sociological criticism example essay

How to write a sociological analysis: Examples

Sociological Analysis Introduction: Sociology is a systematic and scientific study of society. It focuses on different parts of society, and how it contributes to the entire equilibrium of society. Sociologists look into society from a different perspective and they analyze society in different ways. Some took a conflict perspective to view society, some took functionalists perspective. All these analyses are done scientifically and systematically as other natural scientists do. Sociologists are the scientists of society, who arrive at solutions to social issues and problems.

Types of sociological analysis

There are different ways of looking into society. There is no specific way to analyze society. We have to choose the most suitable way according to the problem that we choose to analyze. There are four main types of sociological analysis. Sociologists sometimes choose multiple types of analysis in a topic.

Step to write a sociological analysis

The first step to a sociological analysis is to choose a topic. We have to choose a topic or a problem to analyze. Choose a topic that interests you. You have to choose a topic that is relevant and needs to analyze. The main aim is to choose a topic that serves the sociologists to contribute to the changes and evolution of society. You can choose topics related to social life. For example rural social life, urban social life, marriage , religion, etc.

The next step is to write down your objectives. That is after you select the topic, you must concentrate on the main areas that you want to analyze within a topic. You have to take a general objective as well as specific objectives. Objectives are the driving factor of sociological analysis. For example, if we take marriage among Christians as a topic; we have to choose our general objective and that will be to analyze the marriage among Christians (in a particular area). And after this general objective, we have to choose our specific objectives. We may take, to study the marriage customs among Christian, to study the socio-economic factors of the respondents, to study the spacial factors involve in marriage, etc.

You can also add variables. There are two kinds of variables dependent and independent variables. After choosing variables you have to connect these two variables. For example, if the wage is an independent variable and gender is a dependent variable, you can relate how does the gender result in variation in a person’s wage or income. You have to relate the relationship between gender and wage.

We have to choose a theory that relates to our topic. Sociologists choose different types of theory as their choice. For a powerful sociological analysis, we have to choose a theory. Without a theory, sociological analysis is not complete.

The following are the main sociological theoretical perspectives;

Functionalist theories view society as interdependent and interrelated parts that play a different function in society to maintain the social equilibrium and stability of the entire society. Without the proper functioning of any parts, the social equilibrium is not achieved. Functionalists look into these functions performed by the parts or aspects of society.

For example, if we look at culture as a topic. For functionalist culture is a way of life of people. It differs from one society to another. American culture is differing from Indian culture. According to the functionalists, Culture had various elements or parts that are related to one another. These interdependent parts can be named as norms, values, folklores, habits, lifestyles, customs, rituals, morals, etc. Famous anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski took a functionalist view to analyze society. He views the function that plays by different parts of society and how it maintains the overall stability of society. The people who share the same language, lifestyle, and values have a consensus and harmony.

Conflict theories are one of the main theories used by sociologists to analyze the issues or contradictions in society. It views society as progressed through contradictions between people in society. And it is a continuous struggle between people to seek control over the resources and the overall society.

The famous sociologists Karl Marx took a conflict perspective to view society. We can put Marx theory to understand society. He opines that cultural values and ideas are created and sustained by the privileged groups to maintain their control over society. Marx views ideas are created by culture. That is the higher class use this ideology to perpetuate their needs. By doing this they maintain their dominance over the weaker section of society.

For example, if we put symbolic interactive perspective to culture. This view took culture as a product of continuous interactions between people. They not only view the interactions but how we interpret those interactions. In which there are many symbols and processes like myths, rituals, and habits by which we assign different meanings to them. Symbols are the main driving factor in culture. These symbols may be how we greet others, our facial expressions, gestures, words, etc and how others interpret our symbols. For example, we shake hands to greet others. For example, we can study the relationship between manager and supervisor in a company through symbolic interaction theory.

After this, we have to analyze the data we collected for analysis. We have to classify, organize and tabulate our data (in case of quantitative analysis), case study, narration, (in case of qualitative data). In each represented data we have to explain our discussion, criticisms, arguments our interpretations, and findings. In this section, you have to write which group you interviewed or observed their attributes. If you choose a quantitative data collection you have to explain why you choose this in your analysis.

5. Use proof in your analysis

In every sociological writing, you have to write concluding marks. In conclusion, you have to write your major findings. It has to be a brief explanation of your topic, analysis, interpretation, data used, theory to support your evidence. It includes your all analysis in a nutshell. You can make suggestions in your conclusion. And also urge future sociologists to research your topics. You can even pose a question to the readers. That will motivate them to conduct other research in this field.

Sociological analysis is a well-structured process that is followed in an organized and systematic way. It has to be followed by different steps and clear. It will help the readers to understand the sociological perspective of different trends, issues. And it also contributes to the systematic analysis of society.

A Level Sociology Essays – How to Write Them

Table of Contents

Last Updated on November 10, 2022 by

This post offers some advice on how you might plan and write essays in the A level sociology exams.

Essays will either be 20 or 30 marks depending on the paper but the general advice for answering them remains the same:

how to write sociology essays " data-image-caption data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/revisesociology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/peec.jpg?fit=300%2C225&ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/revisesociology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/peec.jpg?fit=840%2C630&ssl=1" tabindex=0 role=button width=640 height=480 class="ezlazyload aligncenter wp-image-10399 size-full" src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns=%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22%20width=%22640%22%20height=%22480%22%3E%3C/svg%3E" alt data-recalc-dims=1 ezimgfmt="rs rscb1 src ng ngcb1" data-ezsrc="https://revisesociology.com/ezoimgfmt/i0.wp.com/revisesociology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/peec.jpg?resize=640%2C480&ssl=1"> how to write sociology essays " data-image-caption data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/revisesociology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/peec.jpg?fit=300%2C225&ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/revisesociology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/peec.jpg?fit=840%2C630&ssl=1" tabindex=0 role=button width=640 height=480 class="aligncenter wp-image-10399 size-full" src="https://i0.wp.com/revisesociology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/peec.jpg?resize=640%2C480&ssl=1" alt data-recalc-dims=1> How to write an A-level sociology essay

Skills in the a level sociology exam.

The AQA wants you to demonstrate 3 sets of skills in the exam – below are a few suggestions about how you can do this in sociology essays.

AO1: Knowledge and Understanding

You can demonstrate these by:

AO2: Application

Ao3: analysis and evaluation.

NB ‘Assess’ is basically the same as Evaluation

You can demonstrate analysis by….

Use the item

Signposting.

For more exams advice please see my exams and essay advice page

Seven examples of sociology essays, and more advice…

The contents are as follows:.

Introductory Section

These appear first in template form, then with answers, with the skills employed shown in colour. Answers are ‘overkill’ versions designed to get full marks in the exam.

What is Sociological Criticism?

WHAT IS SOCIOLOGICAL CRITICISM? Before I begin this review in earnest, I want to clarify my terminology. Instead of referring to "sociological" criticism, I will discuss "social-scientific" criticism. I have three reasons for this decision. First, all the contributors to this week's primary textbook use models from the social sciences and refer to their enterprise as "social-scientific criticism." 1 Secondly, the label "sociological" causes confusion, especially between North American and European contexts. 2 Finally, lest one should think that the loss of the term "sociological" necessitates the abdication of social-historical research, scholars widely understand the practice of "social-scientific criticism" to encompass both the social-historical study of the biblical world and the application of modern social-scientific models to the text. 3 So, then, what is social-scientific criticism? On the one hand, no simple definition exists, for scholars speak of plural criticisms. 4 On the other hand, and through a unique combination of social-historical and social-scientific research (as briefly discussed above), it is quite simply "a method resulting from a merger of exegesis and historical research with the research, theory and methods of the social sciences." 5 In other words, social-scientific (or sociological) criticism attempts to fill various gaps in historical-critical methods (i.e., those that are merely descriptive in nature) by "using social theory to analyze the dynamics of the Roman-Hellenistic world in general and its religious movements in particular." 6 Moreover, through rich description and this kind of social analysis, the practitioners of social-scientific criticism (like other exegetes) seek to comprehend authorial intention and the initial audience's understanding of the biblical text. 7 Unlike other sundry exegetes, however, scholars who employ social-scientific criticism to interpret Scripture assume that present-day insights from the social sciences regarding institutions (e.g., kinship and patron/client models), cultures (e.g., purity and honor/shame models), and human personalities (modal versus individualistic models) can legitimately illumine the biblical text. 8 Corresponding to this assumption, proponents of this method presume that the employment of these models is required to prevent ethnocentric and anachronistic readings. 9

Related Papers

John Elliott

Dwight van Kan

Since the 1970 the use of the social science has played an increasingly prominent role in the New Testament studies. Of course, the application of a sociological perspective to the New Testament is not a new idea, but it is currently undergoing something of a revival. Early efforts concentrated on applying specific sociological theories to biblical studies, but more recent research has drawn from a wider range of social scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines including anthropology, peasant studies, political science, economics and Mediterranean sociology, 1 also more explicit sociological concepts such as, 'sect', 'millenarian', 'cult', 'class', 'role', and 'charismatic authority' .2 Assessing this movement this paper introduces some of the recent discussion in this area and gives an account of sources of literatures that have raised interests in this field. To do this, this paper traces its needs and historical development in the ...

HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies

Pieter van Staden

Paul Faller

This essay falls into three parts, the first of which deals with the major shifts or switches that have occurred in the history of biblical hermeneutics. While the most recent shift is away from the diachronic historical method as the touchstone of criticism, its usefulness in partnership with synchronic methods like sociological exegesis is widely recognised. It is this method which we will discuss in the second part. In the third part, our attention will be focused on the sociological approach, which is a more than useful complement to historical criticism.

Wagner Floriani

"Literary Theory," in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Reception, de Gruyter, pp. 823–827, 2018.

Since its emergence as a modern discipline, literary criticism has evaded many of the constraints of philology and rhetoric – fields which had required readers to have an extensive training and familiarity with an array of tropes, languages, and literary texts. Since the late 18th century, modern textual interpretation opened the engagement with the humanistic canon to a large audience. The conception of interpretation as a universal capacity emerged concurrently with theological attempts at defining scriptural reading as a process geared toward the understanding of the biblical authors’ intention and of the culture that produced the Scripture.

Dominic S Irudayaraj

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

James D Dvorak

Juha Pakkala

Religion Compass

Michael D Magee

David Horrell

Benjamin D Giffone

Asbury Theological Journal

Drew S Holland

Anne-Mareike Schol-Wetter

Andrew R Davis

Michael Buban

Teaching Theology & Religion

Arthur Walker-Jones

Semeia: Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible

Don C Benjamin

Presbyterion

W. Brian Aucker

Hindy Najman

JMLat 18 (2008) 130-57

Danuta Shanzer

Reinhard G. Kratz

Michael Okpala

Gregorianum

Malcolm Lowe

Andrew (Andrés) Messmer

Leonardo Pessoa

Markus McDowell

Calvin Theological Journal

R. Andrew Compton

Foundations for Sociorhetorical Exploration

Vernon Robbins

Emanuel Tov

Making a Sociological Argument: Orienting Students to a New Field

Greta krippner, sociology.

“Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry.” (Karl Marx,1867)

Introduction

Once you have developed a viable research question, your next task is to review the evidence in order to formulate an answer to your question. The answer to your question is your thesis, or your argument . Typically, researchers do original research at this point—they analyze statistical data, go to the field, administer surveys, conduct experiments, etc. We don’t have time for that in the course of one semester, so we will use existing research (also called secondary research) as evidence. Even though we are not collecting our own data, the logic is the same—you will use data (collected by others) to support your position. This does not mean simply parroting another researcher’s results; the unique (and creative!) part of your research project comes in assembling evidence from a variety of sources.

So, for example, you may want to argue that birth order does not provide a good explanation of (conservative) social attitudes. You are taking the same position that Freese et al. do, but while you will report their findings, you will not limit yourself to their research. Rather you will look for other researchers who have considered the relationship between birth order theory and social attitudes. How do their findings compare with the findings of Freese et al.? If they are also arguing against birth order theory, they support your argument, and you will include their findings as additional evidence in support of your position. If they contradict Freese et al.’s position, you will also include them in your discussion, but here your task is to explain why Freese et al.’s findings are more persuasive.

Perhaps you want to take another tack not by arguing for or against birth order theory with respect to a specific outcome per se , but rather by comparing how birth order theory “performs” as compared to the standard sociological variables (age, race, gender, etc.) across a variety of social outcomes. Perhaps Freese et al. convinced you that birth order is not a good predictor of social attitudes, but does birth order do a better job predicting other social outcomes, including education, achievement, personality, etc.? In this case, you would still present the findings of Freese et al. as evidence about the effect of birth order on social attitudes, but then you would go on to examine research on birth order and education, achievement, and personality.

Keep in mind the difference between summarizing and making an argument here. You are not merely summarizing Freese et al.’s paper; you are using their findings to make your own argument. The distinction is tricky, because making an argument requires you to summarize the research of others, but for your own purposes .

Two Strategies for Making a Sociological Argument

What you do in your argument depends a great deal on how your question is framed. Generally, there are two different tasks you can take on in making a sociological argument:

Establish a relationship between two or more phenomena (variables).

This is the mode of sociological thinking/argumentation we have stressed most in class. We have already discussed several questions that involve this kind of argument:

Example 1: Does birth order affect social attitudes?

Example 2: How does co-habitation prior to marriage affect the probability of marital success/stability?

Example 3: Is low voter turnout explained by the educational levels of the population?

Each of these questions asks about a presumed relationship: does a relationship exist between cohabitation and marital success? Between birth order and social attitudes? Between voting and educational levels? Presuming that the variables are measurable, these sort of questions lend themselves to quantitative analysis: most of the relevant evidence will be of a statistical variety. Where variables aren’t measurable, though, qualitative research may be used to establish a relationship.

Example 4: Do families with only girl (or only boy) children exhibit more closeness?

This question is again asking about a relationship between variables: does the quality of family interaction (i.e., “closeness”) differ in families with all-girl (or all-boy) children as compared to families where the children are mixed-gender? Note that “closeness” is a subjective characteristic, and not easily measured. Very likely, then, research on this topic will be qualitative.

Regardless of whether the research you are using is quantitative, qualitative, or a mixture of both, if your question is about establishing a relationship then your argument will generally involve adjudicating contradictory findings. You will find research that both supports and contradicts the existence of the relationship you are assessing. You must first decide, based on all the evidence you have reviewed, where you come down on the issue: are you persuaded that the posited relationship exists? You will then systematically make a case in support of your position, citing the relevant findings as evidence. You will also discuss findings that contradict your position, explaining why you find them less credible. Eliminating alternative explanations is an important component of making a convincing sociological argument. More on this in a moment. . . .

Establish a mechanism.

We haven’t talked about this a lot in class, but there is another type of research question in sociology. These are “how” and “why” questions—rather than attempting to establish (and quantify) a relationship between two variables, this kind of research question is oriented towards explaining how something works or why a particular phenomenon is occurring. These are questions about process. Often (but not always!) qualitative research is better suited to addressing process questions than quantitative research.

Example 5: What explains the recent influx of Latino immigrants to the United States?

Example 6: Why aren’t third parties successful in the United States?

Note that this kind of question can’t be expressed as easily or naturally in the language of independent and dependent variables. This difficulty reflects the fact that while this type of question does specify an “outcome” (dependent) variable (e.g., Latino immigration, third party success), independent variables (causes) are left open.

The task here is to provide a plausible explanation for an event. The relevant evidence may be more institutional or structural than statistical in nature. For example, in order to explain the influx of Latino immigration, relative levels of socio-economic development in the United States and Latin America might be relevant to your argument. Perhaps political events in Latin countries in recent years, or changes to U.S. immigration law are important. Here the task of constructing a sociological argument consists of weighing these factors in order to determine which are most important. As before, you will want to consider and eliminate alternative explanations. If you believe, for example, that the most fundamental reason for third party failure in the United States is the structure of campaign finance laws, then you may want to argue against an alternative (contradicting) explanation for that failure, such as the position that the existing two-party system effectively meets the needs of a wide variety of Americans.

Finally, note that some arguments accomplish both of these tasks: they establish a relationship and posit a mechanism. For example, research on the cohabitation question could first establish that there is a relationship between cohabitating prior to marriage and marital success and then try to explain how that relationship works. Does cohabitating allow couples a “trial” period in which to determine if they are truly compatible prior to marriage? Does it enable couples to negotiate difficult issues before committing to a permanent relationship? Does cohabiting provide couples an opportunity to practice interpersonal skills that, once acquired, strengthen the marital relationship? Establishing a relationship and explaining how the relationship works will often involve combining quantitative and qualitative research.

Making Your Argument Convincing

Your goal is to convince a skeptical reader of the correctness of your claim. Some things to keep in mind:

Making a sociological argument involves selecting and prioritizing key factors or causes from a multitude of possible factors or causes. A paper in which you argue that everything under the sun is related to your problem is not particularly useful or informative. Instead, your task is to simplify a complex reality by telling the reader which factors or causes are most important for a given phenomenon you are trying to explain. It is not your task to be exhaustive; it is your task to convince readers as to what is most central. So, for example, “Residential segregation is a key cause of urban poverty,” is a stronger, more interesting claim than, “Social, political, and economic factors contribute to urban poverty.” In general, strong (specific) claims are preferable to weak (non-specific) ones.
However, if your claim is too strong for you to defend with believable evidence, you are better off backing down to a thesis you can squarely defend with the available evidence.
Use the facts, figures, statistics, interview data, etc. of other researchers to support your points. Don’t just recite the claims that others make based on their data, show the evidence behind their claims.
Depending on your question, you may want to introduce and refute counter-arguments or alternative explanations. This strengthens your claims, because instead of allowing the reader to come up with counter-arguments, you are saying, “you might be thinking my thesis isn’t true because of x, well let me tell you why it’s true despite ” By eliminating alternative explanations, you are heading off your critics at the pass.
The quote from Marx is intended to remind you that while the process of working out your argument is (necessarily) messy, the presentation of your argument in your paper shouldn’t be. In other words, avoid writing your paper as a blow-by-blow of your thought process while you were working out your argument. Rather, in writing, you begin where you ended in thought—with a clean, concise statement of your argument. You then use your argument to guide and structure the paper. We will deal more specifically with organizational issues in sociological writing in a few weeks.

Finding a Research Question

The research paper assignment is an opportunity for you to make an informed argument about a sociological problem of your choice. In selecting a research question, you should pursue something that is of interest to you that you wish to learn more about. The only restriction on your choice is that there must be some sociological research done on the problem as you will be drawing on the extant research in defining and defending your thesis (i.e., your main argument).

Notice that I have been using the words “problem” and “question” and not “topic.” This is deliberate. A research topic is a very general statement of an area for investigation. A problem or a question is much more focused: it suggests a circumscribed area of debate, not a general field of knowledge. You will start with a topic, but in order to complete the assignment successfully, you must move from a topic to a research question or problem. This is not easy to do, but the following guidelines may help you.

Ask a question concerning differences between individuals, groups, roles, relationships, societies, time periods. Remember the dictum: no comparison, no information.
Ask a question that cannot be simply answered yes or no. A proper sociological question should suggest a debate that is still open. A question that can answered definitively, once and for all, is not likely to be very interesting to sociologists.
Ask a question that has more than one plausible answer. Your task in this paper is to make a case for your position; you can only do this effectively if the other possible positions are real, viable alternatives. Avoid making your argument by setting up straw-man opponents.
Make sure there is data on your question. This is important. There are many wonderful and interesting questions that have not been studied by sociologists. But for the purposes of this course, you are constrained to working on questions on which you can find a body of published work.
Make sure your question is answerable in the space allowed. You have 10-12 pages to make your case. You should break your question down into something that is tractable in a short paper.

So, you will start with a topic, something of interest to you. If you aren’t sure where your interests lie, take a look at the reading list for the course and make a note of the book on the syllabus that most intrigues you. You may want to read this book ahead of schedule. Once you have decided on a general area, go to the library and search the topic. Find some preliminary articles and read them. A review article on your topic, if it exists, may be especially helpful in laying out general debates. You can peruse the Annual Review of Sociology for review pieces. As you become more knowledgeable on your topic, you will be able to formulate various possible questions for research. You should choose the question that is most interesting to you, most tractable, and for which you can find material.

How to Read a (Quantitative) Journal Article

Note: This handout refers to Jeremy Freese, Brian Powell, and Lala Carr Steelman, “Rebel Without Cause or Effect: Birth Order and Social Attitudes,” American Sociological Review 64 (1999): 207-231.

The first thing to realize is that quantitative articles follow a formula. They all have more or less the same structure: an introductory section in which the problem is introduced and the objectives of the paper are previewed; a theoretical section in which the literature that relates to the problem addressed in the paper is described; a data section where the data sources for the analysis are described; the analysis or results section, where the various statistical tests performed are explained and the findings presented; and finally, a discussion or conclusion section in which the main findings are linked back to the theoretical literature.
The most important thing to realize about reading a quantitative article is that (nearly) everything that is presented in the tables is discussed in the text. So read the text along with the tables. The text will draw your attention to which numbers in the tables are important.
Your first task in reading the text is to identify what problem is being addressed by the research. Typically, this will be clear in the first or second page. In the Freese paper, the authors identify their problem (pp. 208-9) as testing the effects of birth order on various social attitudes, including conservatism. In addition to identifying what the problem is, try to determine who or what the author is arguing against —i.e., where does the author situate him/herself in existing debates? In the Freese paper, the authors are arguing against Sulloway, who they recognize has made a major contribution by being the first to study the relationship between birth order and social attitudes (p. 208), but whom they criticize for suggesting that birth order is more important than standard sociological variables (gender, race, class, age, number of siblings).
Next, you should identify the relevant variables in the study and how they are measured. In the Freese (pp. 213-215) study, the main independent variable is birth order, measured dichotomously —i.e., the respondent is first-born or the respondent is not first-born. Similarly, the dependent variable , social attitudes, is operationalized using six specific measures: political self-identification, opposition to liberal social movements, conservative views of race and gender, support for existing authority, and “tough mindedness.” Each of these measures of social attitudes is operationalized in turn. For example, Freese et al. (p. 215) ask respondents to indicate how patriotic they are (“How proud are you to be an American?”) as a measure of the variable “support for existing authority.”
The “Results” section is the core of the article. It is also the hardest to read, because it is the most technical. The text will help you interpret the tables. The first thing you must figure out is how variables are coded—i.e. what does a positive versus a negative coefficient mean? For example, the Freese (p. 215) article notes that measures are coded so that positive coefficients are consistent with the hypothesis that first-borns are more conservative in their social attitudes. Negative coefficients, then, do not support the hypothesis. There are two significant coefficients in the first model (p. 216). “Significance” means that the observed effect is strong enough that we can rule out chance as an explanation of the observation. Significant effects are indicated with an asterisk (or several asterisks—meaning we can be even more confident that the observation is not produced by chance). In this case, the first significant coefficient is a positive number. We can interpret this as saying that first-borns are more likely to vote for Bush, which supports the hypothesis. On the other hand, the negative coefficient on the significant “tough on crime” measure tells us that first-borns are less likely to be tough on crime than later born children—this contradicts the hypothesis. On balance, then, this first model does not lend much credence to birth order theory—only two of 24 measures are significant, and of these two, only one supports the hypothesis that first-borns are more conservative. Not very convincing, right?
The next thing to notice, however, is that there are various “models.” Specifying different models allows the researchers to take more than one crack at discerning a pattern in the table. In this case, Freese and his co-authors know from other research that variables such as sex, age, race, parents’ education, and sibship size are related to social attitudes. So perhaps there really is a relationship between birth order and conservative attitudes, but it is being obscured by these other variables. The way to handle this possibility is to introduce the various demographic variables as control variables, which means holding them constant so that the effect of birth order can be isolated. This is what Freese et al. are doing in Model 2. But they still don’t find much of a relationship between birth order and social conservatism. Look for the significant coefficients in Model 2. What do they indicate?
Not to be dissuaded, the researchers throw more controls into Model 3 and Model 4. The additional controls specify other factors known to be correlates with social attitudes—parents’ occupational prestige, parents’ marital status, the loss of a parent before age 16, childhood religion, region of the country in which the respondent was raised (MODEL 3); and respondent’s education and occupational prestige (MODEL 4). But in Models 3 and 4, just as in Model 2, only 3 of 24 measures of social attitudes are significant, and they are also in the wrong direction! Remember, because of the way the variables are coded, a negative number contradicts the hypothesis that first-borns are more conservative.
So, on this evidence, support for birth order theory is weak. But notice what Freese et al. (pp. 218-219) do next. They now examine each of the variables that served as controls in “Model 2”—sex, age, race, parents’ education, and sibship size—and compare their effect to the effect of birth order. Notice that in Table 2 these variables are no longer functioning as control variables—they are not being held constant, but rather allowed to vary, so that they can be related to variance in the dependent variable. Freese et al. are able to show that these variables are far more powerful predictors of social attitudes than is birth order—for each variable, at least 12 of the measures are significant. However, in looking at the pattern formed by significant measures, Freese et al. (p. 219) note that only age is consistent—the other independent variables tend to contain contradictions. For example, respondents with well educated parents tend to be more liberal on attitudinal measures than respondents with less well educated parents, yet they are also more likely to identify themselves as Republican than Democrat. Freese et al.’s (p. 219) conclusion from all of this is that labels like “conservative” may not actually capture a unified set of values, and that perhaps proponents of birth order theory achieved their results by relying on vague concepts that actually have little purchase in the real world.
Typically, following the main analysis, researchers will try several other tests to establish the robustness of their findings. They want to be sure that the results they are getting are not a quirk of the particular way they manipulated the data. In the Freese paper, the authors establish the robustness of findings by using a different data set—one that has intra -familial data—and by testing a wider variety of measures of social attitudes from the GSS. Neither of these tests changes their results. This increases their confidence that their results are correct.
A final test done by the researchers is for interaction effect . The idea of an interaction effect is that the way a certain variable operates is affected by the presence or absence of another variable. The interaction effect they are testing is birth order and spacing of children: theory suggests that the effect of birth order on social attitudes is most pronounced when there is moderate spacing (2 to 5 years) between adjacent siblings. Again, there is no evidence from their analysis of the data that this is the case.
In sum, in interpreting tables like Table 1 and Table 2 in the Freese paper, there are two things to consider: 1) are any of the variables significant? And 2) if significant, does the given variable affect the dependent variable in the predicted direction?

The Cinderella Movie: Sociological Analysis Essay (Movie Review)

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

“ Cinderella is a 1950 American animated film produced by Walt Disney … based on the fairy tale “ Cinderella ” by Charles Perrault” ( Cinderella (1950 film) , n.d., para. 1). Even though Cinderella was created in the 1950s and the ideas and the story behind the fairytale movie came from that time it is still reproduced nowadays with the latest replica made in 2015. This shows that although the world has changed and it has become more open, the stereotypical ideas shown still exist.

Cinderella’s mother died when she was young. She lived with her father who later got married to a widow because he thought that Cinderella needed a mother. After his death, a girl was treated badly by her stepmother and stepsisters. She was forced to do all the housework. One day every maiden in the village was invited to attend a ball held at the king’s castle aimed at winning the prince’s heart and getting married to him. Because of the jealousy her stepmother had to Cinderella’s beauty and her desire to marry one of her daughters to the Prince, she did not allow Cinderella to attend the ball. However, Cinderella’s fairy godmother helped her to attend the ball making her look stunning. As soon as she made it to the castle and entered the ballroom, the prince went directly to her and asked her for a dance. When the clock struck twelve, Cinderella had to leave because the spell was about to break. In a hurry, she lost her glass slipper. The prince searched the whole town for the lady who would fit the shoe. He finally found Cinderella, they got married and lived happily ever after.

In Cinderella the cartoon, cultural values of that epoch are portrayed, namely beauty, marriage, romantic love, social status, and prestige. First of all, throughout the story one can trace strong presence of the so-called beauty myth. According to it, women should be judged “in terms of physical appearances” (Macionis, 2011, p. 300) rather than inner beauty. As seen in the movie, when Cinderella’s look is ruined by her stepsisters, her stepmother states, “Good heavens, child, you can’t go in that” (Walt Disney, 1950).

This phrase emphasizes how girls are obliged to look good. More emphasis on beauty is portrayed when Cinderella’s fairy godmother transformed her into a princess, and Cinderella mentioned, “It is more than what I have ever hoped for” (Walt Disney, 1950). That shows that looking good is the only thing that matters to girls, and nothing else is important. Another example is when Cinderella entered the castle and the guards stared at her showing that even the unimportant characters with low status admired Cinderella’s beauty.

Furthermore, beauty is exaggerated when the prince goes directly to Cinderella as soon as she sets foot in the ballroom and asks her for a dance and falls in love with her and wants to marry her, although he does not know her neither does he know her name. Hence, this depicts that one’s inner self is not as important as their appearances. The main aspect of why Cinderella is hated by her stepmother and stepsisters is because of her beauty.

What is also portrayed in the movie is the cultural value of marriage that is considered to be a crucial factor and without it girls do for nothing. What is also shown is the interdependency of gender and socialization. Women are expected to act in a certain way that is to carry out certain “gender role” (Macionis, 2011, p. 298). In a cartoon, women are portrayed as lifeless creatures thinking only about beauty and marriage emphasizing that a woman’s only job is to be a housewife that is supposed to clean and raise her children. For instance, during the ball the king says: “I can’t understand it there must be at least one that would be a suitable mother… Wife” (Walt Disney, 1950).

This shows that women are seen only as mothers, and a task and role they should fulfill is give birth to children and raise them. That is their only job and nothing else. Close to the value of marriage is romantic love – “affection and passion for another person” (Macionis, 2011, p. 425) – that is seen as the basis of Cinderella and Prince Charming’s happy marriage as they fall in love with each other at the first sight.

What is more on gender role is that as women are always stereotyped to show emotions immediately, they also should act elegantly when displaying emotions. This is shown in the movie when Cinderella’s stepsisters start to fight, and their mother says, “Girls, your manners” (Walt Disney, 1950). Hence, this resembles that girls directly display emotions however they should show it in a way that is socially acceptable.

Social status and prestige are other cultural values shown in the movie, namely social stratification based on status. In general, according to Max Weber, social stratification is based on class position, status, and power (Macionis, 2011). In the cartoon, it is shown through the clothes, houses, names, and appearances. First, Cinderella’s clothing in comparison to her stepsisters’ is that of a maid consisting of an apron to show that her role is to clean and obey orders. Second, Cinderella’s room located in the attic was not nice and luxurious compared to the ones her stepmother and stepsisters slept in.

Third, the castle the king lives in indicates his status as a king who is strong, powerful and rich. Fourth, appearances and clothing characters with low status have all look the same indicating their roles as guards or servants. Moreover, the look of Cinderella as a princess made everyone question who she was portraying her as the high-status girl. Finally, the representation of the girls when introduced to the prince and their names were called following the name of their fathers, “Daughter of” (Walt Disney, 1950) indicating that each girl ascribed status.

Furthermore, education is the aspect that is neglected throughout the movie. In the past there was a stereotype that women did not have to be well-educated; education was for men (Macionis, 2011). It is shown in the movie that it is not required that girls pursue their dreams in educating themselves but rather in dreaming about marriage, love, and children.

So, Cinderella the movie reflects social conditions of the time portrayed though with some distortions. First of all, being a prince, Prince Charming would not be allowed to marry a girl from different social class, plainly speaking the one who is not a princess, i.e. in the movie the concept of endogamy – “marriage between people of the same social category” (Macionis, 2011, p. 419) – is neglected. The development of characters in society as the whole is shown through social-conflict approach portraying women as those who are to give birth to children, raise them and run the house.

On the other hand, face-to-face relationships between the characters are portrayed through symbolic-interaction approach showing that women should behave themselves in a certain way. The movie portrays such cultural values as beauty, marriage, romantic love, social status, and prestige and shows that education is what was neglected by the women of that epoch. It also sheds light on the problem of a woman in society who is seen exclusively as a mother and housekeeper and should carry out this gender role.

Cinderella (1950 film) . (n.d.). Web.

Macionis, J. J. (2011). Sociology (14th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Walt Disney (Producer). (1950). Disney’s Cinderella Full Movie [Video file]. Web.

Adolescence as a Social Construct
The Culture of Volunteering in Saudi Arabia
"Cinderella" and Joyce Carol Oates
Folk Tale in ‘A Cinderella Story’ by Mark Rosman
Seven Variations of Cinderella as the Portrayal of an Anti-Feminist Character: a Counterargument Against the Statement of Cinderella’s Passiveness
Social Inequality in How Green Was My Valley Movie
Social Issues in Self Help in Hard Times by Zinn
Stigma Management in Society
Social Influences on Children' Growing Up
Sustainable Communities: Strengths and Weaknesses
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 7). The Cinderella Movie: Sociological Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cinderella-movie-sociological-analysis/

"The Cinderella Movie: Sociological Analysis." IvyPanda , 7 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-cinderella-movie-sociological-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Cinderella Movie: Sociological Analysis'. 7 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Cinderella Movie: Sociological Analysis." June 7, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cinderella-movie-sociological-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Cinderella Movie: Sociological Analysis." June 7, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cinderella-movie-sociological-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Cinderella Movie: Sociological Analysis." June 7, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cinderella-movie-sociological-analysis/.

Quick links

Directories
Make a Gift

Tips for Writing Analytical Sociology Papers

This document is intended as an additional resource for undergraduate students taking sociology courses at UW. It is not intended to replace instructions from your professors and TAs. In all cases follow course-specific assignment instructions, and consult your TA or professor if you have questions.

DO NOT PLAGIARIZE! You must cite all sources you use—not only for direct quotations, but also for data, for facts that are not common knowledge, and very importantly for ideas that are not your own. The UW policy on academic honest explains what plagiarism is, but also the consequences for students found to have committed it: http://www.washington.edu/uaa/advising/help/academichonesty.php
It is generally expected that you state your argument (usually called a "thesis statement") in the first couple paragraphs (preferably the first). For theory application papers, this would include mention of the theory or argument you are applying and the case or empirical phenomenon to which you are applying it.
Introductions and conclusions are important: they are the first and last impression given to your readers. A good introduction summarizes what the author does in the paper, and sets up ("motivates") the analytical problem or question. It is sometimes referred to as a "roadmap" for the paper. Some writers find it effective to present an interesting or controversial statement or a quote in the introduction to gain the reader's attention. However, you should make certain that the quote or information is actually relevant to your thesis (your main argument)!
A good conclusion almost always restates the argument and the evidence brought to bear. This is not a place to introduce new evidence or make new claims. However, you might address unresolved issues, why we should care about the topic of the paper, directions for future research, etc.
Once you have completed the paper, you should revisit the introduction and conclusion to make sure that they "match" each other, and that they reflect the argument you make in the body of the paper.
Most analytical sociology assignments should not rely upon personal anecdotes, experiences, or opinions as "data" to make an argument. This varies by assignment—for example, some ask you to incorporate personal experiences and opinions. If you are unsure, check with your instructor or TA.
It is considered appropriate to use subject headers in longer analytical papers, as it helps guide the reader and organize your argument.
Unless you are instructed otherwise, it can be helpful to write analytical papers in first person (using "I statements"): this helps you avoid passive constructions, wordiness, and confusion about voice (who is arguing what). If your instructor prefers that you avoid the first person in your papers, you can write "This paper argues…" in order to distinguish your voice from that of the authors/theories/articles you discuss.
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Newsletter

Sociological Analysis Essays

Sociological analysis of daily activities in a military environment, public issues in canadian society, sociological analysis of immigration and settlement experiences, sociological analysis of the labor regime dynamics at popeyes, affective images research paper, abiding faith by mark chaves, popular essay topics.

American Dream
Artificial Intelligence
Black Lives Matter
Bullying Essay
Career Goals Essay
Causes of the Civil War
Child Abusing
Civil Rights Movement
Community Service
Cultural Identity
Cyber Bullying
Death Penalty
Depression Essay
Domestic Violence
Freedom of Speech
Global Warming
Gun Control
Human Trafficking
I Believe Essay
Immigration
Importance of Education
Israel and Palestine Conflict
Leadership Essay
Legalizing Marijuanas
Mental Health
National Honor Society
Police Brutality
Pollution Essay
Racism Essay
Romeo and Juliet
Same Sex Marriages
Social Media
The Great Gatsby
The Yellow Wallpaper
Time Management
To Kill a Mockingbird
Violent Video Games
What Makes You Unique
Why I Want to Be a Nurse
Send us an e-mail

Home / Essay Samples / Literature / The Giver / The Giver: A Sociological Analysis of a Dystopian Society

The Giver: A Sociological Analysis of a Dystopian Society

Category: Life , Environment , Literature
Topic: Believe , Natural Environment , The Giver

Pages: 4 (1663 words)

Downloads: -->

Functionalism

Conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, social change, basic social processes, social institutions, social inequality.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Their Eyes Were Watching God Essays

Catcher in The Rye Essays

Brave New World Essays

Metamorphosis Essays

The Giver Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->