Commentary General comments: ‘Compare’ essays generally expect responses (& therefore Conclusions) which focus either on:

• distinguishing differences, having established the areas of similarity, or • distinguishing similarities, having established the areas of difference Specific comments: 1. On the whole, both of their theories have similar points of view ... This conclusion signals to the reader that ‘On the whole’ the sociologists have similar views; but if this statement is followed by a final sentence beginning ‘However,..’, the reader becomes confused: if it's not really important that Mead & Durkheim used different terms, why finish an essay with this point? The ideas here are fine, but the information needs re-structuring (or reformulating) - any ideas? 2. In brief, although both Durkheim and Mead are dealing with the internalisation of social controls...[Conclusion of a long and comprehensive essay] - This is inadequate, offering a classic example of what a conclusion should not be like, particularly after a long essay, as this one was. It is not enough to simply repeat that the 2 views/theories were either ‘similar’ or ‘different’. 3. Comparing Durkheim and Mead's above theories, it is considered that men have to conform... - The English is shaky here, but at least the writer is attempting to leave the reader with something more substantial than writers 1. & 2. The problem is that the writer should emphasise that ‘both (sociologists) believe/assert/argue that man has to conform...etc..’ (see Appendix on Verbs & Nouns of Attribution); do we really need to begin with ‘Comparing Durkheim & Mead's above (!) theories,...’? 4. To conclude, Durkheim explains the internalisation of social control in terms of morality... - This is a more ‘summative’ conclusion, but there is a lack of connection between the summaries of the explanations of the 2 theorists. The summary of Mead's view is a little incoherent, suggesting only a superficial understanding. [The next (and last) 2 are more like what one expects of a conclusion more substantial - although both still suffer from problems of clarity and articulation:] 5. As a conclusion, Durkheim and Mead also express their ideas on the internalisation of social control...- This begins weakly, with a redundant ‘similar but different’ theme; however, at least the writer goes on to attempt to characterise the differences. Unfortunately, it is not enough to say that "Mead uses the ‘I ’ and the ‘me’ approach" (what is that ?! - is it a standard sociological approach, or was it in fact introduced by Mead?). Certainly these 2 statements do not provide enough grounds for finishing with ‘Therefore,...’ [i.e. suggesting that "I have thus demonstrated the difference between Durkheim & Mead"!]. 6. In conclusion, both Durkheim and Mead's theories of the internalisation of social control state clearly that... - This is a conclusion which is stylistically much the best of the 7 - though it can still benefit from considerable reformulation. Initially, it invites criticism at the level of sociological analysis - has the writer indeed understood the main positions of Durkheim & Mead on internalization of social control? S/he does show at least a superficial understanding of the 2 theorists' positions). Stylistically, the 2nd sentence is a fine point which has no real place in a conclusion; ‘of proportion’ in s.3 is redundant, and the final sentence comes across as a personal opinion of the writer, and is not related explicitly to either Durkheim or Mead.