A-Level Sociology Past Papers & Drilling (Paper 4): Globalisation and Media Essays

Question 1

For “mainly positive”: (1) wider cultural contact and choice – social media and streaming give young people access to transnational music, sport and subcultures, so identity resources are more varied than a generation ago (in the invention used here social media takes 3.0 of the 7.0 daily hours, 42.9%); (2) transnational community – migrant and minority teenagers can sustain cross-border ties, producing hybridised identities and reducing cultural isolation; (3) educational and economic opportunity, as English and digital skills raise mobility.

Alternative view (limits and harms): (1) cultural imperialism and inequality – traffic and platform power are highly concentrated, so minority languages and local cultures are marginalised and a “global” identity may be a one-way import; (2) identity anxiety and comparison pressure – the display culture of social media and transnational comparison are linked to body-image anxiety and mental health problems; (3) material limits – digital participation depends on class and connectivity, leaving some young people outside the “global”.

Judgement: “mainly positive” cannot be generalised; it must be tested against criteria – (1) who benefits (differences by class, ethnicity and region), (2) which dimension benefits (cultural choice against economic and political power) and (3) the nature of the evidence (usage data show participation, not the direction of effects). Conclusion: globalisation widens cultural choice while deepening inequality, so its effect on young identities is selectively positive rather than generally so.

Question 2

For “maintains power”: (1) agenda setting and framing shape what audiences see and how to understand it, so dominant definitions persist; (2) ownership and advertising dependence – concentration and commercial pressure push reporting towards, or away from challenging, owners’ interests; (3) algorithms and echo chambers rank content by engagement, which spreads emotionally charged material and fragments public debate; the invented figures here, with news taking only 7.1% of 7.0 daily media hours, weaken sustained scrutiny of power.

Alternative view (challenges power): (1) investigative reporting and accountability – exposures of abuse have forced reform, for example in public health and corporate scandals; (2) reception analysis and agency – audiences are not passive, and meanings are reinterpreted, as in subcultural and satirical uses of memes; (3) decentralised voice – social media lets marginalised groups organise and shift agendas, even though it also spreads misinformation.

Judgement: assess by type of media, institutional context and audience position: mainstream commercial media more often maintain structures while public and independent media are better placed to challenge them. Conclusion: the media can both maintain and challenge power, but ownership and attention structures keep “maintenance” the default.

Question 1

Total = 2.5 + 3.0 + 0.5 + 1.0 = 7.0 hours; social media = 3.0 / 7.0 x 100 = 42.9%; news = 0.5 / 7.0 x 100 = 7.1%; social media weekly = 3.0 x 7 = 21.0 hours. Percentages must be tied to a stated denominator (here one young person’s daily media time), or the figures carry no sociological meaning.

Question 2

Each essay = 35 / 70 x 100 = 50.0% of the paper; time = 35 x 1.5 = 52.5 minutes, so about 50 minutes per essay (105 / 70 = 1.5 minutes per mark). Constraint on choice: the two answers must come from different sections (A Globalisation, B Media, C Religion), so candidates cannot specialise in one topic and must prepare at least two sections.