Sociology

1. Rationale
A The experimenter was trying to demonstrate whether the presence of the Please Buckle Up  I Care and Click It or Ticket signs influenced drivers and caused them to put their seatbelts on.
B. It was considered important to find out if drivers actually paid attention to the signs on the side of the road to verify whether the signs and accompanying campaign increased seat belt usage.

2. Dependent Variable (DV)
A. The dependent variable is the number of drivers that put on their seat belt after seeing the signs prompting them to do so when stopped at the traffic signal.
B. No. The experimenter was actually interested in the effectiveness of the two programs on drivers on campus, but the substitute is relevant because the percentage of drivers that put on a seat belt after seeing the signs can be seen as indicative of the programs effectiveness.

3. Independent Variable (IV)
A. The independent variable is the placement of signs at the exit of the university parking lot.
B. The different values of the independent variable are the different signs used. There were three different signs, saying, Have a Nice Day, Please Buckle Up  I Care, and Click It or Ticket.

4. Procedure
A. Two female students stood at the exit of a large campus parking lot. One student held a sign and the other observed and recorded data. During the baseline period of 9 days, the student held up the Have a Nice Day sign. In the next phase, the Please Buckle Up  I Care and Click It or Ticket signs were held up on nonconsecutive days and the number of drivers that stopped and put on their seat belts was recorded.

5. Results
A. There was no change in behavior caused by the Have a Nice Day sign. 7 of drivers on average buckled up after seeing the Please Buckle Up  I Care sign, and 9  of student drivers buckled up after seeing the Click It or Ticket sign. Drivers that saw the Click It or Ticket sign were more likely to buckle up and to already have been wearing seat belts than drivers that saw the Please Buckle Up  I Care sign.

6. Interpretation of Relationship Between IV and DV
A. No. There is a systematic relationship between the IV and the DV.
B. The author argues against the possibility of chance fluctuations by pointing out that the baseline period, during which the students held up a Have a Nice Day sign, was implemented to make student drivers comfortable with the presence of the students on the side of the road. Also, the other two signs were presented on nonconsecutive days, helping to eliminate the possibility of random chance occurrences.
C. The author acknowledges that the Click It or Ticket sign could have been the more effective sign because it implies legal ramifications and a penalty for failure to comply. There was also a statewide campaign using the Click It or Ticket slogan utilizing state police that could have influenced drivers into buckling up.
D. There are no unanticipated elements of the systematic relationship addressed by the author.
E. The author acknowledges that the Click It or Ticket campaign loses effectiveness when not visually and actively enforced by law enforcement.

7. The practical significance of the study is that drivers on campus can be prompted to put on their seat belts and follow driving safety laws.

8. The general theoretical significance of this study was proving that drivers can be influenced by signs visible to them when driving and that such signs can prompt them to take action to put seat belts on and be safer drivers.

9. Summarize
A. The data tells us that drivers can be prompted into action by signs viewed when driving.
B. The data supports the theory that the Click It or Ticket campaign is influential to drivers.
C. The study was conducted in a controlled way with the usage of a baseline period to make sure that drivers were not uncomfortable with seeing students holding signs on the side of the road.
D. The study conducted contributes to experimental methodology in that the independent variable was presented in a controlled way and had a definite effect on the dependent variable.
E. The experiment also indicates that the presence of law enforcement and threat of legal ramifications for noncompliance are also effective.

10. In general, the study proves that drivers pay attention to road signs that they see, especially when stopped at traffic signals. Therefore, drivers could be influenced to enact other behaviors in much the same way they were prompted to put on their seatbelts.

Part A Human sexuality
Is there a significance relationship between human sexuality and emotions
Human sexuality is one of the most controversial topics which have attracted a diversity of opinions from religious groups and individuals. It plays a critical role in everyones life regardless of the age, class, religion, race and sexual orientation. This leads to the first question about what sexual orientation is. By definition sexual attraction refers to how one is emotionally and sexually attracted to a particular gender. Sexual orientation is broadly classified into heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual.

Should gay marriages have equal rights as the opposite sex marriages
Almost everyone is of the opinion that gays and lesbians should have equal rights in housing, jobs and in protection by the law. However, same sex marriages are being opposed by an overwhelming 95 of the global population. Possible reasons for this are the argument that marriage is an institution between members of the opposite sex and that its legalization would amount to a violation of the institution of marriage. Though it is a weak argument, opponents of same sex marriages argue that the institution of marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution (Daniel, 2005). In addition, the same sex marriages have been opposed on the basis that they go against the sole purpose of natural marriage which is procreation.

Does the gay marriage bring forth kids
The third question is about whether gay parenting always brings about gay kids. Research indicates that the fact that the parents are gay does not influence the sexual orientation of kids. The research further indicates that kids love to be appreciated in what they do. For instance, by attending their sports activities regardless of your sexual orientation is sufficient for the correct upbringing of the kids and that does not influence their future sexual orientation.

Does family context affect the state of development of the child
The fourth question is about whether we can establish a safe place for the kids to surf i.e. away from the scenes of violence and pornography. The industry, government and individuals have in the past employed such measures as including browsing filters, establishing legislative mandates and also rated information systems. However, the measures have not solved the problem but I believe that by establishing a new domain called KIDS would go The KIDS domain will replace com, org and info which normally have a lot of sexual and violent scenes (Daniel, 2004). Does circumcision affect the male sexuality

The five question about is whether circumcision does affect male sexuality. Though it is a simple medical procedure that involves the removal of the foreskin or the prepuce its discussion has been controversial. Circumcision does affect male sexuality. It should be noted that the prepuce is made of specialized tissues, large number of blood vessels and preputial nerve endings which contribute significantly to the ejaculatory reflex of men. Thus, eliminating the foreskin does affect its the neurological role (Daniel, 2004).

Part B Gender identity and roles
Does gender identity defines the roles of the different family members
Gender identity is of significance in bringing a feeling of whether one is a male, a transgender or even a female. Sociologically, family roles are shaped according to the gender identity imager.

Does the scope of ones gender shape hisher psychological attitudes and perceptions
Every person concurs to a psychological path in attitudes and percepts as modeled by hisher gender. For example, a man would feel brave will a transgender person would feel shy and out of place

Does gender dictate the scope of sexual differentiation
Sexual differentiation is basically the fruits of gender identity. Human beings tend to align themselves towards sexual orientations as based on their gender identities. We tend to cultivate our sexual ego based on our sexual identities

What is the path towards the development o gender identity
Gender identity follows a long path since one id born. However, it evolves in relation to the widely spanning changes in the body of a person.

Does gender identity affect the scope of achievement by persons
Gender identity is of significance in determining the scope of material achievement and success to every person. However, the psychological conception which is found in the inbuilt personhood is the basic antecedent that dictates ones achievement.

From the beginning of time, there has been a racial scoring gap in college admission test scores and other standardized tests.  The biggest gap is between white and black students.  The Scholastic Assessment Test has been revised.  In the past, the best possible score was 1600 the College Board used a 200 to 800 scoring scale for both the mathematical and verbal sections. As of 2006, the best, combined score is 2400.  They added a writing section to the test.  In spite of that addition, there is still a significant racial gap in test scores.  There is also a considerable gap in test scores based on family income.  A higher family income resulted in a higher test score.   Statistically, blacks have scored the lowest on SAT tests.  However, in 1995, Skylar Byrd made a perfect score of 1600.  At that time, she was a 15-year old junior at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School the school is 98 percent African-American (Hawkins, 2). Byrd also had a grade point average of 3.76 out of 4.0 and was planning for college (Jet, 1).  No student from the Washington, D.C. public school system has made a perfect score since the early 1970s (Jet, 1).  According to the Educational Testing Service, only twenty-five of 1.8 million test takers scored 1600 in 1994 (Jet, 1).

Beginning in 2006, students that took the SAT had to complete a writing section in addition to the verbal and math sections with a possible 2400 score on the SAT.   Some experts believed that the people who score the new writing section will be able to detect the race of the writer by the vocabulary and subject matter of the students essay (JBHE, 1).  This was obviously based on racial stereotypes.  Any intelligent student is not going to use slang or improper language in an essay.  Further, these same experts believed that the test scorer might wish to be lenient on minority students by grading on a curve.

From 2006 to 2009, SAT averages of all students declined slightly from year to year.  Last year, there was a widening gap between Asian American students and other groups.  They gained thirteen points from the previous year while American Indians gained two points other groups saw a decline in their scores.  Many of the growing number of colleges that are going SAT-optional have expressed discomfort with tests on which there are such starkand growingdifferences in averages by race and ethnicity (Jaschik, 1).  In 2009, the average SAT score for Asian Americans was 1623. For American Indians, it was 1448.   For whites, the average score was 1581.  Puerto Rican students saw the biggest change from the previous year in which the total score dropped nine points to 1345.  Still, black students had the lowest combined score of 1276.

What is the reason that black students have the lowest SAT scores  A USA TODAY report analyzed that students who complete a core curriculum with more advanced classes and prepared well for the test were among the strongest performers (Marklein, 2).   For instance, those students that are enrolled Honors courses will be better prepared.  Typically, that is only a small number of students at the school. Black males in gifted programs are oddity, more than black females.  Many schools use the Jackie Robinson approach when placing them in honors courses.  They put one of two African American students in a class of all-White students with a White teacher (Kunjufu, 78). When Black topics arise, the attention of the entire class is on that one or two African American students. Theyre expected to be spokespersons for the entire Black race.

In 2005, the average black SAT score rose seven points however, the average white score improved by nine points.  The average score for black students was 864 while the average score for white students was 1068, which is a 17 percent difference (JBHE, 2).  Some believe that family income has an impact on test scores however, blacks from families with incomes of 100,000 or more still scored eighty-five points below whites from all income levels in 2005.  They scored ten points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than 10,000 (JBHE, 3).  So even the poorest white student scored higher than a black student from an excellent background.  In 2009, SAT scores that were based on family income only showed a gradual increase based on incomes ranging from 20,000 to over 200,000.  The scores ranged from 1321 to 1702 (Jaschik, 2).  There was a noticeable growth from the previous year.

On the other hand, some believe that there is discrimination favoring black applicants over white or Asian American applicants for medical school.  Black admittees to medical school had substantially lower MCAT scores than other groups.  The odds ratio favoring black applicants over whites was 21 to 1 in 2005 (Clegg, 2).  For example, blacks with an MCAT score of 43 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.8 have a 91 percent chance of admission compared to 73 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of whites, and only 19 percent of Asian Americans (Clegg, 2).  The maximum score is 45.   Also, there are very few African Americans that attend medical school compared to Whites and Asian Americans.  The same holds true for law school.  Black admittees have much lower LSAT scores than other groups, but are still favored during the admissions process (Clegg, 2).

Finally, in 2010, there are still racial scoring gaps with college admission tests.  For many schools, test scores are not as relevant as grades and references.  For others, they may use test scores to diversify the incoming student body.  Biases will most likely always exist.  Some minority students with high grade point averages may not score well on an admissions test. On the other hand, there will be some with average grades that will have high test scores. It will be based on a students preparation.

Life is made up of rituals, from the celebration of birth, religious and cultural rites of passage, marriage, and death. In between these rituals are day-to-day transitions that make up the routines of life. In Interaction Ritual Chains, Randall Collins called these momentary connections as interaction rituals (IR). Collins contends that the focus of these interactions are the events and not the individuals, thus the interaction ritual (IR) is a theory of situations (p.3). He proposed that an individual is just a product of past events and a part of a new one therefore, studying the situation rather than the individual is more logical for microsociological understanding.

According to Collins (2004), interaction ritual theory refers to the collective action that evokes strong emotional connection among people linked by common belief and aspiration to effect social transformation. Collins book shows how ordinary situations are transformed into rituals through collective, mutual and emotional interactions. This paper provides a recap of an aspect of Collins theory then continues with an interpretation of the concept based on the wider theoretical framework. This is followed by a critical discussion of some ideas presented, and lastly, a conclusion.

A short recapitulation of the core idea
Collins (2004, p.42) contends that interaction rituals consist of situations that stir peoples emotions to unite and perform coordinated action that leads to social transformation. As mentioned above, Collins believes that interaction ritual is about the situation. What separates an ordinary event from a ritual is the emotional and physical involvement of the people, their common goals, aspirations and actions that result to the creation of a new experience.

Interpretation of this core idea grounded in a wider theoretical context
Like Goffman, Collins recognizes significance of events. He believes that the central mechanism of interaction ritual theory is the occasions that transform ordinary situations into remarkable events. Interaction theory is about the moments that shape individuals and the experiences that change them. It is about the game that made an athlete extraordinary, or the event that changed a regular politician to a great leader. Collins argues that individuals are just the summation of different events and not the focus of the microsociological inquiry. He discounts the relevance of the individual in the micro-level and the contribution of solitary action in the interaction ritual chain. By focusing on the situation, Collins encourages an unconventional way of looking at things. He challenges the readers to change their perspectives and see the forest instead of the trees, to shift their focus from Tiger Woods to golf. This stance is interesting because it prompts us to look beyond the actors or participants of the event to what really happened, how it happened and why.

Collins (2004) also stressed the importance of high degree of mutual focus of attention and high degree of emotional entrainment (p.42). He argued that a ritual includes people, but not just any kind of people, they should be physically and emotionally involved. They need to have mutual awareness of their aspirations and must be able to work together to achieve them. Some of the examples mentioned in the book are the French Revolution of 1789, the Civil rights movement in the 1960s and the heroic act of the fire fighters after the 911 bombing. Yet, he also noted that an event does not always have to be historical or heroic, even simple acts like smoking a joint and love making are rituals as they require emotional connection and mutual action from the participants and result to a collective experience.

Collins idea of collective participation and emotional involvement is consistent with Marshalls (2002) concept of ritual interaction. Both authors stressed the importance of the participants and the connection between them. According to Marshall, the gathering of people or what he called co-presence results to deindividuation or the loss of a sense of self and the establishment of a greater, mutual cause. This contributes to the group solidarity, conformity, mutual fondness and openness of the participants which mirrors Collins interaction chain. Deindividuation differentiates anti-Iraq war protests from American Idol auditions. While both events attract crowds of people, the protest inspires people to disregard their personal motives for the common interest. On the other hand, youth lining for the Idol audition may share a common goal, that is to get into the show, but they are not working together as a group, rather they are competing as individuals.

Collins discussion also gave emphasis to the presence of emotional involvement, brought by deep-seated belief on their mutual aspirations. Collins concept is consistent with the theory of symbolic interaction. According to the symbolic interaction theory, peoples actions depend on their beliefs, which are often influenced by interacting with other people (The Society for More Creative Speech, 2001). Belief serves as a bond joining the participants. It draws them together to a common aspiration. As a result, they experience the feeling of belongingness.  According to Marshall (2002), belonging is a step beyond membership (p.360). Belonging creates the bond that differentiates members from outsiders, it links athletes to play as a team or strangers to mobilize for a common cause.

Another aspect of Collins theory is the presence of collective action. With aspiration comes the moral obligation to pursue it for the common good. It is not enough for the participants to get together, have the same beliefs, or be emotionally involved they have to be fired up enough to make a concentrated effort. Like the symbolic interaction theory, Collins interaction ritual recognizes how the actions of other people can affect the way an individual assigns meaning to an event. Attitude can be infectious. According to Marshall (2002), the reassurance and validation provided by the group reinforces their beliefs. People in doubt about their beliefs may feel more confident in the company of people who share them. Even people who are not sure about certain information could be easily swayed or motivated by popular choice. This explains the power of mobilizations. It validates individual opinions and encourages people who are otherwise too indifferent to make a stand.

Like Goffman, Collins also noted the moral significance (Birrell, 1981, p.359) of these interactions. It gives participants confidence, enthusiasm, and desire for action in what they consider a morally proper path (Collins, 2004, p. 42). These social interactions motivate people to be accountable of their roles. As Birrell discussed, these roles represent standards which people must embody. He cited idealized qualities of a loyal friend, the faithful lover, the loving parent, the efficient secretary, the dedicated scholar, the tough athlete (Birrell, 1981, p.360) as examples.

Collins (2004) noted the enhancement of emotional energy (p.42) brought by the collective effort. The concept of emotional energy refers to the intensity of the emotional involvement of the participants. It dictates the depth of their commitment and to a certain extent, the impact of the ritual. This is consistent with Durkheims interaction ritual concept. Hermanowicz and Morgan (1999) noted Durkheims emphasis on the emotional aspect of ritual. In his study of sports as ritual, Birrell (1981) explianed Durkheims framework through the personal gratification an individual gets by participating in sports (p.355).

Collins also discussed how rituals result to collective actions that tear up old social structures or leave them behind, and shape new social structures (p.42). People mobilize to transform society, athletes work together to win championships. In the same way, experiences enhance ordinary events to form interaction ritual chains.

To sum up this part of the discussion, Collins interaction ritual chain is coherent with symbolic interaction theory in its emphasis with the connection between the events and their meanings. The connections between interaction ritual and the frameworks proposed by Durkheim and Goffman as well as the ideas discussed by other studies were also noted. What follows is a critical discussion of some of the points raised in Collins in his book.

A critical commentary based on a secondary literature
Collins interaction ritual chain is centred on the situation rather than individual. People are just participants, parts of the chain. While Collins attempted to draw the spotlight to the events, his discussion of rituals clearly emphasized the role of the participants emotion and action. He seems to distance the heart of the discussion from people to the event only to focus on the significance of their role in it. It is the situation that matters but to transform an event into a ritual, participants need to be emotionally involved and able to act on it. This aspect of Collins theory is confusing if not self defeating.

Collins emphasis on the significance of shared mood and collective action in the IR chain is also problematic (Baehr, 2005). He noted the coordination shared by football players in the field, fans cheering for the team, lovers in intercourse and others. However, these elements are subjective as people have different degrees of intensity about a given situation. In his pragmatist maxim, James expressed that the meaning a person attaches to a thing is influenced by his or her experience. Thus meaning is subjective. Just because a person is involved in a certain ritual does not mean that he or she shares the feeling of the others. One example is a person watching a football game but not be a fan of the sport or the teams playing, thus that person may not share the collective emotional energy experienced by the others.

Collins concept stressed the importance of emotional energy, the emotional connection that binds the people to perform coordinated action and work for a common goal regardless of their personal interests. Collins himself recognized that emotional energy, decreases and changes with time. Thus there is a need to fuel the energy in order to keep it going. A decline in emotional energy could result to the reduction of the impact and intensity of the situation.  In his criticism of pragmatism, Hilary Putnam doubted that pragmatist account of truth can be sustained (Hookway, 2010). In the same way, emotional energy can dwindle, meanings could change with time, emotion could influence a situation and in effect, interaction rituals may also change. What seems like a ritual today may not have the same value tomorrow or the next year.

One of the contributions of Collins theory though is his emphasis on the elements that differentiates a ritual from the ordinary events. Like Goffman, Collins IR chain recognizes the ritual in the ordinary, day to day interactions. As  Baehr (2005) pointed out in his interview, if ordinary events are rituals, which events are not According to Collins, there are four ingredients needed for a ritual to occur namely co-presence of individuals, inclusiveness or the presence of barriers separating the participants from outsiders, common focus of action, and common mood (cited in Baehr, 2005). In the same way, an IR produces four outcomes belongingness and solidarity, emotional energy, symbolism and feeling of rightness. By including these elements, Collins succeeded in separating rituals from the ordinary routines. He solved the dilemma of what makes a specific situation a ritual but not the others.  However, his delineation provided constraints that isolate concepts about conventional rituals. It stripped the naturalness of the event. His incorporation of the different ingredients made ritual identification a more complicated business. Baehr observed that a situation may satisfy most of the elements but not the others, making categorization of such events challenging.

Like symbolic interactionism, IR recognizes the meaning behind the interaction of people. This meaning is determined and validated by the attitude of the participants. Participants in Collins IR chain are emotionally invested to the process. They are not just acting out a role they are involved with their own character. However, based on the pragmatist view, interpretation depends on the persons experiences (Hookway, 2010).  Thus, the concept of collective experience may be overrated.

Conclusion
Collins interaction ritual theory shows how ordinary situations are transformed into rituals through collective, mutual and emotional interactions.  He prompts readers to look at the moments instead of the people, to see the passion not the person. Like the symbolic interaction theory, Collins IR chain recognizes the connection between events and their meaning.

The study also provided a midpoint between Durkheims perception of rituals as extraordinary momentous events and Goffmans theory that everyday life is a series of rituals. Collins corrected the misconception that only big events can be considered ritual by giving emphasis to the ordinary events of daily life like smoking, watching sports matches or making love with your partner. However, by adding specific ingredients and outcomes   needed for an interaction ritual to occur, Collins succeeded in delineating the ordinary and mundane from the ritual. Rituals can be ordinary things but not all that is ordinary can be considered a ritual. This midpoint makes Collins theory distinct and practical. It helps individuals see the rituals that shape individuals in their journey around the interconnected chain of life.

Whenever one takes a look at any human society, there are certain aspects that come out regarding its organization. This look however, needs to be more than superficial. As soon as one takes a deeper look at the reality of social relationships, one realizes that there is a very elaborate network of intertwined realities. In the modern day sociology, three theoretical perspectives have been accepted and acknowledged as playing a major role in understanding how social entities relate to each other. This study aims at understanding each of these perspectives, with a particular bias in the family as a unit of the social institution. The perspectives that will be looked at in this study include functionalist, interactionist, and the conflict perspectives. The consideration of normalcy or deviance largely depends on the kind of definition accorded the idea of family. For the purposes of this study, the word family will be used in reference to the traditional family, namely nuclear and extended family.

The Functionalist Perspective on the Family
From a functionalist point of view, the role of the family is no more than a fulfillment of certain functions, which are aimed at making life easier. Core among these functions are socialization, reproduction, assignment of status, emotional support, as well as sexual behavior regulation (Foss, 1978).

Socialization- according to this perspective, young children need to be taught how to participate in the various aspects of society. This thus becomes one of the core functions of the family unit. An important aspect of socialization is the emphasis of the gender of the child and the roles related to that particular gender. It is considered that the family is the most important units as far as these roles are concerned.

Reproduction- according to this perspective, reproduction is a very important function of the family. This role is important not only to the family, but to the society as a whole. This is because, society is very well aware of its need to survive. It is understood that the family is the best place for this role.
Assignment of status  the functionalists consider the family as an important framework within which the social statuses of the various family units are transmitted to the children. Along with this role, the family also teaches the values that relate to that particular status to the children.

Emotional support- for the functionalist, emotional support is very essential as a function of the family. This is because the family passes as the place where unconditional love and acceptance can be offered. This is crucial for the healthy development of the children. It is considered essential for the development of esteem, and self worth in the children.

Sexual behavior regulation- this function of the family is considered as acting as a reinforcement of the cultural demand with regard to mating and marriage. Every family is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the children grow within the expected norms.

The Conflict Perspective
Sociologists see this perspective as having emanated from the Marxian theory of the struggle between the classes. Karl Marx had argued that there was a kind of struggle that always existed between the various social classes, mainly due to the inequalities that existed. This was taken and advanced further by sociologists (Alix, 1970). Generally speaking, this perspective concerns itself with the competition as well as the cooperation among family members (Foss, 1978). It is claimed by some theorists that, in this perspective, the male counterparts stand to benefit more than the female. Some argue that ultimately, the relation in the family is bound to experience this conflict. This state of affairs is seen as emanating from the historical family structures, which were mostly patriarchal in nature. This, ideally, is the reason why men tend to control and dominate family relationships. The general societal expectation was that the females be submissive to their male partners (Alix, 1970). This was evident as well, in the financial dependency that had to be there. If another situation was presented, conflict was bound to be experienced. This is particularly the case, when women seek to empower themselves within the family structure.

The Interactionist Perspective
Supporters of this theory posit that family bonds are strengthened through ritual acts such as holidays, or common family meals. In order to understand the family, it is critical that an observation be made, of the interactions and the meaning attached to those interactions among members of the various families (Foss, 1978). The interactionist considers the family as being central to the development of the concept of the self. This is done through the expression of feelings within family structures. At the same time, the children learn the importance of the changing nature of family relationships (Foss, 1978). This understanding is facilitated through interaction.

An important thing that happens within this perspective is that the various member of the family learn to subjectively interpret those interactions and consequently influence their behavior. According to the interactionist sociologist, signs also play an important part within the family in this perspective. Members learn how to interpret the signs made by other members, so that even without using words, it is possible to know what is going on. Observation is therefore very important in order to properly interpret what members are attempting to express in an accurate manner (Alix, 1970).

Conclusion
As already indicated, sociologists consider these three perspectives as the framework within which society operates. There are those who consider the functionalist perspective as the best to describe family relationships. From a functionalist point of view, the role of the family is no more than a fulfillment of certain functions, which are aimed at making life easier. As already established, some of the most important functions of the family include socialization, reproduction, assignment of status, emotional support, as well as sexual behavior regulation.

Others consider the conflict theory as their choice perspective. As already indicated, this perspective concerns itself with the competition as well as the cooperation among family members. The argument here is that ultimately, the relation in the family is bound to experience conflict. This state of affairs is seen as emanating from the historical family structures, which were mostly patriarchal in nature. In this theory therefore, a certain gender always makes the attempt to be dominant.

According to the Interactionist theory, it is very crucial that families come together in order to strengthen their bonds. The only way to understand a family, according to the sociologists in this perspective, is through observation of trends in family interactions.

In conclusion, each of these perspectives seeks to understand how family members relate to each other and why they relate in the way they do. Each perspective has taken a position divorced from each other.

The ideas developed in the study of the relationship patterns among our ancestors are still being preserved and adopted by anthropologists. These studies and its development got involved much deeper as changes transcended down the generation on virtue of blood since the existence of earliest man on this earth and through the process of growth the man experienced in due course. In the mid nineteenth century, Americans influence on the cultures and their ideas on the blood relationships contributed to the creation of definition of kinship in the field of anthropology. Kinship is a relationship between the two different individuals sharing common ancestry either by virtue of blood or historical or cultural descent. Anthropologists maintain relationship through decent, marriage or through adoption is kinship enabling individuals to organize themselves into social groups.

Lewis Henry Morgans System of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family is a comparative anthropological study of kinship on scientific lines. Since the study of Emily Durkheim, a sociologist and a critic of systems, several scholars have been terming Morgans consanguinity as a biological explanation of the kinship on the basis of the Anglo American cultural assumptions of the blood relations. David Schneider argued that even anthropologists who acknowledged Durkheim alternative that kinship is a social or it is nothing (Feeley-Harnik 2001 54) still believed in the assumption of Morgan that kinship involved the socialization of the biological process, yet now it was hidden and unexamined. (Feeley-Harnik 2001 54) Schneider pressed anthropologists to study people on the vernacular lines and to study the kinship in relation to culture on the basis of the code of conduct people adopt and their natural substance.

In his study, Henry Morgan had gathered considerable amount of information and data on kinship and the terms used with this. With this data, he studied the basis on which different kinship systems have been classified. Morgan found that evolution of human society have passed through various stages-from primitive to civilized and these stages are recognized by the terminologies being used in kinship. For e.g. Primitive promiscuity is emphasized and explained by Hawaii kind of kinship. He also distinguished between the two main different kinds of kinship One is defined in classificatory terms incorporating maximum biological kin relationships and the other is descriptive terms having small number of kinship relations especially particular kind of relations. On the basis of this classification and incorporating it into his evolutionary concept, he arrived at the assumption that primitive systems come under classificatory terms while civilized systems come under descriptive but what he ignored was the degree of analysis of extension and the way to discover the semantic criteria on the basis of which people make divisions in their relationships.

In 1929, Kroeber criticized the very concept of this kind of classificationdescriptive distinction instead he viewed on the different principles on which relationship is divided. According to him, these principles are of eight kinds namely affinity, generation, sex of relative and collaterally. Among others are sex of speaker, relative age, bifurcation, and decadence. In this list of eight, Lowie added ninth i.e. polarity. He found different traits in each relationship that would enable to differentiate the kin for e.g. in English and American kinship terminology- father-in-law is different from father as father-in-law relationship developed on the virtue of marriage.

Kinship is considered as one of the most complex systems of culture with different human groups having a different kinship terminology. Our many aspects of life are affected by kinship and in many societies, the relationships have considerable influence with whom one can or cannot marry. To whom one should show the respect and with whom one should be frank and on whom one should rely in case of crisis - all depends on the relationship and kinship terminology developed. Morgan had a deep interest in the Native Americans of his locality and was made a member of the Seneca tribe. His League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee or Iroquois was widely appreciated but his interest in social organization led him to form a theory relating to the kinship terminologies with the marriage and rules that were predominant among the society members on virtue of descent, marking on the concept that matriarchal patterns are far more dominant than the other forms of pattern.

Morgan was brought up in the New York City among the Iroquois Indians, with whom he came into close contact. Iroquois constituted group of five tribes who opposed the European invasions with great success since last two centuries. All the five tribes were made of clans having mythical ancestors known as totems, representing an animal or vegetable form. The members of the clan considered themselves as related to each other on virtue of their blood and were united on the basis of brotherhood. Morgan thought that it was especially on account of this specific feature that allowed Iroquois to oppose invasions both from neighboring tribes and Europeans. Morgan gave a deep study in their system and considered as a very peculiar however he later found that in almost all the American tribes, the kinship system was standing on the roots of the same principles. He also found that almost all the Tamil groups from South India were also depending on the same system. He got the same reports from Australia too. In the Iroquois and also with the Australian Aborigine kinship system, the method of classification differs from the European way.

The most dominant considered to be is the Eskimo system. As in Europe in parents generation, Europeans never distinguish the aunt if she is from fathers side or from mothers side. This is also there with the uncles, cousins, as well as grand parents. The other system he notified is the classical Australian system, whereby sister of father is called aunt and uncle is called to the brother of a mother, while the sister of mother is termed as mother only not an aunt and the brother of a father is yet again called father not uncle. The main concept in the classification process of the kin is known as bifurcate-merging and this system as described above is known as classificatory system of relationship. (Dousset 2002 Online) Above all, the systems of kinship in Australia are also universalistic in concept as each human being is involved in this system. In this classificatory kinship system, each person is in one way or the other related to each other. While maintaining the relationships, there are certain duties and obligations and the ways of maintaining relationships like showing respect towards fathers and mothers, and abiding close and reciprocal relationship for cousins etc. In other words, kinship defines the behavior and attitude to be adopted towards each other.

Morgan had an ardent belief that classification system represents a type of social culture where it was impossible to differentiate fathers from uncles, brothers from the cousins and sons from nephews. Society formulated rules of the marriage still the older form of terminology was existent, but as the civilizations continued to increase and ownership of the private property began as a norm, there on the scene witnessed vast differences in ones family and one that of the relatives for establishing the inheritance norm. Anthropologists of today do not believe that at any stage in the development of the family, there were any loose ties.

Another most important aspect of Morgan was the consideration of the social organization, which itself directly or indirectly is subjected to the structure of kinship. This concept made him evolutionary anthropologist. He showed to the world that the different kinds of cultural norms observed were to certain extent mirrors of the different stages of the human social organization. (Dousset 2002 Online) In other words, kinship was considered as an epicenter of the social organization of the primitive society and considered as less important in the modern society. Morgans approach for kinship was based on his understanding of the primitive society which was associated with each other on virtue of their blood relation. This view became most popular among the anthropologists till 1970. Morgans approach also became a constituent part of the anthropological studies of kinship for many decades - like importance on kinship terminology as well as the division of kinship as a study in many constitutive blocks like marriage, descent, inheritance, post-marital residence etc.

Morgan also showed in his Ancient Society how and in what stages culture was evolved He found three stages through which culture evolved and got its shape. These are savagery, barbarism, and civilization with savagery and barbarism classified into lower, middle, and upper stages on the basis of the technological inventions during the respected eras. Savagery was the phase of pre-agriculture whereas barbarism originated with the invention of pottery and agriculture and then came the civilized society when writing started. In short, Morgan viewed the cultural development as a single movement from the stage of primitiveness towards the utmost civilization. (Ferraro 2008 68) His theory on cultural and kinship inspired the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Yet another group of anthropologists while giving their concept on kinship concentrated more attention on the family contending that there is a logical and psychological tie among the members of the family following the lineage and line of extension. Their understanding was similar to the functional understanding and analysis of the family and kinship relations. Claude Levi-Strauss formulated yet another method on the system of the structural principle studying the nature of relationships among groups, rather than focusing upon groups rules of composition. (Mckellin Online) On the other hand, seminal Elementary Structures of Kinship in 1969 by Levi-Straus studied the importance of the group exogamy, in other words, practice of getting married outside the group, establishing the boundary lines.

Morgans System of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family chalked a map of the kinship systems of the whole human family and a classification system of contemporary science yet inspite of the claim that it had touched the globe, many of the nations remained left out of his study (Gardner 2008 137) Though Morgans concept was challenged on several grounds yet the theory of kinship development attained much wider acceptance and importance with the writings of Friedrich Engels and became especially important for giving place to the Australian Aborigines in his evolutionary scheme. Trautmann too said that Morgans legal training in the Roman system of kinship led him to the profound appreciation of the alterity of the matrilineal Iroquois who not only follow the female--rather than the male line of the Roman system--but also positioned the children as separate from the lather through kinship classes that determined marriage partners.

In the overall study of Morgan, the two most important discoveries were made with the most important being primitive society as the collective egalitarian system, which did not have any inequalities of the modern society which is based on the patriarchy system of family, and private property. It was like a matriarchy society where women were held in high esteem and enjoyed the position of leaders in the overall productive as well as social life. These studies caused controversies leading to the further divisions amidst the anthropological circle. In the early twentieth century, Boas and Radcliffe-Brown discarded their ancestors approach and instead adopted empirical and descriptive study of the primitive people living in the different parts of the world. They also rejected the Morgans concept of three stages of social evolution, emphasizing on the fact that it was not necessary in this era. One of the British anthropologists in Times Literary Supplement wrote in his state of anthropology that, Evolutionism was succeeded by diffusionism, which was supplanted by functionalism, and this in turn was superseded by structuralism but after all these academic shifts and turns the state of secure understanding of man and his works has remained disappointingly static.... with increasing specialization and professionalism, social anthropology has actually become steadily duller and more trivial. (Reed 1978 Online) During the course of the period, the study of anthropology became a subject of less importance and the history of ascendancy of women virtually came to a standstill. Students of the anthropology were made to believe that Morgan and his contemporaries were out dated and old fashioned, and matriarchy as a subject too ruled out. This was due to the insufficient documents to prove any sign of the prevalence of the system of matriarchy but their controversies were not based on solid grounds, as still many of the regions have the presence of matrilineal decent.

Morgan proved to the greatest scholar of anthropology in 19th century. He went on inventing the study of kinship, got into print kinship terminologies of varied nations, visited many Indian nations and wrote The American Beaver. According to the historical evidence, it was also said anthropology was dominated by the German immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) and his students and one of his students was Margaret Mead who laid emphasis on the deep individual cultures. On the other hand, when Boas and his students were spreading the culture of relationship in the United States, Morgan was increasingly dominating his position towards Europe. Both the British as well as the French anthropologists accepted Morgans thoughts laying emphasis on the social orders which were common for all societies. Though the rift between European and American anthropology got never healed yet Europeans backed by Morgans thoughts turned out to be more powerful. Subsequently more of the American anthropologists continued to take considerable interest in the marriage and kinship.

Ideas on kinship do not just mean biological relationship among individuals but close associations between the individuals. This concept was founded by Malinowski who did the ethnographic study in 1929 on the sexual behavior of the Trobriand Islands noting on the fact that these islanders did not believe that sexual intercourse caused pregnancy and also rejected the fact that there was any kind of physiological relationship between the child and the father. But on the contrary though paternity was not known in the full biological sense yet a woman having a child without a husband was not socially accepted. Thus, though the natives are ignorant of any physiological need for a male in the constitution of the family, they regard him as indispensable socially. (Malinowski 2002172)
To solve the problem of the kinship systems, George P Murdock in 1949 compiled the data to formulate the theory on the universality of human kinship. This data served as a guide for many researchers for cross culture study resulting in making a social science as a separate discipline emphasizing on the family structures consisting of parents and children.

However Radcliff Brown emphasized inheritance and descent in defining corporate kinship groups and toward defining such groups as the basis for human kinship systems (Houseman  White 1988 59) while Edmund Leech through his study of Pul Eliyan Society in Sri Lanka pinpointed that kinship as a means of organizing cooperative labor, and demonstrated empirically that kinship is structured by the organization of property rights linked to land and water in irrigation agriculture, and by the procedures by which they are inherited. (Houseman  White 1988 59) He believed that the local and cooperative links formed on economic basis determine pattern of kinship groups and their behavior.

Overall the anthropologists studies had led to many contradictory opinions and views regarding the kinship among human beings. It has most important space in the anthropological study and research especially in the areas around Australia and other societies. During certain period, anthropologists even believed that there is uniqueness in kinship traits in almost all the cultures of the world but with certain local and cultural specialties. By the end of the nineteenth as well as beginning of the twentieth century, the interest in kinship began to lose ground as anthropologists realized they had been more focusing on the Euro-American concept of kinship, which was quite contradictory to the perception of the primitive societies. Later, anthropologists again began to have more interest in the subject but now with all new analytical skills and their methods of studying kinship across the cultures or groups of the different nations, they have also realized that kinship can be interpreted and explained in varying ways. Though several studies have been undertaken and several assumptions and theories formulated to understand the system of kinship yet it was Lewis Henry Morgan, a unilineal evolutionist whose studies had a great influence on anthropology. First he just gave the outline on the importance the study of kinship systems can have for understanding social organizations, secondly he deeply studied the various cultures of the world to understand the origination of kinship and lastly organized data and also created a theory explaining that kinship is a contraption whose roots are embedded in the way relations were established in the Euro-American societies. Understanding kinship is deeply important for anthropologists in their discussions and study of issue, gender, social or other forms of organizations and social formations.

Forgive and Remember Managing Medical Failure 2nd Edition

An Introduction to Ensuing Discussion
In this study, I intend to devote myself to discussing the medical profession and various related aspects. However, my discussion would not be a lay persons reference to the hallowed medical profession instead, it would be a considered reflection on what two of the best minds in the field have researched, cogitated and written upon, viz. Charles L. Bosk and Talcott Parsons.

The major topics that I shall discuss in the ensuing paragraphs pertain to the peculiar significance of the medical profession to the well-being of society, the growing specialization of medical knowledge and competence, the power that the medical community enjoys in society, the dominant type of the doctor-patient bond, the vulnerability of the patient to the doctors errors, the inevitability of errors in the medical profession as in any other branch of human endeavor, and other associated matters.

Types of Medical Errors Prevalent  
The prevalence of errors in the medical profession is a fact, as it is with any other area of human endeavor. Bosk classifies the medical errors into four categories. According to Bosk, errors could variously be technical, judgmental, normative and quasi-normative.

Judgmental errors or technical errors pertained to the occupational hazard of medical diagnosis going slightly off the mark, or a relatively inefficient prescription. Bosk appears to maintain that errors of a judgmental or technical nature, which are usually admitted, ought to be excused, whereas lapses of a graver normative or quasi-normative variety should be fundamentally abhorrent, unforgivable, and intolerable. Normative errors referred to mistakes wherein a surgeon may be deemed to be guilty of having failed to discharge her solemn duties in a moral, responsible and conscientious manner.

Within the medical field, it seems surgeons are more vulnerable to their errors getting pointed out because they are discernible almost instantly. It would take a doctor more knowledgeable and competent than the one to fault his prescription, but the surgeons error is obvious to even the untutored eye.

Bosks book ought to be of interest to readers beyond the pigeonholes of surgery or medical sociology. The issues of moral discharge of duties in life-saving -- or conversely,  life-imperiling  medical situations, of coordinated teamwork by the subordinates, and of an honest and objective evaluations of the role of everyone involved, cut across disciplines to be of interest to the lay reader as well.

Parsonss Worldview Remains Immensely Relevant
The surgical world can be better understood as a social system in the light of Parsons description of what constitutes a social system (Parsons, The Social System, pp. 1-14, 1951). A social system has a structure and the actors engage in activities that have a meaning in relation to one another. Hence, it is the relational aspect of actions that proves more significant than what the structure consists of per se. The actors in such a system develop their system of expectations that are relative to the various other actors and objects in the situation. Several elements in the situation gradually acquire especial meaning and significance to the various actors for their associated symbolic or indicative values.          

The system of expectations that an actor in a social system harbors motivates the actor to perform actions. Action is usually in response to a stimulus, is governed by the desire for gratification and the fear of deprivation. Besides, there is a definite value-orientation to the actors motivations and actions. Parsons discusses the normative aspect in the actors role-playing at length. He discusses how the evolved culture within a system can be variously transmitted, shared and learned. Bosks analysis of the surgeons role in society and of their normative, cooperative and goal-oriented functioning vividly illustrates just such an integrated and dynamic social system at work.

Parsons Discusses Medical Issues Aptly

Parsons has specifically dealt with the medical profession as a social system (Parsons, The Social System, pp. 288-322, 1951) and his words appear highly insightful and relevant, in the context of the issues of morality, competence and confession that Bosk discusses.

Parsons begins his discussion on the medical system by stressing the importance of the health of the actors, and of freedom from too high an incidence of disease in any system, as being pre-requisites for its effective functioning. Parsons continues his discussion by referring to the preventive role in medicine, beyond its more typical therapeutic aspect. It seems logical that in any system, there can be remedial and deterrent measures, For instance, even with regard to law and order and the crime situation, there is the reaction of arrest and punishment, as well as measures to help prevent the occurrence of crime altogether. A similar preemptive role of medicine perhaps would serve everyone better.

Parsons is aware that the medical profession is a caring profession. However, he observes that the requirements of technical and specialized competence might render the doctor  or surgeon, if we would rather  less than an expert in other areas of competence. The physician is not, by virtue of his modern role, a generalized wise man or sage  though there is considerable folklore to that effect  but a specialist whose superiority to his fellows is confined to the specific sphere of his technical training and experience.  (Parsons, The Social System, p. 292, 1951)

The Custodial Doctor-Patient Relationship
Parsons also discusses the doctor-patient relationship at great length. While discussing other professions and activities, Parsons emphasizes that a person who is ill and in need of treatment is ignorant of the cause of his condition, utterly helpless to improve his lot on his own, and remains unsure of the chances or speed of his recovery.

To the ailing, the doctor appears as the life-saver who is equipped with the specialized, technical knowledge to unravel the disease, as well as the competence to effect its cure. There has been growing specialization in almost every branch of knowledge, including medical science. The medical profession, therefore, is marked by a higher degree of specialization today than ever before.

The greater degree of specialization that doctors manifest these days has a corresponding influence on both the medical profession as well as the doctor-patient relationship. Specialized, professional bodies tend to form an elite club in society that remains devoted and loyal to its members and interests. Doctors have become a powerful lobby today in society.
   
The power that a doctor seems to have for the patient cannot be adequately described. A sick person is apparently at the mercy of how the doctor may heal her back to health, and even snatch a person from the very jaws of death by timely and precise remedies. There is the concomitant risk of the doctor causing exacerbation of a disease or leading to a patients death through negligence or other errors.          
Parsons also reflects on how private practice is getting offset by organizational roles in the medical profession. This demarcates the doctors role from that of the professional who seeks immediate compensation for her services rendered. Parsons discusses the values by which a doctor works in a hospital and the nature of his ethical responsibilities and duties towards a patient in his care. The doctors salary may be independent of how he treats a particular case, but the normative pattern that governs a hospital as a social system inspire him to do his best.

Has the world of doctors and surgeons changed dramatically in recent years or decades It would be difficult to make a well-informed and authoritative assertion on the subject, but the doctor or surgeon today perhaps remains as godlike as ever, attending to lesser mortals in helpless conditions.

The rigid hierarchy in the medical and surgical apparently cannot be replaced altogether, but there is a greater awareness of the issues of moral and responsible choices, the possibility of errors of both the normative or execution nature, and of individual confession and accountability.

By Way of a Conclusion
Both Bosk and Parsons focus on the medical profession. Bosk brings to bear on the subject perceptions and insights drawn from his own experiences and research. Both the writers agree that as a professional community, the doctors are powerful, since they represent the first as well as the last sanction in their area of competence. To reword, a doctor remains both the first appeal and the last resort to a patient. The peculiar nature of a sick persons vulnerability and dependence on the doctors specialized knowledge and efficiency make for a doctor-patient relationship in which the former is by far the dominant partner. Both Bosk and Parsons are concerned with matters of competence, values and accountability in the relation between the doctor  surgeon and the patient. These issues remain of universal and continuing interest and relevance to society.