Sociology versus Common-sense views of Society - Essay Example

?Sociology versus ‘Common-sense views’ of Society Sociology, the study of the origins, development, and organization of human social behaviour alongside social institutions, is a social science that uses both empirical investigation and critical analysis to advance knowledge beyond ‘common sense’ perspectives that often pervade society. Sociological perspectives have been developed through research and have been applied in various disciplines to explain human phenomenon such as social actions, structures, functions, and processes. The subject matter of Sociology ranges from the micro level individual agency to the macro level of systems and the entire social structure that is evident in society; over the years, Sociologists have been fascinated by social subjects because of the eccentric nature of human behaviour. Consequently, Sociological studies have focused on topics such as social stratification, social class, social mobility, and religion; other subjects of interest to discipline of Sociology include secularization, law, and deviance behaviour, among other social phenomenon in society. Currently, Sociology has expanded its focus from these conventional areas to include other fields such as health, medical, military, and penal institutions, as well as the internet, especially because human activities are highly influenced by the intricate relationship between social structure and the individual agency. This paper will dwell on the topic of how Sociology informs reason by helping individuals to see beyond the common sense views of society, by providing evidence of sociological studies that have addressed the issue of homosexuality. Sexuality has been a common topic of concern to sociologists over the years (Green, 2008), and a significant proportion of Sociological studies that have been conducted in the past have focused on the issue of homosexuality with the aim of establishing Sociological perspectives and explanations of this behaviour. For many decades since the early ‘50s, through the ‘70’s, homosexuality was a very controversial topic that had been neglected due to its dilapidating implications to morality and religious values. The mainstream society has constantly refuted and condemned the idea of homosexuality for many years on moral and religious foundations, viewing it as a disorder, and a sin respectively, and the homosexuals as a minority group (Weitz and Bryant, 1997), despite the relentless efforts by gay rights movements that have furiously campaigned for the acceptance and recognition of homosexuality. However, the homosexuality debate has recently resurfaced becoming the single most consistent subject matter of many debates in media, religion and in political scenes (O'Brien, 2005). The issue has led to the emergence of thoroughly polarized opinions and perspectives especially between the state and the church, which largely have little to do with science than religion, morals, and politics (Koch, 2007). These ‘common sense’ opinions and perspectives that are informed by neither reason nor empirical studies are thoroughly subjective and misguiding, thus, cannot be relied upon as credible commentaries on the subject of homosexuality (“Sociology; New sociology…”). However, sociologists have grappled with the topic of homosexuality over the years and can help individuals to see beyond the ‘common sense’ views of society concerning homosexuals. To this effect, there has been a remarkable progress in scientific knowledge concerning homosexuality, which has led to a better understanding of this behaviour thereby not only challenging previous assumptions and misconceptions about homosexuals, but also rectifying the pervasive ‘common sense’ thinking that dominated society. For over four decades now, western sociology has endeavoured to provide theoretical explanations of sexuality by firstly viewing sexuality as a part of nature (Bolso, 2012), then proceeding with the search for sociological frameworks that can be used to analyse it accordingly. Notably, there is consensus between sociologists that homosexuality differs not only in terms of frequency, but also in terms of form, from one society to another. According to the Sociological perspective, society plays a greater part in the emergence of homosexuality incidences; sociologists strongly believe that homosexuality is not very different from heterosexuality despite their different nature, especially because both sexual orientations derive from previous social experiences (Bryant & Gonzalez-lopez, 2004). Sociologists also believe that some individuals are more likely to be homosexuals due to biological predisposition, but that does not out rightly rule out the fact that individual societies mainly contribute to the development of homosexuality. The Sociological perspective accounts for homosexuality on the assumption that society, through the process of socialization and social approval, strongly checks or encourages homosexuality. The Sociological perspective admits the possibility that some individuals possess an inborn tendency to be homosexuals, which is the biological perspective’s standpoint (Pillard 1997, p.645); however, the sociologists extend the biological argument further by explaining that these inborn homosexual tendencies cannot come to fore unless they are encouraged. Essentially, the Sociologists contend that the individual with homosexual tendencies must be socialized in a certain way, through the relative, yet often unintentional approval of the homosexual behaviour. Taking the sociological argument further, it is clear that homosexuality in itself, is not a concrete reality but a mere social phenomenon that only exists because of the way the behaviour is defined socio-cultural, and situational contexts (Heap, 2003). Society has a way of labelling behavior that it witnesses, and depending on the labels ascribed to behaviour, it can be either encouraged or discouraged in the society. In this respect, homosexual behaviour is a social construct whose existence in actual senses depends on the social forces that define it (Adriaens, & De Block, 2006), thereby acting to maintain it accordingly. Different societies have different cultural norms governing social behaviour, and each one of them is bound by varying situational factors that have a significance influence on the socialization processes that take place between their members. For this reason, social constructivists strongly believe that different societies recognize and treat humanity based on their sexual orientation. In this regard, the social constructionists contend that homosexuality is experienced differently in between different people in different societies and there is no single fool proof measure of homosexuality because it is subject to vary depending not only on the social contexts, but also based on the cultural and situational contexts in which it takes place. The socio-cultural and situational contexts within which homosexuality takes place inevitably exerts a massive influence on the behaviour, and in that respect, what it actually means to be a homosexual considerably varies across the board, from one context to another; this explains the extremely varying incidences of homosexuality from one society to the other. The sociological foundations of homosexuality having been established, it is also important to observe that the significance of homosexuality in society has not only been minimized, but also thoroughly obscured by the force of social taboos (Nardi and Schneider 1998, p.5). Contrary to popular ‘common sense’ views that are pervasive in society, homosexuals are distributed in society throughout all geographical areas and the socio-economic strata. Moreover, the homosexuals have often been victimized in society by being subjected to both legal punishments and religious condemnation (Cadge, Olson & Wildeman, 2008), factors that have contributed to the establishment of a complex structure of concealed social relations. Sociological perspectives can help explain this complex structure of concealed social relations, as well as the psychological isolation of the homosexual from society, the crystallization of social roles and behaviour patterns within the homosexual group. Additionally, sociological perspectives largely account for the reciprocal obligations and demands within the homosexual group, and their impact to the larger society in which they take place. Contemporary western societies have often privileged heterosexuality and individuals are often assumed straight while law and public policy are often fashioned to discourage homosexuality (Bernstein, Kostelac, & Gaarder, 2003), which is often construed as a threat to the privileged status of heterosexuality in the minds of the common folk. Negative cultural views or homophobic perceptions are socially learnt and embedded in the psyches of individuals (Whitley, Bernard, 2001), going unchallenged, perhaps due to the lack of contact with the homosexual group. In this regard, high prejudices towards the homosexual group correlates with the high levels of the threat perceived by the heterosexual group, which comprises the rest of the society; however, recent studies have witnessed changes in attitudes towards homosexuality due to the shifting sources of moral authority on the matter (Thomas, & Olson, 2012 p.249). Insofar as the question of sexuality and gender role nonconformity is concerned, sociological constructionists have long argued that the offspring of homosexuals are more likely to depart from the conventional gender roles than the children of heterosexual couples (Boxall, 2001). According to a recent study, boys raised by same sex couples are slightly more restrained sexually and more chaste than their peers in heterosexual households while girls raised by lesbian mothers are less restrained and less chaste than their peers in heterosexual families are. Nonetheless, daughters of lesbians are more likely to dress, play, and behave in ways that do not necessarily conform to the conventional gendered cultural norms, and they will generally express interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities (Hall and Kimura, 1995). On the other, sons of lesbians also behave in less masculine ways in the conventional sense because they are more likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their peers raised in heterosexual families are. These studies go a long way in highlighting the sociological foundations of homosexuality in social interactions that, to a considerable level, though not deliberately, seem to encourage the behaviour. In the context of homosexuals’ households, children are likely to be more tolerant to homosexuality and more open to the idea of same sex relationships, especially because their environment is not restrictive to homosexuality tendencies. The sociological influence of homosexuals to young children has often been the main ball of contention in debates to allow homosexuals rights of adoption and custody of children over the years; sociology in this case provides a justifiable course for adoption and child custody policies (Fisher, 2003). Sociological studies also account for identity formation in the homosexual community, by highlighting the distinctions between homosexual groups, which correlate with the different modes of evasion of the social controls imposed by society against the group. Identity is something that individuals commune to and from (Brekhus, 2004); the sociological perspective of homosexuality implies that it is controllable and individuals can change their sexual orientation (Haider-Markel, & Joslyn, (2005). Homosexuals fall in two distinctive groups, the secret, and the overt homosexuals; the secret group, who fear identification and refuse to associate with overt homosexuals, maintains the difference between these two groups. The secret homosexuals prefer to form groups that consist of small cliques where they interact frequently by meeting at each other’s homes, in restaurants, and in bars; the structure of these cliques is because of the diverse interests and occupations of the members, as well as their desire to limit homosexual contacts. Sociological perspectives highlight that the extent to which homosexuality is tolerated in different occupations is the single most significant determiner of the mode of evasion that homosexuals will choose to adopt. Generally, the overt homosexuals tend to fit more perfectly in occupations of relatively low status whereas the secret homosexuals usually tend to fit better in occupations with a high status rank. In this respect, the sociological perspective is clear that social interactions at the workplace define the extent to which sexuality is expressed; both overt and secret homosexuality tendencies will be expressed only to the extent to which the behaviour is tolerable at the workplace. Ultimately, sociology achieves great success in explaining social phenomenon thereby not only discrediting the pervasive common sense perspectives that exist in society, but also rectifying some of the notorious misconceptions and stereotypes concerning social phenomenon. Homosexuality and homosexuals have been the unfortunate recipients of harsh criticisms from different quarters of society, though most of the opinions expressed have had very little to do with science, but everything to do with religion, morals, and politics. In this regard, such common sense perspectives are void and baseless because they do not espouse scholarly thought and reasoning; however, sociology, which had been silent on the topic of homosexuality for many decades due to the volatility of its nature, holds justifiable explanations of homosexuality. Sociological constructionists have focused on a range of issues to do with sexuality including but not limited to the emergence of concealed social relations, the psychological isolation of the homosexuals from the mainstream society, the crystallization of social roles and behaviour patterns within the homosexual group. Moreover, sociology can help to explain the reciprocal obligations and demands within the homosexual group, and their impact to the larger society in which they take place. Generally, sociologists content that homosexuality is not a concrete reality but a mere social phenomenon that only exists because of the way the behaviour is defined in socio-cultural contexts, and contrary to common sense views, individual societies, through the process of socialization and social approval, strongly checks or encourages homosexuality. References "Sociology; New sociology research from Brandeis University outlined", 2008, Politics & Government Week,, pp. 59. Adriaens, P.R. & De Block, A. 2006, "The evolution of a social construction: The case of male homosexuality”, Perspectives in biology and medicine, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 570-85. Bernstein, M., Kostelac, C., & Gaarder, E. (2003). Understanding "Heterosexism:" Applying theories of racial prejudice to homophobia using data from a southwestern police department. Race, Gender & Class, 10(4), 54.  Bolso, A. 2012. "Sociological Discipline and the Unruly Erotic", Review of European Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 94-106. Boxall, B. 2001. Sociologists Challenge Data on Gay Parenting; Families: Sexual orientation has more of an impact on children than previously reported, say USC professors who reexamined earlier studies, Los Angeles, Calif. Brekhus, W.H. 2004. "Commuting to Homosexuality: Laud Humphreys' Unheralded Theoretical Contribution to the Sociology of Identity", The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 24, no. 3-5, pp. 58-72. Bryant, K., & Gonzalez-lopez, G. 2004. Sexuality studies at the 2003 American sociological association annual meeting. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1(2), 97-100.  Cadge, W., Olson, L. R., & Wildeman, C. 2008. How denominational resources influence debate about homosexuality in mainline protestant congregations. Sociology of Religion, 69(2), 187-IV. Fisher, A.P. 2003, "Still "not quite as good as having your own"? Toward a sociology of adoption", Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 29, pp. 335-361. Green, A. I. 2008. Erotic habitus: Toward a sociology of desire. Theory and Society, 37(6), 597-626.  Haider-Markel, D., & Joslyn, M. R. 2005. Attributions and the regulation of marriage: Considering the parallels between race and homosexuality. PS, Political Science & Politics, 38(2), 233-239.  Hall, J. and Kimura, D. 1995. Sexual orientation and performance on sexually dimorphic motor tasks. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24(4), 395-407. Heap, C. 2003. The city as a sexual laboratory: The queer heritage of the Chicago school. Qualitative Sociology, 26(4), 457-487. Koch, B.A. 2007, "God, Sex and Politics: Homosexuality and Everyday Theologies", Sociology of Religion, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 114-115. Nardi, P. M., and Schneider, B. E. 1998. Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader. NY. Routledge. O'Brien, J. 2005, "A Sociology of Religion and Homosexuality", Contemporary Sociology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 462-465. Pillard, R. 1997, "A Natural History of Homosexuality", The New England journal of medicine, vol. 337, no. 9, pp. 645-646. Thomas, J.N. & Olson, D.V.A. 2012, "Evangelical Elites' Changing Responses to Homosexuality 1960-2009", Sociology of Religion, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 239-II. Weitz, R. and Bryant, Karl. 1997. "The portrayal of homosexuality in abnormal psychology and sociology of deviance textbooks." Gene Therapy Weekly, 27-28. Whitley, Bernard E., Jr. 2001. Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45(11), 691-721.  Read More