Journal Response #1 Due Friday, September 28th (please note this has been extended due to the instructor's delay in getting out blog invites)
Please answer at least one of the following questions:
Question #1: Chapter One discusses various schools of thought in terms of the role of sociologists in society. One view asserts that sociologists should simply study society while a second view espouses the belief that sociologists should use their research to reform society. Which do you feel is the role of sociologists and why?
Question #2: Chapter One discusses the three major theoretical perspectives in sociology: symbolic interactionism, functional analysis (also called functionalism and structural functionalism) and conflict theory. First, please list the level of analysis for each theory (ie: micro or macro). Second, which of the three theories do you feel makes the most sense to you? Please explain why
posted by Danelle @ 7:28 AM
8 Comments:
It's admirable, the tenacity of which our subjective ideologies continues to interfere with the growth of tolerance that our species has only just begun
to cultivate. What example is more fitting than one involving men of science, men devoted to the realization of truth? Such a paradox is a precise illumination
of the incontrovertible fallacy of human nature -- our emotions consistently enmeshing with our perceptions and tainting the forthright nature of experience. To argue over questions with such obvious answers is a waste time, knowledge, and progress.
Sociologists should find no discriminations between the two angles. One should work for the other, that is, sociological observation and analysis should suffuse all facets of societal reformation. If your dog insists on ravaging the trash-basket every evening, you don't simply take note of his condition and passively anticipate your matutinal duty of waste
management. The logical step would be to intervene on the dog's destructive tendencies and to alter some part of the nightly circumstance. Raise the trash-basket, scold the dog with a
spank or deny him treats, all modifications to the previous actions resulting in an improved environment. To me, it is both
negligent and irresponsible to accumulate knowledge of a given situation and to remain quiescent
during the times when your participation in the betterment of a society would be greatly
advantageous.
REVISION v. 1.2
Note to Mrs. Bower -
Please delete my previous post as this one has been incrementally revised. Thanks.
It's admirable, the tenacity of which our subjective ideologies continues to interfere with the growth of tolerance that our species has only just begun
to cultivate. What example is more fitting than one involving men of science, men devoted to the realization of truth? Such a paradox is a precise illumination
of the incontrovertible fallacy of human nature -- our emotions consistently enmeshing with our perceptions and tainting the forthright nature of experience. To argue over questions with such obvious answers is a waste time, knowledge, and progress.
Sociologists should find no discriminations between the two angles. One should work for the other, that is, sociological observation and analysis should suffuse all facets of societal reformation. If your dog insists on ravaging the trash-basket every evening, you don't simply take note of his condition and passively anticipate your matutinal duty of waste
management. The logical step would be to intervene on the dog's destructive tendencies and to alter some part of the nightly circumstance. Raise the trash-basket, scold the dog with a
spank or deny him treats, all modifications to the previous factors responsible for inducing the dogs mischievous deed. To me, it is both negligent and irresponsible to accumulate knowledge of a given situation and to remain quiescent during the times when your participation in the betterment of a society would be greatly advantageous.
The way I see it, there should be a happy medium between the two schools of thought. I believe sociologists should study society, and then take what they learn from their studies and apply it to reforming society. For example, a sociologist conducts a study and learns something that could be taken back to the general population. The information gained from the study could possibly create an important change. Therefore, I can't see a point in the sociologist keeping their results to him/herself and colleagues when the population can benefit. It's only natural to apply what you learn. Students apply what they learn on tests, and in the same way, a sociologist should apply what they learn in their studies to the population. If they don't apply what they learn to the general population, how can they ever expect to have an impact or in some way provide an assistance to the greater good? when they apply what they learn to the general public it could help create a society of more self sufficient people. People who are more self sufficient, and therefore, less dependent upon everyone else can create a better society.
In response to question #1 Sociology helps people and groups to look at their own world in a different perspective showing the good and the bad. Out of any type of study, sociology is the most interesting and humanly interecting than any other in my opinion. Sociologists learn better than anyone how relationships of any kind are formed and kept. So why not ask their advise on how to change society to make it better? Just as we use psychology to help improve the minds of others, it makes just as much sense to use sociology to improve the well being of society working together and living better. I feel that is a needed role of a sociologist-one who studies society and human behavior. So to say sociologist think outside the box is telling the truth. They think beyond one's sex, race, or any other situation that would link to why things happen. This world and our society need more people to think that way, because that is a way we will grow positively in the future.
In response to question #2, First the level of analysis for symbolic interactionism is micro and functional analysis and conflict level of analysis is macro. In my opinion, I feel that all three theoretical perspectives makes sense because they all have different interpretations. All three focus of analysis face a struggle but the difference is their level analysis. They're all needed in our social life because everybody would know how to deal with a situation and they will gain more comprehension.
1.I really believe that sociolodigst should use the research to help reform society. All over the world there are tons of cultural differemces. All the studies could help us understand this world a little better. It helps us know why people do things the way they do it. Taking knowledge from all these different societies could help this world be a better place and a little more understanding.
In response to question #1, I feel that sociologist should use the research they find to help reform society. Sociologist study many different aspects of life in order to make their conclusions. They take race, age, sex, etc., all into consideration. I feel they are able to obtain the least bias
concepts into their conclusions helping the average person better understand and take knowledge from their findings. This is positive in helping the world to insure less repetition of past mistakes made in order to better our futures.
In response to Question #2 -
The level for analysis for each theory is as follows:
1. Symbolic Interaction ism
is examining on a microsociological level- examining small scale pattern of social interaction.
2. Functional Analysis or Functionalism is examining on a macrosociological level - examining large-scale patterns of society as a whole.
3. Conflict Theory
is examining on macrosociological level, also examining large-scale patterns of society
Though I feel they all have their own individual benefits.
My choice would be choice #1 - Social Interactiveism.
I feel that in order to be effective you have to be thorough and in order to do that you'd have to begin at the small-scale patterns of society utilizing the Symbolic Interaction, (i.e. looking at the family level)
structured and productive family lead to structured and productive societies. ( More or less getting to the root and building from there).
Post a Comment
<< Home