Which level of research focuses on larger social entities, such as the nation?

Disassembling Ideology: from Macro- to Microsociology

If the sociological analysis of ideologies was initially developed on a macrosociological level (Apter, 1964; Geertz, 1964), it is becoming increasingly microsociological. This is explained by the fact that sociologists have tended progressively to abandon the idea of ideology as a homogeneous and unified belief system. When Aron (1964) analyses the contemporary political modes, he characterizes ideology as an explicit system of beliefs developed around a core of descriptive and prescriptive proposals. The dominant features of this system are unity, coherence, and totalizing character – the capacity to potentially bring a response to any interrogation. Whatever its heuristic value, this representation of ideology as a ‘monolithic’ unified block rarely fits with empirical data. Ideological beliefs contain generally irreducible tensions and contradictions. This conclusion is drawn from several perspectives. First, from observation of ideological production itself. Sociologists insist on the ‘compromises’ and the ‘adjustments’ necessary to hold in a same unit theoretical logic and the principle of action (Seliger, 1976). They describe the production of ideology as a ‘tinkering’ process during which the ideologist tries to satisfy the demand of meaning of his public without ever being able to exert a true control on his resources (Bourricaud, 1980). Second, it is drawn from observation of the organization of ideological components. As recently emphasized by Achterberg and Houtman (2009), sociologists cannot presuppose the coherence of ideological belief systems: “knowing someone's values on economic matters does not lead to a correct prediction of what one will think about cultural matters. There is no or very little coherence between the two value dimensions” (p. 1650). Beside this multidimensionality, the degree of coherence of ideology is not socially uniform. Research demonstrates that ideological components are more consistently ordered within the cultural, intellectual, and political elite than in other social groups. Finally, it is drawn from observation of the evolution of ideologies. Modern ideologies are different from the ones observed a century ago. For Boudon (1999), modern ideologies evoke the image of archipelago, while the old ideologies evoked rather the idea of a continent. “We have ideologies, writes Boudon, as to what should be done about unemployment, educational opportunities, fighting against crime or drug addiction and on a myriad of subjects, as well as how it should be done. But these theories are weakly related to one another. We have ceased to believe that they could be derived from an all-encompassing theory. We have all kinds of local ideologies; we no longer believe in general ideologies.”

These local ideologies are sometimes defined in terms of professional belief systems. In his study on ‘boundary work’ in science, Gieryn (1983) observes that when scientists confront the public, they endow science with characteristics selected for an ability to advance ‘professional interests.’ They use available ‘cultural repertoires’ to produce profitable ‘ideological self-descriptions.’ Hence the risk for the sociologist to be too naive about these distorted self-descriptions. More recently, following the Straussian definition of professional arenas as ‘political space for debate,’ Coulangeon et al. (2012) consider as crucial not to limit the analysis of professional ideologies to political or trade union arbitrations or publicized moments of collective action. Using a questionnaire survey of French police officers of all ranks, they identified the ‘ideological dissensions’ within the French police on how police work should be carried out. Three general ideological positions are discussed – repressive, median, preventive – and the observed dominance of the first (repressive) substantiates, according to the authors, “an ideological closeness between profession and the (political) right” (p. 375).

The crucial claim of social constructivism is that a sociological analysis of science and scientific knowledge is fruitful and reveals the social nature of science. The development of scientific knowledge is seen to be determined by social forces, essentially contingent and independent of rational methods, and analyzable in terms of causal processes of belief formation. There are three main social constructivist approaches. The Edinburgh school of the sociology of science maintains that it is not only the development but also the content of scientific theories that is determined by social factors. The leading idea of the actor-network theory is that scientific knowledge is an effect of established relations between objects, animals, and humans engaged in scientific practices. Social constructivism about the social is an intentionalist program of social ontology trying to clarify how social entities like social groups and institutions are constructed. The article discusses the historical background of social constructivism and the three approaches mentioned above in some detail.

Axiological Rationality

Therefore, it seems possible to introduce, in sociological analysis, a third point of view that maintains the principle of rationality, without restricting it to the pursuit of interests or to the limited choice of means toward ends. This principle of rationality should allow the actor to discriminate between interests that deserve to be followed and those that should be avoided.

How should we define this axiological rationality (Boudon, 1997)? The main point is that it would show the reasons actors have to act in a specific way, the reasons being not necessarily their interest. Boudon, for instance, shows the importance, in the voter's attitudes, of normative aspects that should not be reduced to the actor's narrow scope of interest. Those normative aspects are not arbitrary as they can be related to a system of beliefs that seems acceptable to actors regarding their general aims. Voters know that, in a large-scale election, their individual votes have no influence on the result. But they know also that other voters are aware of the same fact. If they all abstain from voting, they will lose the benefit of the democratic system. Committed to that system, they understand the importance of voting, even if it is costly in the short run and seemingly inefficient.

Such a theoretical interpretation of the actor's behavior should thus expand the concept of rationality and depart from a narrow positivistic attitude where the ends (including interests) can never be interpreted in their own rationality.

4 Functional Prerequisites and Social Stratification: Aberle et al., Davis and Moore

In the 1940s and 1950s, functionalism achieved the dominant paradigm of sociological analysis under the name of ‘structural functionalism.’ The investigative strategy of structural functionalism was the discovery of the functions which have to be fulfilled in order to secure the survival of society and the discovery of the corresponding structures serving these functions (Aberle et al. 1950/1967). Another representative contribution to structural functionalism is the functional theory of social stratification outlined by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) in their much debated article ‘Some Principles of Social Stratification’ published in the American Sociological Review in 1945. Davis and Moore argue that every society needs a system of social stratification for the following reasons. (a) The members of the society share common views on the importance of a certain position needed for the provision of public and private goods and services. (b) To perform the corresponding roles, more or less talent, training and/or effort is required. (c) Thus, positions can be more or less important, the personnel needed for filling the positions more or less scarce. In order to fill the positions there must be a differentiation of rewards in terms of money or prestige according to the importance of the position and the scarcity of the personnel available. The greater the importance and scarcity, the greater the reward. The result is that positions are always stratified. The representative criticism of this functional theory of stratification was formulated by Melvin M. Tumin (1953) in an article published in the American Sociological Review eight years later, in 1953. It is couched in terms of conflict theory: the class structure is based on the power of the dominant class, which defines the importance of positions; its major effect is the differentiation of access to the higher positions according to socialization advantages and training of the offspring originating from the dominant class. Rather than contributing to the working and integration of society, the stratification system has disruptive effects so that society is not stabilized by value consensus and stratification, but by the application of power.

The Institutional Analysis of Sport: The Functionalist Turn

Theorists such as Durkheim, Parsons, and Merton influenced much of the initial sociological analysis of sport. In adopting this structural functionalist perspective, this work broadly accepted the premise that the social world could be understood as a system of integrated and interconnected working parts. This work was primarily empirical and focused on establishing ‘social facts’ and was primarily adopted by American sociologists (Loy et al., 1978). Their goal was to establish if there was empirical proof for popular assumptions regarding sport's capacity to ‘function’ positively as a social institution and contribute to the Parsonian mandate to achieve necessary functional prerequisites. More specifically their interest was on how sport could integrate members of the society, provide an arena of positive goal setting and attainment of positive and character-building attributes, make a contribution to the health and well-being of the nation, create community, and foster national identity.

The results were by and large inconclusive (Fine, 1987). By the late 1970s, concerns regarding processes of socialization started to take a more critical turn as the linkages between participation in sport, class and gender inequality, racism, and other socially problematic behaviors (cheating, violence, sexual abuse, etc.) became matters of concern. Contemporary empirical research continues to provide insights into a number of issues: the changing institutional structure of globalized sport (Maguire, 1999); the increasing rapidity and impact of technological change on the world of elite sport performance; the use and regulation of performance enhancing drug use and nontherapeutic surgical body enhancements; and the contradictory representations of the ‘natural embodied athlete’ (Cole, 2002). The ongoing penetration of computer-mediated technologies to all aspects of modern (or indeed postmodern) life has created a growing interest in the study of how social media is transforming sport (Wilson, 2007); the impact of new forms of control, surveillance, and conformity; the power of networked sport (Sugden, 2002; Castells, 2009).

Functional Prerequisites and Social Stratification: Aberle et al. and Davis and Moore

In the 1940s and 1950s, functionalism achieved to the position of the dominant paradigm of sociological analysis under the name of “structural functionalism”. The investigative strategy of structural functionalism was the discovery of the functions, which have to be fulfilled in order to secure the survival of society and the discovery of the corresponding structures serving these functions (Aberle et al., 1950/1967). Another representative contribution to structural functionalism is the functional theory of social stratification outlined by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) in their much debated article ‘Some Principles of Social Stratification’ published in the American Sociological Review. Davis and Moore argue that every society needs a system of social stratification for the following reasons: (1) The members of the society share common views on the importance of a certain position needed for the provision of public and private goods and services. (2) To perform the corresponding roles, more or less talent, training and/or effort is required. (3) Thus, positions can be more or less important, the personnel needed for filling the positions more or less scarce. The greater the importance and scarcity, the greater the reward. The result is that positions are always stratified. The representative criticism of this functional theory of stratification was formulated by Melvin M. Tumin (1953) in an article published in the American Sociological Review 8 years later. It is couched in terms of conflict theory: The class structure is based on the power of the dominant class, which defines the importance of positions; its major effect is the differentiation of access to the higher positions according to socialization advantages and training of the offspring originating from the dominant class. Rather than contributing to the working and integration of society, the stratification system has disruptive effects so that society is not stabilized by value consensus and stratification, but by the application of power.

From Israelite Religion to Rabbinical Judaism

Max Weber’s Ancient Judaism (1917–19/1952) was the first comprehensive sociological analysis of religious changes in Ancient Israel. Weber recognized both division and continuity between the ‘Israelite religion’ of the period prior to the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and the ‘Judaism’ that emerged from the period of the Babylonian Exile, the return of some of the exiles after 538 BCE, and the period of the Second Temple (516 BCE–CE 70). A genuine monotheism emerged only in the later period, but Weber traced its origins to a period when the Israelites constituted a confederacy of seminomadic stock breeders and warriors. The tribes and kin groups that made up the confederacy had, at first, their own separate gods, but as the confederacy became more powerful it became increasingly focused on one god. Weber emphasized the importance of the Covenant in this process as it both signified and promoted the uniqueness of the relation of Israel to its God. It was constituted of mutual promises: the people of Israel promised to obey God’s law, and in return, Yahweh, who had already liberated them from slavery in Egypt, would grant them domination over the Promised Land and protect them from their enemies.

The gradual crystallization of the monotheistic idea continued during the period of centralized monarchy from the eleventh century and was advanced considerably by the new type of prophecy that emerged by the end of the sixth century BCE. Weber argued that the appeal of the prophets can be understood, in part, against the background of the development of the monarchy into despotic states, the demilitarization of the peasants, and mounting external threats to the Israelite kingdoms. The tradition preserved those prophecies that appeared to have come true, and it was during the Babylonian captivity, when the predictions of doom were seen to have come to pass, that the prestige of prophetic religion reached its height. A broad urban stratum whose lifestyle was not conducive to magic was responsive to ethical prophecy and became the carrier of religious, ethical action. Weber argued that changes in Ancient Judaism represented a significant development in ethical rationalization, but the influence of postexilic Judaism on Western society was limited because it remained a religiosity of law, centered on concrete, discrete norms rather than on abstract principles.

Weber’s work influenced biblical scholars, but although a number of sociologists have attempted to systematize Weber’s somewhat fragmented analysis, particularly with respect to the development of monotheism and rationalization, very few sociologists have attempted to expand upon Weber’s analysis on the basis of subsequent findings of biblical scholars and archaeologists. Controversy remains among biblical scholars with respect to the development of monotheism. Some argue that there was little continuity between the preexilic and postexilic periods, claiming that monotheism emerged totally in the exilic (Babylonian) and postexilic eras, and they minimize or discount any significant preexilic contributions to its emergence. In these accounts, there was little to distinguish preexilic Israelite religion from so-called Canaanite polytheistic religions, and it was the religious elites of Yahwism in exile and in the postexilic period who fictionalized what became the biblical narratives for the preexilic era. Other scholars attribute greater importance to preexilic developments, such as the early shift, possibly from the late tenth century, to Yahwistic ‘monolatry’ (exclusive worship of a god enforced by prohibitions of allegiance to other gods without denying their existence), but they are also inclined to recognize the Babylonian exile as having an overwhelming impact that ensured the permanency of mono-Yahwism.

The assumption that early Israelite society was a seminomadic, tightly knit tribal league has been challenged by scholars who have proposed that it was primarily an agrarian society, composed mostly of peasants indigenous to Canaan who worshiped a number of deities in addition to Yahweh. The centralization of sacrificial worship in Jerusalem was a slow process before it gained ritual hegemony in the seventh century. The Covenant is now seen by many as established no earlier than the first half of the seventh century BCE, and one view is that it was originally conceived as between Yahweh and the king and later reformulated as between Yahweh and the people. In place of the idea that the roots of monotheism emerged in nomadic or seminomadic societies, scholars have emphasized the royal shrines at Jerusalem and the urban centers of Mesopotamia during the Babylonian exile as the major sites of the emergence of monotheism. There is little doubt that in all of these periods, different strata and groups of the peoples of Israel and Judea practiced a variety of religions (family, local, royal, or elite), and that a uniform orthodoxy was not achieved (Gnuse, 1997; Gottwald, 2002).

In the most general terms, the transformation of Israelite religion into Judaism can be described as a change from a religion that had come to be focused on sacrifices and other ceremonies performed by the priests in the Temple in Jerusalem to a religion that emphasized the reading and teaching of the Torah, forms of prayer worship in the synagogue, and the implementation of the religious laws by all Jews. Elements that had been part of Temple worship, particularly with respect to food, were accommodated into domestic life, both on a daily basis and on festivals such as Passover. Some of the seeds of this transformation can be traced to the period of the Second Temple, particularly among the Pharisees, who represented one of a variety of ‘Judaisms’ alongside the Sadducees, Essenes, Christians, Samaritans, and other groups in the first century CE.

The changes in the religion and the identity of the people associated with the religion have prompted a debate among scholars of antiquity over the issue of when it becomes appropriate to use the terms ‘Jew’ (Yehudi in Hebrew) and ‘Judaism’ (Yahadut in Hebrew). At first, Yehudi referred specifically to the tribe of Judah (Yehuda), as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel, but the name came to designate anyone resident in or originating from the kingdom of Judah. S.J.D. Cohen (1999) argues that a semantic shift from ‘Judean’ to ‘Jew’ is justified from the latter part of the second century BCE, when the Greek term for Yehudim, Ioudaioi (singular, Ioudaios), came to be applied to people who were not necessarily geographic or ethnic Judeans but had come to believe in the God of the Judeans. A non-Judean could become a Ioudaios by joining the Judeans in worshiping and venerating the God whose temple was in Jerusalem. Critics of Cohen have argued that the semantic change is justified only at a later date. As a translation of the Greek Ioudaismos, ‘Judaism’ in antiquity has been understood to denote the religion and/or culture of Judeans or Jews, but there are very few uses of the term in Second Temple sources. ‘Judaism’ came to be commonly used in gentile Christian literature, but among Jews its use remained rare until modern times.

The destruction of the Temple in CE 70 and the crushing of the revolt in CE 132–135 proved to be decisive events in the transformation of the religion; the institutional base of the priesthood was gone, and Torah scholars emerged as the dominant religious elite. It was the sages of the religious academies of Palestine and Babylonia who produced, over the first six centuries of the Common Era, a huge corpus of religious literature that came to be known as the Talmud. Oral traditions were eventually edited around the year CE 200 into a large corpus known as the Mishna, and the subsequent voluminous commentaries on this literature came to be known as the Gemara. The Palestinian Gemara was completed in about CE 450, but it was the Babylonian Talmud (the Mishna plus the Babylonian Gemara), completed in about CE 600, that came to be accepted by most Jewish communities as authoritative (Cohen, 1987).

The term ‘rabbi,’ meaning ‘my master,’ came to be used to designate those scholars who created Talmudic Judaism, which became the dominant form of Judaism from around the turn of the first millennium until the nineteenth century. It took some time for the rabbis to be accepted as religious leaders, and during most of the period of the production of the Talmud, from the second to the seventh centuries CE, the rabbis had little impact on the vast majority of Jews. The rabbis appear to have recruited disciples who were literate, relatively prosperous Jewish males, but little is known of the social processes by which rabbinical Judaism came to be accepted among the communities of the expanding diaspora (Lapin, 2010). One social process that took place among the Jews during those centuries when Rabbinic Judaism was taking hold was their occupational transition from agriculture to urban occupations. It has been proposed that the transformation of Judaism into a religion centered on reading and learning provided the Jews with a competitive advantage in the new urban centers of the Muslim empire, especially during the Abbasid rule from the mid-eighth to the early ninth centuries, and later in the towns of Europe. The shrinkage of the Jewish population, far greater than that of the general population, from the first century until the early eighth century is explained by voluntary conversion, mainly to Christianity, of Jewish illiterate farmers who did not adopt Rabbinic Judaism (Botticini and Eckstein, 2005).

Critical comments

An evaluation of the Marxist contribution to the debate about prostitution will largely depend on the assessment of the accuracy of the sociological analysis of capitalism and of the appeal and relevance of the Marxist ideal of a truly human society. Such major questions cannot be properly discussed in this article; two brief remarks must suffice.

The claim that women in capitalism take up prostitution out of sheer economic necessity is too simplistic. Research shows that in some cases prostitution is indeed the only way out of circumstances of extreme need (and, today, very often the need for money generated by drug addiction in particular). However, it is also often chosen as the line of work that enables women to earn much more money than any other available option or because of the relative independence and flexibility it allows compared to other types of work.

On the other hand, the ideal society in which there is no need and no occasion for the use of sex as a means to an ulterior purpose and in which, accordingly, people engage in sex solely out of mutual attraction has no prospect of ever coming true in our world. This ideal involves a sort of sexual pre-established harmony in which every desire meets with a complementary desire, and no persons too unattractive to be sexually desired by others exist.

Which specific form level of social analysis would study large groups and societies?

What is a level of analysis that involves the study of large

What does meso level mean?

What is macro meso and micro