2025 Cambridge IAS-Level Sociology (9699) 模擬試題連答案詳解

Peer groups are powerful agents of informal social control and socialisation. They enforce social conformity in two main ways:

1. **Informal Negative Sanctions:** If an individual deviates from the accepted norms of the group, peers may apply informal punishments such as teasing, mocking, gossiping, or social exclusion. The fear of being left out or ridiculed pressures the individual to conform to group expectations (e.g., dressing a certain way or adopting specific attitudes).

2. **Informal Positive Sanctions:** Peer groups reward individuals who conform to their subcultural norms with high status, popularity, inclusion, and praise. This positive reinforcement encourages the individual to continue aligning their behavior with the group's expectations to maintain their social standing.

Two marks are available for each of the two ways described (2 x 2 marks).

**For each way:**
* **1 mark** for identifying a valid way peer groups enforce conformity (e.g., through informal negative sanctions/exclusion, or through peer pressure/positive reinforcement).
* **1 mark** for describing/explaining how this process works to enforce conformity (e.g., explaining that the fear of being mocked pressures the individual to adopt the group's style or behavior).

Way 1: Policing of gender boundaries and peer pressure.
Peer groups socialise individuals into gender roles by enforcing conformity through informal social control. Members use verbal sanctions, ridicule, or exclusion to police those who deviate from traditional gender expectations. For example, boys who do not display traditional masculine traits may be labelled as 'sissies', while girls may face derogatory labels if they do not conform to traditional standards of femininity. Sociologists like Sue Lees highlighted how peer groups use double standards and verbal abuse (such as 'slag' and 'drag') to regulate girls' sexual behaviour and reinforce traditional gender dynamics.

Way 2: Gender-segregated play and leisure activities.
Peer groups often self-segregate by gender, leading to distinct subcultural activities that cultivate specific gendered identities. For instance, male peer groups frequently engage in competitive, outdoor sports that foster dominance, physical strength, and risk-taking, reinforcing traditional concepts of masculinity. In contrast, female peer groups in early adolescence often engage in 'bedroom culture' (as identified by McRobbie and Garber), focusing on close-knit friendships, romance, and discussions about fashion, which socialises them into traditional feminine identities centered on domestic and relational spheres.

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

- 1 mark: For identifying a relevant way in which peer groups contribute to gender socialisation (e.g., peer pressure/policing, gendered play/bedroom culture).
- 1 mark: For describing or explaining how this process works.
- 1 mark: For applying relevant sociological concepts, theories, or studies (e.g., informal social control, Sue Lees, McRobbie and Garber, bedroom culture).
- 1 mark: For explicit analysis showing how this leads to the construction or reinforcement of gender identities.

First Way: Peer groups use informal negative sanctions to control behaviour. When an individual violates group norms, they may face peer pressure, teasing, mockery, or social exclusion (shunning). For example, Sue Lees found that girls use verbal labels like 'slag' to police and control each other's sexual behaviour and appearance, ensuring conformity to traditional gender expectations. Second Way: Peer groups use informal positive sanctions to reward conformist behaviour. Individuals who align with the group's values are rewarded with popularity, inclusion, and high status within the group's hierarchy. For example, in Paul Willis's study of 'the lads', boys who conformed to the counter-school subculture gained high status among their peers by rebelling against school authority, reinforcing their group identity and controlling individual actions through the desire for social acceptance.

For each of the two ways: 1 mark for identifying a way peer groups act as an agent of social control (e.g., informal negative sanctions, informal positive sanctions). 1 mark for explaining how this mechanism enforces conformity or controls behaviour. 1 mark for applying a relevant sociological concept, theory, or empirical example (e.g., Willis, Lees, peer pressure, subcultures). (Maximum of 3 marks per way, up to a total of 6 marks).

First way: Verbal policing and peer pressure. Peer groups act as a powerful agency of informal social control, using negative and positive sanctions to ensure conformity to gender roles. For example, Sue Lees (1986) demonstrated how double standards of morality are maintained through verbal policing, where girls who do not conform to traditional feminine expectations are labelled with derogatory terms like 'slag'. Similarly, Mac an Ghaill (1994) identified how peer groups like the 'macho lads' police boys' behavior, mocking those who show vulnerability or academic interest, thereby reinforcing dominant forms of masculinity. Second way: Gender-segregated play and borderwork. From an early age, peer groups tend to self-segregate by gender, which leads to the development of distinct gendered subcultures. Barrie Thorne (1993) studied playground interactions and described how children engage in 'borderwork'—activities that emphasize and maintain boundaries between boys and girls (such as chasing games or gender-based contests). This segregates children into distinct peer groups where boys learn competitive, dominant behaviors through team play, while girls learn cooperative, relational behaviors in smaller groups, reinforcing traditional gender identities.

For each of the two ways explained: Up to 5 marks are available. 1 mark: Identifies a valid way peer groups contribute to gender socialisation (e.g., verbal policing/peer pressure, or gender-segregated play). 2 marks: Explains how this process contributes to gender socialisation (e.g., explaining how informal sanctions or group dynamics lead individuals to internalise gender roles). 2 marks: Applies relevant sociological evidence, concepts, or theories (such as Sue Lees, Mac an Ghaill, Barrie Thorne, 'borderwork', 'macho lads', or 'double standards'). Max 5 marks per way. Total of 10 marks.

The first limitation is that official statistics may lack validity. Interpretivists argue that statistics are social constructions rather than objective social facts. For example, official crime statistics only reflect crimes that are reported to and recorded by the police, leaving a 'dark figure' of crime that remains hidden. This means the data may not accurately represent the true scale of the phenomenon. The second limitation is that official statistics lack depth and qualitative meaning. Because they are quantitative, they show broad trends and correlations but do not explain the subjective reasons, motivations, or meanings that individuals attach to their actions. For example, statistics on divorce rates can show that marriages are ending but cannot explain the emotional experiences or personal reasons why individuals choose to divorce.

For each of the two limitations: 1 mark for identifying a valid limitation (e.g., lack of validity, social construction, lack of qualitative depth, political bias). 1 mark for explaining how/why this is a limitation in sociological research (e.g., showing how it affects the accuracy or usefulness of the data). 1 mark for supporting the explanation with relevant sociological concepts, theories (such as interpretivism), or examples (such as the dark figure of crime or suicide statistics). Total: 3 marks x 2 = 6 marks.

### Introduction
- **Define key terms:** 'Structural forces' refer to the institutions and social structures (e.g., family, education, media, social class, gender) that shape and constrain individual behavior. 'Identity' refers to how individuals define themselves and are defined by others.
- **Set up the debate:** Structuralist theories (such as Functionalism, Marxism, and Feminism) argue that identities are imposed on individuals through socialisation to maintain social order, capitalism, or patriarchy. In contrast, action theories (Interactionism) and Postmodernism argue that individuals have agency, allowing them to actively negotiate, resist, and construct their own fluid identities.

### Arguments Supporting the View (Structuralist Perspectives)
- **Functionalism:** Theorists like Durkheim and Parsons argue that institutions (such as the family and education) perform the crucial function of secondary socialisation, internalising shared values and norms. This creates a value consensus where individuals adopt socially prescribed roles (e.g., gender roles within the family), making identity a product of social systems.
- **Marxism:** Marxists argue that identity is determined by an individual's relationship to the means of production (social class). Althusser's concept of 'Ideological State Apparatuses' (ISAs) demonstrates how institutions like the media and education system instil capitalist ideology, creating a 'false class consciousness' and shaping working-class identities to accept subordination.
- **Feminism:** Feminist sociologists argue that gender identity is structurally constructed by patriarchy. From childhood, canalisation and verbal appellations (Oakley) condition individuals into traditional gender roles, perpetuating male dominance and female subordination.

### Arguments Against the View (Agency, Interactionism, and Postmodernism)
- **Interactionism/Social Action Theory:** Critics argue that structuralism views individuals as 'cultural dopes' (Garfinkel). Mead and Blumer suggest that identity is not pre-determined but is constructed through social interaction. Cooley’s 'looking-glass self' suggests that while we are influenced by others' perceptions, we actively interpret and modify our behavior accordingly.
- **Goffman's Dramaturgical Model:** Goffman argues that individuals are active actors who perform roles and engage in 'impression management' to control how others perceive them. Identity is a performance rather than a structural imposition.
- **Postmodernism:** Postmodernists like Lyotard, Baudrillard, and Bauman argue that in a globalised, late-capitalist world, traditional structural boundaries (class, gender, age) have eroded. Society is now consumer-led, and individuals choose and construct their 'supermarket of identities' through lifestyle, fashion, and leisure choices. Identities have become fluid, hybrid, and fragmented.

### Conclusion
- A balanced conclusion should synthesise both sides. While structural forces continue to place material and cultural constraints on individuals (e.g., poverty limits the consumer choices key to postmodern identity), individuals are not passive products of structure. Anthony Giddens' theory of 'structuration' offers a useful compromise, suggesting that structures make social action possible, but those structures are also constantly recreated and modified by active individuals.

### Mark Scheme (26 Marks Total)

#### Knowledge and Understanding (8 marks)
- **7-8 marks:** The candidate demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of the debate between structuralist theories (Functionalism, Marxism, Feminism) and action/postmodernist theories regarding identity. Key sociological concepts (e.g., agency, structuralism, socialisation, impression management, fragmentation) are used accurately and confidently.
- **5-6 marks:** The candidate shows good knowledge of the debate, though it may focus more heavily on one side (e.g., structuralism) with some reference to the alternative perspective.
- **3-4 marks:** The candidate shows basic knowledge of socialisation or identity with limited theoretical depth.
- **1-2 marks:** Minimal understanding, perhaps only defining identity or mentioning a simple agency/structure concept.

#### Application (8 marks)
- **7-8 marks:** Relevant sociological evidence, studies, and theoretical perspectives (e.g., Parsons, Oakley, Althusser, Goffman, Bauman) are applied accurately to address the specific question.
- **5-6 marks:** Good application of sociological material, though some connections to the debate on structural determinism may be implicit.
- **3-4 marks:** Limited application of sociological material; ideas are presented but not clearly applied to the question of whether identity is structurally determined.
- **1-2 marks:** Very weak application of relevant material.

#### Analysis and Evaluation (10 marks)
- **9-10 marks:** Sustained, explicit, and highly analytical evaluation of the claim. The candidate effectively weighs structural constraints against individual agency and postmodern choice, culminating in a balanced, nuanced conclusion.
- **6-8 marks:** Good analysis and evaluation. There is a clear attempt to contrast different theories (e.g., structuralism vs. interactionism/postmodernism), though the evaluation may be somewhat juxtaposed rather than fully integrated.
- **3-5 marks:** Some analytical comments are made, but the essay relies mostly on description and lacks a clear, sustained evaluation.
- **1-2 marks:** Minimal or tangential evaluation.

1. Shared domestic division of labour / Symmetrical family: In contemporary families, there is a trend toward a more equal distribution of housework and childcare. Sociologists like Young and Willmott identified the 'symmetrical family' where partners' roles, while not identical, are much more similar and balanced, with men contributing more to domestic chores and parenting than in the past.

2. Shared decision-making and joint financial control: Traditional marriages often involved the male partner making all major financial decisions. In contemporary marriages, there is a shift towards joint decision-making and more equal access to family resources, often facilitated by both partners having their own independent incomes.

For each of the two ways described:
- 1 mark for identifying a valid way (e.g., shared domestic labour, joint decision-making, dual-income setups).
- 1 mark for describing or explaining how this contributes to greater equality between partners (e.g., referencing sociological concepts like symmetry, joint conjugal roles, or pooled finances).

(2 x 2 marks = 4 marks total)

Acceptable points include:
- Shift from segregated to joint conjugal roles.
- Greater involvement of men in childcare and parenting.
- Legal changes (e.g., equal rights in marriage and divorce) that have balanced power.
- Equal financial contribution and management (e.g., pooling resources or independent accounts).

First way: State policies can influence family diversity by legally validating and encouraging alternative family structures. For example, the introduction of same-sex marriage legislation (such as the Marriage Act 2013 in the UK) or civil partnership laws legally recognises same-sex couples. This policy directly increases family diversity by allowing and legitimising the formation of same-sex family units, which was previously not legally possible or recognised, thereby moving society away from the traditional nuclear family norm.

Second way: State policies regarding divorce can alter the prevalence of different family forms. The introduction of legislation that makes divorce easier and cheaper to obtain (such as the Divorce Reform Act 1969 in the UK or subsequent no-fault divorce laws) leads to a significant increase in the divorce rate. This directly results in a rise in family diversity by generating more lone-parent families and, subsequently, reconstituted (step) families when individuals remarry or cohabit.

Up to 4 marks are available for each of the two ways explained (maximum 8 marks total).

For each way:
- 1 mark: For identifying a valid state policy or way (e.g., divorce reform, same-sex marriage, welfare benefits, adoption rights).
- 1-2 marks: For explaining how this policy leads to changes in family structures/diversity (e.g., explaining that easier divorce leads to marital dissolution and the formation of lone-parent households).
- 1 mark: For applying relevant sociological concepts, theories (e.g., New Right, feminism, postmodernism), or specific empirical examples/laws.

The symmetrical family, a concept popularised by Young and Willmott, refers to a nuclear family structure where roles are more equal and balanced, even if not completely identical.

One major reason for its rise is the significant increase in female employment. As more women have entered the paid workforce, they have gained greater financial independence. This shift in economic power has led to a renegotiation of domestic duties, with men taking on a greater share of childcare and housework, moving away from traditional, segregated conjugal roles.

A second reason is the commercialisation of housework and technological developments. The introduction of labour-saving devices such as washing machines, dishwashers, and vacuum cleaners, alongside the availability of prepared meals, has dramatically reduced the time and effort required to run a home. This 'death of housework' has made it easier for domestic tasks to be shared more evenly between partners, facilitating a more symmetrical division of labour.

For each of the two reasons, marks should be awarded as follows:

1 mark: Identifying a valid reason (e.g., rise in female employment, technological changes/commercialisation of housework, decline of the extended family, geographical mobility, rise of feminist ideas).
1 mark: Explaining the reason (e.g., explaining how female employment leads to a shift in domestic expectations or decision-making power).
1 mark: Applying appropriate sociological concepts, theories, or research (e.g., Young and Willmott, Oakley, joint conjugal roles, commercialisation of housework).

Maximum of 3 marks per reason (6 marks in total).

To achieve full marks on this 10-mark question, candidates must clearly identify and thoroughly explain two distinct reasons for the decline in the dominance of the traditional nuclear family. The response should rely on robust sociological theories, concepts, and evidence. First reason: Individualisation and postmodern perspectives. Focus on how reflexivity and confluent love (Giddens, Beck, Beck-Gernsheim) have freed individuals from traditional structural paths, leading to family diversity (Rappoports). Second reason: Changes in the status of women. Focus on the 'gender quake' (Wilkinson), changing aspirations (Sharpe), and the reduction of female economic dependence, which previously underpinned the traditional breadwinner-homemaker nuclear family. Ensure each point is fully developed and directly links to why the nuclear family is no longer the sole dominant norm.

The question is marked out of 10, with up to 5 marks available for each of the two reasons explained. For each reason: 1-2 marks: A basic reason is identified with little or no sociological development (e.g., 'more people get divorced now'). 3-4 marks: A sociological reason is identified and explained using some relevant concepts (e.g., women's rights, changing laws), but lacks deep theoretical backing or complete clarity. 5 marks: A sophisticated sociological explanation is provided, incorporating specific concepts (e.g., individualisation, confluent love, pure relationships, gender quake) and/or theoretical perspectives (e.g., postmodernism, feminism) to show exactly how this has led to a decline in the dominance of the traditional nuclear family.

Argument 1: Feminist sociologists argue that the family is patriarchal and oppresses women. Liberal, radical, and Marxist feminists highlight that the traditional division of labor within the family benefits men at the expense of women. For example, radical feminists Delphy and Leonard argue that women perform unpaid domestic labor and emotional care, which is exploited by male partners, showing that the family is not functional for all its members. Argument 2: Marxist sociologists argue that the family benefits the capitalist class rather than its individual members. Eli Zaretsky argues that the family serves an ideological function by socialising children to accept hierarchy and authority, preparing them to be submissive workers. Furthermore, the family acts as a unit of consumption, generating profit for the ruling class, while offering only an illusion of a 'safe haven' for the proletariat.

For each of the two arguments: 1 mark for identifying an argument against the functionalist view (e.g., it is patriarchal, it serves capitalism). 2 marks for explaining the argument with some sociological detail (e.g., explaining how women are exploited or how the family acts as an ideological tool). 3 marks for a fully developed sociological explanation, referencing specific perspectives (feminism, Marxism), concepts (patriarchy, unit of consumption, ideological state apparatus), or theorists (Zaretsky, Delphy and Leonard). Maximum of 3 marks per argument (total 6 marks).

To structure a high-scoring 26-mark essay, students should follow a balanced, evaluative debate:

1. **Introduction**:
- Define key terms: conjugal roles, joint vs. segregated roles, symmetrical family, and equality.
- Briefly outline the main lines of argument (the 'march of progress' view vs. the feminist 'myth of symmetry' view).

2. **Arguments supporting the view (Equality and Symmetry)**:
- **Willmott and Young (March of Progress)**: The rise of the symmetrical family, characterized by home-centered lifestyles, shared leisure, and joint conjugal roles.
- **Gershuny (Lagged Adaptation)**: Women in paid employment do less domestic work, and men's participation is slowly increasing, indicating a shift toward equality.
- **Sullivan**: Analysis of time-use surveys showing a trend towards a more equal division of labor, with men taking on more traditional female tasks.
- **Postmodernism (Beck and Giddens)**: The rise of the 'negotiated family' and the 'pure relationship,' where partners reject traditional gender templates and construct equal relationships based on personal choice.

3. **Arguments opposing the view (Inequality and Patriarchy)**:
- **Oakley (Feminist critique)**: Direct challenge to Willmott and Young. Oakley argues that their methodology exaggerated men's contribution (e.g., 'helping' once a week was classified as symmetry).
- **Duncombe and Marsden (The Triple Shift)**: Women do not just work and do housework; they perform the 'triple shift' of paid work, domestic labor, and emotional work.
- **Boulton**: Pointed out that while men may perform specific tasks, mothers retain ultimate responsibility for child security and development.
- **Power and Decision-Making**: Pahl and Vogler's research on money management (allowance system vs. pooling) and Edgell's research on decision-making (men make the most important decisions, e.g., moving house, finances).
- **Domestic Violence**: Radical feminists (e.g., Dobash and Dobash) argue that domestic violence is an extension of patriarchal control within relationships, demonstrating a fundamental power imbalance.

4. **Nuanced Evaluation and Complexity**:
- **Dunne**: Study of lesbian couples showing that the absence of heterosexual gender scripts leads to far greater symmetry in the division of labor, suggesting that traditional gender identities are the root of inequality.
- **Class and Ethnicity**: The division of labor and equality varies significantly depending on socioeconomic status, working hours, and cultural backgrounds.

5. **Conclusion**:
- Summarize the debate. Reconcile whether the shifts towards equality are structural and permanent or merely superficial changes that mask deep-seated patriarchal inequalities within the home.

Marks are awarded across four levels, reflecting the Assessment Objectives (AO1 Knowledge and Understanding, AO2 Application, and AO3 Analysis and Evaluation):

**Level 1: 1-6 marks**
- Descriptively simple. Answers may list a few tasks performed by men and women in the home without using sociological terminology or citing specific theories.
- Little or no evaluation.

**Level 2: 7-12 marks**
- Demonstrates basic sociological knowledge of family roles. Explains one side of the debate (e.g., Willmott and Young's symmetrical family) or lists some feminist critiques.
- Use of some sociological terms (e.g., conjugal roles, division of labour).
- Evaluation is limited, perhaps just a brief juxtaposition of points.

**Level 3: 13-18 marks**
- Good sociological knowledge and understanding of both sides of the debate. Explicitly discusses concepts like the 'triple shift', 'symmetrical family', and 'decision-making models'.
- Explores a range of perspectives (e.g., Liberal/Radical Feminism, Functionalism, Postmodernism).
- Offers explicit evaluation, although it may be unbalanced or lack sustained critical analysis of the underlying assumptions of the theories presented.

**Level 4: 19-26 marks**
- Highly sophisticated knowledge, understanding, and application. Clear use of diverse empirical studies (e.g., Oakley, Gershuny, Edgell, Dunne) and concepts.
- Sustained, explicit evaluation throughout the essay, comparing the different perspectives critically.
- Understands the complexity of contemporary relationships (e.g., how factors like social class, sexuality, and ethnicity intersect with equality).
- Concludes with a balanced, reasoned judgement that directly addresses the prompt.