How should the concept of ‘modernity’ be used in contemporary social theory?Explain.

Serious attention:Hello, my order will use Turnitin anti-plagiarism software to check, so no copy no plagiarism. If I test the order in Turnitin system show it plagiarism, I will apply refund money due to the reason bad quality.

please finish it on time，no any reason for extend。Thanks

Please ensure the quality for the essay，it is important for me。Thanks

(4000 words, excluding the bibliography).

Subject：Sociology

Essay Question：How should the concept of ‘modernity’ be used in contemporary social theory?

Preparing Coursework

The essay should be type-written or word-processed, double spaced and in a standard font of not less than 12 pt.
It should be clearly written, free of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, properly referenced and include a full bibliography (See the Method of Documenting Sources below).
Essays which are more that 10% (i.e. 400 words) above or below the word limit (4000 words) are likely to be penalised.

Method of Documenting Sources

When you refer directly or indirectly to the work of another author, this is called a reference. The simplest way to record a reference is to use what is called the Harvard System, that is to record the surname of the author or authors and the year of publication (and the page number if one is quoting). For example, a segment of your essay might read:

As Marglin (1976, p.41) asserts, ‘The steam mill didn’t give us the capitalist; the capitalist gave us the steam mill’.

There are various forms of the Harvard System. For example, the above quotations may also be correctly referenced as:

As Marglin (1976: 41) asserts, ‘The steam mill didn’t give us the capitalist; the capitalist gave us the steam mill’.

Whatever style you use, be consistent. By this I mean a recognized style, not one you have made up yourself.

At the end of the essay, you must append a list headed ‘Bibliography’. This is an alphabetical listing of all sources that are actually referred to in the body of the essay. If you have read a book, but not used it, you cannot include this in the bibliography. When readers encounter the quotation above, they can consult the list of references in this Bibliography.

Please note that the following types of sources need to be referred to differently:

Single Authored Books:

Marglin, S. A. (1976) The Division of Labour. Sussex: Harvester.

Books that are collection of chapters by different authors but have an overall editor:

Marglin, S.A. (ed.) (1976) The Division of Labour. Sussex: Harvester.

Chapter in an edited book: Please note: if you are referring to a chapter written by a particular author in the above edited book, you need to reference the author in the text of your essay (i.e. Benedict (1976: 98). You then need to refer to this in the bibliography as follows:

Benedict, R. (1976) ‘Durkheim Was Wrong’ in Marglin, S.A. (ed) The Division of Labour. Sussex: Harvester.

Article in a Journal:

Marglin, S.A., (1976) ‘What Do Bosses Do?’, Work, Employment and Society, 4(2): 34-59.

There are many minor variations in style within this basic framework of the Harvard System and these can be consulted in most sociology books where the use of this system is widespread.

Referring to Something Referred to by an Author: You may often find that one of your readings is making reference to a work that you don’t have access to. You still need to reference the original source of this info. As you haven’t read the original source, you can’t put this in your bibliography. The way around this is to include the original bibliographic reference (which should be in the article you are reading) as a footnote. For example, in your essay, you might say:

Bourque (2007: 243) quotes Harris (1984: 32) as saying: ‘the model of gender relations in the Andes is best understood as complementary opposites.

In this case, you would add a footnote to Harris, where you indicate the full bibliographic details of the article Bourque (2007) has in her bibliography.

Common Code of Assessment

Nonhonours Courses		Secondary Bands & Aggregation Scores		Primary verbal descriptors for attainment of Intended Learning Outcomes	Honours Courses	BDS BVMS MBChB	Secondary Bands & Aggregation Scores
Primary Grade	Gloss	Secondary Band*	Aggregation Score		Primary Honours Class	BDS BVMS MBChB	Secondary Band*	Aggregation Score
A	Excellent	1 2 3 4 5	22 21 20 19 18	Exemplary range and depth of attainment of intended learning outcomes, secured by discriminating command of a comprehensive range of relevant materials and analyses, and by deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures	First	Honours	1 2 3 4 5	22 21 20 19 18
B	Very Good	1 2 3	17 16 15	Conclusive attainment of virtually all intended learning outcomes, clearly grounded on a close familiarity with a wide range of supporting evidence, constructively utilised to reveal appreciable depth of understanding	Upper Second	Commend-ation	1 2 3	17 16 15
C	Good	1 2 3	14 13 12	Clear attainment of most of the intended learning outcomes, some more securely grasped than others, resting on a circumscribed range of evidence and displaying a variable depth of understanding	Lower Second	Pass	1 2 3	14 13 12
D	Satis- factory	1 2 3	11 10 9	Acceptable attainment of intended learning outcomes, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials, and a grasp of the analytical issues and concepts which is generally reasonable, albeit insecure	Third	Pass	1 2 3	11 10 9
E	Weak	1 2 3	8 7 6	Attainment deficient in respect of specific intended learning outcomes, with mixed evidence as to the depth of knowledge and weak deployment of arguments or deficient manipulations	Weak	Fail	1 2 3	8 7 6
F	Poor	1 2 3	5 4 3	Attainment of intended learning outcomes appreciably deficient in critical respects, lacking secure basis in relevant factual and analytical dimensions	Poor		1 2 3	5 4 3
G	Very Poor	1 2	2 1	Attainment of intended learning outcomes markedly deficient in respect of nearly all intended learning outcomes, with irrelevant use of materials and incomplete and flawed explanation	Very Poor		1 2	2 1
H			0	No convincing evidence of attainment of intended learning outcomes, such treatment of the subject as is in evidence being directionless and fragmentary				0
CR	CREDIT REFUSED		Failure to comply, in the absence of good cause, with the published requirements of the course or programme