust is associated with how they trust their groups, (2) to be small in scale, limited to specific contexts (e.g., online smaller, closed, older, more exclusive, or more homogeneous marketplaces), or only consider a specific type of group (e.g., groups are trusted more, and (3) a group’s overall friendship- organizations [18, 49]). -
Facing Politics and Power in Anthropology
PART ONE: POWER AND POLITICS FROM STATELESS SOCIETIES TO GLOBAL CAPITALISM FACINGFACING POLITICSPOLITICS ANDAND POWERPOWER ININ ANTHROPOLOGYANTHROPOLOGY Early Anthropological Perspectives on Power Power and social stratification Power and “complex societies” Politics is the process by which power is distributed and decisions are made Weber: power—coercion & authority Early Anthropological Perspectives on Power AUTHORITY: 1. Legal-Rational Authority 2. Traditional Authority 3. Charismatic Authority Typologies of Power and Political Systems Evolutionary typologies Kinship to State --Maine (1861): Status vs. Contract --Morgan (1877): Descent group vs. Property --Engels (1884): Kinship vs. Territory --Durkheim (1893): Mechanical vs. Organic Solidarity --Mauss (1925): Gift exchange vs. Commodity exchange Typologies of Power and Political Systems Service (1962) Sahlins (1963) Childe (1936) Fried (1967) Johnson and Earle (1987) Earle (1978) Hunter- Band (family level) Head man Egalitarian society gatherers Farmers Tribe (local group) Big man Ranked society Civilization Chiefdom Simple Stratified Society Complex Stratified society State State State State Typologies of Power and Political Systems Structural-Functionalist correspondences: Meyer Fortes & E. E. Evans-Pritchard (1940:5-6) sub-Saharan Africa, two forms of polity: “primitive states”—kingship & office “stateless societies”—descent Typologies of Power and Political Systems --evolution of social complexity as a political process --control over labour of non-kin --Elman Service (1962): Band, -
Families and Their Social Worlds 2Nd Edition Seccombe Test Bank
Families and their Social Worlds 2nd Edition Seccombe Test Bank Full Download: https://alibabadownload.com/product/families-and-their-social-worlds-2nd-edition-seccombe-test-bank/ Chapter 2 Families Throughout the World: Marriage, Family, and Kinship 2.1 Multiple Choice Questions 1) According to anthropologist William Stephens, the definition of marriage includes four important components. Which is NOT one of them? A) a socially legitimate sexual union B) a public announcement C) contains some ideas about permanence D) involves one man and one woman E) assumes an explicit marriage contract that spells out reciprocal obligations between spouses, and between spouses and their children Answer: D Diff: 2 Page Ref: 41 2) Families are found throughout the world. Despite their diversity, there are many critical universal features of families. Which is NOT one of these universal features? A) marriage B) regulation of sexual behavior C) reproduction and socializing children D) taking care of the elderly E) property and inheritance Answer: D Diff: 2 Page Ref: 41-43 3) Deeya is a graduate of Yale University. This is an example of a/an: A) ascribed status B) achieved status C) bilateral status D) exogamy E) gemeinschaft Answer: B Diff: 2 Page Ref: 42 4) Laurel is a White teenager who lives in Beverly Hills, CA with her wealthy parents. Her sex, race, and social class are examples of a/an: A) ascribed status B) achieved status C) neolocal status D) endogamy E) gesellschaft Answer: A Diff: 2 Page Ref: 42 5) As a student, you usually take notes in class. Student is your ________; taking notes is your ________. -
Response: Race As a Semi-Measurable Component of Social Status
\\jciprod01\productn\H\HLC\55-2\HLC211.txt unknown Seq: 1 23-SEP-20 14:37 Response: Race as a Semi-Measurable Component of Social Status Michael L. Radelet* Numerous studies have found strong correlations between racial attributes and death sentencing. While much of the strength of these correlations reflects overt racism, the correlations also reflect a more general rule that the death penalty is most likely to be imposed on defendants with lower status for crimes against those with higher status. Indeed, race can be conceptualized as one component of social status. The increasing difficulty of measuring defendants’ and victims’ races also presents challenges for future researchers. These challenges invite researchers to find new ways to study the basic question: Is the death penalty reserved for the worst of the worst? TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................. 675 I. RACE AS A COMPONENT OF SOCIAL STATUS ............... 676 R II. THE FUTURE OF RACE RESEARCH ......................... 678 R CONCLUSION .................................................... 680 R INTRODUCTION It is an honor to comment on the thought-provoking paper by my fellow Coloradans, Scott Phillips and Justin Marceau,1 and I thank the editors of the Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review for providing a space to do so. I briefly discuss two issues related to the body of research on which Phillips and Marceau are building. First, I reflect on some of the broader issues that the statistical correlations between race and death sentencing are capturing. Second, I offer some observations about how research of this sort needs to evolve. We have come a long way since the early post-Gregg research on race and death sentencing,2 but we need to continue to develop this research, as Phillips and Marceau are doing, if we are to deepen our understanding of contemporary disparities in death sentencing. -
SOCIAL GROUP What Is a Social Group? Types of Social Group?
SOCIAL GROUP What is a Social Group? A social group is two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. A social group exhibits some degree of social cohesion and is more than a simple collection or aggregate of individuals, such as people waiting at a bus stop or people waiting in a line. Characteristics shared by members of a group may include interests, values, representations, ethnic or social background, and kinship ties. One way of determining if a collection of people can be considered a group is if individuals who belong to that collection use the self-referent pronoun “we;” using “we” to refer to a collection of people often implies that the collection thinks of itself as a group. Examples of groups include: families, companies, circles of friends, clubs, local chapters of fraternities and sororities, and local religious congregations. Types of Social Group? Sociologists have classified groups into numerous categories according to their own ways of looking at them. Some of the important classifications have been discussed below: 1. Primary Group and Secondary Group (Concepts introduced by C.H Cooley in his book Social Organization) 2. In-group and Out-group (Introduced by W.G Sumner in his book Folkways) 3. Reference Group (Introduced by Muzafer Sherif but used extensively by Sociologist Merton) Primary Group: A primary group is typically a small social group whose members share close, personal, enduring relationships. These groups are marked by concern for one another, shared activities and culture, and long periods of time spent together. -
Max Weber and the Legitimacy of the Modern State
David Beetharn Max Weber and the Legitimacy of the Modern State Abstract: Max Weber's typology of Iegitimale 'Herrschaft' has provided the basis for the treatment of Jegitimacy in twentieth century sociology and political science. The thesis of the article is that this typology is a misleading tool for the analysis of the modern state, and especially for the comparative analysis of political systems. This is because of basic flaws in Weber's conceptualisation of Jegitimacy itself, and in his account of the norma tive basis of authority. The article offers an alternative, multi-dimensional, account of political Jegitirnacy, and suggests how it might be used to develop a typology of forms of 'Herrschaft' more appropriate to the analysis ofthe modern state. The argument of this article is that Weber's typology of legitimate 'Herrschaft' is fundamentally flawed as a basis for analysing political legitimacy, and especially the legitimacy of the modern state. If my argument is sound, then it has signifi cant consequences, in view of the fact that the large majority of sociologists and political scientists in the twentieth century who have written about legitimacy have either adopted the Weberian typology as it stands, or have used it as the basis for further developments of their own. Even those who have rejected it have failed to establish a wholly convincing alternative, so that Weber's typology is left holding the field, if only by default. I shall begin by briefly reviewing Weber's typology and the uses to which he put it. I shall then show why the categories he developed misrepresent the nature of legitimacy, and serve to confuse rather than elucidate its complexity. -
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Tribal Communities That Call Themselves Hindu
Socio-economic Characteristics of Tribal Communities That Call Themselves Hindu Vinay Kumar Srivastava Religious and Development Research Programme Working Paper Series Indian Institute of Dalit Studies New Delhi 2010 Foreword Development has for long been viewed as an attractive and inevitable way forward by most countries of the Third World. As it was initially theorised, development and modernisation were multifaceted processes that were to help the “underdeveloped” economies to take-off and eventually become like “developed” nations of the West. Processes like industrialisation, urbanisation and secularisation were to inevitably go together if economic growth had to happen and the “traditional” societies to get out of their communitarian consciousness, which presumably helped in sustaining the vicious circles of poverty and deprivation. Tradition and traditional belief systems, emanating from past history or religious ideologies, were invariably “irrational” and thus needed to be changed or privatised. Developed democratic regimes were founded on the idea of a rational individual citizen and a secular public sphere. Such evolutionist theories of social change have slowly lost their appeal. It is now widely recognised that religion and cultural traditions do not simply disappear from public life. They are also not merely sources of conservation and stability. At times they could also become forces of disruption and change. The symbolic resources of religion, for example, are available not only to those in power, but also to the weak, who sometimes deploy them in their struggles for a secure and dignified life, which in turn could subvert the traditional or establish structures of authority. Communitarian identities could be a source of security and sustenance for individuals. -
Authority and Rationality—Max Weber (German, 1864–1920)
05-Allen.qxd 12/23/2004 11:51 AM Page 143 CHAPTER 5 Authority and Rationality—Max Weber (German, 1864–1920) 143 05-Allen.qxd 12/23/2004 11:51 AM Page 144 144—— EXPLORATIONS IN CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY ● The Perspective: Complex Sociology 147 ● The Evolution of Religion 154 ● The Rise of Capitalism: Religion and States 159 ● Class, Authority, and Social Change 164 ● Rationality in Action 172 ● Thinking About Modernity and Postmodernity 176 ● Summary 180 ● Building Your Theory Toolbox 181 Weber’s writings are somewhat schizophrenic....[I]n his volumi- nous works, one can find almost anything one looks for. There is plenty of material for Parsons’ functionalism...and also for Schluchter or Habermas’s rationalist evolutionism. Weber is a legit- imate ally of the symbolic interactionists, as well as an influence upon Alfred Schutz, who in turn influenced social phenomenology and ethnomethodology. On the other hand, modern organization theory and stratification theory could reasonably emerge from Weber’s work, and he could influence conflict sociologists...all these elements are in Weber. (Collins, 1986, p. 11) ax Weber is one of sociology’s most intricate thinkers. Part of this complexity is undoubtedly due to the breadth of his knowledge. Weber M was a voracious reader with an encyclopedic knowledge and a dedi- cated workaholic. In addition, Weber was in contact with a vast array of prominent thinkers from diverse disciplines. As Lewis Coser (2003) comments, “In leafing through Weber’s pages and notes, one is impressed with the range of men with whom he engaged in intellectual exchanges and realizes the widespread net of rela- tionships Weber established within the academy and across its various disciplinary boundaries” (p. -
On the Non-Existence of "Dravidian Kinship"
Edinburgh Papers In South Asian Studies Number 6, (1996) _____________________________________________________________________________ On the Non-Existence of "Dravidian Kinship" Anthony Good Social Anthropology School of Social & Political Studies University of Edinburgh For further information about the Centre and its activities, please contact the Convenor Centre for South Asian Studies, School of Social & Political Studies, University of Edinburgh, 55 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LL. e-mail: [email protected] web page: www.ed.ac.uk/sas/ ISBN: 1 900 795 05 1 Paper Price: £2 inc. postage and packing On the Non–Existence of “Dravidian Kinship”* Anthony Good The proposition underlying this paper is a simple one, namely, that there is no such thing as the Dravidian kinship system. Naturally, such a stark statement requires a great deal of qualification and explanation if it is to represent anything more than gratuitous iconoclasm. I shall try to satisfy that requirement in three ways, as follows. Empirically, I shall show using published ethnographic evidence that the great majority of Dravidian speakers in South Asia do not have a Dravidian kinship system as conventionally defined. Neither the relationship terminology nor the preferential marriage rules are in fact as they have been conventionally represented. Rather more briefly, I shall also claim that, taxonomically, “the Dravidian kinship system” forms one element in an inadequately constructed typology of kinship systems; while, theoretically, the notion of a “kinship system” leads to an overly static analysis, and involves an unacceptable degree of reification. First, however, it is necessary to say something about the nature of kinship, and explain why there is nonetheless an over–riding need to grasp it as a whole – though as a totality rather than as a system. -
Charismatic Leadership and Democratization : a Weberian Perspective 1
CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP AND DEMOCRATIZATION : A WEBERIAN PERSPECTIVE 1 Michael Bernhar d Associate Professor of Political Science The Pennsylvania State University SUMMARY 2 In at least three cases of democratization in Eastern and Central Europe (ECE), charismati c leaders have played an important role in overthrowing the old regime and in shaping the pattern of new institutions . In addition to Lech Wa łęsa in Poland, Vaclav Havel of the Czech (and formerly Slovak) Republic, and Boris Yeltsin of Russia, can be classified as charismatic leaders with littl e controversy . While there are other charismatic leaders in the region, their commitments t o democracy are quite shaky, and thus they fall outside the scope of this paper . The greatest contribution to our understanding of charisma as a social force has been the wor k of Max Weber. His sociological writings on charisma serve as the point of departure for this paper . After surveying Weber's analysis of charisma, this study turns to what his writings tell us about th e relationship between charisma and democracy. It then addresses the question of the impact tha t democratization has on charismatic leadership and use this to interpret the political fortunes of Lec h Wałęsa, Vaclav Havel, and Boris Yeltsin . It concludes with a discussion of the role of charisma i n both democracy and dictatorship in the contemporary era . Despite their pivotal role in the demise of the communist regimes in their countries and thei r leadership during key phases of the democratization process, none of the three leaders have bee n fully successful in translating their visions for their respective countries into reality . -
Slide 1. Lecture 9 Family Level Societies (Bands)
Slide 1. Lecture 9 Family Level Societies (Bands) Slide 1. Definitions Achieved Status- Social status and prestige gained by personal abilities and skills rather than inheritance. Egalitarian- Societies in which all members have equal access to resources contingent on age and sex. Reciprocity- roughly equivalent exchanges of goods and services between individuals involving simple barter and/or gifts in face-to-face exchanges. Slide 3. Bands- Family Level Organization Family Level- bilateral, flexible kinship Small, mobile, Egalitarian, non-territorial hunting and gathering Strong Sharing ethics – “We hunt to share” Sexual division of labor lack of formal government and economic institutions Status is achieved rather than acquired, as many leadership positions exists as warranted by circumstances and number of qualified people. Violence- present but no institutional warfare Slide 4. Men go for risky prey (big animals) Slide 5. Women go for reliable prey (plants and small animals) Slide 6. Men tend to share to gain mating opportunities and build prestige in the group. Slide 7. Women tend to share to feed offspring, provision kin networks, and maintain cooperative relationships with other women. Slide 8. Reciprocity- Food Sharing/ Sexual Division of Labor In most band societies, men and women procure different sets of prey. Food procured by both sexes is shared- however, objectives seem to differ. Women tend to share to feed offspring, provision kin networks, and maintain cooperative relationships with other women. Men tend to share to gain mating opportunities, and build prestige and status in the group, Slide 9. Case 1 The Shoshone of the Great Basin (also includes Paiute) Slide 10.