Best wishes,

Basem

Overproduction, the environment and the general law of capitalist accumulation

Then after that have a look at the more recent trends in environmental sociology, especially through discoures in which:

… notions such as modernity, postmodernity, risk society, and ecological modernization figure prominently (e.g., Mol and Spaargaren 1993; Spaargaren and Mol 1992). Equally significant has been the drift of sociologists of science, and their notions of the social construction of scientific knowledge, into the environmental sociology arena as interest has grown in researching the environmental sciences and the connections of environmental knowledge production to environmental politics and the environmental movement (Taylor and Buttel 1992; Wynne 1994; Yearley 1991). 

To make sense of these changes in environmental sociology, it is useful to turn back to the mid-1980s, in which the cultural turn in the discpline (sociology) began to take shape, with theoretical inputs that emphasised the ideation or decision making of individuals in their social context, especially the cultural construction of reality, and specifically the emphasis on individuals and agency, rather than collective structures. This approach has been problematic, more so within environmental sociology, that deals with the biophysical substructure (the natural world we inhabit) of nation states and global society. Dunlap and Catton (1994) and Murphy (1994), for example, are prominent pieces of recent literature in which:

… the cultural-constructivist invasion of environmental sociology has been strongly rebuked. Each has argued that cultural-environmental sociology is essentially incompatible with a sociology that is able to recognize the material and biophysical substructure of nation-states and global society.

Thus, considering this turn, enivronmental sociology has become more balkanized and contested.

One key input into the recent cultural turn, would be Beck’s concept of a ‘Risk Society’, which he identifies as a mark of ‘high modernity’ or ‘late modernity’. This approach is one of the more prominent and seminal contributions to environmental sociology, an insight that we should have a quick look at …

To understand how they work, it is important to track the development back to the genesis of modernity, where we have the first release of individuals from previous social constraints, progressively people begin to reflexively constuct their own biographies. Beck then connects this ‘reflexive modernity’ to technogical and scientific advances, and the impact of these advances in the creation of evironmental hazards and risks. These effects are global and cut across class and other identities. As a result of these changes and shifts in social formation, due to many of these technogical shifts and changes, we have new forms of production i.e. post-fordist production system.

Nevertheless, Beck goes on to argue that whilst such changes have resulted in more risk, a political project of ‘reflexive scientization’ has the potential to be a tool for emanicpatory social practice. Just as the conditions of overproduction, for example, has resulted in greater envrionmental risks and hazards, a greater scientific reflexivity (due to technological breakthroughs), rooted in the same conditions of modenrity, has the potential to remedy for many of these risks. For a good introduction into Beck’s idea of ‘Risk Society’ click here…

• To download the presentation slides for this seminar click here…
• To download the handout from the seminar click here…
• For a good intro into the main ideas in environmental sociology, read this useful article by F. Buttel …

Further Reading

• New Directions in Environmental Sociology by Frederick H. Buttel
• Environmental Sociology: A Resource Page
• War, the Environment and Risk Society by Richard Tanter
• Rural Sociological Society
• The Encyclopedia of Earth
• The Silence of Words and Political Dynamics in the World Risk Society by Ulrich Beck
• Being Constructive: Social Constructionism And The Environment by Kate Burningham & Geoff Cooper
• BOOK Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective By John A. Hannigan
• BOOK The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology Edited By Michael Redclift & Graham Woodgate
• BOOK Sociological Theory and the Environment: classical foundations, Contemporary Insights Edited By Riley E. Dunlap, Frederick H. Buttel, Peter Dickens, August Gijswijt
• BOOK Ideology, Social Theory, and the Environment By William D. Sunderlin
• BOOK Environmental Sociology By John A. Hannigan

To download the seminar’s handout click here …

To compliment the seminar’s slide, read Chapter 15 of ‘Sociology: Issues and Debates’ (Edited by Steve Taylor). The chapter is by Leslie Sklair and is titled ‘Globalization’. You can download the chapter by clicking here… 

Further Reading

• For further reading I strongly recommend you take out ‘The Global transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate’ (Edited by David Held & Anthony McGrew).
• For an excellent online resource visit ‘The Globalization Website’ by clicking here …  
• Also there is the excellent Fernand Braudel Center, which hosts articles by the Center at SUNY Binghamton for the study of large-scale, long-term change; the site offers papers by leading figures in world-system theory.

 Click here to download the seminar’s presentation slides, and click here to download the seminar’s handout.

I would also recommend you have a go through these extensivcnotes on the Sociology of Deviance and then to use it as a guide for your further readings.

http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/intrdev.html

And here are some books you may find useful for your further reading:

• Becker, H. 1997 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance Simon & Schuster Ltd.
• Burke, R. 2005 An Introduction to Criminological Theory Willan Publishing
• Carrington, K., Hogg, R. 2002 Critical Criminology: Issues, Debates, Challenges Willan Publishing
• Cohen, S. 2002 Folk Devils and Moral Panics: Creation of Mods and Rockers Routledge.
• Downes, D., Rock, P. 2007 Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule-breaking Oxford University Press.
• Goode, E., Ben Yehuda, N. 1994 Moral Panics: Social Construction of Deviance WileyBlackwell.
• Kelly, D. 1996 Deviant Behavior: A Text-Reader in the Sociology of Deviance: St. Martin’s Press.
• Rubington, E., Weinberg,M. 1968 Deviance, the Interactionist Perspective: Text and Readings in the Sociology: Macmillan.
• Sumner, C. 1994 Sociology of Deviance: An Obituary Open University Press.

Let us look at the different meanings of power and then map out these meanings to the different theoretical approaches to power.

Three meanings of power:

1. Power as ‘capacity’ i.e. the possession of control or command over others. The conception of power here is that of capacity, meaning the capacity to get others to do what you want them to do.
2. Power as “legal ability, capacity or authority to act; especially delegated authority”. Here power is the ‘right’ that some people have to tell others what to do.
3. Power as the “ability to do or affect something or anything”. Power, in this sense, relates to human agency; that is, to one’s ability to ‘make a difference’ in the world.

Finally, it should be noted that these three meanings of power can overlap.

Power as quantitative capacity

• This meaning of power sees power as some form of entity, similar to wealth, and can be measured in terms of those who have ‘more of’ or ‘less of’ it. Those who have ‘more of’ power are more likely to get there way, than those with ‘less of’ power. Hence, power is seen as a capacity, the capacity to get one’s own way, with groups accordingly having more or less of this ability.
• This understanding can be seen in Weber’s definition of power as “the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will even against the resistance of other”
• Approaches that look at power in terms of this meaning, concentrate on the distribution or production of power. Implicitly here is the idea that power is quantifiable and can be measured and compared empirically.
• The distribution of power – As wealth, power is a quantifiable entity, and unevenly distributed. This translates in the ability of some to impose their will over others.
• There are three dimensions to the distribution of power (Lukes 1974) – (1) the dimension which operates to determine the outcome of direct conflict. (2) The dimension which operates behind the scenes so as to exclude certain interests from direct public conflict in the first place. (3) The dimension which operates on people’s thoughts and desires.
• Production of power: Some sociologists argue that power should be viewed in terms of its production. It is argued that power is not simply a fixed quantity, as wealth. Rather, power is created and maintained continuously. Hence, we should study the social conditions in which power is produced and maintained. Once again, as with those who look at the distribution of power, this view sees power in quantifiable terms – those who can produce ‘more’ power and hence have greater authority, then those who produce ‘less’. This approach overlaps with the definition of power as ‘right’, as it views that forms of agency that produce and maintain power, usually have the ‘right’ to be obeyed or followed – whether this is by coercion or consent.

Power as ‘right’

• Those who would emphasize the meaning of power as ‘right’, investigate how power as a ‘right’ is given to some parties to command control over others. This entails questions of legitimacy – how power becomes legitimated, whether it is through coercion or obligation. Sociologists, such as C Wright Mills, are more concerned with how legitimacy is created and maintained, rather than the belief of legitimacy on part of those who are subjected to an authority.

Power as acting on the actions of others

• Focault views power as an inescapable feature of human interaction. Power simply is (it is part of all actions directed at others. We all act on the actions of others, and hence are part of the greater circulation of power). People simply do not have ‘more’ of it, as it is not quantifiable. Focault describes power as the ‘total structure of actions’.
• Focault focuses on how the effects of power are produced – rather than on power itself as the explanation for such effects. Such an approach breaks away from those who view power as either ‘capacity’ or ‘right’, and hence avoids the disputes concerning how we can identify and measure power, and how we should determine its legitimacy.

The presentation notes above was based on Chapter 4 (this chapter gives a good overview of the sociology of power) by Christine Helliwell and Barry Hindess in ‘Sociology: Issues and Debates’ (edited by Steve Taylor).

You can download the notes above (which were used as the seminar’s presentation slides) by clicking here…

To download the handouts that were given in the seminar, click here and here

Further Resources:

• Hegemony in Antonio Gramsci
  
• The Truth about Capitalist Democracy by Atilio A. Boron
• Excerpt The Subject and Power (1982) by Michel Foucault
• An excellent guide on the web for Contemporary Philosophy, Critical Theory and Postmodern Thought
• Antonio Gramsci on Culture by Raquel de Almeida Moraes
• A guide to web resouces on an array of theorists

Each religious firm acts efficiently to gain the highest number of followers, this means movement that are fluid and dynamic, unlike the historically established cultural and religious institutions e.g. the Catholic Church & Anglicanism, have the ability to attract vast number of followers with strong religious commitments. Examples of this include Evangelical/Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, which began in North America and then spawned across the globe. Consider this, The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are the fastest growing group within Christianity today, estimated anything from 4-600 million adherents worldwide, and having adherents predominantly from the developing countries. They have spread especially in traditionally Catholic countries like the Philippines and Latin American countries. This article from the ‘Economist’ reports:

In Brazil, the world’s largest Catholic country, the church has lost adherents at a rate of 1% a year since 1991, mainly to Pentecostal churches. Fewer than three-quarters of Brazilians are now Catholics while 15% are Protestants (known locally as “evangelicals”). In Mexico, 7.3% were Protestants according to the 2000 census; the figure may be almost 20% today. In Guatemala, some 30% are Protestant.

Back to the United States. In America, this pluralism and competition of different religious groupings has seen 44% of Americans shift religious affiliations. The New York Times reports:

More than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion, according to a new survey of religious affiliation by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The report, titled “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey,” depicts a highly fluid and diverse national religious life. If shifts among Protestant denominations are included, then it appears that 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations.

However, established religion, such as the Roman Catholic Church, “has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes.” Despite this:

Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University, echoed that view. “Religion is the single most important factor that drives American belief attitudes and behaviors,” said Mr. Lindsay, who had read the Pew report. “It is a powerful indicator of where America will end up on politics, culture, family life. If you want to understand America, you have to understand religion in America.

Religion continues to play a major role in the everday lives of Americans, informing them of their views on a diverse range of issues. However, religious pluralism (supply side of religion) has fractured the religious landscape, resulting in a  highly fluid and diverse American religious life. 

The emergence of such rivals has threatened the more established Catholic Church, and as I mentioned in the seminar this rivalry can be seen on satellite television channels, with different programs run by Catholic broadcasting channels to counter the spread of rival denominations. For example, EWTN (The Global Catholic Network), run a show called ‘The Journey Home’, which sets out its aim as to examine “why so many people, including fallen away Catholics and individuals from other denominations, are being drawn home to the Catholic Church”
 
Finke & Stark’s approach can be useful in making sense of these social dynamics, and specifically in the United States. There thesis can be called the ‘pluralism thesis’, an approach that argues that the diversification in the supply side of religion, has resulted in an increased competition in the religion marketplace. In an increasingly individualised society, where people can be after the next fix or ‘enchantment’ in a ‘disenchanted’ late modernity (Ritzer and Bauman have much to say about this), any movement that is dynamic enough, not dogmatic in belief, strict in behaviour, and refusing to accommodate, has the ability to successfully carry out the indispensable function of religion: to explain the meaning of life in ultimate terms. Established churches, such as the Catholic church, have become more about form and ritual and thus ‘disenchanted’. People, in a consumer driven society, now wish to consume the next religious commodity, seeking a new and enchanted religious experience.

For those of you who are interested in looking further I recommend you take out ‘The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy’ by Finke and Stark. Also have a look at chapter 8 in the ‘Handbook of the Sociology of Religion’ (Edited by Michele Dillon), which you can read online via Google Books. I would also recommend you take out the ‘Handbook of the Sociology of Religion’ , which is a very good reader on the subject.

Secularization: the process by which religion loses its influence over various spheres of social life

Dimensions:

1. Membership of religious organizations:

Debates I

Membership of a religious organization may not mean anything to the individual and says nothing about levels of participation of belief…

 …but it is still a marker of identity and affiliation which may be a significant factor in social solidarity

2. Social influence, wealth and prestige

Debates II

The overall total of people in a society who are members of a religious organization says something about that organization’s authority to speak in political and moral debates…

…but increasingly in Western societies the traditional churches are losing membership and smaller Christian sects, new age groups, Eastern ethical religions and the religions of immigrant groups such as Islam and Hinduism are gaining membership. Religious pluralism may say something about levels of belief but something very different about the influence of religion in social life.

3. Religiosity

Debates III

You don’t need to be a member of a religious organization to believe in a God or afterlife…

…indeed, and ‘believing without belonging’ is a term which has been used to describe the situation in contemporary Britain. However, what is the social significance of these kinds of individualized beliefs? Cut off from social organization do they have any real significance in the organization and stability of the real world?

Religion within the UK

What is your religion? (2001 census, England and Wales, %)

Christian: 71.7 %
Muslim: 3.0 %
Hindu: 1.1 %
Sikh: 0.6 %
Jewish: 0.5 %
Buddhist: 0.3 %
Other: 0.3 %
No religion: 14.8 %
Not stated: 7.7 %

Christian Communities, 2005 (in millions)

Anglican: 28.2
Roman Catholic: 5.8
Orthodox: 0.6
Presbyterian: 2.9
Baptist: 0.5
Methodist: 1.2
Non-Trinitarian: 1.4
Total Christian: 41.9

Fundamentalism and Public Life

Fundamentalism: strict adherence to the literal interpretations of basic religious scriptures and texts and the belief that the doctrine they reveal should be applied to all aspects of social, political and economic life (Giddens 2004: 557)

Note - Do you think Giddens’ definition is adequate? Do all fundamentalist approaches adhere to literal interpretations? Do all fundamentalist view their messages to be applicable to all aspects of social, political and economic life? Further, how would we define traditionalist religious approaches, that may also view their religion to be applicable in social, political and economic life? To see the problems that may arise when attempting to define what fundametalism actually is, as opposed to other religious phenomena, have a read of Simon Barrow’s piece on the topic.

Christian Fundamentalism

• Belief in the divinity of Christ and in personal salvation through the acceptance of Christ as personal saviour
• Evangelical: to be ‘born again’ (in Christ)
• Rejection of liberal theologies
• In US growth in evangelical groups whilst mainstream ‘liberal groups’ show decline

Christian Fundamentalism II

• Response to rapid, globalized social change?
• Politically significant in issues to do with family, contraception, abortion and sexuality
• Politically significant in the re-election of President George W Bush

Download the seminar’s handout by clicking here…

Further resources:

I would recommend you visit the Speaking of Faith website. It’s a radio program that broadcasts on American Public Radio, but also streams online through their website (you can also download podcasts and listen to them through your IPods, if you want to listen to them offline).  A lot of the programs are centred around discussions concerning religion and public life. Here are some episodes I would recommend:

• Globalization and the rise of religion (I recommend this episode, it’s an interview with prominent sociologist Peter Berger, a previous an advocate of the secularisation thesis)
• Globalizing the Sacred
• The Other religious America
• Beyond the God Gap
  The theory of the “God gap”—often broadly suggesting that religious Americans are conservative and will vote Republican while non-religious Americans are liberal and will vote Democratic—has been prominent in press reporting and political maneuvering in the 2004 presidential race. At their recent conventions, both parties seemed to grapple with faith dynamics and respond to the perceived God gap in interesting, unexpected ways. Krista speaks with Steven Waldman, who covered the 2004 Democratic and Republican conventions for religious messages, images, and language. He says that, strictly speaking, the God gap is a myth. We’ll look beyond the headlines about the political gulf that reportedly separates religious and secular Americans.
• Religious Liberty in America: The legacy of church of state
• Faith and Politics in America
   

Further Reading:

• The Cultural Dynamics of Globalization By Peter L. Berger
• Religion and the West By Peter L. Berger
• Faith and Conflict: The Global Rise of Christianity
• Immigration and the Changing Contours of Religious Pluralism in the United States by Andrea Althoff
• “Christianity in Global Context: Trends and Statistics”
  This paper provides a brief, and somewhat surprising, overview of the composition of Christians in the world. Tabular data illustrates the major shift of Christians from the European continent in 1900 to Africa, Asia, and Latin America in 2005 — a trend that is predicted to continue.
• Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs
  Based out of Boston University and headed by sociologist Peter Berger, the institute focuses on political and social issues as they relate to the larger culture.
• Globalizing the Sacred: Religion Across the Americas. Religion across the Americas by By Manuel A. Vásquez, Marie F. published by Rutgers University Press
• The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics — Edited by Peter Berger. Published by Eerdmans Publishing Company (1999)

• Can we talk of fixed sexual identities? Is sexual activity synonymous with a given sexual identity? Further, Is ‘sexual orientation’ synonymous with a sexual identity?
• Until recently, in western Europe, sexual activity was restricted by social norms. The history of sexuality has been dominated by the influence of Christianity which on the whole has treated heterosexuality as the only legitimate form of sexual expression and sex as an act acceptable only within marriage and only for the purposes of procreation.
• With the rise in scientific discourse, Victorian society saw the medical profession gain ascendancy over religion as the agency able to define sexuality: what had been sinful became pathological. The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the 1860s, and from then on, homosexuals were increasingly regarded as being a separate type of people with a particular sexual aberration (Weeks 1986). Homosexuality became part of a ‘medicalized’  discourse; it was spoken of in clinical terms as a ‘sexual orientation’ that was a psychiatric disorder or a perversion, rather than a religious ‘sin’. Homosexuals, along with other ‘deviants’ such as paedophiles and transvestites, were seen as suffering from a biological pathology that threatened the wholesomeness of mainstream society.
• Victorian society sustained a double standard of sexual morality, accepting male promiscuity whilst insisting upon female sexual purity and passivity. These double standards continue to exist today e.g. the assumption that promiscuous or sexually assertive behaviours are to be expected or admired in men, but that the same behaviours are deviant in women. For example, there is no male equivalent of the term ‘slag’.
• The construction of social identities around same sex sexual activities is far from a direct link. The link is a later development, and as Michel Foucault observes, the notion of a homosexual person before the 18th century, seems barely to have existed (Foucault 1978). Prior to this development homosexuality was seen as a sexual act, known as the act of sodomy (sodomy was not defined specifically  as a homosexual offence, it applied to relations between men and women, men and animals, as well as men among themselves).
• Kenneth Plummer identifies four male positions in regards to the relationship between same sex sexual activities and social identities: casual same-sex encounters which do not substantially structure the sexual life or identity of the individual; situated same-sex encounters in male-only environments such as prisons; personalized homosexuality, where an individual experiences a preference for same-sex sexual activity but remains isolated from the gay community; and, homosexuality as a way of life, structuring both the sexual life and identity of the individual.
• Kinsey’s documented study of the sexual life histories of 18,000 people in America (between the 1940s and 1950s) showed that no more than half of all American men are completely heterosexual, judged by their sexual activities and inclinations after puberty. However, later studies questioned Kinsey’s findings.
• Jeffrey Weeks (1987) argues that there is no essential essence that can define sexual identities. Identities are fluid and culturally and historically relative. There is nothing a-social that can determine identities and therefore set ways of behaviour. We choose who we are and prioritize certain identities over others.
• In his book ‘Virtually Normal’ Andrew Sullivan argues that that there is something in our biology or chemistry that “determines” our sexuality, arguing that homosexuality, for example, is at least in part given in nature – it is not something which is simply ‘chosen’. Hence, it cannot be simply renounced, and as such if homosexuals are not to become an alienated minority, he argues, gay marriages must be legalized. It is interesting to note that such a line of argumentation, for Sullivan, has social implications. However, such biological claims for sexuality, as a determining factor in ‘sexual orientation’, is very much a contested claim and continues to spark much debate. 

The above notes were part of the seminar’s presentation slides, which you can download by clicking here….

Also, download the seminar’s handout by clicking here…

In the seminar we also considered scientific studies that have been carried out in this field. Here are some useful downloads/links:

• Click here to download a very useful breakdown on the biological side of ‘sexual orientation’ by the Wellcome Trust.
• Further relevant studies include the works of Dr. Glen Wilson and Dr. Qazi Rahman, which can be accessed in their book: ‘Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation’. Cick here for a news report by the Independent on the book and here for a press release from the University of East London on the book’s release and a general overview of what it covers. 
• Finally, click here for an overview of a study that comes from Dr. Ivanka Savic and colleagues

Further Reading:

• All introductory texts have good breakdowns of the key issues surrounding this topic. Other than Macionis & Plummer, have a look at the section on sexuality in Chapter 6 on gender relations in ‘Introductory Sociology’ by Bilton et al. You might also want to consider chapter 5 on Gender & Sexuality in Gidden’s introduction to Sociology.
• For a more specific book on gender and sexuality, I would recommeded chapter 8 (the whole is very relevant to this seminar) in ‘When Sex became Gender’ (published by Routledge) by Shira Tarrant.
• For the biological side of the topic there’s the recent study – ’Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation’ by Qazi Rahman & Glen Wilson (Published by Peter Owen Publishers)

General overview

What is natural and what is social in gender? There is no consensus on this question, instead we have a variety of approaches, each seeking to provide an explanation on biological sex and gender identities. These vary from one end of the spectrum i.e. biological determinism to the other end of pure social constructivism. At one end, we have a strong biological determinist position that would argue that gender traits can be rooted in chromosomal differences, hormonal differences or some other natural difference. This strong determinist position is problematic, as for it to be established, universal differences need to be proven to exist and that these differences determine identical behaviour on the part of men and women across societies and over history.

At the other end we have a strong social constructivist view, such as that advocated by post-modernist gender theorist Judith Butler. Butler argues that there is no reason to believe in the idea of two genders, an idea that is based on a heterosexist worldview. “Bodies becomes gendered through being socially classified as biologically different and through the continual process of people acting in gendered ways. For Butler, gender has no pre-given essential existence.” (Maynard 1999: 120)

Hence, meanings of gender have no fixed referent, including that of biological sex, all are reduced to factors of socialization. For example, there are some feminists who question the assumption “that gender is culturally constructed, while sex is still seen as having an innate biological basis (Ramazanoglu 1995). Such an approach is essentialist because it implies that how we interpret and give meaning to biological phenomena is unproblematic, inherent and independent of cultural discourses and practices. Further, this way of thinking perpetuates the opposition between nature and culture which permeates western societies. It precludes the possibility of analyzing the various ways in which bodily functions and processes (for instance, pain or pleasure) may influence the gendered experience of social life. Ramazanoglu (1995), for example, argues that ideas about the body are social, although not entirely independent of biology. It is important to take account of people’s bodily existence (for women, such things as menstruation and childbirth) , without assuming that this determines their behaviour” (Maynard 1999: 120)

This approach seeks to go beyond sociological approaches that differentiate between biological sex and gender roles. The argument here being that writers who make this differentiation, while focusing on gender roles and role learning implicitly accept there is a biological basis to gender differences. In contrast, it is stated, even how we experience our bodies i.e. bodily functions and processes can be affected by social factors. Hence, we must go beyond a dichotomy that argues that while gender identities and role are socially constructed, biological sex has some form of fixed characteristics. Recent examples, of altering bodies, could include plastic surgery, dieting, exercise and sex-change operations. Even biological differences can be culturally elaborated.

However, I would raise some issues with this approach. While it is true that biological differences can be altered and acted upon through intervention, it cannot be said that there is no basis for an idea of biological sexes and therefore of two genders. When individuals alter their bodies they are altering something that they are physically born with. For example, altering the body through a sex-change operation, entails the altering of the body into another distinct and recognisable form – a female or male. This form is known by some biological referent i.e. that a female and male bodily are indeed different, and with essential characteristics. Otherwise it would make no sense of talking about a sex-change operation. “As Anne Oakley explained in her influential book sex, gender and society (1972), bodies are the trigger for the assignment of gender difference; femininity of some sort will be elaborated for anatomical females, and masculinity of some sort for males. ‘The chief importance of biological sex’, argues Oakley, ‘is in providing a universal and obvious division around which other distinctions can be organised’ (Bilton et al. 2003: 134)

Also download the seminar’s presentation slides by clicking here….

To download the handouts click here and here

Further Reading:

• The second handout is a breakdown of the main ideas in Chapter 6 of ‘Introductory Sociology’ by Bilton et al. I would recommend you take out the book or photocopy the chapter for revision.
• Also have a look at Chapter 6 in ‘Sociology: Issues and Debates’ edited by Steve Taylor. The chapter is written by Mary Maynard and is devoted to gender relations.

• To download the seminar’s presentation slides click here.
• To download the seminar’s excersises slides click here….
• To download the seminar’s handout click here…
• The seminar was based on this online tutorial (which I recommended before) on sociology essay writing.