These three sociological theories can work together to determine a persons outlook on life and how to accomplish goals successfully. Social Conflict- power struggles. Determines where a person may stand relating to poverty or class. If someones parents struggled with money there are more chances the child will not being able to achieve greater things in life. They will continue to stay at the bottom of the chart until they can reach their goals. If someone grew up with both parents working at a restaurant and the other working at local grocery store, typically that's the sort of path they will follow or something similar. This shows more of structural functionalism. The life you were brought up on is all a person have learned to accomplish. Even though there is greater goals in life for them, that was how they were brought up.These two theories look at society more on the large scale. Symbolic interactionism is something a person shares meaning or feeling for something or anything. The feeling a person gets for something can make another person feel completely different about that object or goal.
Unfortunately I do believe these theories to some extent are realistic. I have hopes though that people in any situation can realize that they can make the choice to become anyone they want to be. I have to believe in this on a daily to overcome everything I have to just to survive and take care of my daughter. I will not become my mother. Or not achieve what I want in life because my parents chose a certain path to take. WonderWoman001
According to the Three Foundational Sociological Lenses, I find myself more connected to the symbolic Interaction. Now coming from a different country and settling myself to United States, I realized that it’s not the culture or race that sets you apart from individuals. But it's your personal identity, the kind of environment that you've been brought up in is what really sets you apart. Brought up in an urban like society and the kind of nurturing from my family, is what sets me apart from the stereotypes of Indian families. To sum this up, I really think every individual is different and hence their mind sets are different. khush001
I agree with what you said, Khush. I am from a typical American family, but yet have very different views than people who grew up in families similar to mine. The way I view myself may be very different compared to kids who grew up in "typical" American families. My opinion is that that is because of religion. For instance, if a friend and I grew up in similar families but had different religions, then we would view the world differently. swimmer001
These three sociological theories can work together to determine a persons outlook on life and how to accomplish goals successfully. Social Conflict- power struggles. Determines where a person may stand relating to poverty or class. If someones parents struggled with money there are more chances the child will not being able to achieve greater things in life. They will continue to stay at the bottom of the chart until they can reach their goals. If someone grew up with both parents working at a restaurant and the other working at local grocery store, typically that's the sort of path they will follow or something similar. This shows more of structural functionalism. The life you were brought up on is all a person have learned to accomplish. Even though there is greater goals in life for them, that was how they were brought up.These two theories look at society more on the large scale. Symbolic interactionism is something a person shares meaning or feeling for something or anything. The feeling a person gets for something can make another person feel completely different about that object or goal. Summer001
I agree with a lot of your statements I do believe that majority of people growing up in poverty, their parents cannot afford to send them to a top university school is just not in their budget absolutely. Me personally I would have to say I am symbolic just because I didn't grow up rich or poor but both of my parents did not attend college but I feel as if I have different views from them and I do not want to struggle or have worries the rest of my life but everyone is different. LAWS001
I agree with some of what you said but I believe if a child isn't satisfied with what their parents have done with their lives it is up to them to change it. I don't think anyone should just settle with what their parents do or how much they make wouldn't that encourage you to do better than them. TooTall001
I am not sure people really do just settle for what they have. If your parents can't pay for you to go to school and your not from a country that will pay for you to, you are stuck going to work, even in this country I know plenty of people who signed hop for the military because they lacked the funds to go to school and were trying to better themselves any way they could.
I agree with you most people in poverty stay in poverty and don't go to college. but there are I few that do make it out go to college and make some good money. People a lot of times fallow in there parents foot steps or do something similar , like if you dad is a wielder I are more like to do it. Player001
I do completely agree with the environment affecting or changing a persons mind sets. The environment a person is around can also change someones outlook on their goals. I have lived in the United States my whole life and have an understanding where i belong and how to get to a certain state of mind about my goals. I know each environment is different to everyone. Even state to state has different environment depending on what level of poverty. Summer001
The three different approaches to sociology make a person an individual. One who has had different social conflicts, one who comes from a structured society and plays a role in that society and one who has their own perspective on the symbols of their particular society. When you add in free will, the person is then more individualized. Even from their own family members. Birth order alone changes the personality and the expectations put on that person. Which makes vast generalizations, and stereotypes a bit ludicrous when looking at why people do what they do. Studying sociology then becomes a work of understanding people and breaking down prejudices within ourselves and hopefully others. Arizona001
I agree with you, birth alone changes the personality and the expectations put on the person. Being born to a family where everyone attends school and the college and are achieving milestones in their respective cultures, it unknowingly kind of snatches away your freewill. Society such as other known families and friends also tend to start expecting more. khush001
After watching this video, I would say I view the world through a social conflict lens. I tend to look at the negative point of view and see conflicts more than the other people around me. When someone does something that I think will create conflict, I immediately want them to stop. I do not believe the world will ever again be at peace, like the structural functionalism people believe. To me that just seems impossible. However, if I see an action that will create conflict, that doesn't mean I want it to keep happening. But, the human race will never be that perfect. I do not see the world through a symbolic interaction lens because I do not see shared meanings in different things. I usually just see one meaning with everything. swimmer001
I agree with you swimmer 001 because your right the world will never be at peace. There are day to day challenges and conflicts going on around the world and the human race gets tied into it. These challenges are something we can work on but never really fix. If i could get the conflicts to stop i would just like you but its not always that simple. there is more negative things in the world then positive, that's why we tend to look more at the negative. Fixing our point of views could change a person perspective on goals and achievements in life. Summer001
One important thing to notice about the theory of structural-functionalism is that it does allow for conflicts to exist and everything to not be perfect. Basically all it says is that society is interdependent and functions as such. But it still allows for latent functions, which are unintended consequences of a social pattern as well as social dysfunction. thestig001
Social Conflict is a struggle that many face basically putting individuals in a class of poor, middle, or rich. If someone is raised in a rich environment from the community around them to the house that they live in they are more likely to grow up and continue to live the same rich lifestyle they say. The society that someone is raised around is most likely how their outcome of life will be. Structural functionalism plays a big role. Both parents going to college and making education a major part of both of their lives will definitely play a big role in their children's lives as well, growing up and hearing or seeing their parents talk or show off their accomplishments will make them want to become something comparable or even better one day. As for Symbolic Interaction I would say in my own words is how we see things on the outside looking in. Each one of these theories I believe can be stereotypical meaning not everyone that grows up rich will grow old rich, not every child whose parents go to college will have a degree, and not everyone you see acts the same just because they are the same race or even gender. LAWS001
I agree that yes everyone is classified as poor, middle, or rich and that an individual does indeed grow up in whatever class rank they were. But, I think that the outcomes do not exactly depend on their classification in our society. Lets say for example one is born poor. Yes, there will be struggles but, I think that one can make that choice of either making a difference in his or her life or keeping that way. Where there is a will there is chance. Also, lets say someone is born into a rich family. The persons life would be filled with luxury but, that is their parents money. Soon the child will have his or her life and have to make decisions of his or her own. The choices they make will distinguish if poor, rich, or middle class. Same goes with middle class people. I believe that one can make that difference nowadays since our society has changed over time. There are many opportunities in achieving its all a matter of playing your cards right. HollaGurl001
I think this narrator's investigation of a college degree through a social conflict lens is really quite interesting. Social Conflict would say that the degree enables the person who receives the degree (someone privileged and more well to do than others) to become more successful than someone who can't get a degree and perpetuates a cycle of oppression. While I can see how this is true, I think one must also consider what the point of getting a degree is. In most cases, the object is to learn and to get a job or start a career. This in of itself is not a bad desire and having a job or career is a good thing. I think that looking at a degree through a social conflict lens makes it easy to ignore the fact that getting a degree is a good thing. It seems to identify the problem and latent functions of getting a degree without looking at the manifest functions. thestig001
The structural-functional approach I believe began as a great ideal in that yes if we were all similar coming from similar backgrounds and almost believed in the same things we could yes succeed as a society very well. But social structures have way too many variables to be able to explain everything that a society entails. The Social-conflict Approach goes into more detail where it can explain better why certain groups of our society live the way they live. I personally live my life everyday in hopes that I can overcome where I came from and how I grew up. I have made most of my choices defying my so-called cycle that I was born into. By having a successful marriage, raising a child in a safe and loving environment, and now as an adult going to school to be able to financially take care of myself. Even as we study society as a whole I love the variables that enable all of us to change the way "things are supposed to be". So the Symbolic-Interaction Approach comes into play when people are viewed as who they are as an individual, which is I believe the most reliable source of information to study from. Making any of these theories debatable. WonderWoman001
I think the structural functional approach is not saying we all have to be from the same background or believe the same things. I see the structural functional approach as a way of showing many diverse and complex groups coming together to form society. It takes different backgrounds and forces them to work together to form a working society. The macro structural functional lens is constantly battling to make sure each "system" is working properly and equally. SVT001.
I agree SVT001. However, WonderWoman001 makes a great point about feeling like our free will and good choice can affect change in our lives beyond our social perspective model. I understand that we are unwillingly and unknowingly shaped in certain ways by our environment, but how much change do we get credit for? Packers001
Social Conflict reminds me of the Pearson FCAT test that they are giving students now. Even if you are a straight A student the test makes you feel uneducated. A lot of the students taking these are realizing they cannot pass them. Also, the teachers are not allowed to teach or show the students what is on the test beforehand. The teachers are not allowed to talk about it with each other. It's unethical to show the questions that are being asked. It's keeping educated and uneducated children from even going for their goals like higher education. TooTall001
Sociological Lenses is such an interesting way of explaining how there are different types of sociological theories. I would say that each of the theories I could see myself looking through the "lens." The sociologic theory that would be the greatest to me would be the structural functionalism lens. I really enjoyed the analogy using the human body. It made so much sense when you realize that each body system works together to form a person. There can be problems that have latent signs for example a human can experience liver failure without pain present. The only signs may be a slight yellowing or jaundice of the skin and or conjunctiva. Structural functionalism is moreover looked at as an equal playing field where everything is contributing to make a great end product whereas social conflict has a hierarchy that "rains down" onto others. SVT001
I agree, social functionalism is the most meaningful to me too. It works like the human body, if you have a problem with your heart than other parts of your body will not be as sufficient. In society if we are not working together then, sometimes other parts of society will not be up to par. However, if we had a better balance with our economical issues then as a society we could progress forward. Toby001
I wrote something neat right before this and it didn't post. So, anyway, I agree with you SVT guy, using the analogy of the human body is definitely an understandable way to present the structure approach. It makes tons more sense to me when put in such a way. Arizona001
I agree that structural functionalism is more of a symbol of how communities work together, and how they function, But even as a whole, they still benefit from one another. This creates hierarchy of social classes, and it links our theories together with social conflict situations. Rosebudd001
I think structural-functionalism is comfortable. It was the sociological perspective my parents raised me to understand as normal life. However, I think that it has been replaced by the reigning champ, social-conflict. Maybe S-F died with the last of the hero generation World War 2 vets, I don't know. However, social- conflict seems to be representative of how the last 30 years have felt to me. Certainly now, the police shooting and terrorism, but the symbolic-interaction approach is the most ideal. The everyday communication we exhibit through personal interactions if the best representation of positivism, which is how society is.
Social Conflict- power struggle, to me really hits home. I come from a family where my parents did not attend college after high school because of a financial reasons. However, I plan on spending the next five or more years at school because I was fortunate enough to save up through high school and the help of financial aid. Therefore, seeing and hearing about other people struggle to get an education saddens me because it is possible, if you set your priorities straight a higher education is possible. I found the structural functionalism- interlocking systems, example very helpful for understanding the concept. The way he drew the body and all the parts that make up the body represents how society works together as well. Symbolic interactionism- shared meanings, can be an icon that people look at and feel the same way or feel differently towards. The example in the video was the American flag, many people look at the flag and feel pride or think freedom. However, many people look at the flag and can feel disappointment in our government. Toby001
I can relate to you when you said that you had to save money to attend college. I got good enough grades to transfer to pretty much anywhere I wanted after ICC but the cost of a quality school of Bradley or U of I was just too much. But I am fortunate enough to be able to still afford to go to ISU which is reasonably priced compared to the other big schools. glassonion001
I feel that all of these three sociological lenses are true to a certain extent. I believe that there are power struggles in society, but that is what makes a society work. People in my opinion have to be motivated to do better in their lives, and what is better motivation than seeing other people do better than you. Seeing other people do better and being more successful makes me want to work harder and achieve my goals. I also like the idea of symbolic interactionism, This to me is the most true out of the three because we all live in our own little world and everything has a different meaning depending on who you ask. Structural functionalism is a very easy concept to digest. It makes logical sense to think of society as an interlocking group that works for stability. glassonion001
Personally I can see the point of views through all these lenses and sociological theories, to me social conflict still plays a huge role in a our society because the rich are still getting richer and the poor just keep getting poorer, its also obvious the gap between them is wider than its ever been. however the lens of sociological theory I tend to prefer to see thighs through is the structural functionalism the more you give is the more you get, if every one pitches in a little the end results could be a lot. Symbolic interactionism lens can be a little more difficult, so many symbols now have lots of different meaning throughout different parts of the world.
I agree that functionalism creates our society. It is how our society is made up. We create it and we can make a change. I find myself more of a symbolic interactive person. It is interesting how people interact with one another. Its meaning behind it. To me there is always a meaning behind someone actions and the way they act. The three foundation sociological theories make sense it to me. In general these theories bring about tons of information on how there are different ways in seeing our society and how it works. Like the video said it is like an organism. These theories explain how society as an organism functions. It goes into depth about how society itself is involved in our daily lives. HollaGurl001
There is a lot of ways you can look at social conflicts. I myself have experienced this in my life. I grew up with three sisters and two brothers and my mom passed away at age 8, so I grew up with one parent. So all siblings struggled,and didn't do well in school. Dad worked all the time and there wasn't a lot of guidance. I am the only one who went to college and that's because my bakery closed , and I was given a new opportunity. As far as structural functionality is concerned, I believe that my church is a fairly good example of this structure.The structure of the church, although ran as a business, serves many as a whole, like a family. As far as symbolic-interactionism , using the example of the American Eagle. The majestic creature is a symbol of freedom in our country; All cultures use symbols for patriotism, territory rights, and religion. Rosebudd001
These three sociological lenses are things we see everyday , but I think the one that relates to me more is social conflict. whenever I turn on the TV I hear about the protest about minority or women being mistreated. The 1% vs the 99% is the life we live in. Social conflict is not always right because sometimes the poor can become the rich and the rich become the poor. I also see a lot of symbolic interaction how people see things. the American flag if u ask a soldier what the flag mean to them it vs just some us citizen you might get a different answer. The soldiers might say it means everything America is life liberty and freedom and the citizen might say it's just a flag. Player001
These three sociological lenses are things we see everyday , but I think the one that relates to me more is social conflict. whenever I turn on the TV I hear about the protest about minority or women being mistreated. The 1% vs the 99% is the life we live in. Social conflict is not always right because sometimes the poor can become the rich and the rich become the poor. I also see a lot of symbolic interaction how people see things. the American flag if u ask a soldier what the flag mean to them it vs just some us citizen you might get a different answer. The soldiers might say it means everything America is life liberty and freedom and the citizen might say it's just a flag. Player001
I think I can look at society through each of these sociological lenses. Social conflict would be my least favored way to look at society even though it does exist in places I've worked. It's also pretty normal for me to see a mix of these when it comes to a business. It's a social conflict when there is constant reoccurrence of supervisors in positions above regular hourly workers. An example of structural function would be trying to use supervisor experience to get apply to further growth. Symbolic interactions would pass on the traditional supervisor they were taught. These methods would be used and taught because every believes it has value. Taylojj2
These three sociological theories can work together to determine a persons outlook on life and how to accomplish goals successfully. Social Conflict- power struggles. Determines where a person may stand relating to poverty or class. If someones parents struggled with money there are more chances the child will not being able to achieve greater things in life. They will continue to stay at the bottom of the chart until they can reach their goals. If someone grew up with both parents working at a restaurant and the other working at local grocery store, typically that's the sort of path they will follow or something similar. This shows more of structural functionalism. The life you were brought up on is all a person have learned to accomplish. Even though there is greater goals in life for them, that was how they were brought up.These two theories look at society more on the large scale. Symbolic interactionism is something a person shares meaning or feeling for something or anything. The feeling a person gets for something can make another person feel completely different about that object or goal.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I do believe these theories to some extent are realistic. I have hopes though that people in any situation can realize that they can make the choice to become anyone they want to be. I have to believe in this on a daily to overcome everything I have to just to survive and take care of my daughter. I will not become my mother. Or not achieve what I want in life because my parents chose a certain path to take.
DeleteWonderWoman001
According to the Three Foundational Sociological Lenses, I find myself more connected to the symbolic Interaction. Now coming from a different country and settling myself to United States, I realized that it’s not the culture or race that sets you apart from individuals. But it's your personal identity, the kind of environment that you've been brought up in is what really sets you apart. Brought up in an urban like society and the kind of nurturing from my family, is what sets me apart from the stereotypes of Indian families. To sum this up, I really think every individual is different and hence their mind sets are different.
ReplyDeletekhush001
I agree with what you said, Khush. I am from a typical American family, but yet have very different views than people who grew up in families similar to mine. The way I view myself may be very different compared to kids who grew up in "typical" American families. My opinion is that that is because of religion. For instance, if a friend and I grew up in similar families but had different religions, then we would view the world differently.
Deleteswimmer001
These three sociological theories can work together to determine a persons outlook on life and how to accomplish goals successfully. Social Conflict- power struggles. Determines where a person may stand relating to poverty or class. If someones parents struggled with money there are more chances the child will not being able to achieve greater things in life. They will continue to stay at the bottom of the chart until they can reach their goals. If someone grew up with both parents working at a restaurant and the other working at local grocery store, typically that's the sort of path they will follow or something similar. This shows more of structural functionalism. The life you were brought up on is all a person have learned to accomplish. Even though there is greater goals in life for them, that was how they were brought up.These two theories look at society more on the large scale. Symbolic interactionism is something a person shares meaning or feeling for something or anything. The feeling a person gets for something can make another person feel completely different about that object or goal.
ReplyDeleteSummer001
I agree with a lot of your statements I do believe that majority of people growing up in poverty, their parents cannot afford to send them to a top university school is just not in their budget absolutely. Me personally I would have to say I am symbolic just because I didn't grow up rich or poor but both of my parents did not attend college but I feel as if I have different views from them and I do not want to struggle or have worries the rest of my life but everyone is different. LAWS001
DeleteI agree with some of what you said but I believe if a child isn't satisfied with what their parents have done with their lives it is up to them to change it. I don't think anyone should just settle with what their parents do or how much they make wouldn't that encourage you to do better than them. TooTall001
DeleteI am not sure people really do just settle for what they have. If your parents can't pay for you to go to school and your not from a country that will pay for you to, you are stuck going to work, even in this country I know plenty of people who signed hop for the military because they lacked the funds to go to school and were trying to better themselves any way they could.
DeleteI agree with you most people in poverty stay in poverty and don't go to college. but there are I few that do make it out go to college and make some good money. People a lot of times fallow in there parents foot steps or do something similar , like if you dad is a wielder I are more like to do it. Player001
DeleteI do completely agree with the environment affecting or changing a persons mind sets. The environment a person is around can also change someones outlook on their goals. I have lived in the United States my whole life and have an understanding where i belong and how to get to a certain state of mind about my goals. I know each environment is different to everyone. Even state to state has different environment depending on what level of poverty.
ReplyDeleteSummer001
The three different approaches to sociology make a person an individual. One who has had different social conflicts, one who comes from a structured society and plays a role in that society and one who has their own perspective on the symbols of their particular society. When you add in free will, the person is then more individualized. Even from their own family members. Birth order alone changes the personality and the expectations put on that person. Which makes vast generalizations, and stereotypes a bit ludicrous when looking at why people do what they do. Studying sociology then becomes a work of understanding people and breaking down prejudices within ourselves and hopefully others. Arizona001
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, birth alone changes the personality and the expectations put on the person. Being born to a family where everyone attends school and the college and are achieving milestones in their respective cultures, it unknowingly kind of snatches away your freewill. Society such as other known families and friends also tend to start expecting more.
Deletekhush001
After watching this video, I would say I view the world through a social conflict lens. I tend to look at the negative point of view and see conflicts more than the other people around me. When someone does something that I think will create conflict, I immediately want them to stop. I do not believe the world will ever again be at peace, like the structural functionalism people believe. To me that just seems impossible. However, if I see an action that will create conflict, that doesn't mean I want it to keep happening. But, the human race will never be that perfect. I do not see the world through a symbolic interaction lens because I do not see shared meanings in different things. I usually just see one meaning with everything.
ReplyDeleteswimmer001
I agree with you swimmer 001 because your right the world will never be at peace. There are day to day challenges and conflicts going on around the world and the human race gets tied into it. These challenges are something we can work on but never really fix. If i could get the conflicts to stop i would just like you but its not always that simple. there is more negative things in the world then positive, that's why we tend to look more at the negative. Fixing our point of views could change a person perspective on goals and achievements in life.
DeleteSummer001
One important thing to notice about the theory of structural-functionalism is that it does allow for conflicts to exist and everything to not be perfect. Basically all it says is that society is interdependent and functions as such. But it still allows for latent functions, which are unintended consequences of a social pattern as well as social dysfunction.
Deletethestig001
Social Conflict is a struggle that many face basically putting individuals in a class of poor, middle, or rich. If someone is raised in a rich environment from the community around them to the house that they live in they are more likely to grow up and continue to live the same rich lifestyle they say. The society that someone is raised around is most likely how their outcome of life will be. Structural functionalism plays a big role. Both parents going to college and making education a major part of both of their lives will definitely play a big role in their children's lives as well, growing up and hearing or seeing their parents talk or show off their accomplishments will make them want to become something comparable or even better one day. As for Symbolic Interaction I would say in my own words is how we see things on the outside looking in. Each one of these theories I believe can be stereotypical meaning not everyone that grows up rich will grow old rich, not every child whose parents go to college will have a degree, and not everyone you see acts the same just because they are the same race or even gender. LAWS001
ReplyDeleteI agree that yes everyone is classified as poor, middle, or rich and that an individual does indeed grow up in whatever class rank they were. But, I think that the outcomes do not exactly depend on their classification in our society. Lets say for example one is born poor. Yes, there will be struggles but, I think that one can make that choice of either making a difference in his or her life or keeping that way. Where there is a will there is chance. Also, lets say someone is born into a rich family. The persons life would be filled with luxury but, that is their parents money. Soon the child will have his or her life and have to make decisions of his or her own. The choices they make will distinguish if poor, rich, or middle class. Same goes with middle class people. I believe that one can make that difference nowadays since our society has changed over time. There are many opportunities in achieving its all a matter of playing your cards right.
DeleteHollaGurl001
I think this narrator's investigation of a college degree through a social conflict lens is really quite interesting. Social Conflict would say that the degree enables the person who receives the degree (someone privileged and more well to do than others) to become more successful than someone who can't get a degree and perpetuates a cycle of oppression. While I can see how this is true, I think one must also consider what the point of getting a degree is. In most cases, the object is to learn and to get a job or start a career. This in of itself is not a bad desire and having a job or career is a good thing. I think that looking at a degree through a social conflict lens makes it easy to ignore the fact that getting a degree is a good thing. It seems to identify the problem and latent functions of getting a degree without looking at the manifest functions.
ReplyDeletethestig001
The structural-functional approach I believe began as a great ideal in that yes if we were all similar coming from similar backgrounds and almost believed in the same things we could yes succeed as a society very well. But social structures have way too many variables to be able to explain everything that a society entails. The Social-conflict Approach goes into more detail where it can explain better why certain groups of our society live the way they live. I personally live my life everyday in hopes that I can overcome where I came from and how I grew up. I have made most of my choices defying my so-called cycle that I was born into. By having a successful marriage, raising a child in a safe and loving environment, and now as an adult going to school to be able to financially take care of myself. Even as we study society as a whole I love the variables that enable all of us to change the way "things are supposed to be". So the Symbolic-Interaction Approach comes into play when people are viewed as who they are as an individual, which is I believe the most reliable source of information to study from. Making any of these theories debatable.
ReplyDeleteWonderWoman001
I think the structural functional approach is not saying we all have to be from the same background or believe the same things. I see the structural functional approach as a way of showing many diverse and complex groups coming together to form society. It takes different backgrounds and forces them to work together to form a working society. The macro structural functional lens is constantly battling to make sure each "system" is working properly and equally. SVT001.
DeleteI agree SVT001. However, WonderWoman001 makes a great point about feeling like our free will and good choice can affect change in our lives beyond our social perspective model. I understand that we are unwillingly and unknowingly shaped in certain ways by our environment, but how much change do we get credit for? Packers001
DeleteSocial Conflict reminds me of the Pearson FCAT test that they are giving students now. Even if you are a straight A student the test makes you feel uneducated. A lot of the students taking these are realizing they cannot pass them. Also, the teachers are not allowed to teach or show the students what is on the test beforehand. The teachers are not allowed to talk about it with each other. It's unethical to show the questions that are being asked. It's keeping educated and uneducated children from even going for their goals like higher education.
ReplyDeleteTooTall001
Sociological Lenses is such an interesting way of explaining how there are different types of sociological theories. I would say that each of the theories I could see myself looking through the "lens." The sociologic theory that would be the greatest to me would be the structural functionalism lens. I really enjoyed the analogy using the human body. It made so much sense when you realize that each body system works together to form a person. There can be problems that have latent signs for example a human can experience liver failure without pain present. The only signs may be a slight yellowing or jaundice of the skin and or conjunctiva. Structural functionalism is moreover looked at as an equal playing field where everything is contributing to make a great end product whereas social conflict has a hierarchy that "rains down" onto others. SVT001
ReplyDeleteI agree, social functionalism is the most meaningful to me too. It works like the human body, if you have a problem with your heart than other parts of your body will not be as sufficient. In society if we are not working together then, sometimes other parts of society will not be up to par. However, if we had a better balance with our economical issues then as a society we could progress forward. Toby001
DeleteI wrote something neat right before this and it didn't post. So, anyway, I agree with you SVT guy, using the analogy of the human body is definitely an understandable way to present the structure approach. It makes tons more sense to me when put in such a way. Arizona001
DeleteI agree that structural functionalism is more of a symbol of how communities work together, and how they function, But even as a whole, they still benefit from one another. This creates hierarchy of social classes, and it links our theories together with social conflict situations. Rosebudd001
DeleteI think structural-functionalism is comfortable. It was the sociological perspective my parents raised me to understand as normal life. However, I think that it has been replaced by the reigning champ, social-conflict. Maybe S-F died with the last of the hero generation World War 2 vets, I don't know. However, social- conflict seems to be representative of how the last 30 years have felt to me. Certainly now, the police shooting and terrorism, but the symbolic-interaction approach is the most ideal. The everyday communication we exhibit through personal interactions if the best representation of positivism, which is how society is.
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing. Packers001
DeleteSocial Conflict- power struggle, to me really hits home. I come from a family where my parents did not attend college after high school because of a financial reasons. However, I plan on spending the next five or more years at school because I was fortunate enough to save up through high school and the help of financial aid. Therefore, seeing and hearing about other people struggle to get an education saddens me because it is possible, if you set your priorities straight a higher education is possible. I found the structural functionalism- interlocking systems, example very helpful for understanding the concept. The way he drew the body and all the parts that make up the body represents how society works together as well. Symbolic interactionism- shared meanings, can be an icon that people look at and feel the same way or feel differently towards. The example in the video was the American flag, many people look at the flag and feel pride or think freedom. However, many people look at the flag and can feel disappointment in our government. Toby001
ReplyDeleteI can relate to you when you said that you had to save money to attend college. I got good enough grades to transfer to pretty much anywhere I wanted after ICC but the cost of a quality school of Bradley or U of I was just too much. But I am fortunate enough to be able to still afford to go to ISU which is reasonably priced compared to the other big schools. glassonion001
DeleteI feel that all of these three sociological lenses are true to a certain extent. I believe that there are power struggles in society, but that is what makes a society work. People in my opinion have to be motivated to do better in their lives, and what is better motivation than seeing other people do better than you. Seeing other people do better and being more successful makes me want to work harder and achieve my goals. I also like the idea of symbolic interactionism, This to me is the most true out of the three because we all live in our own little world and everything has a different meaning depending on who you ask. Structural functionalism is a very easy concept to digest. It makes logical sense to think of society as an interlocking group that works for stability. glassonion001
ReplyDeletePersonally I can see the point of views through all these lenses and sociological theories, to me social conflict still plays a huge role in a our society because the rich are still getting richer and the poor just keep getting poorer, its also obvious the gap between them is wider than its ever been. however the lens of sociological theory I tend to prefer to see thighs through is the structural functionalism the more you give is the more you get, if every one pitches in a little the end results could be a lot. Symbolic interactionism lens can be a little more difficult, so many symbols now have lots of different meaning throughout different parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree that functionalism creates our society. It is how our society is made up. We create it and we can make a change. I find myself more of a symbolic interactive person. It is interesting how people interact with one another. Its meaning behind it. To me there is always a meaning behind someone actions and the way they act. The three foundation sociological theories make sense it to me. In general these theories bring about tons of information on how there are different ways in seeing our society and how it works. Like the video said it is like an organism. These theories explain how society as an organism functions. It goes into depth about how society itself is involved in our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteHollaGurl001
There is a lot of ways you can look at social conflicts. I myself have experienced this in my life. I grew up with three sisters and two brothers and my mom passed away at age 8, so I grew up with one parent. So all siblings struggled,and didn't do well in school. Dad worked all the time and there wasn't a lot of guidance. I am the only one who went to college and that's because my bakery closed , and I was given a new opportunity. As far as structural functionality is concerned, I believe that my church is a fairly good example of this structure.The structure of the church, although ran as a business, serves many as a whole, like a family. As far as symbolic-interactionism , using the example of the American Eagle. The majestic creature is a symbol of freedom in our country; All cultures use symbols for patriotism, territory rights, and religion. Rosebudd001
ReplyDeleteThese three sociological lenses are things we see everyday , but I think the one that relates to me more is social conflict. whenever I turn on the TV I hear about the protest about minority or women being mistreated. The 1% vs the 99% is the life we live in. Social conflict is not always right because sometimes the poor can become the rich and the rich become the poor. I also see a lot of symbolic interaction how people see things. the American flag if u ask a soldier what the flag mean to them it vs just some us citizen you might get a different answer. The soldiers might say it means everything America is life liberty and freedom and the citizen might say it's just a flag. Player001
ReplyDeleteThese three sociological lenses are things we see everyday , but I think the one that relates to me more is social conflict. whenever I turn on the TV I hear about the protest about minority or women being mistreated. The 1% vs the 99% is the life we live in. Social conflict is not always right because sometimes the poor can become the rich and the rich become the poor. I also see a lot of symbolic interaction how people see things. the American flag if u ask a soldier what the flag mean to them it vs just some us citizen you might get a different answer. The soldiers might say it means everything America is life liberty and freedom and the citizen might say it's just a flag. Player001
ReplyDeleteI think I can look at society through each of these sociological lenses. Social conflict would be my least favored way to look at society even though it does exist in places I've worked. It's also pretty normal for me to see a mix of these when it comes to a business. It's a social conflict when there is constant reoccurrence of supervisors in positions above regular hourly workers. An example of structural function would be trying to use supervisor experience to get apply to further growth. Symbolic interactions would pass on the traditional supervisor they were taught. These methods would be used and taught because every believes it has value. Taylojj2
ReplyDelete