Sociologists look at the different characteristics that make up that society. Whether some people believe it or not, tasks cannot be done by one person. You have to rely on other people to help you with any tasks. Some societies are not as well developed as others. People in smaller environments tend to know many people and get along and share life backgrounds and also relate to things better.This could help them with getting better jobs because the people are much closer with one another. But, people who live in much larger environments don't tend to share as much similar characteristics and are strangers to one another because of the greater number of people there is in the larger environment. This would be better for the higher poverty people. Summer001
Relying sometimes can come in way of ego, but its true that relying on people does make things better around the surroundings. I agree with about people living around in larger environment, and that is solely because how far people actually live from each other. khush001
I question the part where you say that living in a smaller town you would have a better chance at a better job. Yes knowing people sometimes helps as far as getting a certain type of job but in smaller communities there are not as many jobs period, they usual commute so living in a small town wouldn't matter at all. I am not sure why this would be better for the poor people? Wonder Woman001
Why would a smaller town be better for poor people? First of all taxes would be lower, so if they held the same job in a city or a small town they would make more money in a small town. Secondly the cost of living is universally lower in a small town, so if they need to buy anything they will have more money in their pocket afterwards. Thirdly it's been shown that small town populations give a higher percentage of their income to charity than cities, and that it also reaches their intended charitee with a higher passover rate and with faster allocation. Fourthly it provides a sense of community and protection that one cannot receive inside of a city unless you were to join some kind of gang. Fifthly you have a greater degree of freedom to live where you want and interact with whom you wish so you are able to jump onto economic opportunities more effectively. When cities were first being built they may have been a good place for the poor to acquire wealth, but in today's society and economy it is essentially financial suicide for a person who is already monetarily distraught to go to a city to live. Yet we do it anyway, because hey, they're "fun". FreedomUnderGod1
Community that you are in plays a big role when all the communities meet together outside their comfort zone. Standards and morals of a community matters the most. Within different communities the bond that each community shares is very unsaid yet obvious. Such as supporting so and so sports team, the kind of strong feelings that each fan share on their low lows and high highs, is something to look out for. This is another characteristics that make up the society you live in. Also this is not something where interaction is needed, its just the social forces outside which allow to form that bond. Although Community bond ness was only stronger before than it is now. Khush001
I definitely agree with you Khush because when these communities meet together out side their comfort zone they eventually start to bond and learn from these experiences. Each community has different standards and morals but they can still be accomplished the same way as other communities. Building the comfort zone up with help a person feel more worthy and it will build their confidence. If everyone were to have self confidence and not rely on others as much then a person could achieve their goals better and could work their way up to higher poverty. Summer001
I agree with you Summer because self-confidence is good to have in order to achieve goals. However, self-confidence can be bad, too, because if everyone only relied on themselves they would become too prideful. But, I do agree with you when you said that each community has different standards and morals and not relying on others for everything is definitely important. swimmer011
I agree not relying on others is very important to self reliance even if the community shares the same views on a certain subjects. A persons standards and morals are very important. TooTall001
I would agree with you that the standards and morals of a community matter the most, its the unspoken codes that bond communities and helps them gain each others trust. If everyone just relied on themselves people and society would start to fail. gratful001
I would argue that America is a postindustrial and postmodern society, and parts of America are a Gesellschaft and organic solidarity. All of these theories are very similar but yet a little different from each other. Neither types of societies are better than the others. All are different and unique, kind of like apples and oranges. They are incomparable. However, having said that parts of America tend to be more Gemeinschaft, those parts are most likely places in the country, like Nebraska. The Gesellschaft parts would most likely be places like New York City. America does not, in my opinion, have a mechanical solidarity. swimmer001
I agree I feel like the United States is not just one of these theories. There are several theories given here and I believe that each state depending on location, population, and cultural as well can each have there own theory. I can see how majority of our society is postmodern due to so much use of technology which is all over the United States. LAWS001
Gemeinshaft is pre-industrial, where as Gesellschaft is Industrial. Pre-industrial societies are small and intimate. Industrial societies are larger communities with little intimacy. Either community can advance with the help of the technology they use. The USA is considered post-modern because the making of the goods we buy is produced in places that are now experiencing industrialization. With that knowledge, I have a rosy outlook on the hunting-gathering societies that are quickly becoming relics in our world. Raising my children without stranger-danger and in a place where they know the kinship of 50 different families within a 100 mile radius, like I was raised, sounds better every day. Arizona 001
The theories that each of the three men have are fairly similar but very different Durkheims Mechanical Solidarity when everyone performs the same tasks. Organic hinges on the need society's members have for one another. Tonnie's theory on Gemeinschaft basically they go out and get their own food while Gesellschaft make money to give to the makers to buy their food. Lenskis preindustrial is fairly similar to Durkheims mechanical and Tonnie's Gemeinschaft theory. Preindustrial they feed themselves with the food that they grow. With industrial people depend on mechanization to produce goods an services. Postindustrial economic system engaged primarily in processing and controlling information. Postmodern technologically sophisticated society preoccupied with consumer goods and media images. We are to be postmodern society which I can see everything revolves around technology. LAWS001
I do like how all three these theories are strong and can stand on their own. It's pretty interesting that everything does seem to reliant on technology, making it the independent variable in these cases. I could even say that there could be a correlation between the two. What if things are both becoming better together overtime.
I relate mostly with Tonnies' Theory on society. I have experienced living in both Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft type of communities. I prefer the first, smaller communities. While both have positives and negatives the smaller community's positives outweigh the larger one by far. The feeling of family and values of a smaller community come out through everything they do. I found the small town to be like a family very loving and caring and taking care of each other. While in the larger city we don't even speak to our neighbors. WonderWoman001
I agree with you, WonderWoman. I would much prefer Gemeinschaft type society over Gesellschaft type. As I said in my post, while modern technology and the individualism it enables is a good thing, I don't think that the isolation it encourages is necessarily a good thing for society. When everyone in a community is largely self-sufficient, people don't necessarily have a lot in common and it's a lot harder just to have good conversation and friendly interaction with them. thestig001
So basically, men moved from being dependent on each other (Durkheim's mechanical stage) to being dependent on technology (Durkheim's organic stage)? This doesn't seem like an altogether positive thing to me. Don't get me wrong, technology is really great and it allows us to be much more efficient and do many more things than ever before, but I wonder what the price is. Having to rely on other people is definitely a good thing, because it helps shape and strengthen communities and form friendships. Durkheim really seems to take the structural-functional view of society. Instead of having to depend on other people, the industrial revolution made us more dependent on technology. Lenski's view on post-modern society seems to describe today quite well, where many are much more comfortable talking to each other on facebook and texting than talking in person. Many today also seem more interested about their social media image than their actual relationships with others. In essence, it seems like the social structure has basically moved towards individualism. thestig001
I agree, Lenski's theory is more structured around today's society. However, I do believe that if we could figure out a way to have a more Gemeinschaft society then everyone would find life a little less stressful because then most people would understand what we are going through and why. Toby001
I agree with Tonnies theory on small town living everyone knows your business and you are expected to carry yourself a certain way. All the houses have to look a certain way and you hear gossip about what you are doing wrong or what people don't like. Society in a big city is more laid back. I prefer that life where people don't know your business and they keep to themselves and don't talk about people they don't know. TooTall001
Hold that thought, I think part of our problem is our drawing inward and becoming societal introverts. Nosy neighbors are just nosy neighbors. No longer do we hang out on the front porch. Now, we stay inside staring at these electronic devices and lost what collectively binds us as humans, relationships through interaction. I believe we are living post-modern, but what comes next is what scares me. Sociology might soon exist only through wifi because no one wants to leave their netflix to investigate life beyond there comfortable walls.Packers001
When looking at Tonnies theories I find he had a lot of knowledge and useful information concerning small and large communities. I love being from a small town and growing up in a community where I felt safe and secure. Small communities hold one another responsible. I like the fact that if someone in my community was having problems, like money for instance, we rally to help our neighbor. Granted people know a lot and probably too much about one anothers personal problems, but at least we are able help those in need. Larger communities can still help those in need, but it is done with greater separation from the actual individual. SVT001.
I agree with TooTall. I was born and raised in a town where you know pretty much everybody. You can't go to Walmart without at least recognizing five people, and I don't like that. I'd rather be anonymous in a large town and not have to be worried that I'm fitting in with the reputation I made for myself. glassonion001
When looking at all three of these sociologist theories it is interesting to compare and contrast their thoughts. Durkheim and Tonnies are more similar then say Lenski who is more modern. Durkheim uses the terms mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. These are simply broken down into knowing how to prepare things or self reliance vs. using others to buy things or group dependence. As society progresses we find the need to be dependent on one another. I think this is extremely accurate in most of the top world societies. Most people in society today do not rely on themselves to grow food solely for themselves or family because they have other responsibilities. We have so many specialists in today's world. This division of labor is how we have progressed in today's society. I think it is fascinating to think how much we rely on one another. Speaking for myself, it is easy to think about yourself and be selfish in today's world. If you actually step back and think of how much I would be able to do in a mechanical society it is scary. I would have a hard time doing everything myself. I rely heavily on others to make sure my tasks and duties are preformed. SVT001.
Yeah it is interesting comparing and contrasting the theories and whatnot. I think that everyone plays a role in completing a society. I do most of everything myself so in terms of the mechanical society I feel like it wouldn't be so bad since I already do a lot. But, I got my lazy days as well. HollaGurl001
Durkheim's theory is pretty straightforward, mechanical is people doing basically the same thing as everyone else whereas, organic is people relying on other people. Tonnies theory is similar to Durkheim's, Gemeinschaft is about small communities and within that community people share similar lives and life experiences. Gesellschaft is about larger communities have more strangers and less common life experiences. I believe most of America is like this because we are a giant mixing pot, full of different cultures. I believe that the Gemeinshcaft is the type of community that people are more likely to help one another. If more communities were like this maybe we would have less poverty and more peace. Toby001
Living in a post-modern era has shaped our lives for the better and the worst. We have unprecedented access to information, but most of us use it for entertainment, not enlightenment. Pre-industrial gave us purpose, collectively, as the structural-functional theory taught us; however, what do we have now? Socially conflicting, self centered, self serving society, yuck. Packers001
I agree with you Packers001, when the quote: "Knowledge is Power" was coined, I'm pretty sure it wasn't about gaining knowledge for nothing. It was about turning around and applying such knowledge to the society you come from, making people better and helping to lift the people around you. Now, it's all about self without responsibility to anyone. Arizona001
I agree that living in a post modern society is for the good, and the bad. In a country where we coined the term superpower, we are so dependent on others for goods that we used to manufacture ourselves. As far as the information overload, I also agree how sad it is that we are not utilizing all that we are learning. Our planet is suffering, obviously a global problem, but all the information we have isn't saving our natural resourses. Rosebudd001
I think that Durkheim's theory on society is one that is true. When civilization first started everyone had the same jobs, and that was hunt, cook, and make shelter because these were the ways to survive. As society modernizes though more people aren't worried as much anymore about those things because there are specialists who can build houses, or butcher meat and now society can focus on other stuff like education and political and social issues. I like Tonnies theory as well. Being born and raised in a fairly small town people do seem more connected than compared to a Peoria where you may know your neighbor and that's it. glassonion001
Gemeinshaft and Gesellshaft both caught my attention as it was explained their definition and how they work. For the most part I can't help but think that in gemeinshaft communities since there is pressure on persuasiveness and things that in that particular community because of the morals and standards of what is expected to be done. I feel that in this community there can be lots of cliques. Lots of discrimination in a way because if someone doesn't do what is expected to be done all of a sudden they are known to be weird or one doesn't want to socialize with the people who don't follow up with the standards. Or it can be the other way around where its people begin to be affectionate and wanting approval from others to fit in. And Gesellshaft is more formal, strict etc. People in these communities seem that they would be all about their-selves. It's more about control. Techniques of what has to be done. They don't depend on being pressured or any of that. That's how I understood this part of the video.
Lenski argued that societies before mechanics, known as the Pre-Industrial society, mainly remained as a close group. They were dependent on each other for survival, and at the mercy of nature. Industrial society became a norm as a mechanical revolution took place, and everyday life became a little less treacherous. The third vision of Lenski's social level is Post Industrial. The state where the community changes from basic needs of survival to be met, to becoming more individualistic in society. The focus of community gives way to a more individual need. Now people have become specialized in their careers, thanks to an easier lifestyle with machines to do a lot for us. Instead of relying on your group for information, we can go to technology instead. Post Modern Society is pretty much where our country is at right now. We've outlasted the mechanical era, and sent a lot of the factories to other less expensive countries, where the workforce is many and much cheaper. We depend on their goods, as we use our time and efforts now for technology, and information. Rosebudd001
The Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity peaked my interest. We can see throughout history that job specialization (therefore organic solidarity) has been an efficient way to progress both society and education. The idea of mechanical solidarity creeps me out a little bit, because it reminds me of a hive of ants mindlessly performing their tasks or a group of alien bug-species that all communicate simultaneously through telepathy. It not only seems inhuman to have everyone equal and for us all to be the same, but it goes against everything that we as individuals strive to accomplish, to stand out among the best of us. I think we can apply the macro level idea of the Division of Labor micro level areas. Firstly the military is a prime example of where specialization harbors a successful environment. The axes of battle are separated physically, so it makes sense that instead of having a single standing army, we would develop an Army, Air Force, Navy, etc. Another place where Division of Labor has shown to be successful is through the idea of traditional marriage. The future of society depends on the kids who are brought up within these marriages, so why would it not be logical to divide the labor and have one parent focus on raising the kids and have the other support their well-being? FreedomUnderGod1
It's pretty interesting to see these different sociologist have a different way of approaching things in doing research. I gravitated more towards Durkheim's Division of labor. It states the more complex society becomes the more divisors of labor there are. This is totally true. When there were cars built, automotive stores, mechanics, and more. As things start branch off into their own, we do have to become specialist which makes up reliant on one another. This is what I think keeps the constant flow of interaction. I don't think the other sociologists are wrong, but I strongly agree with Durkheim's Division of labor. Taylojj2
I agree with you all the way the bigger , more complex, and adviced the society is you live in the more division of labor there is because there are more jobs and a lot of new ones that come with it player 001
I like durkheims view of society how in smaller societies moremail people know each other .then how in longer societies people don't really know each other. then how he started talking about division of labor how you got people to get the food people to fix things. But in some societies you may need more of one job then the other like a mechanic society would probably need more mechanic Luke people then another society would need. Player001
Sociologists look at the different characteristics that make up that society. Whether some people believe it or not, tasks cannot be done by one person. You have to rely on other people to help you with any tasks. Some societies are not as well developed as others. People in smaller environments tend to know many people and get along and share life backgrounds and also relate to things better.This could help them with getting better jobs because the people are much closer with one another. But, people who live in much larger environments don't tend to share as much similar characteristics and are strangers to one another because of the greater number of people there is in the larger environment. This would be better for the higher poverty people.
ReplyDeleteSummer001
Relying sometimes can come in way of ego, but its true that relying on people does make things better around the surroundings. I agree with about people living around in larger environment, and that is solely because how far people actually live from each other.
Deletekhush001
I question the part where you say that living in a smaller town you would have a better chance at a better job. Yes knowing people sometimes helps as far as getting a certain type of job but in smaller communities there are not as many jobs period, they usual commute so living in a small town wouldn't matter at all. I am not sure why this would be better for the poor people? Wonder Woman001
DeleteWhy would a smaller town be better for poor people? First of all taxes would be lower, so if they held the same job in a city or a small town they would make more money in a small town. Secondly the cost of living is universally lower in a small town, so if they need to buy anything they will have more money in their pocket afterwards. Thirdly it's been shown that small town populations give a higher percentage of their income to charity than cities, and that it also reaches their intended charitee with a higher passover rate and with faster allocation. Fourthly it provides a sense of community and protection that one cannot receive inside of a city unless you were to join some kind of gang. Fifthly you have a greater degree of freedom to live where you want and interact with whom you wish so you are able to jump onto economic opportunities more effectively. When cities were first being built they may have been a good place for the poor to acquire wealth, but in today's society and economy it is essentially financial suicide for a person who is already monetarily distraught to go to a city to live. Yet we do it anyway, because hey, they're "fun". FreedomUnderGod1
DeleteCommunity that you are in plays a big role when all the communities meet together outside their comfort zone. Standards and morals of a community matters the most. Within different communities the bond that each community shares is very unsaid yet obvious. Such as supporting so and so sports team, the kind of strong feelings that each fan share on their low lows and high highs, is something to look out for. This is another characteristics that make up the society you live in. Also this is not something where interaction is needed, its just the social forces outside which allow to form that bond. Although Community bond ness was only stronger before than it is now.
ReplyDeleteKhush001
I definitely agree with you Khush because when these communities meet together out side their comfort zone they eventually start to bond and learn from these experiences. Each community has different standards and morals but they can still be accomplished the same way as other communities. Building the comfort zone up with help a person feel more worthy and it will build their confidence. If everyone were to have self confidence and not rely on others as much then a person could achieve their goals better and could work their way up to higher poverty.
DeleteSummer001
I agree with you Summer because self-confidence is good to have in order to achieve goals. However, self-confidence can be bad, too, because if everyone only relied on themselves they would become too prideful. But, I do agree with you when you said that each community has different standards and morals and not relying on others for everything is definitely important.
Deleteswimmer011
I agree not relying on others is very important to self reliance even if the community shares the same views on a certain subjects. A persons standards and morals are very important. TooTall001
DeleteI would agree with you that the standards and morals of a community matter the most, its the unspoken codes that bond communities and helps them gain each others trust. If everyone just relied on themselves people and society would start to fail.
Deletegratful001
I would argue that America is a postindustrial and postmodern society, and parts of America are a Gesellschaft and organic solidarity. All of these theories are very similar but yet a little different from each other. Neither types of societies are better than the others. All are different and unique, kind of like apples and oranges. They are incomparable. However, having said that parts of America tend to be more Gemeinschaft, those parts are most likely places in the country, like Nebraska. The Gesellschaft parts would most likely be places like New York City. America does not, in my opinion, have a mechanical solidarity.
ReplyDeleteswimmer001
I agree I feel like the United States is not just one of these theories. There are several theories given here and I believe that each state depending on location, population, and cultural as well can each have there own theory. I can see how majority of our society is postmodern due to so much use of technology which is all over the United States. LAWS001
DeleteGemeinshaft is pre-industrial, where as Gesellschaft is Industrial. Pre-industrial societies are small and intimate. Industrial societies are larger communities with little intimacy. Either community can advance with the help of the technology they use. The USA is considered post-modern because the making of the goods we buy is produced in places that are now experiencing industrialization. With that knowledge, I have a rosy outlook on the hunting-gathering societies that are quickly becoming relics in our world. Raising my children without stranger-danger and in a place where they know the kinship of 50 different families within a 100 mile radius, like I was raised, sounds better every day. Arizona 001
ReplyDeleteThe theories that each of the three men have are fairly similar but very different Durkheims Mechanical Solidarity when everyone performs the same tasks. Organic hinges on the need society's members have for one another. Tonnie's theory on Gemeinschaft basically they go out and get their own food while Gesellschaft make money to give to the makers to buy their food. Lenskis preindustrial is fairly similar to Durkheims mechanical and Tonnie's Gemeinschaft theory. Preindustrial they feed themselves with the food that they grow. With industrial people depend on mechanization to produce goods an services. Postindustrial economic system engaged primarily in processing and controlling information. Postmodern technologically sophisticated society preoccupied with consumer goods and media images. We are to be postmodern society which I can see everything revolves around technology. LAWS001
ReplyDeleteI do like how all three these theories are strong and can stand on their own. It's pretty interesting that everything does seem to reliant on technology, making it the independent variable in these cases. I could even say that there could be a correlation between the two. What if things are both becoming better together overtime.
DeleteI relate mostly with Tonnies' Theory on society. I have experienced living in both Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft type of communities. I prefer the first, smaller communities. While both have positives and negatives the smaller community's positives outweigh the larger one by far. The feeling of family and values of a smaller community come out through everything they do. I found the small town to be like a family very loving and caring and taking care of each other. While in the larger city we don't even speak to our neighbors. WonderWoman001
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, WonderWoman. I would much prefer Gemeinschaft type society over Gesellschaft type. As I said in my post, while modern technology and the individualism it enables is a good thing, I don't think that the isolation it encourages is necessarily a good thing for society. When everyone in a community is largely self-sufficient, people don't necessarily have a lot in common and it's a lot harder just to have good conversation and friendly interaction with them.
Deletethestig001
So basically, men moved from being dependent on each other (Durkheim's mechanical stage) to being dependent on technology (Durkheim's organic stage)? This doesn't seem like an altogether positive thing to me. Don't get me wrong, technology is really great and it allows us to be much more efficient and do many more things than ever before, but I wonder what the price is. Having to rely on other people is definitely a good thing, because it helps shape and strengthen communities and form friendships. Durkheim really seems to take the structural-functional view of society. Instead of having to depend on other people, the industrial revolution made us more dependent on technology. Lenski's view on post-modern society seems to describe today quite well, where many are much more comfortable talking to each other on facebook and texting than talking in person. Many today also seem more interested about their social media image than their actual relationships with others. In essence, it seems like the social structure has basically moved towards individualism.
ReplyDeletethestig001
I agree, Lenski's theory is more structured around today's society. However, I do believe that if we could figure out a way to have a more Gemeinschaft society then everyone would find life a little less stressful because then most people would understand what we are going through and why. Toby001
DeleteI agree with Tonnies theory on small town living everyone knows your business and you are expected to carry yourself a certain way. All the houses have to look a certain way and you hear gossip about what you are doing wrong or what people don't like. Society in a big city is more laid back. I prefer that life where people don't know your business and they keep to themselves and don't talk about people they don't know. TooTall001
ReplyDeleteHold that thought, I think part of our problem is our drawing inward and becoming societal introverts. Nosy neighbors are just nosy neighbors. No longer do we hang out on the front porch. Now, we stay inside staring at these electronic devices and lost what collectively binds us as humans, relationships through interaction. I believe we are living post-modern, but what comes next is what scares me. Sociology might soon exist only through wifi because no one wants to leave their netflix to investigate life beyond there comfortable walls.Packers001
DeleteWhen looking at Tonnies theories I find he had a lot of knowledge and useful information concerning small and large communities. I love being from a small town and growing up in a community where I felt safe and secure. Small communities hold one another responsible. I like the fact that if someone in my community was having problems, like money for instance, we rally to help our neighbor. Granted people know a lot and probably too much about one anothers personal problems, but at least we are able help those in need. Larger communities can still help those in need, but it is done with greater separation from the actual individual. SVT001.
DeleteI agree with TooTall. I was born and raised in a town where you know pretty much everybody. You can't go to Walmart without at least recognizing five people, and I don't like that. I'd rather be anonymous in a large town and not have to be worried that I'm fitting in with the reputation I made for myself. glassonion001
DeleteWhen looking at all three of these sociologist theories it is interesting to compare and contrast their thoughts. Durkheim and Tonnies are more similar then say Lenski who is more modern. Durkheim uses the terms mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. These are simply broken down into knowing how to prepare things or self reliance vs. using others to buy things or group dependence. As society progresses we find the need to be dependent on one another. I think this is extremely accurate in most of the top world societies. Most people in society today do not rely on themselves to grow food solely for themselves or family because they have other responsibilities. We have so many specialists in today's world. This division of labor is how we have progressed in today's society. I think it is fascinating to think how much we rely on one another. Speaking for myself, it is easy to think about yourself and be selfish in today's world. If you actually step back and think of how much I would be able to do in a mechanical society it is scary. I would have a hard time doing everything myself. I rely heavily on others to make sure my tasks and duties are preformed. SVT001.
ReplyDeleteYeah it is interesting comparing and contrasting the theories and whatnot. I think that everyone plays a role in completing a society. I do most of everything myself so in terms of the mechanical society I feel like it wouldn't be so bad since I already do a lot. But, I got my lazy days as well.
DeleteHollaGurl001
Durkheim's theory is pretty straightforward, mechanical is people doing basically the same thing as everyone else whereas, organic is people relying on other people. Tonnies theory is similar to Durkheim's, Gemeinschaft is about small communities and within that community people share similar lives and life experiences. Gesellschaft is about larger communities have more strangers and less common life experiences. I believe most of America is like this because we are a giant mixing pot, full of different cultures. I believe that the Gemeinshcaft is the type of community that people are more likely to help one another. If more communities were like this maybe we would have less poverty and more peace. Toby001
ReplyDeleteLiving in a post-modern era has shaped our lives for the better and the worst. We have unprecedented access to information, but most of us use it for entertainment, not enlightenment. Pre-industrial gave us purpose, collectively, as the structural-functional theory taught us; however, what do we have now? Socially conflicting, self centered, self serving society, yuck. Packers001
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Packers001, when the quote: "Knowledge is Power" was coined, I'm pretty sure it wasn't about gaining knowledge for nothing. It was about turning around and applying such knowledge to the society you come from, making people better and helping to lift the people around you. Now, it's all about self without responsibility to anyone. Arizona001
DeleteI agree that living in a post modern society is for the good, and the bad. In a country where we coined the term superpower, we are so dependent on others for goods that we used to manufacture ourselves. As far as the information overload, I also agree how sad it is that we are not utilizing all that we are learning. Our planet is suffering, obviously a global problem, but all the information we have isn't saving our natural resourses. Rosebudd001
DeleteI think that Durkheim's theory on society is one that is true. When civilization first started everyone had the same jobs, and that was hunt, cook, and make shelter because these were the ways to survive. As society modernizes though more people aren't worried as much anymore about those things because there are specialists who can build houses, or butcher meat and now society can focus on other stuff like education and political and social issues. I like Tonnies theory as well. Being born and raised in a fairly small town people do seem more connected than compared to a Peoria where you may know your neighbor and that's it. glassonion001
ReplyDeleteGemeinshaft and Gesellshaft both caught my attention as it was explained their definition and how they work. For the most part I can't help but think that in gemeinshaft communities since there is pressure on persuasiveness and things that in that particular community because of the morals and standards of what is expected to be done. I feel that in this community there can be lots of cliques. Lots of discrimination in a way because if someone doesn't do what is expected to be done all of a sudden they are known to be weird or one doesn't want to socialize with the people who don't follow up with the standards. Or it can be the other way around where its people begin to be affectionate and wanting approval from others to fit in.
ReplyDeleteAnd Gesellshaft is more formal, strict etc. People in these communities seem that they would be all about their-selves. It's more about control. Techniques of what has to be done. They don't depend on being pressured or any of that. That's how I understood this part of the video.
HollaGurl001 wrote the 12:11 am comment.
DeleteLenski argued that societies before mechanics, known as the Pre-Industrial society, mainly remained as a close group. They were dependent on each other for survival, and at the mercy of nature. Industrial society became a norm as a mechanical revolution took place, and everyday life became a little less treacherous. The third vision of Lenski's social level is Post Industrial. The state where the community changes from basic needs of survival to be met, to becoming more individualistic in society. The focus of community gives way to a more individual need. Now people have become specialized in their careers, thanks to an easier lifestyle with machines to do a lot for us. Instead of relying on your group for information, we can go to technology instead. Post Modern Society is pretty much where our country is at right now. We've outlasted the mechanical era, and sent a lot of the factories to other less expensive countries, where the workforce is many and much cheaper. We depend on their goods, as we use our time and efforts now for technology, and information. Rosebudd001
ReplyDeleteThe Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity peaked my interest. We can see throughout history that job specialization (therefore organic solidarity) has been an efficient way to progress both society and education. The idea of mechanical solidarity creeps me out a little bit, because it reminds me of a hive of ants mindlessly performing their tasks or a group of alien bug-species that all communicate simultaneously through telepathy. It not only seems inhuman to have everyone equal and for us all to be the same, but it goes against everything that we as individuals strive to accomplish, to stand out among the best of us. I think we can apply the macro level idea of the Division of Labor micro level areas. Firstly the military is a prime example of where specialization harbors a successful environment. The axes of battle are separated physically, so it makes sense that instead of having a single standing army, we would develop an Army, Air Force, Navy, etc. Another place where Division of Labor has shown to be successful is through the idea of traditional marriage. The future of society depends on the kids who are brought up within these marriages, so why would it not be logical to divide the labor and have one parent focus on raising the kids and have the other support their well-being? FreedomUnderGod1
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty interesting to see these different sociologist have a different way of approaching things in doing research. I gravitated more towards Durkheim's Division of labor. It states the more complex society becomes the more divisors of labor there are. This is totally true. When there were cars built, automotive stores, mechanics, and more. As things start branch off into their own, we do have to become specialist which makes up reliant on one another. This is what I think keeps the constant flow of interaction. I don't think the other sociologists are wrong, but I strongly agree with Durkheim's Division of labor. Taylojj2
ReplyDeleteI agree with you all the way the bigger , more complex, and adviced the society is you live in the more division of labor there is because there are more jobs and a lot of new ones that come with it player 001
DeleteI like durkheims view of society how in smaller societies moremail people know each other .then how in longer societies people don't really know each other. then how he started talking about division of labor how you got people to get the food people to fix things. But in some societies you may need more of one job then the other like a mechanic society would probably need more mechanic Luke people then another society would need. Player001
ReplyDelete