1.0 Briefly explain what is philosophy?

“To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so
to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence,
magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but
practically.". - Thoreau

Perhaps the best way to approach in answering the question ‘what is philosophy?’ is to look at
the portrayal of philosophers in the Philippine society. We, Filipinos, have a pejorative portrayal
of philosophers. What made as such is because the word ‘pilosopo’ entails a negative meaning.
To the Filipinos, a “pilosopo” is a smart aleck--someone who engages in meticulous and
abstract reasoning, thereby incurring the ire of other Filipinos. The statement ‘Namimilosopo ka
na naman!’ is a huge slap in the face. It’s a way of shutting down reasoned discourse, instead of
attempting to refute the logic in question.”i It was for this reason that ‘pilosopo’ are often
regarded weird and unacceptable. A related insult is the statement “Napakapilosopo mo!” The
connotation here is that if you have refuted others, you are sort of smart aleck and you need to
shut up your mouth and back off. This is therefore an implication that reasoning or critical
thinking is “…something that is frequently devalued, especially if it challenged authority or rocks
the boat. Amidst the conformity of Filipino society, that is simply not tolerable.”

Another negative connotation perhaps resulted due to the emergence of the concept of
‘Pilosopo Tasyo’. In Rizal’s first novel entitled ‘Noli Me Tangere’, Pilosopo Tasyo had been
viewed an insane, pessimistic and crazy lunatic thinker, who valued reading knowledge instead
of his own health and fortune. It was for this reason that the whole town of San Diego would
make fun of his odd ideas and madness.

As such, we do belong in the town of San Diego. We are its settlers. Our culture made
fun and ridicule philosophers, for philosophers are non-sense and out of this world thinkers. But,
taking into consideration, Rizal had portrayed ‘Pilosopo Tasyo’ differently. According to him,
Persons of culture called him Don Anastasio, or Tasio the Sage, while the great crowd of the
ignorant knew him as Tasio the Lunatic, on account of his peculiar ideas and his eccentric
manner of dealing with others.

But why do we need to philosophize? It is a question that is very rooted on our very nature as
human. Taking into consideration our very own humanity, we have different needs and pursuits.
We need food, shelter and clothing so as to survive. “But when these basic needs have been
satisfied – will there still be something else?” Common experience would tell us that we cannot
live on bread alone. Yes, of course we need food, love and care. But we as human beings are
more than that. There is something else that we need and that is to figure out who we are and
why we are here. Looking for such meaning is natural to us human beings. “There is a desire for
knowledge that is characteristic of all people and a human capacity for metaphysical enguiry.”ii
Being the highest form of animals, knowledge, therefore, is a law of our rationality. It is a law of
our human mind. We are not only after on the fulfillment of our basic needs but also we need to
live a nobler life; a life that is more than bodily nourishment; a life that stimulates our intellect to
look and seek for knowledge and truth.

Although philosophical inquiry is rooted on our very nature, we do not all become
philosophers. For many reasons, some are only confined with the satisfaction of their everyday
affairs and concerns. They are only concern on series of phenomenal experience, a
spontaneous, prescientific form of thinking. They just know what the things are and not its why’s
and causes. Thus, it is only few that reaches knowledge in a higher form of abstractions. It is
only few who could appreciate Pilosopo Tasyo, who is a man in pursuit of knowledge according
to its first and ultimate causes. It is only few who desire to know, arising out with the faculty of
wonder, has thus led some to penetrate deeply the mysteries of reality.

Being a philosopher, therefore, is a challenge. Philosophy emerges as one of noblest of

human tasks. It is a challenge to look for higher forms of knowledge; a knowledge that would
gives us rational account that is more superior to mere experience, because it knows the cause
and the reason why. With this, a philosopher, therefore, fits with its etymological definitioniii that
is a ‘lover of wisdom’. According to tradition, the term was coined by Pythagoras – a well known
thinker in ancient Greece. It was said that he coined such in order to distinguish himself with
the sophistsiv. Philosophers are not self acclaimed intellectual for they tried to look, to search
and to look for truth. Socrates is worth telling by his attitude with the Oracle of Delhi. The oracle
as it will be recalled, said that there was no wisest than Socrates, which puzzled him because
he was aware that he knew nothing and that the god of the Oracle could be mistaken. Socrates
being taken as a mere example to make the point that human being was the wisest who, like
him, recognized that he was worthless with respect to wisdom.

Philosophical Methodology: Faith or Reason. The late Pope John Paul II in his 1998
encyclical entitled Fides et Ratio tried to provide a contemporary general description of
philosophy. Accordingly, faith and reason are like two wings in which the human spirit rises to
the contemplation of truth. The encyclical in claiming as such remains very faithful with its
Catholic tradition, for Scholasticism or Christian thinkers would claim that that man can likewise
come to the knowledge of truth in either be (1) a knowledge of faith (lumen fidei) or (2)
knowledge of a supernatural vision (lumen gloriae) or (3) a knowledge of reason (lumen
rationales). The first and the second come from divine revelation. Faith, accordingly, offers a
higher, more perfect knowledge of reality, because in this case, the infinite and the absolute is
not known by means of his effects, but by means of what God Himself had revealed Himself. It
is therefore considered as the highest form of human freedom for faith “alone makes it possible
to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently", and "this is why
the Church has always considered the act of entrusting oneself to God to be a moment of
fundamental decision which engages the whole person." The second is a knowledge of the
absolute by means of a direct and mystical experience by way of beatific vision like of that of St.
Therese of Avila, St John of the Cross and St. Thomas Aquinas. The latter on the other hand,
according to its tradition, is a very limited knowledge. It was for this reason that Scholastics tend
to argue that philosophy should be a handmaid in the study of Theology insofar as ‘reason’ is
the handmaid of ‘faith’. Thus, Fides et Ratio establishes the primacy of revelation as a source of
salvific truths and the primacy of obedient faith in Christ as the most fitting context for the
inquiries of reason. Natural reason can discover some salvific truths, but not the most central
ones concerning the mission of Jesus Christ for Christ is the answer to the ultimate question
that philosophers (and ordinary people insofar as they participate in philosophy) have asked at
all times and within all cultures.

Moreover, Rizal had provided a dialogical approach as far as the relationship of faith and reason
is concerned. This dialogical approach was manifested in his correspondence with Padre Pablo
Pastell when was in exile in Dapitan. Padre Pablo Pastell noted that the one whose judgment
and self-love have been “obstructed and falsified by erroneous principles and disorderly
affections” cannot be guided by the light of his own judgment and conscience. He even added
that the lamp of this light is unreliable and no matter how wise we may be, “we can never be so
wise as to have no need of the knowledge of others.” It is therefore necessary to be guided by
the lamp of others, or to abide by the criterion and judgment of others. It is a natural lamp the
knowledge of which is derived from right reason. He went further on saying that He argues that
even if “faith exceeds reason, there cannot exist between them a true opposition,” because God
endows the human soul with the light of reason. Since God cannot deny faith and reason, then
the truth of reason cannot contradict the truth of faith. If there is an apparent contradiction, it is
either the dogmas of faith have not been properly understood or the ravings of opinion are
unworthily considered as axioms of reason.

Philosophy is an activity of thought, a type of thinking. Philosophy is critical and comprehensive

thought, the most critical and comprehensive manner of thinking which the human species has
yet devised. This intellectual process includes both an analytic and synthetic mode of
operation. Philosophy as a critical and comprehensive process of thought involves resolving
confusion, unmasking assumptions, revealing presuppositions, distinguishing importance,
testing positions, correcting distortions, looking for reasons, examining world-views and
questioning conceptual frameworks. It also includes dispelling ignorance, enriching
understanding, broadening experience, expanding horizons, developing imagination , controlling
emotion, exploring values, fixing beliefs by rational inquiry, establishing habits of acting,
widening considerations, synthesizing knowledge and questing for wisdom.

Philosophy as a process functions as an activity which responds to society's demand for

wisdom, which is bringing together all that we know in order to obtain what we value. Viewed in
this way Philosophy is part of the activity of human growth and thus an integral, essential part of
the process of education. Philosophy and education have as a common goal the development
of the total intellect of a person, the realization of the human potential.

References

 http://www.webspawner.com/users/pilosopo/, 2011, p. 1
 References to Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio) Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II
 Accordingly, philosophy came from two greek words ‘philo’ and ‘sophia’ which means
love and wisdom respectively.
 a group of self-acclaimed intellectuals in Athens who used rhetorics so as to persuade
people
2. Briefly explain what is psychology

Did you know that the word psychology originates from the Latin word psyche, which means
soul? If you break this down completely, psychology is the “study of the soul.” But when we talk
of psychology in today’s modern world, we rarely discuss the soul, and more often than not we
completely override the idea of a soul even existing. The scientific study of psychology looks at
the functions of the mind and more specifically the functions of the brain in the anatomical
science of neuropsychology. We can also say that psychology is a larger topic which embraces
our behaviors, emotions, and relationships, considering each as a unique part of the
psychological experience. Yet still we remain somewhat detached from the origins of the word,
the ‘soul’ and its important role in making up who we are within this massive universe.
Fortunately we do not have to abandon modern science in order to discover the soul’s
existence, for contemporary studies in physics and psychology has set a new stage for reveling
a whole new dimension of reality.

Let us start by braking the ice, even though it may be a few feet thick; quantum physics, which
is the new mechanics of modern physical science, says that all matter in its most basic form
has two properties. These properties are very simple to understand when we break them down
into what they really are. One is the form of matter, the same material that makes up the
physical world around us. The other property is the wave in which there is no physical matter
but rather a frequency of motion. Now what is important to understand out of this conclusion is
that everything in the universe has a state of physical existence and physical non-existence; or
more simply put it is either physically here or not here. While this may be difficult to understand
without the full philosophical and physiological explanation of this scientific theory, we can
reflect on the topic by pondering over the fact that there is a world that we can see and a world
we cannot see; there is a world that we know and a world that is hidden from us.

Now taking a giant leap back to psychology, we can ask ourselves the question “why must we
rule out the possibility of a soul, or some higher form of energy, non-material object that makes
us who we really are in our most basic, essential form?” Just because we cannot study the soul
by using microscopes and test tubes, must we cross it off the list of possibilities as to why we
think, feel, and act as individuals with individual consciousness? I used the word consciousness
because it is a highly controversial word that will come up in the debate of whether a soul
exists, because if it does that there may just be a form of the human being that we may never
come to grasp here in the physical world with our physical experiments.

Neuropsychology says that all processes of thought occur within the brain. They say that
everything can be reduced within the cells within the brain, and if we had the ability to account
for every piece of information stored in these cells, we would eventually be able to determine
exactly where the unique thoughts of individual’s (you/I/they) occur. But as they dive deeper
into the brain, it seems more difficult to find the answers. This” consciousness” is sometime
here, and other times there. It looks like that under these circumstances, but looks like this
under those conditions.

So let us ponder a very serious possibility: perhaps this consciousness if far too complex for us
to understand, and it takes on so many unique forms within this material world that whenever
we try to pin it down under one condition it takes on another form. If this were true, we would
never be able to explain why we are unique and why we exist by blanketing all human beings
under the category of X, where everything can be explained and understood. Why must we be
the most complex thing in the universe and be the most powerful being too, capable of defining
why everything exists and how it should work? Perhaps we are simply a strand in a much more
complex and much more dynamic universe then we can imagine, and if this were true why
should we waist our time reducing everything to one single theory? If we are but a part of a
much more dynamic system, I think we would be playing our part best by living as dynamically
and creatively as possible, trying to expand our understanding and looking beyond our own
rational intellect and into a universe of complexities we may never understand. In doing so, we
do not seek an end to understanding but put ourselves in a space to explore endless potentials
where time and space cannot limit our creative and conscious experience of life. We grow, both
for ourselves and for others, considering each idea as a potential in the endless universe.

Psychology, in this way, becomes an experience of consciousness, where the individual is

unveiling his or her own comprehension of reality as we explore the inner and out dimensions
of existence. If the soul does exist and quantum physics hold its own truth in explaining our
world, then we are free to consider a universe without physical boundaries. If we choose to
accept this, we cannot reduce the world to any singular idea, but instead we must constantly
question and generate new ideas to help us gain a better understanding of why we can think
and how it creates our experience of life and living. Psychology then becomes a study of life
and its relationship to the whole, the universal connection between the individual and the
cosmos, brought together by the psyche, the soul.

References

 Fernald LD (2008). Psychology: Six perspectives (pp. 12–15). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
 Hockenbury & Hockenbury. Psychology. Worth Publishers, 2010
 Derek Russell Davis (DRD), "psychology", in Richard L. Gregory (ed.), The Oxford
Companion to the Mind, second edition; Oxford University Press, 1987/2004;
ISBN 978-0-19-866224-2 (pp. 763–764).
3.0 Key differences between Natural and Social Sciences

Science is generally understood as an endeavor to understand, explain and predict the world
we live in using distinctive methods of enquiry in an attempt to construct theories. It is, however,
not easy to find a set of features that define what separates sciences from other areas like
fortune telling, etc. Okasha suggests that there are no fixed features defining different
disciplines science, however there are some features which are possessed by most of the
sciences. Based on some of these features, we will contrast two scientific branches, namely the
natural and social sciences. According to authors such as Anzenbacher and Chmielewicz, both
of them are real sciences, as opposed to formal sciences, the latter of which solve imaginary
problems and include, for instance, mathematics or Theoretical Computer Science. Other
authors separate real sciences into further categories such as literary studies or applied
sciences, the latter including medicine and engineering.
There are a number of similarities between the natural and social sciences, which include the
use of similar methods and partly overlapping epistemological and ontological stances, i.e.
stances regarding the creation of knowledge and the nature of reality. However, there are
also a number of elements that distinguish the two, such as their different origins, subjects of
study, and limitations. Following definitions of natural and social sciences, these elements will
be contrasted in the following.
Natural Sciences:
1. Definition:
Ledoux defines natural sciences as „disciplines that deal only with natural events (i.e.
independent and dependent variables in nature) using scientific methods“. While the
employment of scientific methods is generally regarded as typical but not exclusive of natural
sciences, it is the focus on natural events that distinguishes natural from social science.
2. Origin:
According to Büchel (1992), the birth of natural science is marked by changing world views
introduced by Renaissance thinkers who questioned earlier explanations about the world and
turned to more systematic methods of investigation.
3. Subject of study:
The aim of the natural sciences is to discover the laws that rule the world.
The focus lies hereby on the natural and not on the social world, although the differentiation is
not always simple. There are historically three core areas of the natural sciences: chemistry,
biology and physics. Nevertheless this is not a final list of research areas, since many other
disciplines were later born out of these. As more knowledge is created, more specific questions
arise. This leads to the fact that early natural scientists were generalists
from today’s perspective, and later specialized in newly emerging disciplines such as astronomy
in the beginning, different engineering disciplines later, and rather recently (i.e. in the last
century) created fields such as robotics or bionics.
4. Methods:
Compared to the social sciences, the natural sciences rely more on mathematically based
methods. The reason for this is the more uniform nature of natural sciences and the countability
that enables the scientists to apply mathematics. While physics or chemistry rely to a large
extend on controlled experimental settings, such settings cannot be created so easily for most
investigations in economics or sociology.
5. Philosophical stances:
With thinkers including Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, fundamental criticism of natural science
approaches has emerged during the 20th century. Before Popper, the way in which knowledge
is created was not questioned by most scientists, most of whom adopted an inductive
epistemology, in which a finding is regarded as general truth when a sufficient number of
experiments have led to the same outcome. Criticizing this, Popper put forward that a theory
cannot be confirmed by induction, but only falsified by a simple observation. Later, Kuhun gave
a theory in which he described the paradigm shift. A paradigm consists of a set of fundamental
theoretical assumptions and a set of particular scientific problems that have been solved by
means of these theoretical assumptions. When a particular paradigm is insufficient to explain a
specific scientific problem the paradigm shift takes place. Therefore, a new paradigm explains
the scientific problems in a better way.
6. Limitations:
Among the most common limitations of natural science research are technical and financial
boundaries, both of which have been constantly pushed in history.
Technical boundaries are related to the inability to conduct precise measurements. These
boundaries have always been research foci themselves, and were pushed through the invention
of the telescope, the microscope, the Geiger counter and many other measurement
instruments.
Social Sciences:
1. Definition: The disciplines of social sciences are viewed as those that deal with “human
society, societal groups, individuals in their relationships with others or institutions of societies
and material goods as expression of human cohabitation”. This definition shows the
difficulty of grasping all aspects of social sciences as opposed to natural sciences, which have a
common perspective rather than a common subject of study. The distinction between social and
cultural sciences and humanities is controversial.
2. Origin:
The social sciences are much younger than the natural sciences. Even though the social
interactions in a society have probably been of interest for many centuries, scientific studies of
social interactions began as late as during the 19th century with sociological publications
including “Suicide” by Émile Durkheim and “Système de politique positive” by Auguste Comte,
the latter of which also set stone for a positivist approach to social sciences.
3. Subject of study:
In contrast to the natural sciences, the study objects of social sciences can take notice of the
forecast of scientists. Subject of study are the phenomena of social interaction and coexistence.
Social Sciences can rather be classified by their common perspective then through a specific
subject of study. This perspective consists of the understanding and studying of a social aspect
of society, a group of people or a single individual.
4. Methods:
One of the mainly used methods is the observation, as a social science counterpart of the
natural sciences experiment. It is much more difficult to carry out an experiment in social, than
in natural sciences. The reason therefore lies in the uncontrollability of social environments.
Because of that the measurability of the highly complex social processes is often difficult or
sometimes not possible at all. Nevertheless experiments are used in for example in the
behavioral economics and social psychology, even though not with the overwhelming success
of the natural sciences experiments. Other important methods in social sciences are: Interviews,
surveys, case studies.
5. Philosophical stances:
In contrast to the natural sciences, there was much more debate about the question of what is
acceptable knowledge among social scientists. Therefore, a number of epistemological stances
exist, which shall only be introduced very briefly here. Among the first popular stances in the
social sciences is the positivist position, which had been advocated by early social scientists like
Compte who argued that studies of social reality should apply the same methods as the natural
sciences. It was criticized by advocates of interpretivism, who argue that the social reality
cannot be measured in the same way as natural events. Rather, scientists have to aim at
grasping the subjective meaning of social actions. This thought is, e.g., reflected in Max
Weber’s notion of Verstehen.
6. Limitations:
Studies in social sciences are often limited by various factors including the need to base
findings on interpretations, the complexity of a field in which single variables cannot be
controlled for easily, as well as ethical issues and financial problems.
Since the subject of study are social actions which are often motivated by a myriad of factors
that may be unknown even to the actors, social scientists who want to make a meaning of their
observations will have to interpret their data in order to analyze it.

The social as well as the natural sciences increasingly depend on computer aided methods for
data analysis. Yet, in social research, scientific progress is less based on ever more precise
measurements, as more on better analyses and interpretations of data. This is because the
natural sciences usually employ quantitative methods for data collection, whereas in the social
sciences quantitative measurements are not necessarily the only standard by which data is
acquired. A growing debate about how data should be collected emerged among post-positivist
social science thinkers during the second half of the last century, leading to a shift to qualitative
approached among many researchers. Other than relying on countable facts, these approaches
span the whole spectrum from purely descriptive to strictly analytical ones, in which the
underlying questions are always also about the discovery of a subjective reality rather than only
observable facts.
Among the many branches of science, the natural and the social sciences stand out as two
branches with disciplines that have some similarities, but differ strongly, above all, in what they
aim to investigate. Commonalities include a number of methods such as experiments and
observations, where quantitative methods can be applied for analyses. However, being
concerned with the underlying meaning of social interactions, the social sciences rely not only
on what might be called exact, mathematical methods, but also on a number of qualitative
approaches such as interviews and ethnographies.
4.0 What is Society ? Explain with examples.

A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent
relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to
the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are
characterized by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a
distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such
relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often
evinces stratification and/or dominance patterns in subgroups.

Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not
otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can
thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.

A society can also consist of like-minded people governed by their own norms and values within
a dominant, larger society. This is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used
extensively within criminology.

More broadly, a society may be described as an economic, social, or industrial infrastructure,

made up of a varied collection of individuals. Members of a society may be from different ethnic
groups. A society can be a particular ethnic group, such as the Saxons; a nation state, such
as Bhutan; or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society. The word society may also
refer to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural,
scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. A "society" may even, though more by means of
metaphor, refer to a social organism such as an colony or any cooperative aggregate such as,
for example, in some formulations of artificial intelligence.

The term "society" came from the Latin word societas, which in turn was derived from the
noun socius ("comrade, friend, ally"; adjectival form socialis) used to describe a bond or
interaction among parties that are friendly, or at least civil. Without an article, the term can refer
to the entirety of humanity (also: "society in general", "society at large", etc.), although those
who are unfriendly or uncivil to the remainder of society in this sense may be deemed to be
"antisocial". Adam Smith wrote that a society "may subsist among different men, as among
different merchants, from a sense of its utility without any mutual love or affection, if only they
refrain from doing injury to each other."[1]
Used in the sense of an association, a society is a body of individuals outlined by the bounds of
functional interdependence, possibly comprising characteristics such as national or cultural
identity, social solidarity, language, or hierarchical organization.

Conceptions of society

In anthropology

Today, anthropologists and many social scientists vigorously oppose the notion of cultural
evolution and rigid "stages" such as these. In fact, much anthropological data has suggested
that complexity (civilization, population growth and density, specialization, etc.) does not always
take the form of hierarchical social organization or stratification.

Cultural relativism as a widespread approach or ethic has largely replaced notions of "primitive",
better/worse, or "progress" in relation to cultures (including their material culture/technology and
social organization).

According to anthropologist Maurice Godelier, one critical novelty in human society, in contrast
to humanity's closest biological relatives (chimpanzees and bonobo), is the parental role
assumed by the males, which supposedly would be absent in our nearest relatives for whom
paternity is not generally determinable

In political science

Societies may also be organized according to their political structure. In order of increasing size
and complexity, there are bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and state societies. These structures may
have varying degrees of political power, depending on the cultural, geographical,
and historical environments that these societies must contend with. Thus, a more isolated
society with the same level of technology and culture as other societies is more likely to survive
than one in closer proximity to others that may encroach on their resources. A society that is
unable to offer an effective response to other societies it competes with will usually be
subsumed into the culture of the competing society.

In sociology

Sociologist Gerhard Lenski differentiates societies based on their level of technology,

communication, and economy: (1) hunters and gatherers, (2) simple agricultural, (3) advanced
agricultural, (4) industrial, and (5) special (e.g. fishing societies or maritime societies).[4] This is
similar to the system earlier developed by anthropologists Morton H. Fried, a conflict theorist,
and Elman Service, an integration theorist, who have produced a system of classification for
societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of
the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Over time, some cultures have progressed toward more complex forms of organization and
control. This cultural evolution has a profound effect on patterns of community. Hunter-gatherer
tribes settled around seasonal food stocks to become agrarian villages. Villages grew to
become towns and cities. Cities turned into city-states and nation-states.[5]

Many societies distribute largess at the behest of some individual or some larger group of
people. This type of generosity can be seen in all known cultures; typically, prestige accrues to
the generous individual or group. Conversely, members of a society may also shun
or scapegoat members of the society who violate its norms. Mechanisms such as gift-
giving, joking relationships and scapegoating, which may be seen in various types of human
groupings, tend to be institutionalized within a society. Social evolution as a phenomenon
carries with it certain elements that could be detrimental to the population it serves.

Some societies bestow status on an individual or group of people when that individual or group
performs an admired or desired action. This type of recognition is bestowed in the form of a
name, title, manner of dress, or monetary reward. In many societies, adult male or female status
is subject to a ritual or process of this type. Altruistic action in the interests of the larger group is
seen in virtually all societies. The phenomena of community action, shunning, scapegoating,
generosity, shared risk, and reward are common to many forms of society.

Types of societies

Societies are social groups that differ according to subsistence strategies, the ways that
humans use technology to provide needs for them. Although humans have established many
types of societies throughout history, anthropologists tend to classify different societies
according to the degree to which different groups within a society have unequal access to
advantages such as resources, prestige, or power. Virtually all societies have developed some
degree of inequality among their people through the process of social stratification, the division
of members of a society into levels with unequal wealth, prestige, or power. Sociologists place
societies in three broad categories: pre-industrial, industrial, and postindustrial.

Pre-industrial societies

In a pre-industrial society, food production, which is carried out through the use of human and
animal labor, is the main economic activity. These societies can be subdivided according to their
level of technology and their method of producing food. These subdivisions are hunting and
gathering, pastoral, horticultural, agricultural, and feudal.

Hunting and gathering societies

The main form of food production in such societies is the daily collection of wild plants and the
hunting of wild animals. Hunter-gatherers move around constantly in search of food. As a result,
they do not build permanent villages or create a wide variety of artifacts, and usually only form
small groups such as bands and tribes. However, some hunting and gathering societies in areas
with abundant resources (such as the Tlingit) lived in larger groups and formed complex
hierarchical social structures such as chiefdoms. The need for mobility also limits the size of
these societies. They generally consist of fewer than 60 people and rarely exceed 100. Statuses
within the tribe are relatively equal, and decisions are reached through general agreement. The
ties that bind the tribe are more complex than those of the bands. Leadership is personal—
charismatic—and used for special purposes only in tribal society. There are no political offices
containing real power, and a chief is merely a person of influence, a sort of adviser; therefore,
tribal consolidations for collective action are not governmental. The family forms the main social
unit, with most societal members being related by birth or marriage. This type of organization
requires the family to carry out most social functions, including production and education

Pastoral societies

Pastoralism is a slightly more efficient form of subsistence. Rather than searching for food on a
daily basis, members of a pastoral society rely on domesticated herd animals to meet their food
needs. Pastoralists live a nomadic life, moving their herds from one pasture to another. Because
their food supply is far more reliable, pastoral societies can support larger populations. Since
there are food surpluses, fewer people are needed to produce food. As a result, the division of
labor (the specialization by individuals or groups in the performance of specific economic
activities) becomes more complex. For example, some people become craft workers,
producing tools, weapons, and jewelry. The production of goods encourages trade. This trade
helps to create inequality, as some families acquire more goods than others do. These families
often gain power through their increased wealth. The passing on of property from one
generation to another helps to centralize wealth and power. Over time emerge hereditary
chieftainships, the typical form of government in pastoral societies.
Horticultural societies

Fruits and vegetables grown in garden plots that have been cleared from the jungle or forest
provide the main source of food in a horticultural society. These societies have a level
of technology and complexity similar to pastoral societies. Some horticultural groups use the
slash-and-burn method to raise crops. The wild vegetation is cut and burned, and ashes are
used as fertilizers. Horticulturists use human labor and simple tools to cultivate the land for one
or more seasons. When the land becomes barren, horticulturists clear a new plot and leave the
old plot to revert to its natural state. They may return to the original land several years later and
begin the process again. By rotating their garden plots, horticulturists can stay in one area for a
fairly long period of time. This allows them to build semipermanent or permanent villages. The
size of a village's population depends on the amount of land available for farming; thus villages
can range from as few as 30 people to as many as 2000.

As with pastoral societies, surplus food leads to a more complex division of labor. Specialized
roles in horticultural societies include craftspeople, shamans (religious leaders), and traders.
This role specialization allows people to create a wide variety of artifacts. As in pastoral
societies, surplus food can lead to inequalities in wealth and power within horticultural political
systems is developed because of the settled nature of horticultural life.

Agrarian societies

Agrarian societies use agricultural technological advances to cultivate crops over a large area.
Sociologists use the phrase Agricultural Revolution to refer to the technological changes that
occurred as long as 8,500 years ago that led to cultivating crops and raising farm animals.
Increases in food supplies then led to larger populations than in earlier communities. This meant
a greater surplus, which resulted in towns that became centers of trade supporting various
rulers, educators, craftspeople, merchants, and religious leaders who did not have to worry
about locating nourishment.

Greater degrees of social stratification appeared in agrarian societies. For example, women
previously had higher social status because they shared labor more equally with men. In
hunting and gathering societies, women even gathered more food than men. However, as food
stores improved and women took on lesser roles in providing food for the family, they
increasingly became subordinate to men. As villages and towns expanded into neighboring
areas, conflicts with other communities inevitably occurred. Farmers provided warriors with food
in exchange for protection against invasion by enemies. A system of rulers with high social
status also appeared. This nobility organized warriors to protect the society from invasion. In
this way, the nobility managed to extract goods from “lesser” members of society.

References

 Effland, R. 1998. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations Mesa Community College.

 Jenkins, Richard (2002). Foundations of Sociology. London: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-333-96050-5.

 Lenski, Gerhard E. (1974). Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. New York:

McGraw-Hill, Inc. ISBN 0-07-037172-5.
5.0 What are the main characteristics of post modern society ?

Postmodernism isn’t a word that’s easily defined, and its origins aren’t easily traced. We find it
used to describe architecture, art, technology, and literature among other areas; either
originating from modernism or opposed to it. Most notable is postmodern thought, which
involves several key characteristics that are generally acknowledged by many of those who
subscribe to the philosophy. In this instance, postmodernism is anti-modern, as evidenced in the
following list.Post-modernist thinkers argue that the late-20th century society progressed into a
post-modern age which is characterised by:

 Changes in the nature of work (e.g. more flexible working practices)

 The globalisation of both production and consumption
 The shrinking of space and time because of developments in communication networks
like the internet, e-mail and satellite television
 The loss of faith in science as seen in the rise of environmental politics
 The emphasis on consumption of information
 The emphasis on style and conspicuous consumption
 Cultural diversity and pluralism in a range of social contexts e.g. the family, media, youth
culture, etc.

Characteristics of postmodernity have been identified in terms of work, culture, identity,

globalisation and knowledge.

Work

Much of the economic activity is dominated by tertiary production i.e. service based jobs.
Lincoln is becoming a microcosm which means that it’s broadly representative of the UK
economic trends. Retail has greatly expanded, hence the saying ‘shop till you drop’. We are all
consumers and shopping has become a form of ‘modern religion’. With the expansion of the
university in Lincoln, the pubs and clubs scene has widely expanded. Tourism is also hugely
important in Lincoln, especially heritage tourism and the historical side of the city. There is also
the Christmas market which attracts tourists through its traditional element.

Leisure activities such as gyms are expanding creating more jobs as is the expansion of fast
food outlets which are known for taking on students as staff for their first jobs. Garden centres
such as Whisby are becoming a lot bigger but are also selling a wider range of items from
flowers to books to clothes and food. There is also an increase in car showrooms with cars
becoming more popular and families having more than one car.

A job is no longer a job for life with more and more people being made redundant. Work
practices are also face more flexible. One of the key values of post modernism is the value of
choice. The traditional 9-5 job still exists but is not as common with people working from home
or working part time. Single parents are becoming more and more able to choose their hours to
fit in with school hours.

We are often described as a 24-7 society. With shift work continuing into the night and shops
such as ASDA and Tesco open 24 hours a day throughout the night meaning there are always
people working.

There is also an increase in childcare. With more and more single parents working there is a
need for more childcare which can begin at breakfast and continue after school and sometimes
into the evening.

Culture

We are becoming more commonly described as a ‘media saturated society’ meaning that the
media is becoming much more important in our lives and having much more control over
society. The increasing conventional media such as the TV, newspapers and the internet mean
that we can witness real events across the world, sometimes in real time. The world is
becoming much smaller because of the developments in ICT and technology.

There is a lot more on the TV telling society what not to wear and what not to eat which is
shaping society and making it more competitive. Along with reality TV and soaps which give
people ideas on what they should look like and act like. There is an increase in daytime
programmes showing people how to create a nice garden, makeover the house and looking at
the best kinds of properties which are giving people in society ideas on how they should live and
what their homes and gardens should look like.

Society these days is becoming much more culturally diverse meaning there are many people
from other countries or cultures moving into Britain.
 There are lots of programmes on TV now which show you how to change your image and
your partner’s image. Added to the amount of celebrities bringing out fitness DVDs there is an
increase in people trying to look as skinny as possible to look like the celebrities.

Lifestyle is also shaped by TV programmes and celebrities and is image. In the post-
modern world there is an increase in styles in society with music, fashion, gardens, cars and
houses meaning that no one is the same and there are many more choices you can make in
your life making everyone different. This means there is no one culture or style, everyone is
different.

Identity

Identity in society today is much more fluid with people being able to choose what they want to
be. Looks and personality can be changed, for example, Madonna constantly changes her
image and style of music to match the time’s crazes.

In Post-modern society we are constantly influenced by what we see both on TV and in

magazines, what we read and how others look e.g. everyone is trying to become as skinny as
the celebrities and copy their fashions. However, these days we celebrate difference. Although
everyone wants to be skinny and fashionable they don’t want to look the same. They all want to
be better than each other and it’s seen as good to be different in society and not to blend in with
the crowd.

There is also a lot more choice in society today, from clothes and music to hair styles, jewellery
and make-up. With so much to choose from everyone is different.

Old identities were derived from the family background, your occupation and where you live in
the area, whether you live in the poorer or richer areas. However, new identies focus on
designer labels, styles of car and the house you live in as well as the area with many people
competing to be the best. This means that image is a lot more important that it used to be.

Steve Taylor argues that ‘society has been transformed into a huge shopping mall’ full of
competition.
Globalisation

There has been a big rise in global brands such as McDonalds, also known as transnational
companies, which are companies that have branches in many parts of the world.

The world has become much smaller through improvements in transport and communication.
The world is commonly described as a global village which means that the world is a massive
place, however, due to the improvements made in transportation and communication, seems a
lot smaller.

Countries are now both politically and economically interconnected e.g. the UK and America.
Something that happens in one place will often affect somewhere else. The nation state i.e. the
UK, is increasingly affected by decisions and laws made outside the UK e.g. China is rapidly
growing in economic power and, therefore, will increasingly have more political power. The US
has a powerful impact on our political and economic climate in the UK, e.g. the credit crunch.

In a post-modern world, the manufacturing of a product is often outsourced (parts are

brought/item is made from outside the company to cut costs) where production costs are
cheaper.

Global branding has transformed what people see, eat, how they dress, music, fashion and film,
as well as world music, world cinema and food around the world. Different countries are
becoming more similar. This can lead to cultural homogeneity which is the idea that many
cultures feel under threat due to the possible destruction of the indigenous (traditional) culture.

Globalisation has led to a rise in nationalism i.e. where a country’s identity (often symbolised by
a flag) is put on display to unite people e.g. the British test for people wanting to live in the UK is
an attempt by the government to send out a message of cultural integration i.e. people must
have some knowledge of British cultures and traditions to be allowed to live in the country.
Nationalism has also led to the EU which means that lots of the powers the government had are
lost to the EU which has complete control.
Knowledge

The post-modern perspective involves the lack of faith in meta-narratives which are big stories
which explain how society works. Society has become a lot more chaotic i.e. it is a lot more
difficult to explain using sociological theories.

There is a growing cynicism about science which is opposite to positivism and modernity which
stress how science can answer many questions. E.g. conventional medicine can’t provide all the
answers. This means that science can’t either. This is leading to an increase in alternative
therapies such as herbal remedies. Another example is international terrorism. Science hasn’t
provided security and answers; it has made society even more fragile and destructive and given
additional problems due to the invention of bombs and nuclear weapons.

One final issue about knowledge is relativity. This means that there is no one theory which can
give you the absolute truth.

These changes mean that how we think and how we use knowledge have also changed.
Society has become disillusioned with ‘big ideas’ that claimed to have all the answers because
these in reality only created more problems. In a rapidly changing and fragmented world, no
theory can lay claim to the truth because of the sheer diversity of experience, institutions and
contexts that exist in the world today. Post-modern theories, on the other hand, point out that
there are competing theories, many of which will have something valid to offer about the nature
of post-modern society.

It is a lot more difficult to explain using sociological theories. There is a growing cynicism about
science which is opposite to positivism and modernity which stress how science can answer
many questions. E.g. conventional medicine can't provide all the answers. This means that
science can't either. This is leading to an increase in alternative therapies such as herbal
remedies. Another example is international terrorism. Science hasn't provided security and
answers; it has made society even more fragile and destructive and given additional problems
due to the invention of bombs and nuclear weapons. One final issue about knowledge is
relativity. This means that there is no one theory which can give you the absolute truth. These
changes mean that how we think and how we use knowledge have also changed. Society has
become disillusioned with 'big ideas' that claimed to have all the answers because these in
reality only created more problems. In a rapidly changing and fragmented world, no theory can
lay claim to the truth because of the sheer diversity of experience, institutions and contexts that
exist in the world today. Post-modern theories, on the other hand, point out that there are
competing theories, many of which will have something valid to offer about the nature of post-
modern society.

References

 "postmodernism: definition of postmodernism in Oxford dictionary (American English)

(US)". oxforddictionaries.com.

 Ruth Reichl, Cook's November 1989; American Heritage Dictionary's definition of

"postmodern" Archived 9 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
 Berman, Marshall (1982) All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity
(ISBN 0-14-010962-5).