I think that all these points are very important in the development and refinement of the individual’s personality or make it easily integrated into the community. And it is important to make him understand the traditions and cultures of other people and look at things positively, if we collected all these points and tried to apply in our daily lives. Because when we look to Social conflict theory is a macro-oriented paradigm in sociology that views society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and social change. And factors such as race, sex, class, and age are linked to social inequality. To a social conflict theorist, it is all about dominant group versus minority group relations and that’s why we see some unfair battle communities, and lead to the production personnel are unable to tender. That’s why for me if anyone has the power struggles and can shared the meaning of anything with other people by structural functionalism, then him or her they will get good result. hassan007
I agree that all three are interconnected within our daily lives. Even though the film shows social conflict and structural functionalism on a macro level i believe they are on a micro level too as we can apply them in our everyday lives. I also agree we should use the structural functionalism in our conflicts because maybe could come up with a way to function as a whole without such a power struggle. MMP007
All three of these lenses are important in everyday society, and all have their pros and cons. Social Conflict is probably how most people view society, because people are always trying to reach the top of the pyramid, for the money or the respect or the advantages, while those towards the bottom of the pyramid are viewed with disdain, pity, and can sometimes be generally rejected from certain societal functions. It would probably be a better world if we could do away with social conflict and be more like structural functionalism, everyone working together towards a greater society/world would be a very different place from where we are at now, with no suspicion or judgment, just knowing that everyone has a job and a place and without one, the whole cannot function as well. Rescue007
This is a fascinating comment to me, because I had never considered that most people might view society in terms of social conflict due to wanting to rise and become better. It makes me wonder, as well, if the viewpoints of what society is and which of the sociological theories is the predominant mindset differs between the elites vs the impoverished and struggling. While someone born into a poor, struggling family in a neighborhood of violence, theft, etc might view society as social conflict which oppresses, perhaps a person born into a gentler lifestyle with inherent privileges may never even consider society that, but rather simply from the functionalism view. Rainshadow007
I disagree, Rescue. While at first glance, socialism (the system you're describing, where everyone has a job and a function in society) seems like an ideal utopia, the problem with a utopia is that it gets boring. A thought test was put to me once: if you place a human in a white box for their entire lives, no other human contact or anything, can you truly say that human has lived? My answer is no; a person needs some kind of purpose in order to have truly lived.
Likewise, that's the flipside of having a purpose for everyone: inevitably not everyone will make it. So what do we do? Historically, leaders have responded to this problem with purges (see: Nazis, or "National Socialists," Stalin's massive purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution). I think this kind of specter is why Americans as a whole are so afraid of the concept of socialism. I agree that we should provide for all individuals, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with Marx that we should do it "by each, according to his ability." Because some people get left out, and what happens to them inevitably gets ugly. Like I said in my comment, I think the best way is through careful consideration of all three lenses.
The other thing I can think of, sociologically, is that social conflict creates culture. For example, think of how many love songs there are, probably written for specific people. Yet we all benefit from them. Conflict drives innovation. There's an old Twilight Zone episode where a bank robber gets shot and goes up to a place with money and riches and women and food, everything he could ever want. But he can't hit the women, he doesn't have anything to buy, and he never gets hungry so he doesn't have much to do. He gets mad at the angel who brought him. "Isn't heaven supposed to be great?" "Oh, this isn't heaven," says the angel. "It's the other place." Marx was writing from a very dark place, and it's always important to keep that in mind when considering his ideas.
Rainshadow, if you add in a touch of race to your final example, you have a great foundation for understanding what white privilege is and how it functions. Not all white people have access to all aspects of it (example: poor white people are treated vastly different by society than rich white people), but at the same time, white people and people of color are obviously treated very differently no matter what their social status. The example that finally helped me understand it awhile ago was this: imagine someone is on your neighbor's lawn across the street, in a uniform with a labeled van, walking around looking at the doors and locks. Scenario 1: white guy who looks like he just got out of the military, buttoned up. Scenario 2: Latino guy with a lot of tattoos, with a beat-up uniform down around his waste and a wife-beater on. Do you keep an eye on one more than the other? If you do, don't feel bad. Most people (80+%) do. It's learning to check yourself that makes knowing this valuable. I'm white myself, and it always feels a bit confrontational when anyone talks about white privilege. But hey, here's the benefit! From this class, now you can follow along with the current, rather complicated race discussions better.
I agree with you that if we want better world we could do away with social conflict and be more like structural functionalism, everyone working together towards a greater society but we need to respect the other ideas, how they thinking, and understand the meaning of it. Also we need impartiality of the ego. Hassan007
I definitely have to agree. Saying goodbye to social conflict is the way to go, and to have all of society work together for that greater good, but I also feel like I should be singing that Kumbaya (if I spelled that right) song, holding up a lighter, swaying it back and forth!! Because as much as I agree with that, I don't think it will ever happen. These struggles will always be in the way of a lot of people, as sad as it may be. blonndie007
JimmyBond, I appreciate your comment and thoughts on the topic. I am a person who takes a lot of care to follow issues of inequality and race, so this class is not what will be opening my eyes to it. I am already aware of such things, and want to help work to fight inequality. Hopefully this class will give me a better understanding in addition, though, yes. My comment was mostly aimed at that perhaps different groups, both the well to do and the struggling, might come with inherently different views of what society is in general and its purpose or role in people's lives. I apologize if I wasn't very clear about that. Thanks for your reply. Rainshadow007
I personally feel that each person is entitled to feel the way that they do however, there are certain things that I feel are slightly impossible. While yes, we can want to get rid of social conflict it is something that is either an all or nothing thing. If everyone in the world wanted to get rid of social conflict then it would work however not everyone wants this. Like with childhood hunger, everyone wants to either pretend it isn't an issue or pretend that it will one day end, it is an all or nothing deal. If everyone wanted it gone then it would be with everyone's help but there are a lot of people who say it is a non-issue. It just isn't a possibility. hello_sweetie007
I agree littlejimmybond007 we could possibly do away with social conflict and learn to deal with smaller and big issues actively as a community. By helping uplift and encourage one another to do better. Life just may run a bit more smoother and less stress for all of us. One step at a time.... Tricey007
The three lenses of trying to define and grasp what society is are very fascinating to me. I don't feel that they exist within a vacuum, but rather all three define society together. I believe society is both a social conflict between groups or classes as well as a structured sense of functionalism that can both help and hinder people but typically serves the society as a whole. I believe shared symbols are a means of aiding both the conflict and functionalism viewpoints.
While there is always social conflict within a society, historically shown through unrest in nations such as Russia, France, and Egypt, society is something that also helps to maintain and take care of its individuals by providing unique individual specializations through functionalism. In general, society serves the individual by providing a network, role, and place for the individual to thrive, and in return this individual provides unique services back to the society and keeps it healthy. Certain groups of influence will always abuse this, but I believe the power of other groups (such as workers protesting for rights, for example), will always eventually be pushing the boundaries of a society to allow for a greater sense of fairness or individualism. Rainshadow007
Like philosophy, sociology is one of those fields that I can't quite come down all on one side. I'm not sure how anyone ever does. All three models described here seem to fit different situations. Heck, the Super Bowl right now is a good example of accepted, fairly non-harmful social conflict playing itself out. It's also a symbol of various things to various people (alternately, a good time, source of concussions, a reason to drink, etc.). And putting it all together, into the term "Super Bowl Sunday," is structural functionalism.
At the same time, however, there are obvious downsides to each view too. In Marx's socialism, the ideological version of social conflict, inevitably there are some who do not have skills society deems valuable. The question of what to do with such people (a group that includes people who cannot work, such as the elderly or disabled, as well as those who have no real use) usually becomes a sticking point in the switch to more pure social equality. It is the individual who will screw it up for the masses, because the individual out for power for himself inevitably must take it from others.
Structural functionalism and interacting via symbols also break down quite easily when put into practical form. The flag the video uses as the example: to take that not just between Americans, but between cultures (such as the US vs. Iraqi view of the flag) would actually probably cause more problems than promote understanding. Likewise, the more tribally-based Iraqi and Afghani ways of life are not the same as the more uniform Western world. To view them as interlocking inevitably causes some split ends, as we saw with the war in Iraq. The US assumed they would be "welcomed as liberators;" instead, we were drawn into an unwinnable, unending war with a people we had originally sought to help.
In the end, these lenses are just that: lenses, like a pair of glasses. No one should be taken as any better or more sound than the other, at least in my opinion. However, looking at every single possible event from all angles would be an impossible feat in itself; therefore, as long as we remember the lenses are not exclusively correct, we should be fine.
I guess I can somewhat see the example used during the discussion about social conflict. It made me compare myself to the situation, as I am working towards a nursing degree. But it also made me question some of the concerns people may have when thinking about this theory. For instance, I don't understand how anyone could see someone getting a degree as being a contribution to some sort of power struggle? I would think that someone earning a degree would be looked at as if they were trying to better their life, wouldn't you? I think that if someone really wanted to, instead of dwelling on the fact that someone is earning a degree and may be in a very distinguished job one day. they should be more involved in finding a way to better themselves through their own education. There is a thing called financial aid! Although some people may not be able to benefit from financial aid, there are always scholarships. I think that there should be less dwelling on the negative and more focus on the positive....easier said that done! blonndie007
I guess some would consider it a power struggle simply because even though there are things like financial aid and scholarships, a lot of poorer schools don't even tell their students about these options, because they know that the education they've gotten thus far isn't going to be up to par for a college education. While the better schools are constantly speaking about opportunities and the future, some other schools just talk about getting out of high school and don't even give kids ideas or possible plans. Kind of like in the movie "In Time", they said they keep the poor poor and the rich rich, because that's how their society functions, and they don't even allow people to move up out of their zone, and if the poor got more time (money), the head guys would just raise the cost to keep them down. Rescue007
Having read the above comments I must agree that getting rid of social conflict would help to even out our society it is also important to realize what else might come from doing this. For example, if we got rid of social conflict there would be less of a feeling of social class but there would still be classes because it is impossible to have everyone making the same salary. I definitely do not make the same salary as Katy Perry. She did the halftime show and I watched the halftime show. It would be absurd if I thought that I should get half of her salary just because she got paid. The want for social equality will always exist however, there isn't a way to get rid of this feeling. We as individuals have to make the difference in the ways we live, not in the amount of want we have for getting rid of social conflict. hello_sweetie007
I believe all three lenses are interconnected within society. Even though it says that the social conflict theory is more on a macro level i think it can be viewed on the micro level as well. There are power struggles within individuals as well as within society. I agree with the structural functionalism theory as in we as a society have to work together to make society functional.If one part is broken we have to fix it or come up with an alternative for society to function as a whole. The symbolic theory will always change because our views and symbols with constantly change especially when traveling. I think this could actually be on the macro level since it affects society as a whole. If you go to another country or region the things we use as symbols are different then what they use.
I believe all three lenses are interconnected within society. Even though it says that the social conflict theory is more on a macro level i think it can be viewed on the micro level as well. There are power struggles within individuals as well as within society. I agree with the structural functionalism theory as in we as a society have to work together to make society functional.If one part is broken we have to fix it or come up with an alternative for society to function as a whole. The symbolic theory will always change because our views and symbols with constantly change especially when traveling. I think this could actually be on the macro level since it affects society as a whole. If you go to another country or region the things we use as symbols are different then what they use.MMP007
I agree with MMP007 that there are power struggles within individuals as well as within society. There is no way around it because there is right and wrong and what we think is right may not be right within society so we are struggling. I also agree that if one part of society is broken or dysfunctional that there has to be something altered or added to keep our system going. And symbolic theory is the most abundant thing is people’s everyday lives I think because of how many we come across each day and how differently they affect different people.
Interesting the three lenses are said to be interconnected with social conflict never viewed things from that standpoint. I agree with you that if we want better world we could do away with social conflict and be more like structural functionalism. Interesting topic because when we actually look at things for the way they are and pretty much the natural basis of life to get ahead or live better than what you were raised. We want the flashiness and finer things in life. Good careers, homes, and well mannered structured family. I don't look at financial aid and other assistant programs so much as a power struggle, more so as helpful assistance we all take advantage of to help with getting ahead. Tricey007
These Sociological theories are the basis of what we know as a nation. Are they 100% right? That could be argued. But from my standpoint, if you want it to be true or not, this is how our society works today. There is social conflict in everything that we participate in. Whether it’s class, race, gender, a degree… It seems that no matter how hard you try to move up on the pyramid there is always someone trying to beat you. But, if it weren’t for power struggle, would we be where we are in society today as far as technological advances and medicine. I think it is human nature to try to be the best because of all the rewards that come along with it. Yet, when it comes to a college degree enforcing the social pyramid, I agree because there are people out there that have the capability and passion to move up and earn a degree but they just don’t have the luck that the people from families at the top do. Structural Functionalism is important in keeping things in order for our society I think. I don’t like how everyone is controlled by the government but our world would probably be pretty crazy without a system. This is looking at our society as an organism functioning together instead of inequalities in social conflict. Degrees are helping to train the next generation to help our society run smoothly in this lens. I think that people need to continue to earn degrees because it keeps us moving forward. We have a lot of shared meanings and symbols in our society. Everyone has a different way of looking at things. The American flag, to Americans that love their nation meant pride and nationality. But to people we have started war with, the flag might mean terror to them or hate. Meanings shift when patterns of social interaction change, and I think that earing a college degree helps pass on cultural symbols and ideas and creates new ones. UNDECIDED007
I agree with what you said about power struggles and how it always seems like there is someone trying to beat you. I also agree with the idea that our society wouldn't be as advanced if it weren't for power struggles. If there wasn't such a thing as power struggles, I don’t think people would be as motivated to do great things, like invent new and more efficient technology. Society as a whole would not have progressed as much if it weren't for social conflict and power struggles. Because being in competition in effort to be superior to others is one of the major reasons why people strive for greatness. To add on to your opinion, shared meanings and symbols between people are the building blocks of society. Even if people correlate different meanings to a particular object, like the American flag, society is still able to act as a whole. I would also like to add that I agree with the video when it explains how meanings of symbols changes among people as their patterns of social interaction change. I believe this because most of what we believe or think about things comes from what people around us think and have said. For example, if the people I am around (the society I exist in) says that the American flag symbolizes freedom, I am most likely to think of freedom when I see an American flag rather than thinking of terrorism or war. A society that may think of opposition when they see the American flag would be one from a different country. This example demonstrates how meanings of symbols are shared within a society. flxr007
Our society is full of social conflict and power struggles. Most of our lives, we strive to get a better education and land that promotion so we can climb higher up the status scale. I think that some people do this without even realizing it. Most seniors in high school automatically begin filling out college applications even if they may not want to go to college at all. And why? Because we have this conception that if we live off of a high school degree, we may not be able to accomplish as much as we could with a college degree. This can tie into symbolic interaction and the degree example the video had. The video explains how a degree may have value because enough people says it does. And part of me believes this is true. Because when you fill out a job application, one of the first things a superior looks at may be what university you have graduated from. And if the application says that you have only obtained a high school degree, someone who has a bachelor’s degree may be chosen for the job position over you. I’m not saying that this is how things should work, but I believe this is what our society has come to. Concerning structural functionalism, I completely agree with the idea that society is made of interlocking systems. Each social structure has its own function which makes society work as a whole. This allows people to live in unity and for things to be steady. I believe that all three of these perspectives are in collaboration to enable the steady society we live in today. flxr007
I learned here. Natural007
ReplyDeleteI think that all these points are very important in the development and refinement of the individual’s personality or make it easily integrated into the community. And it is important to make him understand the traditions and cultures of other people and look at things positively, if we collected all these points and tried to apply in our daily lives. Because when we look to Social conflict theory is a macro-oriented paradigm in sociology that views society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and social change. And factors such as race, sex, class, and age are linked to social inequality. To a social conflict theorist, it is all about dominant group versus minority group relations and that’s why we see some unfair battle communities, and lead to the production personnel are unable to tender. That’s why for me if anyone has the power struggles and can shared the meaning of anything with other people by structural functionalism, then him or her they will get good result. hassan007
ReplyDeleteI agree that all three are interconnected within our daily lives. Even though the film shows social conflict and structural functionalism on a macro level i believe they are on a micro level too as we can apply them in our everyday lives. I also agree we should use the structural functionalism in our conflicts because maybe could come up with a way to function as a whole without such a power struggle. MMP007
DeleteAll three of these lenses are important in everyday society, and all have their pros and cons. Social Conflict is probably how most people view society, because people are always trying to reach the top of the pyramid, for the money or the respect or the advantages, while those towards the bottom of the pyramid are viewed with disdain, pity, and can sometimes be generally rejected from certain societal functions. It would probably be a better world if we could do away with social conflict and be more like structural functionalism, everyone working together towards a greater society/world would be a very different place from where we are at now, with no suspicion or judgment, just knowing that everyone has a job and a place and without one, the whole cannot function as well. Rescue007
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating comment to me, because I had never considered that most people might view society in terms of social conflict due to wanting to rise and become better. It makes me wonder, as well, if the viewpoints of what society is and which of the sociological theories is the predominant mindset differs between the elites vs the impoverished and struggling. While someone born into a poor, struggling family in a neighborhood of violence, theft, etc might view society as social conflict which oppresses, perhaps a person born into a gentler lifestyle with inherent privileges may never even consider society that, but rather simply from the functionalism view. Rainshadow007
DeleteI disagree, Rescue. While at first glance, socialism (the system you're describing, where everyone has a job and a function in society) seems like an ideal utopia, the problem with a utopia is that it gets boring. A thought test was put to me once: if you place a human in a white box for their entire lives, no other human contact or anything, can you truly say that human has lived? My answer is no; a person needs some kind of purpose in order to have truly lived.
DeleteLikewise, that's the flipside of having a purpose for everyone: inevitably not everyone will make it. So what do we do? Historically, leaders have responded to this problem with purges (see: Nazis, or "National Socialists," Stalin's massive purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution). I think this kind of specter is why Americans as a whole are so afraid of the concept of socialism. I agree that we should provide for all individuals, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with Marx that we should do it "by each, according to his ability." Because some people get left out, and what happens to them inevitably gets ugly. Like I said in my comment, I think the best way is through careful consideration of all three lenses.
The other thing I can think of, sociologically, is that social conflict creates culture. For example, think of how many love songs there are, probably written for specific people. Yet we all benefit from them. Conflict drives innovation. There's an old Twilight Zone episode where a bank robber gets shot and goes up to a place with money and riches and women and food, everything he could ever want. But he can't hit the women, he doesn't have anything to buy, and he never gets hungry so he doesn't have much to do. He gets mad at the angel who brought him. "Isn't heaven supposed to be great?" "Oh, this isn't heaven," says the angel. "It's the other place." Marx was writing from a very dark place, and it's always important to keep that in mind when considering his ideas.
Rainshadow, if you add in a touch of race to your final example, you have a great foundation for understanding what white privilege is and how it functions. Not all white people have access to all aspects of it (example: poor white people are treated vastly different by society than rich white people), but at the same time, white people and people of color are obviously treated very differently no matter what their social status. The example that finally helped me understand it awhile ago was this: imagine someone is on your neighbor's lawn across the street, in a uniform with a labeled van, walking around looking at the doors and locks. Scenario 1: white guy who looks like he just got out of the military, buttoned up. Scenario 2: Latino guy with a lot of tattoos, with a beat-up uniform down around his waste and a wife-beater on. Do you keep an eye on one more than the other? If you do, don't feel bad. Most people (80+%) do. It's learning to check yourself that makes knowing this valuable. I'm white myself, and it always feels a bit confrontational when anyone talks about white privilege. But hey, here's the benefit! From this class, now you can follow along with the current, rather complicated race discussions better.
LittleJimmyBond007
I agree with you that if we want better world we could do away with social conflict and be more like structural functionalism, everyone working together towards a greater society but we need to respect the other ideas, how they thinking, and understand the meaning of it. Also we need impartiality of the ego. Hassan007
DeleteI definitely have to agree. Saying goodbye to social conflict is the way to go, and to have all of society work together for that greater good, but I also feel like I should be singing that Kumbaya (if I spelled that right) song, holding up a lighter, swaying it back and forth!! Because as much as I agree with that, I don't think it will ever happen. These struggles will always be in the way of a lot of people, as sad as it may be. blonndie007
DeleteJimmyBond, I appreciate your comment and thoughts on the topic. I am a person who takes a lot of care to follow issues of inequality and race, so this class is not what will be opening my eyes to it. I am already aware of such things, and want to help work to fight inequality. Hopefully this class will give me a better understanding in addition, though, yes. My comment was mostly aimed at that perhaps different groups, both the well to do and the struggling, might come with inherently different views of what society is in general and its purpose or role in people's lives. I apologize if I wasn't very clear about that. Thanks for your reply. Rainshadow007
DeleteI personally feel that each person is entitled to feel the way that they do however, there are certain things that I feel are slightly impossible. While yes, we can want to get rid of social conflict it is something that is either an all or nothing thing. If everyone in the world wanted to get rid of social conflict then it would work however not everyone wants this. Like with childhood hunger, everyone wants to either pretend it isn't an issue or pretend that it will one day end, it is an all or nothing deal. If everyone wanted it gone then it would be with everyone's help but there are a lot of people who say it is a non-issue. It just isn't a possibility. hello_sweetie007
DeleteI agree littlejimmybond007 we could possibly do away with social conflict and learn to deal with smaller and big issues actively as a community. By helping uplift and encourage one another to do better. Life just may run a bit more smoother and less stress for all of us. One step at a time.... Tricey007
DeleteThe three lenses of trying to define and grasp what society is are very fascinating to me. I don't feel that they exist within a vacuum, but rather all three define society together. I believe society is both a social conflict between groups or classes as well as a structured sense of functionalism that can both help and hinder people but typically serves the society as a whole. I believe shared symbols are a means of aiding both the conflict and functionalism viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is always social conflict within a society, historically shown through unrest in nations such as Russia, France, and Egypt, society is something that also helps to maintain and take care of its individuals by providing unique individual specializations through functionalism. In general, society serves the individual by providing a network, role, and place for the individual to thrive, and in return this individual provides unique services back to the society and keeps it healthy. Certain groups of influence will always abuse this, but I believe the power of other groups (such as workers protesting for rights, for example), will always eventually be pushing the boundaries of a society to allow for a greater sense of fairness or individualism. Rainshadow007
Like philosophy, sociology is one of those fields that I can't quite come down all on one side. I'm not sure how anyone ever does. All three models described here seem to fit different situations. Heck, the Super Bowl right now is a good example of accepted, fairly non-harmful social conflict playing itself out. It's also a symbol of various things to various people (alternately, a good time, source of concussions, a reason to drink, etc.). And putting it all together, into the term "Super Bowl Sunday," is structural functionalism.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, however, there are obvious downsides to each view too. In Marx's socialism, the ideological version of social conflict, inevitably there are some who do not have skills society deems valuable. The question of what to do with such people (a group that includes people who cannot work, such as the elderly or disabled, as well as those who have no real use) usually becomes a sticking point in the switch to more pure social equality. It is the individual who will screw it up for the masses, because the individual out for power for himself inevitably must take it from others.
Structural functionalism and interacting via symbols also break down quite easily when put into practical form. The flag the video uses as the example: to take that not just between Americans, but between cultures (such as the US vs. Iraqi view of the flag) would actually probably cause more problems than promote understanding. Likewise, the more tribally-based Iraqi and Afghani ways of life are not the same as the more uniform Western world. To view them as interlocking inevitably causes some split ends, as we saw with the war in Iraq. The US assumed they would be "welcomed as liberators;" instead, we were drawn into an unwinnable, unending war with a people we had originally sought to help.
In the end, these lenses are just that: lenses, like a pair of glasses. No one should be taken as any better or more sound than the other, at least in my opinion. However, looking at every single possible event from all angles would be an impossible feat in itself; therefore, as long as we remember the lenses are not exclusively correct, we should be fine.
LittleJimmyBond007
I guess I can somewhat see the example used during the discussion about social conflict. It made me compare myself to the situation, as I am working towards a nursing degree. But it also made me question some of the concerns people may have when thinking about this theory. For instance, I don't understand how anyone could see someone getting a degree as being a contribution to some sort of power struggle? I would think that someone earning a degree would be looked at as if they were trying to better their life, wouldn't you? I think that if someone really wanted to, instead of dwelling on the fact that someone is earning a degree and may be in a very distinguished job one day. they should be more involved in finding a way to better themselves through their own education. There is a thing called financial aid! Although some people may not be able to benefit from financial aid, there are always scholarships. I think that there should be less dwelling on the negative and more focus on the positive....easier said that done! blonndie007
ReplyDeleteI guess some would consider it a power struggle simply because even though there are things like financial aid and scholarships, a lot of poorer schools don't even tell their students about these options, because they know that the education they've gotten thus far isn't going to be up to par for a college education. While the better schools are constantly speaking about opportunities and the future, some other schools just talk about getting out of high school and don't even give kids ideas or possible plans. Kind of like in the movie "In Time", they said they keep the poor poor and the rich rich, because that's how their society functions, and they don't even allow people to move up out of their zone, and if the poor got more time (money), the head guys would just raise the cost to keep them down. Rescue007
DeleteHaving read the above comments I must agree that getting rid of social conflict would help to even out our society it is also important to realize what else might come from doing this. For example, if we got rid of social conflict there would be less of a feeling of social class but there would still be classes because it is impossible to have everyone making the same salary. I definitely do not make the same salary as Katy Perry. She did the halftime show and I watched the halftime show. It would be absurd if I thought that I should get half of her salary just because she got paid. The want for social equality will always exist however, there isn't a way to get rid of this feeling. We as individuals have to make the difference in the ways we live, not in the amount of want we have for getting rid of social conflict. hello_sweetie007
ReplyDeleteI believe all three lenses are interconnected within society. Even though it says that the social conflict theory is more on a macro level i think it can be viewed on the micro level as well. There are power struggles within individuals as well as within society. I agree with the structural functionalism theory as in we as a society have to work together to make society functional.If one part is broken we have to fix it or come up with an alternative for society to function as a whole. The symbolic theory will always change because our views and symbols with constantly change especially when traveling. I think this could actually be on the macro level since it affects society as a whole. If you go to another country or region the things we use as symbols are different then what they use.
ReplyDeleteI believe all three lenses are interconnected within society. Even though it says that the social conflict theory is more on a macro level i think it can be viewed on the micro level as well. There are power struggles within individuals as well as within society. I agree with the structural functionalism theory as in we as a society have to work together to make society functional.If one part is broken we have to fix it or come up with an alternative for society to function as a whole. The symbolic theory will always change because our views and symbols with constantly change especially when traveling. I think this could actually be on the macro level since it affects society as a whole. If you go to another country or region the things we use as symbols are different then what they use.MMP007
ReplyDeleteI agree with MMP007 that there are power struggles within individuals as well as within society. There is no way around it because there is right and wrong and what we think is right may not be right within society so we are struggling. I also agree that if one part of society is broken or dysfunctional that there has to be something altered or added to keep our system going. And symbolic theory is the most abundant thing is people’s everyday lives I think because of how many we come across each day and how differently they affect different people.
DeleteInteresting the three lenses are said to be interconnected with social conflict never viewed things from that standpoint. I agree with you that if we want better world we could do away with social conflict and be more like structural functionalism. Interesting topic because when we actually look at things for the way they are and pretty much the natural basis of life to get ahead or live better than what you were raised. We want the flashiness and finer things in life. Good careers, homes, and well mannered structured family. I don't look at financial aid and other assistant programs so much as a power struggle, more so as helpful assistance we all take advantage of to help with getting ahead. Tricey007
ReplyDeleteThese Sociological theories are the basis of what we know as a nation. Are they 100% right? That could be argued. But from my standpoint, if you want it to be true or not, this is how our society works today. There is social conflict in everything that we participate in. Whether it’s class, race, gender, a degree… It seems that no matter how hard you try to move up on the pyramid there is always someone trying to beat you. But, if it weren’t for power struggle, would we be where we are in society today as far as technological advances and medicine. I think it is human nature to try to be the best because of all the rewards that come along with it. Yet, when it comes to a college degree enforcing the social pyramid, I agree because there are people out there that have the capability and passion to move up and earn a degree but they just don’t have the luck that the people from families at the top do.
ReplyDeleteStructural Functionalism is important in keeping things in order for our society I think. I don’t like how everyone is controlled by the government but our world would probably be pretty crazy without a system. This is looking at our society as an organism functioning together instead of inequalities in social conflict. Degrees are helping to train the next generation to help our society run smoothly in this lens. I think that people need to continue to earn degrees because it keeps us moving forward.
We have a lot of shared meanings and symbols in our society. Everyone has a different way of looking at things. The American flag, to Americans that love their nation meant pride and nationality. But to people we have started war with, the flag might mean terror to them or hate. Meanings shift when patterns of social interaction change, and I think that earing a college degree helps pass on cultural symbols and ideas and creates new ones.
UNDECIDED007
I agree with what you said about power struggles and how it always seems like there is someone trying to beat you. I also agree with the idea that our society wouldn't be as advanced if it weren't for power struggles. If there wasn't such a thing as power struggles, I don’t think people would be as motivated to do great things, like invent new and more efficient technology. Society as a whole would not have progressed as much if it weren't for social conflict and power struggles. Because being in competition in effort to be superior to others is one of the major reasons why people strive for greatness. To add on to your opinion, shared meanings and symbols between people are the building blocks of society. Even if people correlate different meanings to a particular object, like the American flag, society is still able to act as a whole. I would also like to add that I agree with the video when it explains how meanings of symbols changes among people as their patterns of social interaction change. I believe this because most of what we believe or think about things comes from what people around us think and have said. For example, if the people I am around (the society I exist in) says that the American flag symbolizes freedom, I am most likely to think of freedom when I see an American flag rather than thinking of terrorism or war. A society that may think of opposition when they see the American flag would be one from a different country. This example demonstrates how meanings of symbols are shared within a society.
Deleteflxr007
Our society is full of social conflict and power struggles. Most of our lives, we strive to get a better education and land that promotion so we can climb higher up the status scale. I think that some people do this without even realizing it. Most seniors in high school automatically begin filling out college applications even if they may not want to go to college at all. And why? Because we have this conception that if we live off of a high school degree, we may not be able to accomplish as much as we could with a college degree. This can tie into symbolic interaction and the degree example the video had. The video explains how a degree may have value because enough people says it does. And part of me believes this is true. Because when you fill out a job application, one of the first things a superior looks at may be what university you have graduated from. And if the application says that you have only obtained a high school degree, someone who has a bachelor’s degree may be chosen for the job position over you. I’m not saying that this is how things should work, but I believe this is what our society has come to.
ReplyDeleteConcerning structural functionalism, I completely agree with the idea that society is made of interlocking systems. Each social structure has its own function which makes society work as a whole. This allows people to live in unity and for things to be steady.
I believe that all three of these perspectives are in collaboration to enable the steady society we live in today.
flxr007