Outline and Explain Durkheim’s Conception of Social Fact Introducing Sociology ID Number: B00309144 Word Count: 1,000 February 13th 2017 Table of Content Introduction 3 Body 4 Conclusion 5 Reference 6 Social fact is particularly defined by Durkheim (1986) as a category of facts which present very special characteristics: like acting, thinking, and feeling external to the individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him. Also, social facts are the values, cultural norms, and social structures which transcend the individual and are capable of exercising social control. This essay will outline and explain Durkheim’s conception
Basically, the theory of social independence emphasizes on the interaction amongst group members that determines the outcome of a situation, and this interaction is dependent on structure of the group’ goals (Deutsch, 1949 as cited in Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Social interactions influence the final outcomes of the group tasks. Social independence occurs when the group members share the goals with action of each individual affecting the individual’s outcomes (Johnson, Johnson, & Roger, 2006). External validity and generalizability of research were established based on social interdependence in an extent to which very rare for social sciences (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Social interdependence has been categorized into three types: positive
Discrimination can be viewed from different theoretical frameworks: 1. The Social Identity Perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979): It holds that group members are motivated to protect their self‐esteem and achieve a positive and distinct social identity. This drive for a positive social identity can result in discrimination, which is expressed as either direct harm to outgroup, or more commonly and spontaneously, as giving preferential treatment to the ingroup, a phenomenon known as ingroup
Hofstede views culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (1994, p. 5). It is apparent from this definition that Hofstede is stressing the power of culture in assorting people into distinct categories or strata based on different qualities and characteristics that they embody. Matsumoto contends that culture is “the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next” (1996, p. 16). Hence, Matsumoto believes that culture is the possession of one group of people which is passed from one generation to another. Samovar and Porter provide a more detailed
Belonging to a group, plus provide information about our identity, unlike us members of another group. Identifying the limits of what "one does not It is "or what" one unlike the others ", also supplies information and gives meaning to behaviors that place. By this process could explain certain nationalist attitudes and behaviors (Martinez,
Bandura describes an agent as someone who intentionally influences one’s functioning and life circumstances; “In this view, people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflecting. They are contributors to their life circumstances not just products of them” (Bandura, 2005, p. 1). Self-Efficacy was developed by Albert Bandura’s as part of a larger theory, the Social Learning Theory (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010), which has progressed into the Social Cognitive Theory (Levin, Culkin, & Perrotto, 2001). Social Cognitive Theory was presented by Bandura in
As Cialdini et al. and Henri Tajfel demonstrated, the roles of social categorization in group behaviors and the differences between social categorization and social comparison, can be used to justify how we construct individual identities and group identities concerning “in” and “out” groups through the social identity theory. It can also express why prejudice exists in all human
Symbolic Interactionism Name Institution Symbolic Interactionism Symbolic interactionism is a social paradigm which explains the way in which people live. It tries to explain the behavior of people in relation to that of others and still asserts that people’s behaviors can only be understood through the way they communicate verbally as well as through the use of symbols. Under this theory, people are the doers of an action as opposed to whom action befalls. Through it, reality is formed from people’s communications and associations. It asserts the ideas formed in people originate from others.
The social concept also social construction of reality (Social constructionism) is considered a theory of knowledge in sociology which evaluates the advancement of mutually created understandings of the world which is a basis for the formation of collective assumptions on reality. The theory affirms the opinion that people rationalize their experience through creating models of their social world and later sharing such models via language. Dating from the work of Berger and Luckmann (1966) different authors have put forth their contribution and ideas on social constructionizm. Berger and Luckmann dispute that all knowledge is gained and maintained from social interactions. Apparently according to the two authors people interact bearing in mind
A number of other scholars have argued that this dimension of cultural variation is the major distinguishing characteristic in the way that people in various societies of the world analyse social behaviour and process information. Individualism may be defined as a social pattern that consist of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of groups and who are motivated by their own preferences, needs, rights and contracts. Collectivism, on the other hand, may be defined as a social pattern that consist of closely linked individuals who see themselves as belonging to one or more groups and who are motivated by norms, duties and obligation identified by these groups. People give priority to the goals of these groups over their own personal goals. At a score of 20 China is a highly collectivist culture where people act in the interests of the group and not necessarily of themselves.