Sociologists have embraced what is known as the comparative method as the .
most efficient way to expose taken-for-granted 'truths' or laws that people .
have adopted. But what is this comparative method and how does it work? .
Are there any advantages/disadvantages to exposing these false 'truths'. .
What forms or variations of the comparative method exist? In the pages to .
follow I will attempt to give you some insight and understanding of what the .
comparative method is, and how it works. .
The comparative method, simply put, is the process of comparing two things .
(in our case societies, or the people that make up society) and seeing if .
the result of the comparison shows a difference between the two. The .
comparative method attempts to dereify (the process of exposing .
misinterpreted norms. Norms that society consider natural and inevitable .
characteristics of human existence) reified (the human created norms or .
'truths') beliefs. .
Obviously there are various ways in which a nomi (a labeled, sometime .
constructed, norm or truth) can be exposed. Which form of the comparative .
method should one use however? The answer, whichever one applies to the .
'truth' in question. For example, you certainly would not do a cross-gender .
form of comparison if you wished to expose whether or not homosexuality has .
always been feared and looked down upon by most people throughout history. .
No, rather you would perform a historical comparison of two or more .
different societies to see if these beliefs always existed, or, whether or .
not this is a newly constructed belief. .
Let's look at little more closely at the above mentioned historical .
comparison and see how the comparative method works with a specific example. .
There is no question that in today's western society there is a lot of fear .
and trepidation towards people who are labeled 'homosexual'. The question .
we will attempt to answer however is whether or not it has always been like .
