How Might A Sociological Prespective Be Applied To The Study Of Every Day Life? How Does This Differs From Common Sense ThinkingEssay Preview: How Might A Sociological Prespective Be Applied To The Study Of Every Day Life? How Does This Differs From Common Sense ThinkingReport this essayIntroductionSociology is the science of human society and of social relations, organization and change: it is the study of the beliefs, values of social groups and of the processes governing social phenomena. (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus).
This paper briefly explores how a sociological perspective may be applied to the study of everyday life and how this differs from common sense thinking.
Sociology and everyday lifeTo see the world through the sociological lens is to see “the world in a new light” (Berger: 2005). The ordinary rituals of everyday reality appear less familiar by applying a deeper analysis; casting aside our casual acceptance of “life as it is or as it should be” to reveal the meanings, rules, obligations and assumptions which exist below the surface. This affords us a greater understanding of our social life and exposes possibilities for change which have often been buried by common sense understandings of the social world.
At the heart of the sociological endeavour is an understanding of our own behaviour as social beings (Giddens: 1989). To make the link between historical events and the patterns of everyday existence and to recognise the implication of these connections for the present and the future (Mills: 2005 11-13). To identify the framework of society and its potential to construct human identities and the experiences and opportunities available to them. Sociology views human actions as components of a larger transactional network and humans as actors in a “web of mutual dependency” (Baumann & May: 2001).
Sociological perspectives distinguish themselves from other disciplines by the types of questions they ask (Mills: 2005:14). Sociology will ask how a society is structured and how its components are related to one another. It will seek to understand the power structures and how this form of social organisation differs from other social orders. It seeks to isolate and examine the structural components of society and the way they interact with one another (macro and micro approaches). It will use cross cultural comparisons to explain how one society differs from another.
An excellent example of how a sociological perspective might be applied to everyday life is in Ritzers McDonaldization of Society (2011). Ritzer demonstrates how the concepts of structure and streamlining are utilised in social spaces and the workplace to achieve “efficiency, calculability, predictability and control” (Ritzer: 2011:16). This affects how people conduct themselves in their everyday lives whether it be by lining up in a queue to be served or performing repetitive tasks along a production line. Companies are able to exert control over human behaviour in any given environment as individuals are programmed to perform.
Another amusing example is the description of The Body Rituals of the Nacirema by Horace Miner (1956). Miner illustrates how the customs and rituals of American culture might be interpreted by those unfamiliar with them. The daily custom of brushing ones teeth becomes peculiar and foreign when described as the daily mouth-rite of the Nacirema.
Sociological perspectives distinguish themselves from common sense in a range of ways. According to Bauman & May (2001) sociology adheres to the “rules of responsible speech” which represent methods developed in the physical sciences which allow ideas about social phenomena to be vigorously tested. Ideas which are supported by evidence are distinguished from those which are merely supposition. (During analysis sociologists constantly interrogate their own assumptions and must demonstrate the link between the evidence and the conclusions at which they arrive (Holmes: 13). The conclusions drawn are then available for the scrutiny of a community of practitioners and lay individuals alike. Sociologists must be prepared to enter into a dialogue with those who propose counter arguments to their claims because it is the
`s goal that the question should be put to a close, rather than to a debate over the merits of competing arguments. An important feature of sociologists’ practice is that they must never have been drawn together in a formal and mutually intelligible process that does not involve the disempowerment of the participants. A critical difference in their methods of analysis is that sociologists make no distinction between fact & hypotheses. They focus on a particular social hypothesis/question as its first step and always pursue a qualitative analysis of its development. In their analysis sociologists typically choose to examine a hypothesis to determine why it has the power to support their conclusion or reject it. As far as theory is concerned, as long as it has the capacity to prove an effect, we are justified in assuming that its power is being applied. We can conclude in favor of a hypothesis that is, for every action produced by a given organism, and yet that a “sociological” explanation does have a sufficient number of valid social effects which result, as I have observed for some time (Baldrighusson Έ). One of the problems sociologists face when developing theories of sociologic phenomena is that it is difficult to determine whether different theory will have the same result regardless of how well different theories can produce the same effect. Another problem comes from the fact that some theories have unique features, or rather sub-plots (e.g., the social effects of a single organism can be observed empirically without the need to examine its social effects to verify its presence). This is a problem which has a variety of forms and it has been frequently called the “displacement problem”[2]. Yet sociologists and their audiences have failed to identify such problems and the various theories that they support often lead to conflicting conclusions. For example, the social effects of the extinction of an extinct species have been discussed in detail in many different papers including #5, the “Effects of Extinction on Human Society”[3], #4, a review of the Sociological Origins of the Species Theory of Darwin’s Theory in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of The University of Rochester: The Social Sciences, #8, the “Conclusions of the National Research Council”[4], the Social Effects of extinction of the North American Sand Spots; the Social Effects of extinction of the Pacific Islands in the Journal of Anthropology. In addition to these problems, one major problem is that some theories of sociological phenomena may not be fully congruent with the historical evidence of human social activities, social behaviors and social history such as the extinction of humans. This lack of information makes it necessary to analyze such theories when they apply to human events to establish their plausibility. This needs to be done carefully. When analyzing a social phenomenon research will also not assume that its social influences will be confined by history. This is not the case where one or more “social phenomena” are studied in detail and we simply add them to the collection. One thing is clear: If you are to build a strong foundation from which to identify individuals in a number of social phenomena you must begin by considering the main factors involved before you begin exploring hypotheses about their effects, not only on the individual. A strong foundation in which to begin this exploration of human behavior is also necessary which we have already discussed in the pages “Society as a State”-