2025 Cambridge IAS-Level Sociology (9699) Practice Paper with Answers

First way: Peer pressure and informal sanctions. Peer groups use positive sanctions, such as acceptance and praise, and negative sanctions, such as mockery, gossip, or exclusion, to teach individuals what behaviors are acceptable and to enforce conformity to group norms. Second way: Role modelling and identity formation. Individuals learn new social roles and expectations by observing and imitating their peers. This process helps them develop subcultural styles, language, and shared interests, allowing them to construct an identity independent of their parents.

For each of the two ways: 1 mark for identifying a valid way peer groups act as an agent of socialisation (e.g., through informal sanctions, role modelling, play, or gender subcultures). 1 mark for describing or explaining how this process socialises the individual (e.g., how it transmits norms, values, or behaviors). Up to 2 marks per way (2 x 2 marks = 4 marks total).

Two ways that peer groups can act as an agency of social control include:

1. **Use of informal negative sanctions:** Peer groups exert social control by punishing individuals who do not conform to group norms or subcultural expectations. These informal sanctions can range from minor reactions, such as teasing, gossip, and ridicule, to more severe forms of social exclusion (shunning) or physical bullying. For example, a teenager who does not wear the fashion brands accepted by their peer group may experience mockery or ostracisation. This fear of being excluded or ridiculed compels the individual to conform to group identity and behaviors, demonstrating how peer groups regulate individual actions.

2. **Application of positive reinforcement and status rewards:** Peer groups also control behavior through rewards and positive reinforcement. Members who align closely with the group's values, dress codes, or behaviors are rewarded with high social status, popularity, praise, and inclusion. This desire for acceptance and high status motivates individuals to actively adopt the group's norms and police their own behavior to fit in. For instance, in some youth subcultures, conforming to risk-taking behaviors can earn an individual 'street credibility' and respect within the group, thereby reinforcing the subcultural expectations and controlling the individual's choices.

For each of the two ways (maximum 4 marks per way):

- **1 mark**: Identifying a way that peer groups act as an agency of social control (e.g., through negative sanctions like exclusion, or positive reinforcement like status).
- **2 marks**: Explaining the way identified, showing how peer groups influence behavior.
- **3 marks**: Applying sociological concepts, theories, or examples to support the explanation (e.g., subcultures, informal sanctions, conformity, peer pressure).
- **4 marks**: Showing a fully developed explanation of how this process specifically functions as a form of social control (i.e., how it successfully regulates or shapes behavior to ensure conformity to norms).

First Way:
Peer groups contribute to secondary socialisation through the use of informal social control and sanctions. Unlike the formal rules of schools or the affective bonds of the family, peers use informal rewards (like popularity and praise) and punishments (like ridicule, gossip, or social exclusion) to demand conformity to group norms. For example, peer groups often police gender-appropriate behaviour, reinforcing wider societal gender roles by teasing those who do not conform.

Second Way:
Peer groups provide a critical transition stage from the primary socialisation of the family to the wider public sphere, allowing individuals to develop independent social identities. Within peer groups, youth learn to negotiate status, hierarchy, and cooperation without adult supervision. This teaches them subcultural values and prepares them for adult social interactions and relationships in the wider society.

For each of the two ways (up to a maximum of two):

- 1 mark: Identifies a valid way peer groups contribute to secondary socialisation (e.g., use of informal sanctions/peer pressure, learning independent status/negotiation, reinforcing gender/subcultural identities).
- 1 mark: Explains the way identified, showing how it relates to the process of secondary socialisation (learning norms and values outside the family).
- 1 mark: Applies relevant sociological concepts, theories, or empirical evidence (e.g., informal social control, subcultures, peer-group hierarchies, references to sociologists like Willis, McRobbie, or Adler and Adler).

(3 marks x 2 = 6 marks total)

Point 1: Peer groups use informal social control (such as peer pressure, ridicule, or acceptance) to enforce conformity to subcultural or societal norms. For example, peer groups often police gender-appropriate behaviour, reinforcing wider societal gender roles by teasing those who do not conform. Point 2: Peer groups provide an arena for experimenting with new social identities independent of parental authority. This allows young people to learn and negotiate roles related to status, cooperation, and conflict, which is crucial for adult social life.

For each of the two points: 1 mark for identifying a way, 1 mark for explaining it in relation to secondary socialisation, 1 mark for applying sociological concepts/evidence. (3 marks x 2 = 6 marks)

First Way: Peer groups act as an agency of social control through the application of informal negative sanctions. When an individual violates the shared norms, values, or style of the peer group, they often face negative reactions. These sanctions can range from subtle cues like teasing, name-calling, and gossip to more severe measures like active bullying or total social exclusion (ostracism). This exerts intense psychological pressure on individuals to conform to group expectations to avoid being left out or losing face. Sociological studies, such as Sue Lees' research on adolescent girls, highlight how peer groups use derogatory labelling (such as 'slags') to regulate girls' sexual behaviour and enforce traditional gender roles.

Second Way: Peer groups control behavior through informal positive sanctions and the promise of social status. Conforming to the subcultural expectations of a peer group is rewarded with acceptance, popularity, and high status within the group's hierarchy. This creates a strong incentive for individuals to align their actions, attitudes, and identities with group norms to acquire 'subcultural capital' (as discussed by Sarah Thornton). For example, Paul Willis's study of 'the lads' showed how working-class boys conformed to the anti-school culture of their peer group in order to gain status and avoid being labelled as conformist 'ear'oles' by their peers.

Up to 5 marks are available for each of the two ways explained (maximum 10 marks in total).

For each way:
- 1 mark: Identification of a valid way (e.g., informal negative sanctions / peer pressure, or informal positive sanctions / social rewards).
- 1–2 marks: Explanation of the way, showing how it functions as a mechanism of social control (e.g., explaining how fear of isolation or the desire to belong influences individual behaviour).
- 1–2 marks: Application of relevant sociological concepts, theories, or empirical studies (e.g., referencing Sue Lees, Paul Willis, Sarah Thornton, subcultural capital, ostracism, or reference groups).

Acceptable points include:
- Exclusion and ostracism as informal negative sanctions.
- Verbal policing (teasing, labelling, and name-calling).
- Awarding status, popularity, and inclusion as positive reinforcement.
- Gender role policing within peer groups.

Argument 1: Active agency and interpretation. Interpretivists argue that socialisation is an interactive process where individuals exercise agency. For instance, George Herbert Mead argued that the self consists of both the active, creative 'I' and the socialised 'Me'. This shows that individuals are not passive puppets; they actively reflect upon and interpret social expectations, meaning they can negotiate or reject roles rather than simply being conditioned.

Argument 2: Resistance and subcultures. Rather than passively accepting mainstream norms and values, individuals often form subcultures that actively resist dominant socialisation. For example, Paul Willis's study of working-class 'lads' demonstrated that they rejected the conformist values promoted by their school, choosing instead to create a counter-school subculture. This proves that socialisation is not a guaranteed, one-way system of passive conditioning.

For each of the two arguments, up to 3 marks are available (maximum 6 marks total):

- 1 mark: Identify an argument against the view (e.g., individuals have agency/choice, or people can resist dominant values).
- 2 marks: Explain the argument with some sociological detail, referencing concepts or theories (e.g., Mead's 'I' and 'Me', or Willis's counter-school culture).
- 3 marks: Provide a fully developed explanation showing clearly how the argument demonstrates that socialisation is not a process of passive conditioning.

### Indicative Content

**Arguments for the view (supporting agency and active choice):**
* **Postmodernism:** Theorists like Bauman and Lyotard argue that in late-capitalist society, the traditional structural anchors of identity (such as social class, gender roles, and community) have eroded. Individuals now experience a 'pick-and-mix' culture where identity is constructed through consumer choices, lifestyle, and global media.
* **Interactionism:** Sociologists such as Mead and Cooley argue that identity is not passively received but actively negotiated. Cooley's 'looking-glass self' and Mead's concept of the 'I' and the 'Me' show that identity develops through interpretation and social interaction. Goffman's dramaturgical approach suggests individuals perform roles and engage in impression management, indicating a high degree of agency in how they present themselves.
* **Late Modernity / Reflexivity:** Giddens argues that the self has become a 'reflexive project'. Individuals must actively construct and continuously revise their own biographical narratives in a rapidly changing world.

**Arguments against the view (supporting structural determination and socialisation):**
* **Functionalism:** Parsons and other functionalists argue that primary and secondary socialisation are highly effective in internalising the norms and values of society. Identities are shaped to ensure social integration and system maintenance.
* **Marxism:** Marxists argue that identity is fundamentally determined by one's relationship to the means of production (social class). Cultural choices and consumerism are seen as 'false class consciousness' shaped by capitalist ideology (Althusser's Ideological State Apparatuses) to maintain the status quo.
* **Feminism:** Feminists point out that gender identities are heavily constrained by patriarchy. Oakley highlights how gender socialisation occurs through mechanisms like canalisation, manipulation, and verbal appellations, reinforcing traditional gender roles and limiting individual choice.
* **Intersectionality:** Structural inequalities related to the intersection of class, race, and gender continue to restrict life chances and limit the range of identities available to individuals.

**Band 1 (1–6 marks):** Answers at this level will show a basic or common-sense understanding of identity. There will be little or no sociological reference, and the response may be highly descriptive or list-like.

**Band 2 (7–12 marks):** Answers show some sociological knowledge, perhaps describing different types of identity (e.g., gender, class) or mentioning socialisation. The response is likely to be one-sided or highly descriptive with very little evaluation.

**Band 3 (13–18 marks):** Answers show a good understanding of the debate between structuralism (determinism) and agency (choice). There will be some application of relevant theories (e.g., Marxism, Functionalism, Postmodernism, or Interactionism). The evaluation may be juxtapositional rather than fully integrated.

**Band 4 (19–24 marks):** Answers show excellent sociological knowledge and understanding of both sides of the debate. Concepts such as reflexivity, impression management, and structural determination are well applied. There is a sustained, explicit evaluation of the view that individuals can actively choose their identities.

**Band 5 (25–26 marks):** Answers show sophisticated, balanced sociological evaluation. The response is well-structured and demonstrates a clear understanding of the complexities of the agency vs. structure debate in relation to contemporary social identities.

According to Marxist sociologists, the family is an ideological state apparatus that helps maintain the capitalist system in two key ways: 1. Socialisation into Hierarchy: The family functions as a hierarchy where parents (usually the father) exercise authority over children. This teaches children that hierarchy is natural and inevitable, preparing them to accept the authority of employers in the workplace. 2. Providing an Illusion of a Haven: Eli Zaretsky argued that the family provides a psychological refuge or a 'haven' from the alienation and exploitation of the capitalist workplace. This ideological illusion helps workers tolerate their exploitation, preventing revolution and maintaining the stability of the capitalist economy.

For each of the two ways: 1 mark for identifying a way (up to a maximum of 2 marks). 1 mark for describing/explaining the way (up to a maximum of 2 marks). Points could include: Socialising children to accept hierarchy/authority; Offering a 'haven' or refuge (Zaretsky); Promoting consumption (false needs); Teaching conformist capitalist values. Accept any other valid Marxist explanation of an ideological function.

According to Marxist sociologists, the family is an ideological state apparatus that helps maintain the capitalist system in two key ways: 1. Socialisation into Hierarchy: The family functions as a hierarchy where parents (usually the father) exercise authority over children. This teaches children that hierarchy is natural and inevitable, preparing them to accept the authority of employers in the workplace. 2. Providing an Illusion of a Haven: Eli Zaretsky argued that the family provides a psychological refuge or a 'haven' from the alienation and exploitation of the capitalist workplace. This ideological illusion helps workers tolerate their exploitation, preventing revolution and maintaining the stability of the capitalist economy.

For each of the two ways: 1 mark for identifying a way (up to a maximum of 2 marks). 1 mark for describing/explaining the way (up to a maximum of 2 marks). Points could include: Socialising children to accept hierarchy/authority; Offering a 'haven' or refuge (Zaretsky); Promoting consumption (false needs); Teaching conformist capitalist values. Accept any other valid Marxist explanation of an ideological function.

Point 1: The rise of individualism / individualisation thesis.
In late modern societies, as argued by sociologists like Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, there has been a shift toward individualisation. Individuals are no longer bound by traditional social expectations to marry early and start a family. Instead, they focus on personal self-actualisation, higher education, and career development. This prioritisation of personal independence and freedom leads many individuals to choose to live alone, thereby increasing the number of single-person households.

Point 2: Increased rates of divorce and relationship dissolution.
Over the last several decades, legislative changes, secularisation, and the reduction of social stigma surrounding relationship breakdowns have led to a significant increase in divorce rates. When a marriage or cohabiting relationship ends, the household splits, frequently resulting in at least one partner (often the one without primary custody of children, or both in childless relationships) establishing a new, separate single-person household.

For each of the two points, up to 4 marks are available:

- 1 mark: Identifying a valid reason (e.g., individualisation/changing expectations, rising divorce rates, increased female financial independence, increased life expectancy leading to widowhood).
- 1 mark: Explaining the reason in detail.
- 1 mark: Applying relevant sociological concepts, theories, or studies (e.g., Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, Giddens, secularisation, demographic shifts).
- 1 mark: Explicitly linking the explanation back to why it results in a rise in single-person households.

Point 1: Differences in material resources and leisure activities (material deprivation vs wealth). Working-class children are more likely to experience poverty, lived in overcrowded housing, and have limited access to educational resources and paid extracurricular activities. This can result in a restricted experience of childhood. In contrast, middle-class parents are often able to engage in what Annette Lareau calls 'concerted cultivation', investing heavily in organized leisure activities, tutoring, and travel, which broadens the child's developmental opportunities. Point 2: Health, safety, and physical well-being. The physical experience of childhood varies significantly by class. Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds are statistically more likely to suffer from chronic health conditions (such as asthma) due to damp housing, live in areas with higher pollution, and have less access to safe outdoor spaces to play. Conversely, wealthier children typically experience childhood in safer, healthier environments with superior access to healthcare, nutritious food, and secure spaces, resulting in a more protected and physically secure upbringing.

For each of the two points, marks should be awarded as follows: 1 mark for identifying a relevant way in which social class influences the experience of childhood (e.g., material deprivation, parental enrichment/concerted cultivation, differences in health and physical environment). 1 mark for explaining how this way shapes or alters the experience of childhood (e.g., explaining how financial hardship limits play or how housing impacts daily life). 1 mark for applying relevant sociological concepts, theories, or empirical evidence (e.g., referencing Lareau, cultural/economic capital, or health inequalities). (Maximum 3 marks per point, up to 2 points for a total of 6 marks).

Marxist feminists combine Marxist class analysis with feminist critiques of patriarchy to explain the role of the family, arguing that it primarily benefits the capitalist economic system while simultaneously oppressing women. First, women perform unpaid domestic labor which is essential for the reproduction of labor power. Margaret Benston argues that the unpaid work of women keeps the male workforce running at no cost to the capitalist class. Second, the family acts as a emotional buffer or safety valve from the brutal realities of capitalist exploitation. Fran Ansley famously described women as takers of shit because they absorb the anger and frustration of their husbands, who are exploited at work, thereby preventing that anger from being directed at the capitalist system. Third, women act as a reserve army of labor who can be easily employed during times of economic expansion and returned to the home during recessions. Finally, the family socialises children to accept hierarchy and gender roles, preparing them to become compliant workers and submissive wives in a capitalist-patriarchal society.

Band 1 (1-3 marks): Answers show a basic understanding of feminism or Marxism, with simple or common-sense points about the family. Band 2 (4-6 marks): Answers show some sociological knowledge of Marxist-feminist views (such as domestic labor or oppression) but lack development, specific theorists, or precise concept application. Band 3 (7-10 marks): Answers show a detailed, well-developed explanation of the Marxist-feminist view of the family. Key ideas such as the reproduction of labor power, the safety valve function, and the reserve army of labor are clearly explained with appropriate sociological terminology and theoretical references (e.g. Ansley, Benston).

One major argument against the fit thesis is that the nuclear family was already the dominant family type before the Industrial Revolution, rather than being a product of it. Sociologist Peter Laslett, through the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure, analyzed parish records from pre-industrial England (from the 16th to 19th centuries) and found that approximately 75% to 80% of households were nuclear. This directly contradicts Talcott Parsons' claim that pre-industrial families were predominantly extended and that industrialisation triggered a structural shift to the nuclear form. Additionally, other historians and sociologists like Michael Anderson found that during early industrialisation (e.g., in Preston, 1851), the extended family actually became more important as a system of mutual aid, rather than immediately disintegrating. Therefore, the transition from extended to nuclear family forms did not neatly 'fit' the timeline of industrialisation as Parsons suggested.

1 to 3 marks: Answers show a basic or partial understanding of an argument against the fit thesis, such as stating that nuclear families existed before industrialisation, but lack detailed sociological evidence. 4 to 6 marks: Answers offer a clear, detailed, and well-developed explanation of one argument against the fit thesis, using precise sociological terminology and empirical evidence (e.g., Laslett's study of parish records or Anderson's Preston study). 4 marks: An argument is identified and explained with some relevant detail. 5 marks: The argument is well-explained with good sociological detail and evidence. 6 marks: The argument is fully and explicitly explained, showing excellent sociological understanding and application of evidence to directly challenge the fit thesis.

Arguments in support of the view (that family diversity is exaggerated / conventional forms remain dominant): 1. Robert Chester's concept of the 'neo-conventional family': Chester argues that although there is some increase in diversity, the basic dual-earner nuclear family remains the aspiration and statistical norm for most people during their life cycle. 2. Life-course analysis: Functionalists and other theorists suggest that apparent diversity is often just a temporary phase in an individual's life cycle; most people still spend the majority of their lives in a nuclear-style household. 3. New Right perspective: The New Right argues that the nuclear family is the natural and ideal structure, claiming that alternative structures are dysfunctional deviations rather than permanent, stable choices. 4. Retention of traditional roles: Despite changes, many reconstituted and cohabiting families mirror the traditional division of labor and expectations of the nuclear family. Arguments against the view (that family diversity is real, significant, and growing): 1. Rapoport and Rapoport's five types of family diversity: They identify organizational, cultural, social class, life-stage, and cohort diversity as fundamental shifts in contemporary family life, showing diversity is structural rather than superficial. 2. Postmodernist perspectives: Writers like Stacey, Beck, and Giddens argue that the 'negotiated family' and 'pure relationships' have replaced traditional structures, allowing individuals to choose family forms that suit their personal needs (e.g., divorce-extended families). 3. Feminist perspectives: Highlight how the breakdown of the patriarchal nuclear family has led to diverse, positive alternatives, such as female-headed households and lesbian/gay families, which are chosen to escape oppression. 4. Demographic trends: Persistent rises in cohabitation, lone-parent households, same-sex partnerships, reconstituted families, and single-person households provide quantitative evidence of permanent, non-exaggerated diversity.

AO1: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks). Level 3 (5-6 marks): Excellent knowledge of the debate surrounding family diversity, showing clear understanding of key concepts, theories, and empirical research. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Good knowledge of family diversity, though perhaps lacking depth or range of theoretical concepts. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic or superficial knowledge of family types. AO2: Interpretation and Application (4 marks). Level 3 (4 marks): Highly relevant application of sociological material directly to the question. Level 2 (2-3 marks): Good application, though some material may be tangential. Level 1 (1 mark): Minimal application. AO3: Analysis and Evaluation (16 marks). Level 4 (13-16 marks): Sophisticated, balanced evaluation of the view that family diversity is exaggerated, weighing the dominance of the nuclear family/neo-conventional family against postmodern arguments of choice and diversity. Level 3 (9-12 marks): Good evaluation, but may be one-sided or lack theoretical depth. Level 2 (5-8 marks): Some analytical points made, but lacks structured evaluation. Level 1 (1-4 marks): Descriptive response with little or no explicit evaluation.