Monthly Archives: May 2010

ක්ෂේත්‍ර පර්යේෂණ පුහුණු වැඩසටහන – 2010

තමාරා නිශ්ශංක සහ තනූජා පෙරේරා

 වැඩසටහන සඳහා සහභාගී වූ සිසුන් සහ ආචාර්ය මණ්ඩලය. ඡායාරූප: ක්‍රිශාන් චින්තක

කොළඹ විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ සමාජවිද්‍යා අධ්‍යනාංශය විසින් අවසන් වසර සමාජවිද්‍යා විශේෂවේදී සිසුන් වෙනුවෙන් සංවිධානය කළ ‘2010 ක්ෂේත්‍ර පර්යේෂණ පුහුණු වැඩසටහන’ මේ මස 19, 20, 21, සහ 22 යන දිනයන් හි සාර්ථකව පැවැත්වුණි. මෙම වැඩසටහනේ අරමුණ වූයේ ක්ෂේත්‍ර පර්යේෂණයක නියැලීමේ දී අවධානය යොමු කළ යුතු විවිධ පැතිකඩ පිළිබඳව සිසුන් හට මනා අවබෝධයක් ලබා දීමයි. ප්‍රථම වසරේ සිට සමාජවිද්‍යා පර්යේෂණ පිළිබඳ පන්තිකාමරයේ ලැබූ දැනුම ප්‍රායෝගිකව යොදාගන්නා ආකාරය සිසුන් හට පුහුණු කිරීම මෙම වැඩසටහන හරහා සිදු විය. එහි දී, පර්යේෂණයක් කිරීමේ දී වැදගත්වන ආචාරධර්ම, ප්‍රමාණාත්මක හා ගුණාත්මක තොරතුරු එක් ‍රැස් කිරීම, දත්ත එක් ‍රැස් කිරීමේ ශිල්පීය ක්‍රම භාවිතය, හා පර්යේෂණයට ලක්වන්නන් සමග ගනුදෙනු කරන ආකාරය වැනි දෑ අත්දැකීමෙන් ඉගෙනගැනීමට සිසුන්හට අවස්ථාව ලැබුණි. මෙවර වැඩසටහන සඳහා පර්යේෂණ ක්ෂේත්‍රය ලෙස යොදාගනු ලැබුවේ ඇඹිලිපිටිය ප්‍රාදේශීය ලේකම් කොට්ඨාශයේ පනහඩුව, බිසෝකො‍ටුව, ගඟේයාය සහ රත්කැ‍රැව්ව යන ග්‍රාමයන් හතරයි.

Continue reading

What is it to ‘Think Sociologically’?

Chamathka Devasirie

REVIEW- Zigmunt Bauman’s ‘Thinking sociologically

[Bauman, Z 1990, Thinking sociologically, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.]

Reading Zigmunt Bauman’s Thinking Sociologically, to do a book review for an assignment at La Trobe University (Australia) as requested by Prof. Peter Beilharz, (lecturer of the unit Current Issues in Sociology), helped answer a question that had bothered me for quite some time. Since I became a student of sociology, whenever I meet a person from a different field of study to that of the Social Sciences, he/she would ask me, ‘what are you studying?’ When I say ‘sociology’, the dreaded question immediately follows, ‘Oh really, what do you study in sociology?’ Then I mumble, ‘well, you know, sociology is the study of society, cultures, various institutions like politics, religion etc. etc.’, wondering to myself whether this is all sociology really means to me! Reading the introduction was such a relief because it made me realize that it was alright to be confused about the subject matter of sociology. Because it is hard to draw the boundaries of relevance in this discipline as its scope is quite wide; so wide that it includes almost everything that concerns humans. Also it made me realize that it is hard to explain to an ordinary person what sociology studies, since it is the same matters that he/she thinks and talks about, only difference being it’s looked at in a different light. After all sociology is all about us, the ordinary people!

Bauman states that ‘sociology’ is “first and foremost, a way of thinking about the human world” (Bauman 1990, p. 8). And all the raw material for sociological findings is derived from ordinary human experiences. “Anything sociology talks about was already there in our lives” (Bauman 1990, p.10). Thus Bauman proves the impossibility to study sociological phenomena with complete objectivity, as a sociologist too is at first, part of this ordinary human world. And he also emphasises the fact that “sociological discourse” is “wide open”. Bauman believes that thinking sociologically would make us more “sensitive” to our lives and the lives of other people and help us understand the universality of human experiences of happiness, sorrow, desire, disappointments, misery etc.

This essay is an attempt to understand what thinking sociologically really is by reviewing Zigmunt Bauman’s book “Thinking sociologically” which was first published in 1990. This review will take the reader through a summery and review of the significant points of each chapter of the book on everyday aspects of human life. I trust that this would create an interest to read this book, as I feel that this simple, easy to understand book carries a lot of depth to help a student of sociology to understand what thinking sociologically is all about!

First let me briefly summarize one main point Bauman talks of which I found particularly interesting, in order to give you a head start of what is to come. While reading the book, one of the key points which seemed to be screaming out to me was his concept of ambiguity; the uncertainty of the grey area between the black and the white in human interaction; the space-in- between which makes it ever so difficult to draw the line between two extremes. Bauman in almost every chapter explains how much of human interaction occurs within this space and how hard we try to classify them in to a controllable and predictable category; either ‘us or them’, ‘together or apart’, ‘friend or foe’, ‘order or chaos’. Anything in between is hard to explain, difficult to define, and is frustratingly unpredictable! Therefore, we don’t want anything in between the seemingly opposing, distinct categories, and try as much as we could to eliminate any. Bauman explains how all such attempts are in vain because there is no escape from this ambiguity. An attempt to dissolve one would inevitably lead to another.

Please download the complete review from the following link; What is it to ‘Think Sociologically’?

මානසික රෝගවලට බලපාන හේතු සාධක පිළිබඳ න්‍යායාත්මක විග්‍රහයක්

එම්. ජී. එල්. මහේෂ් ප්‍රේමරත්න

වර්තමානය වන විට මිනිසාට දැඩි බලපෑමක් ඇති කර තිබෙන රෝග අතර මානසික රෝග ද ප්‍රධාන ස්ථානයක් ගනී. මානසික රෝග ඇතිවීම කෙරෙහි විවිධ හේතු සාධක බලපාන බව දැකිය හැකි ය. පහත දැක්වෙන ලිපිය ශ්‍රී ලාංකීය සමාජ සන්දර්භය තුළ මානසික රෝග ඇතිවීමට හා පැවතීමට බලපාන හේතු සාධක, න්‍යායාත්මක විග්‍රහයක් ඇසුරෙන් අවබෝධ කර ගැනීමට උපකාරී වේ.

මානසික රෝගවලට බලපාන හේතු සාධක පිළිබඳ න්‍යායාත්මක විග්‍රහයක්

සමාජීයවිද්‍යා රචනය හා එහි තාක්ෂණික පැතිකඩ

පසුගිය මාර්තු මාසයේ දී කොළඹ විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ සමාජවිද්‍යා අධ්‍යනාංශය විසින් විශ්ලේෂණය හා රචනාකරණය පිළිබඳ වැඩමුළුවක්  සංවිධානය කරන ලදී. එහි දී මහාචාර්ය සසංක පෙරේරා ‘සමාජීයවිද්‍යා රචනය හා එහි තාක්ෂණික පැතිකඩ’ පිළිබඳව සිසුන් දැනුවත් කිරීම සඳහා ඉදිරිපත් කළ කරුණු පහත යොමුවෙන් ඔබට ලබාගත හැක.

සමාජීයවිද්‍යා රචනය හා එහි තාක්ෂණික පැතිකඩ

Why did I choose you?

Tamara Nissanka

A classroom presentation on interpersonal attraction, which I did for a social psychology course about a year ago, got me thinking ‘why people choose the marriage partners they do?’ I was focused on heterosexual relationships. So I looked up the theories of attraction, and found quite a few interesting explanations about factors that influence our choice of partners. Let’s take a look at some of those theoretical approaches, starting off with psychoanalysis.

3

Most people have a conscious sense of the type of partner who would best suit their needs. They might even be able to list out the basic physical, social and psychological traits of an ‘ideal’ husband or wife. The psychoanalytic approach suggests that apart from conscious reasons, there are important unconscious factors that shape our choice. Our internal world contains important images from our childhood. When people have not completely dealt with some of those internal images from the past, they tend to repeat past situations. This unconscious pull of the past takes us back to unfinished business. Freud said that people find the kind of partners who remind them of a close parent. However, the parent doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘good’. It could as well be that memories of the parent are associated with negative emotions, and a particular partner is selected because he/she evokes the same negative feelings as the parent did. For instance, a man might like to have a wife who makes him feel dependant and powerless because his mother was dominant and evoked the same feelings in him. What influences people to repeat patterns from the past are the strong unconscious ties to the objects of their earliest love.

Continue reading