The first thing from this video that struck me as odd was the fact that he only says there are two paradigms, even though there are three. Maybe he just wanted to focus on the Macro-level paradigms but it just seemed odd to me. Even though he didn't mention Symbolic-interaction paradigm he did talk about Max Weber and his contribution to sociology. Although, I really liked his analogy of how Emile Durkheim and Structural-functional paradigm is like the body in which everything works well together. He also explained Karal Marx and the Social-conflict paradigm. He mostly focused on class with how the rich get better benefits over the poor, but this can work the same way between different race, sex, and age. He also touched a little on C. Wright Mills and how society is responsible for social problems between the rich and the middle class and the poor. Even though he didn't talk about the symbolic-interaction paradigm I think he did a great job explaining the different paradigms so they were easy to understand. RDH012
While I appreciate your summary of the video and breakdown of the paradigms, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on social conflict. What is your opinion on his idea that the, "divide between rich and poor is growing." Agree/Disagree? -YellowUmbrella012
I think you did an excellent job at grasping everything that was explained in this video. You seemed to have touched on every subject matter that was mentioned and really understood it, even with leaving out Symbolic- interaction paradigm. I was looking back and trying to figure out why he didn't mention that paradigm and maybe it was the fact that he wanted to focus on the Macro-level. -Blue22_012
Agreed, I would've thought he would touch on all three of the paradigms. That being said, you seem to have understood the video. I agree, I do like how Durkheim related the paradigm to the body, everything working together. With regards to social conflict, what kinds of social problems are your referring to? I would love to hear your thoughts on the conflict between the races, and sexes. Good job though! jam012
I agree with what RDH012 mentioned above, the gentleman in the video did explain Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber with some good details, but that fact that he fails to mention how race, gender, and age can also play a role in the benefits the classes receive. These can be crucial in how a person is treated or perceived by society. GoGreen012
First off, I would like to say that I found it hard to concentrate past this guy's awesome close-up that he was clearly so ready for... Haha. With the video enlarged, his face practically fills the entire screen... Anyway, I digress. In terms of social conflict, I was unaware that Karl Marx wasn't the first major leader. I assumed that he determined his beliefs based on something he learned from someone before him, but I had never really looked at Jean-Jacques Rousseau's pseudo Robin Hood-esque philosophies during the French Revolution from a sociological perspective before. I guess that's why I come to class every week. ;) To quote Hogan's summary of Rousseau's philosophy, "The rich form governments in order to steal from the poor," isn't entirely off the mark. In MY opinion, depending on your perspective, this could still reign true in the modern world. Our government may NOT have been founded by the 1% of grossly wealthy Americans, but some of our most important politicians are among the 1% today. In fact, I would go so far as to say that MOST of our government officials are among the 1%. And (as unfortunate as it is) when a country is being run by people who have little understanding/interest in the majority of its population, I think it's safe to say that its citizens won't be treated as fairly as they should. It is this exact belief that helped influence the French Revolution. So I would like to pose a question for the class: If there are similar parallels between pre-Revolution France and the current economic situation in the United States, what factors have been crucial in preventing our own revolution in order to be treated fairly? -YellowUmbrella012
I think your post is interesting and brings up some valid points within our own society. Sometimes looking from the outside in, it does appear that the 1% of people create the rules and expects everyone to abide by those rules. I think some of those people that create some of the rules don't fall within that 1% of power. I think that 1% divide is astronomical. Good post. lawpro012
I agree it is amazing how we went from a country of nothing and the government was just the people that worked to help keep the people happy. Now they are working to keep the money in their pocket and help out there large corporations happy to make more money. I don’t agree how the government is the top 1% but I do think they fall in the top 10% for sure. It doesn’t matter though if they are in the top 1% or 10% it really doesn’t make a difference. They are still only out for themselves and that creates great conflict in our country today. Techie_012
I learned a little from this brief video and thought it was a good one. I didn't realize how great the divide between classes within society was until I saw this. It's hard to fathom how 10% of the people hold approximately 80% of the prestige and power. It seems to me that somehow the great divide is getting greater, perhaps due to economic shifts within our specific society as a whole. I can see how the social conflict exists and how it could create animosity amongst the lower to lower-middle class. I like the work by C. Wright Mills where he breaks down and helps us recognize the conflict. Perhaps to help society to try and pass on opportunities to others that are in the lower middle class. The purpose of the study is to try and create change for the better of everyone's interests. First, as we can see here, is a prime example of recognizing the conflict. Therefore we can try to change for the greater good within OUR society. Lawpro012
I as well hadn't realized how great the divide between social classes was either before this video, defiently eye opening. As well a the fact that it is becoming great when you take a step back and look at it. People in modern society are really letting their money and how how they are in socially ranked classes get the best of them. As you stated thank you to C Wright Mills for bringing this to our attention. Saxophones012
The Video was informative but, he only covers two out of three Paradigms Structural-Functional and Social-Conflict, he doesn’t talk about Symbolic-Interaction. He still gives good examples about Social Conflict. He talks about studies done by Marx, Weber, Mills, and Durkheim and what they have found. He gives a good description on how Wealth, Power and Prestige all affect Social Conflict and how they are the force behind many conflicts in the world today. The comment about the rich getting richer is so true today and its mind boggling how the top 1% has 40% of the wealth today and the top 10% have 85%. It’s no wonder the world has so much poverty in it. Everything that is done in the world benefits the rich we don’t take care of the ones that need it. If you think about the rich people if they all gave just half of what they have we could possibly stop world hunger or get fresh water to the places that cant now. It is ridicules these people have this much and don’t help out more. Who needs that kind of money? Techie_012
I agree entirely, who needs that kind of money? It's believed that every person in the top 10% could donate a million dollars (which let's face it, they could do without) to the poor people or homeless and it could help fix some of the issues of the WORLD. Not even just the United States, but the actual world. How sad is it that the wealthy people could fix so much and yet they don't. Sad. These are people who go to charities and spend so much on a dinner to help, and yet how many of these people are out there trying to actually fix any of the problems? A perfect example is Oprah. She is one of the most powerful women in the world. She lives in Chicago, she knows that schools are closing all over the country, funding is low and budgets are being cut, and what does she do to help out the children of her country? Nothing. She builds a school for girls in Africa. What about helping to procure a future for the children of her own country? gogetit012
Who needs that much money is right. And yet you see so many charities and organizations trying to help people who are not of the ten percent of the people controlling all of the wealth. And if they are only getting richer than it would seem like they really don't want to help. What makes them not want to really change the world and make it a better place I won't ever understand. To be born into that wealth and not know anything different but to keep it to yourself may have something to do with it, but who knows. ScientistSalarian012
I couldn't agree more. While there's definitely generous rich people out there, they seem to be few and far between. It is mind boggling how people can have so much money and not want to help those in need. Lower taxes for the rich and higher for the middle class, where's the logic in that? Obviously the government is not the role model for "leading by example " when it comes to spending. DaBearsandBulls012
Similar to other posts, I too have noticed that he only covered two out of the three paradigm. He mentions Structural-functional and Social conflict but fails to talk about Symbolic-interaction. In this video, he does a great job at easily informing us about each paradigm ( of course, only two of them ). He not only explains what each paradigm is but he also explain which sociologist studies in which one. I personally found it a bit difficult to understand and keep straight each class of sociology and the people who studied and shaped them into what they are today. This video brought it into a clearer view. One of the classes that I personally found the most interesting to learn was the Structural class. Durkheim studied Structural - functional. The man in this video explains that the Structural- functional is similar to the body, that everything works well together in a structural way. To me, this class makes the most sense. Everything works together and is in order. -Blue22_012
I definitely have a better understanding of the three paradigms, even though he only covered structural-functional and the social conflict paradigms. Durkheim studied the structural functional paradigm and he said that it is like the body, that all things work well together when there are boundaries set such as morals and values. I found the social conflict aspect very interesting and realized how relevant it is in today's society. The rich are getting richer while middle class families are struggling to get by some days. The upper class does indeed look down on the middle class, almost like they are better than them. It was Mills that said the 1% control 40% of the worlds wealth and 10% control 80% of the worlds wealth. The divide is continuing to grow between the two classes. With all of that money, why don't more people give back to society? jam012
I most defiantly agree with you! This video really helped to learn the difference between the two better. Also you are right, there is a lot of social conflict today in society. The rich are getting richer and the poor are having to pay more therefore they are getting 'poorer'. How do we over come the social conflict though? How do we flip the was society and the government works so the poor pays a little less and the rich pay a little more? RDH012
He did do a decent job of giving a definition of sociology, especially when comparing it to psychology, but I felt like he was all over the place. I understood where he was going with the video, but getting there was a bit rough. He fails to mention an important paradigm, the symbolic paradigm. I did like how he explained the two paradigms that he did mention (structural-functional and social-conflict). The fact that he failed to mention the third paradigm, symbolic-interaction, bothered me though. Since the other two paradigms are macro-level orientated, I would think you would need to explain the micro-level paradigm. Maybe he thought that people would be confused as to how psychology and sociology are different if he did explain the symbolic-interaction. Even if that is what he thought, I feel that he would be leaving out some crucial information about the people that contributed to this approach, such as Erving Goffman, George Homans, and Peter Blass. GoGreen012
I think his reason for focusing only on the to macro level paradigms was because as he said in the beginning of the video he was talking about the two that focused on society overall. This probably made it easier to explain the two since the third is quite different in its approach.-mechanic012
I thought the video was a little boring. Now don't get me wrong the guy did a outstanding job explaining. Once he got to the point and wasn't jumping all over the place. Now he did cover two of the three paradigms. One of the paradigm he did bring up and cover was structural -functional. Like how he explained it by saying its like the human body and that everything works well together and all in order. Then he talked about social conflict. How they are like force be hide many problems in the world today. As he was explaining all that he did tell us about Marx, Weber,mills and Durkheim and what they have found out. When he talked about the rich get richer , its so true. Most things we do doesn't benefit middle class or then poor. With all the power the rich have, most of them don't use it for good. Thats why we have so much poverty and prestige in the world as I speak." If we are the richest country in the world, then why do so many of us feel so poor"? elmo012
I agree! Video was boring however, he did mention Marx, Weber, Mills and Durkeim and what they brought to the sociology world. Seems like we are all put into a group based on wealth and social class then analyzed of what are daily struggles are. JenChango012
The video was a little bit difficult to follow, and he did jump around a lot. But the part that was most interesting to me is how great the divide is between the rich and the poor. It's amazing, when did that happen? How did the divide become so great? Is it really the rich that are keeping the poor out? I suppose that it could be, because if everyone was granted the same opportunities, then the rich would have to work for themselves. However, while far and few in between, there are stories out there of men who grew up poor and conquered the great divide to join the sides of the rich. If it happened for them, then couldn't it happen for all? Isn't it time for the working class to help spread out the 80% control that the rich have over the wealth?
The reason everyone can not pull out of poverty is the same reason we had slaves. It is like the food chain. We are the top of the food chain and producers are at the bottom. We need the producers at the bottom or we may fall from the top of the food chain. We need people working fast food and we cannot pay them the way we would doctors. It is unfair especially if the fast food worker wanted to go to college but did not have the money to do so because their parents were poor. It’s a vicious cycle but our society needs people at the bottom so people at the top can succeed. Zipping012
You raise a good point. When did the divide between rich and poor become so large? @Zipping raises a great point that I had never thought of before though. I never thought of the divide being as a food chain, but it makes so much sense now that I have been exposed to that perception.
You have a very valid point. There is such a divide between the rich and the poor. To be honest a lot of times it’s hard to establish what middle class even is between the two. There are many different discussions that can be raised from this video. In which to me was confusing with the jumping around bit. (Hound89) 012
I agree this video is a bit difficult to follow, he jumps around a lot. I agree with you about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. When did it all start you ask? When man was created. It’s always been like that and I don’t think it will ever change. Good questions
This man talked about paradigms, class, and sociological ideas. Weber and other sociologists believe what determines class is wealth, power, and prestige. The man in the video talks about the rich leaning on the poor which I do not feel is the problem. The reason there is such a gap is because the rich couples are both working and are making a lot together. The poor couples are both working but only make minimum wage. Now there is a gap because the rich are making more than enough and the poor are not. He also talks about two of the three paradigms and Structural-functional paradigm which means that society works well together because of society’s boundaries. This reminds me of the consensus model of the criminal justice system. The other paradigm is the social-conflict paradigm which says that the social classes conflict with each other. The reason they are colliding is because the poor feels the rich are leaning on them for support. Zipping012
This video was interesting, I did like hearing about Weber's theory on the classes. Also, C Wright Mills take on the divide of the social classes. For myself I believe Mills was right, the divide is great and getting greater everyday. I believe with our current society and the way it shapes and functions this divide will only continue to become greater. You can link the two together. The man in the video said that the rich lean on the poor, well with the divide isn't that true. The rich will lean on the poor so that they have someone to say that they are above. That they have someone to make that divide with. Saxophones012
I agree with lawpro012 I didn't realize the divide in society. The rich that have the money have had it since the beginning! It's a never ending chain. It's sad that they think they need all that money when most are living off 5 percent of that. The worst part is they are the ones that made the laws and they made them to benefit their selves. It's all a corrupt system that we can't get out of. RRFBall012
Upon watching the given video, I was surprised he spoke about the paradigms in a manner that I had perceived the third paradigm to be, more or less, insignificant in a way. I also found a particular piece of information around the two minute and thirty second mark, where he describes Emile Durkheim’s Structural Functional Paradigm as a perception of society working together as a body, and working well together. I found it interesting how Durkheim believed that the boundaries on behavior were responsible for keeping the society working cohesively, or well together. I found that interesting because although it is very easy to see, I never thought to perceive the cohesiveness that way.
Another point that was interesting was his blurb about the “animeet” (more than likely misspelled) period and how it could be a time of anarchy where the boundaries end up breaking down. I find that piece interesting because it happens basically every day. Not always in the most noticeable ways, but it happens still today.
I like this video although it was a bit confusing at first. There are many things that bring up social conflict in many situations. My personal opinion on this matter is that I don’t think that peoples life style or how much money people have need to be put in different categories. I know that there are rich, middle class, and poor but in some situations it may be hard to distinguish if you don’t fully know that person. I do get that it brings a lot of social conflict because a lot of people believe that money is everything. To me money is not everything and a lot of people I think can agree with me when I say that. There are many people out there that depend on it and would do very bad things for money. A lot of people are very wealthy but do not show it. See this video can spark up a big conversation with a lot of different opinions about the subject. There will always be social conflicts when it comes to the three forms of wealth. (Hound89) 012
Yes, this video was a little confusing. I had to keep replaying things he was saying to understand, i guess the concept of it. No money is not everything, but for people who already have money, might being saying the same thing. They just dont know what its like to struggle. lilred012
Sociology is a great thing to study. While I agree that all people need to be classified by their lifestyles and that to some extent it affects the history of america I also beleve that we need to remember that all men need to work together to keep the great country alive. Right now as americans we are failing ourselves and our country we need to look at trends in history. look at rome and the older countries and kingdoms of old when they started to overspend their money and became to cocky and thought that they where all powerful and that they didn't need others to live they all failed as countries. That is what is happening to america right now! We are so far in debt that we don't own our own country anymore we belong to those that hold the loans against us. It is time to overthrow our government and renew our counstition. We have forgotten the things that we have fought for. To make all .men free and equal and now the only thing we are equal to in our fair country is that we all owe China trillions of Dollars! Firedude012
Zipping012 I Couldn't agree with you more! there is so much of a divide between the rich and the poor now our once powerful country is now doomed to fall like the ones before it rome and Germany. We need to go back to the basics and remember that as one we are unstoppable but as divided as we are now we will fall. Firedude012
This video was confusing for me. I heard him speak of social conflict and some of the studies done in the past based on social classes. However, I didn't get much on social conflict out of this video. He went on a but the two Paradigm's and how studies broke down social classes. Based on these social classes your put into catagories of power and wealth. People are always going to base social conflict on these areas. This video was not great in helping me understand any better. JenChango012
I would have to agree with you, he did not speak much about social conflict directly but sociology as a whole. Indirectly he talks about social conflict but does not go into much detail about it which was a little disappointing. starburst012
This video was very interesting and brought up some new topics and facts that I had not heard about yet. A few things did stick out to me though. He talked about how there are three elements to class, which I found interesting, they are: wealth, power, and prestige. He also talks about how the working/middle, and lower classes are in conflict but the upper class is not. Another topic he discusses which I found to be quite intriguing was house Durkheim says that society has written and unwritten boundaries such as societies values, morals, customs and rules that society follows in order to keep society working and flowing. He brought up a lot of good important facts in this video that have a lot to do with sociology as a whole and social conflict. starburst012
He only focuses on two paradigms, which is ok, but why not the third? I really think what he is saying about durkheim is hitting it dead on. Thinking society was like the body and that all of it worked together. What kept it working to together, like morals and values. ex:If your did a crime you went to jail, or where crazy, you where helped. He thought of this way before we even viewed life in this way, which is amazing. This was a very informational video that I think everyone needs to see. lilred012
I listen to radio Hogan for eight times and it’s Sunday, hopefully we will never have to do another blog with him again.
I would hope Marx was not the first one to realize the society is broken up in the classes. It has been like that since I can remember and they are a lot older than me. I see a lot has changed since Marx’s time. (Not really). Let’s talk about the wealthy people when I think of the wealthy people, they have a ton of money and a lot of its old money. These individual controls governments, politicians, judges and even you and me. Its shift like that all over the world, even in Third World countries they might not be billionaires or have as much wealth there but they still control people and their government in different ways.
Durkheim talked about society having boundaries that helped everybody worked together. He talked about custom, folkways, morals and values. These are all learn from our parents, grandparents or the people who raised you, they are passed down to us generation to generation. What would happen to a society if a government took all that away, the custom, folkways, morals and values? What would that group of people be like today? Would it be anarchy for them?
So he talks about our two macro-level paradigms being Structural-Functional and Social-Conflict pretty well. I feel it's easy to see Structural-Functional in everyday life because we participate in it more so than Social-Conflict. It's very true that society has set social boundaries upon itself and we act accordingly to those. Most people don't want to be different to the point that we are looked at as weird or bad. Now plenty of individuals may wish to be unique but no one really wants to be different. We all want to adhere to social norms but I truly believe that the only "Normal" people are the people you don't know. Meaning everyone is different even in the same culture. We all do and think things that others in the same culture may find weird but because of the Structural-Functional paradigm we don't talk or act like that in society.
Now Social-Conflict we are all apart of as well but we may not notice it as much or think on it in everyday life. I agree that the rich are certainly feeding off of the poor and working man. The fact that our lives are pretty much controlled by ten percent of the world's population. Regular every day people don't even know who these people are. We know politicians but they are bought and funded. The mere fact that the rich are getting richer more so than the poor and middle classes seems to show that the "Super-Class" doesn't want to share the wealth. Meaning we are in a conflict of classes but it's hard to know where to point the finger. The Social-Conflict Paradigm can be a bit more depressing to look at than Structural-Functional but it is certainly there none the less. ScientistSalarian012
This was an interesting video. It is amazing how great the divide is and how the "majority" seems to be powerless. As discussed, the rich make the laws to benefit them, not much has changed. The middle class, who struggles, votes in the politicians we feel will help improve the situations that are dealt with on a daily basis only to get fed lines of bull so they can be put into to office and better themselves. As Americans, we sell ourselves short not only to other countries, but to one another. So many good and strong qualities are overshadowed by the negativity and lack of common sense approach WE have towards issues. We should be the example on "how to run a business" sort of speak when in all actuality the government needs to be taking a few pages out of other parts of the world. DaBearsandBulls012
I definitely agree with your experience from the video. I also agree with the fact that nothing has really changed in a sense government makes sure thing are based around them unless we get a politician who can either relate to the middle class or genuinely cares for the development of our country. (Aphi012)
Interesting video- he didn't take a lot of time to go into detail on either of the macro-level paradigms, but did get a few main points across. It was interesting to note on the Structural-Functional paradigm that where Durkheim thought that boundaries kept society functioning as a whole even he recognized that some of these boundaries were more beneficial to the rich as opposed to the poor. Ex: crazy poor people get locked up where as crazy rich people are just thought of as "eccentric" and where some punishments for certain crimes seem to benefit rich people instead of poor. This actually seems to link it somewhat to the Social-Conflict paradigm and the class conflict that Marx recognized. -mechanic012
I completely agree with you. I also wish the speaker could have added more depth, yet the snippets of info he did provide were interesting. I found it interesting when he referenced the German philosophers that influenced Marx and why Marx became so passionate in the social conflict paradigm. Firecracker012
This video was interesting, however, I wish he could have added a little depth into the reasons why each sociologist thought the way they did. I found it interesting that he referenced the German philosophers, Hegel and Feurbach as ones who influenced Karl Marx. Yet really didn't go further into the ones who influenced the others. Marx's view on social conflict were, I believe important, in the time frame in which he was living. The industrial revolution was both magnificient and heartwrending with advancements in inventions and capitalism. I say heartwrending because families who were poor often put their very young children (ages 4 and up) to work in factories for severely low wages and risks of dismemberment and death. I can see where the social conflict paradigm could definitely be born during this timeframe. And justly so. Firecracker012
Ok from the beginning this video was sufficiently informative. Max weber the sociologist from Germany had very strong statements that are still respected today. Max was very in touch with wealth, power, and prestige all of which were significantly important. He even was very distinct about work ethic in society. Then we have Emile Durkheim who believed in the structural functional basically saying that our society resembled the human body in such that all organs work together in order for the body to function. He believed our behavioral boundaries were the reason our society could work but there’d be a period of chaos once members of society started noticing the flaws. Marx on the other hand believed that there was a natural conflict between the working class, the middle class, and the upper class. Which kind of coincides with weber’s theories on wealth prestige and power. (Ahi012)
The first thing from this video that struck me as odd was the fact that he only says there are two paradigms, even though there are three. Maybe he just wanted to focus on the Macro-level paradigms but it just seemed odd to me. Even though he didn't mention Symbolic-interaction paradigm he did talk about Max Weber and his contribution to sociology. Although, I really liked his analogy of how Emile Durkheim and Structural-functional paradigm is like the body in which everything works well together. He also explained Karal Marx and the Social-conflict paradigm. He mostly focused on class with how the rich get better benefits over the poor, but this can work the same way between different race, sex, and age. He also touched a little on C. Wright Mills and how society is responsible for social problems between the rich and the middle class and the poor. Even though he didn't talk about the symbolic-interaction paradigm I think he did a great job explaining the different paradigms so they were easy to understand. RDH012
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your summary of the video and breakdown of the paradigms, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on social conflict. What is your opinion on his idea that the, "divide between rich and poor is growing." Agree/Disagree?
Delete-YellowUmbrella012
I think you did an excellent job at grasping everything that was explained in this video. You seemed to have touched on every subject matter that was mentioned and really understood it, even with leaving out Symbolic- interaction paradigm. I was looking back and trying to figure out why he didn't mention that paradigm and maybe it was the fact that he wanted to focus on the Macro-level. -Blue22_012
DeleteAgreed, I would've thought he would touch on all three of the paradigms. That being said, you seem to have understood the video. I agree, I do like how Durkheim related the paradigm to the body, everything working together. With regards to social conflict, what kinds of social problems are your referring to? I would love to hear your thoughts on the conflict between the races, and sexes. Good job though! jam012
DeleteI agree with what RDH012 mentioned above, the gentleman in the video did explain Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber with some good details, but that fact that he fails to mention how race, gender, and age can also play a role in the benefits the classes receive. These can be crucial in how a person is treated or perceived by society. GoGreen012
DeleteFirst off, I would like to say that I found it hard to concentrate past this guy's awesome close-up that he was clearly so ready for... Haha. With the video enlarged, his face practically fills the entire screen...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I digress.
In terms of social conflict, I was unaware that Karl Marx wasn't the first major leader. I assumed that he determined his beliefs based on something he learned from someone before him, but I had never really looked at Jean-Jacques Rousseau's pseudo Robin Hood-esque philosophies during the French Revolution from a sociological perspective before. I guess that's why I come to class every week. ;)
To quote Hogan's summary of Rousseau's philosophy, "The rich form governments in order to steal from the poor," isn't entirely off the mark. In MY opinion, depending on your perspective, this could still reign true in the modern world. Our government may NOT have been founded by the 1% of grossly wealthy Americans, but some of our most important politicians are among the 1% today. In fact, I would go so far as to say that MOST of our government officials are among the 1%. And (as unfortunate as it is) when a country is being run by people who have little understanding/interest in the majority of its population, I think it's safe to say that its citizens won't be treated as fairly as they should.
It is this exact belief that helped influence the French Revolution.
So I would like to pose a question for the class:
If there are similar parallels between pre-Revolution France and the current economic situation in the United States, what factors have been crucial in preventing our own revolution in order to be treated fairly?
-YellowUmbrella012
I think your post is interesting and brings up some valid points within our own society. Sometimes looking from the outside in, it does appear that the 1% of people create the rules and expects everyone to abide by those rules. I think some of those people that create some of the rules don't fall within that 1% of power. I think that 1% divide is astronomical. Good post. lawpro012
DeleteI agree it is amazing how we went from a country of nothing and the government was just the people that worked to help keep the people happy. Now they are working to keep the money in their pocket and help out there large corporations happy to make more money. I don’t agree how the government is the top 1% but I do think they fall in the top 10% for sure. It doesn’t matter though if they are in the top 1% or 10% it really doesn’t make a difference. They are still only out for themselves and that creates great conflict in our country today.
DeleteTechie_012
I learned a little from this brief video and thought it was a good one. I didn't realize how great the divide between classes within society was until I saw this. It's hard to fathom how 10% of the people hold approximately 80% of the prestige and power. It seems to me that somehow the great divide is getting greater, perhaps due to economic shifts within our specific society as a whole. I can see how the social conflict exists and how it could create animosity amongst the lower to lower-middle class. I like the work by C. Wright Mills where he breaks down and helps us recognize the conflict. Perhaps to help society to try and pass on opportunities to others that are in the lower middle class. The purpose of the study is to try and create change for the better of everyone's interests. First, as we can see here, is a prime example of recognizing the conflict. Therefore we can try to change for the greater good within OUR society. Lawpro012
ReplyDeleteI as well hadn't realized how great the divide between social classes was either before this video, defiently eye opening. As well a the fact that it is becoming great when you take a step back and look at it. People in modern society are really letting their money and how how they are in socially ranked classes get the best of them. As you stated thank you to C Wright Mills for bringing this to our attention. Saxophones012
DeleteThe Video was informative but, he only covers two out of three Paradigms Structural-Functional and Social-Conflict, he doesn’t talk about Symbolic-Interaction. He still gives good examples about Social Conflict. He talks about studies done by Marx, Weber, Mills, and Durkheim and what they have found. He gives a good description on how Wealth, Power and Prestige all affect Social Conflict and how they are the force behind many conflicts in the world today. The comment about the rich getting richer is so true today and its mind boggling how the top 1% has 40% of the wealth today and the top 10% have 85%. It’s no wonder the world has so much poverty in it. Everything that is done in the world benefits the rich we don’t take care of the ones that need it. If you think about the rich people if they all gave just half of what they have we could possibly stop world hunger or get fresh water to the places that cant now. It is ridicules these people have this much and don’t help out more. Who needs that kind of money?
ReplyDeleteTechie_012
I agree entirely, who needs that kind of money? It's believed that every person in the top 10% could donate a million dollars (which let's face it, they could do without) to the poor people or homeless and it could help fix some of the issues of the WORLD. Not even just the United States, but the actual world. How sad is it that the wealthy people could fix so much and yet they don't. Sad. These are people who go to charities and spend so much on a dinner to help, and yet how many of these people are out there trying to actually fix any of the problems? A perfect example is Oprah. She is one of the most powerful women in the world. She lives in Chicago, she knows that schools are closing all over the country, funding is low and budgets are being cut, and what does she do to help out the children of her country? Nothing. She builds a school for girls in Africa. What about helping to procure a future for the children of her own country? gogetit012
DeleteWho needs that much money is right. And yet you see so many charities and organizations trying to help people who are not of the ten percent of the people controlling all of the wealth. And if they are only getting richer than it would seem like they really don't want to help. What makes them not want to really change the world and make it a better place I won't ever understand. To be born into that wealth and not know anything different but to keep it to yourself may have something to do with it, but who knows.
DeleteScientistSalarian012
I couldn't agree more. While there's definitely generous rich people out there, they seem to be few and far between. It is mind boggling how people can have so much money and not want to help those in need. Lower taxes for the rich and higher for the middle class, where's the logic in that? Obviously the government is not the role model for "leading by example " when it comes to spending.
DeleteDaBearsandBulls012
Similar to other posts, I too have noticed that he only covered two out of the three paradigm. He mentions Structural-functional and Social conflict but fails to talk about Symbolic-interaction. In this video, he does a great job at easily informing us about each paradigm ( of course, only two of them ). He not only explains what each paradigm is but he also explain which sociologist studies in which one. I personally found it a bit difficult to understand and keep straight each class of sociology and the people who studied and shaped them into what they are today. This video brought it into a clearer view. One of the classes that I personally found the most interesting to learn was the Structural class. Durkheim studied Structural - functional. The man in this video explains that the Structural- functional is similar to the body, that everything works well together in a structural way. To me, this class makes the most sense. Everything works together and is in order. -Blue22_012
ReplyDeleteI definitely have a better understanding of the three paradigms, even though he only covered structural-functional and the social conflict paradigms. Durkheim studied the structural functional paradigm and he said that it is like the body, that all things work well together when there are boundaries set such as morals and values. I found the social conflict aspect very interesting and realized how relevant it is in today's society. The rich are getting richer while middle class families are struggling to get by some days. The upper class does indeed look down on the middle class, almost like they are better than them. It was Mills that said the 1% control 40% of the worlds wealth and 10% control 80% of the worlds wealth. The divide is continuing to grow between the two classes. With all of that money, why don't more people give back to society? jam012
ReplyDeleteI most defiantly agree with you! This video really helped to learn the difference between the two better. Also you are right, there is a lot of social conflict today in society. The rich are getting richer and the poor are having to pay more therefore they are getting 'poorer'. How do we over come the social conflict though? How do we flip the was society and the government works so the poor pays a little less and the rich pay a little more? RDH012
DeleteHe did do a decent job of giving a definition of sociology, especially when comparing it to psychology, but I felt like he was all over the place. I understood where he was going with the video, but getting there was a bit rough. He fails to mention an important paradigm, the symbolic paradigm. I did like how he explained the two paradigms that he did mention (structural-functional and social-conflict). The fact that he failed to mention the third paradigm, symbolic-interaction, bothered me though. Since the other two paradigms are macro-level orientated, I would think you would need to explain the micro-level paradigm. Maybe he thought that people would be confused as to how psychology and sociology are different if he did explain the symbolic-interaction. Even if that is what he thought, I feel that he would be leaving out some crucial information about the people that contributed to this approach, such as Erving Goffman, George Homans, and Peter Blass. GoGreen012
ReplyDeleteI think his reason for focusing only on the to macro level paradigms was because as he said in the beginning of the video he was talking about the two that focused on society overall. This probably made it easier to explain the two since the third is quite different in its approach.-mechanic012
DeleteI thought the video was a little boring. Now don't get me wrong the guy did a outstanding job explaining. Once he got to the point and wasn't jumping all over the place. Now he did cover two of the three paradigms. One of the paradigm he did bring up and cover was structural -functional. Like how he explained it by saying its like the human body and that everything works well together and all in order. Then he talked about social conflict. How they are like force be hide many problems in the world today. As he was explaining all that he did tell us about Marx, Weber,mills and Durkheim and what they have found out. When he talked about the rich get richer , its so true. Most things we do doesn't benefit middle class or then poor. With all the power the rich have, most of them don't use it for good. Thats why we have so much poverty and prestige in the world as I speak." If we are the richest country in the world, then why do so many of us feel so poor"?
ReplyDeleteelmo012
I agree! Video was boring however, he did mention Marx, Weber, Mills and Durkeim and what they brought to the sociology world. Seems like we are all put into a group based on wealth and social class then analyzed of what are daily struggles are. JenChango012
DeleteThe video was a little bit difficult to follow, and he did jump around a lot. But the part that was most interesting to me is how great the divide is between the rich and the poor. It's amazing, when did that happen? How did the divide become so great? Is it really the rich that are keeping the poor out? I suppose that it could be, because if everyone was granted the same opportunities, then the rich would have to work for themselves. However, while far and few in between, there are stories out there of men who grew up poor and conquered the great divide to join the sides of the rich. If it happened for them, then couldn't it happen for all? Isn't it time for the working class to help spread out the 80% control that the rich have over the wealth?
ReplyDeleteSorry. I'm gogetit012
DeleteThe reason everyone can not pull out of poverty is the same reason we had slaves. It is like the food chain. We are the top of the food chain and producers are at the bottom. We need the producers at the bottom or we may fall from the top of the food chain. We need people working fast food and we cannot pay them the way we would doctors. It is unfair especially if the fast food worker wanted to go to college but did not have the money to do so because their parents were poor. It’s a vicious cycle but our society needs people at the bottom so people at the top can succeed. Zipping012
DeleteYou raise a good point. When did the divide between rich and poor become so large? @Zipping raises a great point that I had never thought of before though. I never thought of the divide being as a food chain, but it makes so much sense now that I have been exposed to that perception.
Delete-JrMac95012
You have a very valid point. There is such a divide between the rich and the poor. To be honest a lot of times it’s hard to establish what middle class even is between the two. There are many different discussions that can be raised from this video. In which to me was confusing with the jumping around bit. (Hound89) 012
DeleteI agree this video is a bit difficult to follow, he jumps around a lot. I agree with you about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. When did it all start you ask? When man was created. It’s always been like that and I don’t think it will ever change. Good questions
DeleteBFD6866012
This man talked about paradigms, class, and sociological ideas. Weber and other sociologists believe what determines class is wealth, power, and prestige. The man in the video talks about the rich leaning on the poor which I do not feel is the problem. The reason there is such a gap is because the rich couples are both working and are making a lot together. The poor couples are both working but only make minimum wage. Now there is a gap because the rich are making more than enough and the poor are not. He also talks about two of the three paradigms and Structural-functional paradigm which means that society works well together because of society’s boundaries. This reminds me of the consensus model of the criminal justice system. The other paradigm is the social-conflict paradigm which says that the social classes conflict with each other. The reason they are colliding is because the poor feels the rich are leaning on them for support. Zipping012
ReplyDeleteThis video was interesting, I did like hearing about Weber's theory on the classes. Also, C Wright Mills take on the divide of the social classes. For myself I believe Mills was right, the divide is great and getting greater everyday. I believe with our current society and the way it shapes and functions this divide will only continue to become greater. You can link the two together. The man in the video said that the rich lean on the poor, well with the divide isn't that true. The rich will lean on the poor so that they have someone to say that they are above. That they have someone to make that divide with. Saxophones012
ReplyDeleteI agree with lawpro012 I didn't realize the divide in society. The rich that have the money have had it since the beginning! It's a never ending chain. It's sad that they think they need all that money when most are living off 5 percent of that. The worst part is they are the ones that made the laws and they made them to benefit their selves. It's all a corrupt system that we can't get out of. RRFBall012
ReplyDeleteUpon watching the given video, I was surprised he spoke about the paradigms in a manner that I had perceived the third paradigm to be, more or less, insignificant in a way. I also found a particular piece of information around the two minute and thirty second mark, where he describes Emile Durkheim’s Structural Functional Paradigm as a perception of society working together as a body, and working well together. I found it interesting how Durkheim believed that the boundaries on behavior were responsible for keeping the society working cohesively, or well together. I found that interesting because although it is very easy to see, I never thought to perceive the cohesiveness that way.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that was interesting was his blurb about the “animeet” (more than likely misspelled) period and how it could be a time of anarchy where the boundaries end up breaking down. I find that piece interesting because it happens basically every day. Not always in the most noticeable ways, but it happens still today.
-JrMac95012
I like this video although it was a bit confusing at first. There are many things that bring up social conflict in many situations. My personal opinion on this matter is that I don’t think that peoples life style or how much money people have need to be put in different categories. I know that there are rich, middle class, and poor but in some situations it may be hard to distinguish if you don’t fully know that person. I do get that it brings a lot of social conflict because a lot of people believe that money is everything. To me money is not everything and a lot of people I think can agree with me when I say that. There are many people out there that depend on it and would do very bad things for money. A lot of people are very wealthy but do not show it. See this video can spark up a big conversation with a lot of different opinions about the subject. There will always be social conflicts when it comes to the three forms of wealth. (Hound89) 012
ReplyDeleteYes, this video was a little confusing. I had to keep replaying things he was saying to understand, i guess the concept of it. No money is not everything, but for people who already have money, might being saying the same thing. They just dont know what its like to struggle. lilred012
DeleteSociology is a great thing to study. While I agree that all people need to be classified by their lifestyles and that to some extent it affects the history of america I also beleve that we need to remember that all men need to work together to keep the great country alive. Right now as americans we are failing ourselves and our country we need to look at trends in history. look at rome and the older countries and kingdoms of old when they started to overspend their money and became to cocky and thought that they where all powerful and that they didn't need others to live they all failed as countries. That is what is happening to america right now! We are so far in debt that we don't own our own country anymore we belong to those that hold the loans against us. It is time to overthrow our government and renew our counstition. We have forgotten the things that we have fought for. To make all .men free and equal and now the only thing we are equal to in our fair country is that we all owe China trillions of Dollars! Firedude012
ReplyDeleteZipping012 I Couldn't agree with you more! there is so much of a divide between the rich and the poor now our once powerful country is now doomed to fall like the ones before it rome and Germany. We need to go back to the basics and remember that as one we are unstoppable but as divided as we are now we will fall.
ReplyDeleteFiredude012
This video was confusing for me. I heard him speak of social conflict and some of the studies done in the past based on social classes. However, I didn't get much on social conflict out of this video. He went on a but the two Paradigm's and how studies broke down social classes. Based on these social classes your put into catagories of power and wealth. People are always going to base social conflict on these areas. This video was not great in helping me understand any better. JenChango012
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you, he did not speak much about social conflict directly but sociology as a whole. Indirectly he talks about social conflict but does not go into much detail about it which was a little disappointing.
Deletestarburst012
This video was very interesting and brought up some new topics and facts that I had not heard about yet. A few things did stick out to me though. He talked about how there are three elements to class, which I found interesting, they are: wealth, power, and prestige. He also talks about how the working/middle, and lower classes are in conflict but the upper class is not. Another topic he discusses which I found to be quite intriguing was house Durkheim says that society has written and unwritten boundaries such as societies values, morals, customs and rules that society follows in order to keep society working and flowing. He brought up a lot of good important facts in this video that have a lot to do with sociology as a whole and social conflict.
ReplyDeletestarburst012
He only focuses on two paradigms, which is ok, but why not the third?
ReplyDeleteI really think what he is saying about durkheim is hitting it dead on. Thinking society was like the body and that all of it worked together. What kept it working to together, like morals and values. ex:If your did a crime you went to jail, or where crazy, you where helped. He thought of this way before we even viewed life in this way, which is amazing. This was a very informational video that I think everyone needs to see. lilred012
I listen to radio Hogan for eight times and it’s Sunday, hopefully we will never have to do another blog with him again.
ReplyDeleteI would hope Marx was not the first one to realize the society is broken up in the classes. It has been like that since I can remember and they are a lot older than me. I see a lot has changed since Marx’s time. (Not really).
Let’s talk about the wealthy people when I think of the wealthy people, they have a ton of money and a lot of its old money. These individual controls governments, politicians, judges and even you and me. Its shift like that all over the world, even in Third World countries they might not be billionaires or have as much wealth there but they still control people and their government in different ways.
Durkheim talked about society having boundaries that helped everybody worked together. He talked about custom, folkways, morals and values. These are all learn from our parents, grandparents or the people who raised you, they are passed down to us generation to generation. What would happen to a society if a government took all that away, the custom, folkways, morals and values? What would that group of people be like today? Would it be anarchy for them?
BFD6866012
So he talks about our two macro-level paradigms being Structural-Functional and Social-Conflict pretty well. I feel it's easy to see Structural-Functional in everyday life because we participate in it more so than Social-Conflict. It's very true that society has set social boundaries upon itself and we act accordingly to those. Most people don't want to be different to the point that we are looked at as weird or bad. Now plenty of individuals may wish to be unique but no one really wants to be different. We all want to adhere to social norms but I truly believe that the only "Normal" people are the people you don't know. Meaning everyone is different even in the same culture. We all do and think things that others in the same culture may find weird but because of the Structural-Functional paradigm we don't talk or act like that in society.
ReplyDeleteNow Social-Conflict we are all apart of as well but we may not notice it as much or think on it in everyday life. I agree that the rich are certainly feeding off of the poor and working man. The fact that our lives are pretty much controlled by ten percent of the world's population. Regular every day people don't even know who these people are. We know politicians but they are bought and funded. The mere fact that the rich are getting richer more so than the poor and middle classes seems to show that the "Super-Class" doesn't want to share the wealth. Meaning we are in a conflict of classes but it's hard to know where to point the finger. The Social-Conflict Paradigm can be a bit more depressing to look at than Structural-Functional but it is certainly there none the less.
ScientistSalarian012
This was an interesting video. It is amazing how great the divide is and how the "majority" seems to be powerless. As discussed, the rich make the laws to benefit them, not much has changed. The middle class, who struggles, votes in the politicians we feel will help improve the situations that are dealt with on a daily basis only to get fed lines of bull so they can be put into to office and better themselves. As Americans, we sell ourselves short not only to other countries, but to one another. So many good and strong qualities are overshadowed by the negativity and lack of common sense approach WE have towards issues. We should be the example on "how to run a business" sort of speak when in all actuality the government needs to be taking a few pages out of other parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteDaBearsandBulls012
I definitely agree with your experience from the video. I also agree with the fact that nothing has really changed in a sense government makes sure thing are based around them unless we get a politician who can either relate to the middle class or genuinely cares for the development of our country. (Aphi012)
DeleteInteresting video- he didn't take a lot of time to go into detail on either of the macro-level paradigms, but did get a few main points across. It was interesting to note on the Structural-Functional paradigm that where Durkheim thought that boundaries kept society functioning as a whole even he recognized that some of these boundaries were more beneficial to the rich as opposed to the poor. Ex: crazy poor people get locked up where as crazy rich people are just thought of as "eccentric" and where some punishments for certain crimes seem to benefit rich people instead of poor. This actually seems to link it somewhat to the Social-Conflict paradigm and the class conflict that Marx recognized. -mechanic012
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I also wish the speaker could have added more depth, yet the snippets of info he did provide were interesting. I found it interesting when he referenced the German philosophers that influenced Marx and why Marx became so passionate in the social conflict paradigm. Firecracker012
DeleteThis video was interesting, however, I wish he could have added a little depth into the reasons why each sociologist thought the way they did. I found it interesting that he referenced the German philosophers, Hegel and Feurbach as ones who influenced Karl Marx. Yet really didn't go further into the ones who influenced the others. Marx's view on social conflict were, I believe important, in the time frame in which he was living. The industrial revolution was both magnificient and heartwrending with advancements in inventions and capitalism. I say heartwrending because families who were poor often put their very young children (ages 4 and up) to work in factories for severely low wages and risks of dismemberment and death. I can see where the social conflict paradigm could definitely be born during this timeframe. And justly so. Firecracker012
ReplyDeleteOk from the beginning this video was sufficiently informative. Max weber the sociologist from Germany had very strong statements that are still respected today. Max was very in touch with wealth, power, and prestige all of which were significantly important. He even was very distinct about work ethic in society. Then we have Emile Durkheim who believed in the structural functional basically saying that our society resembled the human body in such that all organs work together in order for the body to function. He believed our behavioral boundaries were the reason our society could work but there’d be a period of chaos once members of society started noticing the flaws. Marx on the other hand believed that there was a natural conflict between the working class, the middle class, and the upper class. Which kind of coincides with weber’s theories on wealth prestige and power. (Ahi012)
ReplyDelete