This article covers alot of information and I found it very helpful. These three sociologists have very different views on society. I think that the thing that is being missed by this postindusrial age I beleive we live in the United States is that we need not forget the societies that came before us. What are we gonna do if technology or resources fail us? Will we come up with solutions in time? For example, when oil runs out, will we have enough alternatives? The scary part is, we may have to go back to the times of hunters and gatherers. We may have to grow our own food and raise our own animals such as the horticulture age. How many millions would die? In my opinion, this may very well be a major downfall for us some day when we realise we still all need to be able to do these thing for ourselves and have the resources readily available.Camp012
I have to disagree. I see it as the three sociologists have the two main views consistent with each other, but Lenski was able to watch the world evolve as technology evolved. He was able to see computers and how they changed the world. Plus, he was able to see even how computers evolved. This changed the world forever. There will always be the two main societies in our world and that will never change.
You present an excellent point. We as a society seem to be always striving for the top. We want the newest, the most efficient, and simply the best. I believe that being so forward focused will be our downfall. You're one hundred percent right in saying that millions would die! It's very said that some people can not survive half a day with a dead cell phone. How would we expects this type of public to deal with complete power loss. Not too many would know what to do or how to survive. We need not forget the past because the past is the foundation on which we built this future. The basics are important to know. farmgirl012
I liked how the instructor broke down all three sociologists views. She gave great examples of each. The most interesting part about it is that they all really have the same views, but Lenski was able to "add" on the postindustrial age and post modern age. I attribute this to the times the three sociologists were alive. Depending on where you are in the world, all societies still hold true. I'm sure there are many locations in Africa that still utilize the mechanical solidarity, gemeinschaft and preindustrial societies. As well as other locations in Africa (or any other country for that matter) that have the organic solidarity, gesellschaft and industrial societies. They all come back to tradition or the want (or need) to break away from these traditions. I don't think that will ever change. The hunter gatherer societies have done this for thousands of years and have no reason to change, but if some technology were to be introduced by an "outsider", it would change their views and allow their culture to change along with it. Kane012
I also have to respectfully disagree with you. To say what is left of older societies such as hunters and gatherers would want to change if you introduced the technology is naive. Some day if technology fails, we may wish we had there skills. I think for those who have never, a hike in the woods or mountains, or camping in the wilderness can really bring a person back to the reality that we still need to be one with nature. Not to say we can't appreciate the technology that we have, but we shouldn't totally forget about the older societies or the beauty of not caring if your phone goes dead.Camp012
This video provided an organized break down of Durkheim, Tonnies, and Lenski's models of society. During the narrator's discussion of Durkheim and his organic society model, I found it very interesting how the narrator made it sound like the process of acquiring bread in today's world is so complicated. I think that many of us would agree that the mechanical society version of making the bread yourself would be a lot more complicated than just picking a loaf up at the store. Evidently, we are doing it the hard way! Moving on to the portion about Tonnies, I was struck by memories of my hometown, a gemeinshaft society. Tonnies model makes it sound like small, close nit communities are more healthy for society and that the larger gesellschaft societies are prideful and self centered. Yet, I don't think big cities are really as horrible as Tonnies model suggests. As unconnected as society might be in big cities, these types of communities are pivotal for the way of today's living. Let's give credit where credit is due. After all, big cities house corporations, entertainment, and many amenities which we all enjoy. To me, Lenski really has the right idea with his model for society. Instead of just two categories to fit societies under, Lenski has a hand full which better describe the various types of communities there are in the world. In a way, Lenski's model also seems like a ladder. As the narrator states Lenski sociocultural evolution is based on the principle that technology is the cause for advancing societies. It would make sense for societies to want to climb the ladder and achieve advancement. Still, today there are many societies at the agrarian or horticultural level that have not climbed up with the rest of us. What is keeping them behind? farmgirl012.
I agree that I agree with Lenski's model of society the most. Mostly because I feel it gives the most background as to where our modern society started out. As for your last statement, I would say lack of knowledge is your answer. As with any society advancement takes place when new knowledge is acquired, if a society is cut off from the rest of the world, then how are they supposed to acquire new knowledge? Let alone advance with the rest of modern society. Firedancer012
It is very interesting this three models and how this applies in our society, from different culture around the world. It is very helpful to define and describe our-self today. America today controlling and prose-sing information in a mass scale never before. we are creating, inventing, innovating, but manufacturing overseas of many of our invention that we create. The society has become more complex that everybody specialize in every labor role in society that everybody have become depend on one another doing different things. futbol012
Durkheim's mechanical solidarity reminds me a lot of Amish communities, the specific roles each person has in that type of society are already outlined for them. Organic societies remind me of Native American tribes. All of which rely on different members of their community to preform different tasks. Tonnies Gemeinschaft reminds me of the small towns and communities peppered across America, what some would consider "backwoods" types of communities. Gesellschaft makes me think of the big cities of America, someone could pass a hundred people a day and not give them a second glance. I thought Lenski's ideas of basic societies were very interesting, mostly because it breaks them down to the bare bones of what human interaction is and has evolved from. I also thought it was interesting how we as American's fit into the spectrum of society, being a postmodern society, we have hardwired computer technology into our lives. I would venture a guess that today's youth wouldn't know how to function without some sort of cyber connection at all times. Firedancer012
I completely agree with the points made above. For me, Durkheim, Tonnies, and Lenski all made great points. I think all of their theories ring true in some society, somewhere in this world. All of these points fall under global perspective. But to me, there are many other factors that play into some of these stereotypes.
The video gave excellent meanings on each topic. The video expressed great ideas. I liked how the video gave a really good example on the social structure in global perceptive, modern societies and similar societies. I also like how the she gave definition on mechanical solidarity, collective consciousness and on organic solidarity, needing each other, and relying on others. She also gave a good example on,the last 15 yet 20 years , America has been post modern societies, social control. People depend more, now on technology . For example, she gave, were no longer a world power , there's less developed nations, spend more on technology. Last but not least,I also like how she broke down the meaning of Len ski's sociocultural evolution and the whole terms of division labor in society. Socialbutterfly
I like the way this lady broke everything down in a very black and white manner, she was easy to follow and I didn't get bored or confused with the way she presented the information. Back in the day I believe we were more of a mechanical solidarity society. More independent and didn't depend on outsiders for much. Farmers had their cattle, crops, and gardens. They more or less depended on each other for trades. What one farmer didn't have another did and a simple swap of product was done. Now in our society we are more organic solidarity, we depend on the farmer to grow the crops, and gardens and raise the cattle. They then package and ship it to the store where consumers trade money for the product. No real relationship is needed with the producer we just buy things as needed. I believe this generation and the generations to come have become very dependent on technology, what ever would we do without our computers, tablets and fancy iPhone. Even schools, and education systems depend on technology to do homework, research and even get a job. I wonder if the farmers from back in the day would be impressed with how far we have came or be disappointed that we have become so technology depended. newmommy2be012
The difference of how society functioned long ago verses today was explained well. It's just a step by step of how technology eventually took over. The mechanical solidarity was in place in the beginning. Everyone acted on their own to get the day to day tasks done. Eventually, organic solidarity came into play where everyone had a different task. People each did something different to contribute to all of society's needs. The differences in Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft societies were explained simply. The small town, rural, communities were Gemeinschaft. The urban, large, communities were Gesellschaft. Our societies went from hunting and gathering societies who depended on the land for our needs to societies who depend on technology in their everyday lives. Today we live in a society that is all about computers and inventions to make our lives easier. I believe people should have to learn how to function in a society without technology in order to appreciate the changes it has made to make our everyday lives simpler. nana012
I like how she explained the 3 sociologist views on society. Very cut and dry. They pretty much all have the same views. Durkheims mechanical solidarity reminds me of long ago. Where families pretty much farmed their own food, made their own clothes etc. Organic solidarity is what we have today. Someone else makes the clothes, farms the goods, and produces pretty much anything one would need. Then we spend money we have worked for to purchase these goods and the things that we'll need. We have become a dependent society. I like Tonnies theories. His Gemeinschaft theory reminds me of small towns around here. Towns where everyone knows each other and each others business. The Gesellschaft theory is like an urban city. Where we know our neighbor but not every aspect of their life. We can visit a grocery store and not know every person in the store. When it comes to Lenski, I really like what he is able to speak on. I agree we are becoming dependent on technology for information among other things. We no longer have to put in much effort to obtain anything. We have become lazy and unappreciative.
This article covers alot of information and I found it very helpful. These three sociologists have very different views on society. I think that the thing that is being missed by this postindusrial age I beleive we live in the United States is that we need not forget the societies that came before us. What are we gonna do if technology or resources fail us? Will we come up with solutions in time? For example, when oil runs out, will we have enough alternatives? The scary part is, we may have to go back to the times of hunters and gatherers. We may have to grow our own food and raise our own animals such as the horticulture age. How many millions would die? In my opinion, this may very well be a major downfall for us some day when we realise we still all need to be able to do these thing for ourselves and have the resources readily available.Camp012
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. I see it as the three sociologists have the two main views consistent with each other, but Lenski was able to watch the world evolve as technology evolved. He was able to see computers and how they changed the world. Plus, he was able to see even how computers evolved. This changed the world forever. There will always be the two main societies in our world and that will never change.
DeleteKane012 for above--sorry
DeleteYou present an excellent point. We as a society seem to be always striving for the top. We want the newest, the most efficient, and simply the best. I believe that being so forward focused will be our downfall. You're one hundred percent right in saying that millions would die! It's very said that some people can not survive half a day with a dead cell phone. How would we expects this type of public to deal with complete power loss. Not too many would know what to do or how to survive. We need not forget the past because the past is the foundation on which we built this future. The basics are important to know. farmgirl012
DeleteI liked how the instructor broke down all three sociologists views. She gave great examples of each. The most interesting part about it is that they all really have the same views, but Lenski was able to "add" on the postindustrial age and post modern age. I attribute this to the times the three sociologists were alive. Depending on where you are in the world, all societies still hold true. I'm sure there are many locations in Africa that still utilize the mechanical solidarity, gemeinschaft and preindustrial societies. As well as other locations in Africa (or any other country for that matter) that have the organic solidarity, gesellschaft and industrial societies. They all come back to tradition or the want (or need) to break away from these traditions. I don't think that will ever change. The hunter gatherer societies have done this for thousands of years and have no reason to change, but if some technology were to be introduced by an "outsider", it would change their views and allow their culture to change along with it. Kane012
ReplyDeleteI also have to respectfully disagree with you. To say what is left of older societies such as hunters and gatherers would want to change if you introduced the technology is naive. Some day if technology fails, we may wish we had there skills. I think for those who have never, a hike in the woods or mountains, or camping in the wilderness can really bring a person back to the reality that we still need to be one with nature. Not to say we can't appreciate the technology that we have, but we shouldn't totally forget about the older societies or the beauty of not caring if your phone goes dead.Camp012
DeleteThis video provided an organized break down of Durkheim, Tonnies, and Lenski's models of society. During the narrator's discussion of Durkheim and his organic society model, I found it very interesting how the narrator made it sound like the process of acquiring bread in today's world is so complicated. I think that many of us would agree that the mechanical society version of making the bread yourself would be a lot more complicated than just picking a loaf up at the store. Evidently, we are doing it the hard way! Moving on to the portion about Tonnies, I was struck by memories of my hometown, a gemeinshaft society. Tonnies model makes it sound like small, close nit communities are more healthy for society and that the larger gesellschaft societies are prideful and self centered. Yet, I don't think big cities are really as horrible as Tonnies model suggests. As unconnected as society might be in big cities, these types of communities are pivotal for the way of today's living. Let's give credit where credit is due. After all, big cities house corporations, entertainment, and many amenities which we all enjoy. To me, Lenski really has the right idea with his model for society. Instead of just two categories to fit societies under, Lenski has a hand full which better describe the various types of communities there are in the world. In a way, Lenski's model also seems like a ladder. As the narrator states Lenski sociocultural evolution is based on the principle that technology is the cause for advancing societies. It would make sense for societies to want to climb the ladder and achieve advancement. Still, today there are many societies at the agrarian or horticultural level that have not climbed up with the rest of us. What is keeping them behind? farmgirl012.
ReplyDeleteI agree that I agree with Lenski's model of society the most. Mostly because I feel it gives the most background as to where our modern society started out. As for your last statement, I would say lack of knowledge is your answer. As with any society advancement takes place when new knowledge is acquired, if a society is cut off from the rest of the world, then how are they supposed to acquire new knowledge? Let alone advance with the rest of modern society. Firedancer012
DeleteIt is very interesting this three models and how this applies in our society, from different culture around the world. It is very helpful to define and describe our-self today. America today controlling and prose-sing information in a mass scale never before. we are creating, inventing, innovating, but manufacturing overseas of many of our invention that we create. The society has become more complex that everybody specialize in every labor role in society that everybody have become depend on one another doing different things. futbol012
ReplyDeleteDurkheim's mechanical solidarity reminds me a lot of Amish communities, the specific roles each person has in that type of society are already outlined for them. Organic societies remind me of Native American tribes. All of which rely on different members of their community to preform different tasks. Tonnies Gemeinschaft reminds me of the small towns and communities peppered across America, what some would consider "backwoods" types of communities. Gesellschaft makes me think of the big cities of America, someone could pass a hundred people a day and not give them a second glance. I thought Lenski's ideas of basic societies were very interesting, mostly because it breaks them down to the bare bones of what human interaction is and has evolved from. I also thought it was interesting how we as American's fit into the spectrum of society, being a postmodern society, we have hardwired computer technology into our lives. I would venture a guess that today's youth wouldn't know how to function without some sort of cyber connection at all times. Firedancer012
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the points made above. For me, Durkheim, Tonnies, and Lenski all made great points. I think all of their theories ring true in some society, somewhere in this world. All of these points fall under global perspective. But to me, there are many other factors that play into some of these stereotypes.
Delete^^^^ MomtoM.L.M.012
DeleteThe video gave excellent meanings on each topic. The video expressed great ideas. I liked how the video gave a really good example on the social structure in global perceptive, modern societies and similar societies. I also like how the she gave definition on mechanical solidarity, collective consciousness and on organic solidarity, needing each other, and relying on others. She also gave a good example on,the last 15 yet 20 years , America has been post modern societies, social control. People depend more, now on technology . For example, she gave, were no longer a world power , there's less developed nations, spend more on technology. Last but not least,I also like how she broke down the meaning of Len ski's sociocultural evolution and the whole terms of division labor in society. Socialbutterfly
ReplyDeleteI like the way this lady broke everything down in a very black and white manner, she was easy to follow and I didn't get bored or confused with the way she presented the information. Back in the day I believe we were more of a mechanical solidarity society. More independent and didn't depend on outsiders for much. Farmers had their cattle, crops, and gardens. They more or less depended on each other for trades. What one farmer didn't have another did and a simple swap of product was done. Now in our society we are more organic solidarity, we depend on the farmer to grow the crops, and gardens and raise the cattle. They then package and ship it to the store where consumers trade money for the product. No real relationship is needed with the producer we just buy things as needed. I believe this generation and the generations to come have become very dependent on technology, what ever would we do without our computers, tablets and fancy iPhone. Even schools, and education systems depend on technology to do homework, research and even get a job. I wonder if the farmers from back in the day would be impressed with how far we have came or be disappointed that we have become so technology depended. newmommy2be012
ReplyDeleteThe difference of how society functioned long ago verses today was explained well. It's just a step by step of how technology eventually took over. The mechanical solidarity was in place in the beginning. Everyone acted on their own to get the day to day tasks done. Eventually, organic solidarity came into play where everyone had a different task. People each did something different to contribute to all of society's needs. The differences in Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft societies were explained simply. The small town, rural, communities were Gemeinschaft. The urban, large, communities were Gesellschaft. Our societies went from hunting and gathering societies who depended on the land for our needs to societies who depend on technology in their everyday lives. Today we live in a society that is all about computers and inventions to make our lives easier. I believe people should have to learn how to function in a society without technology in order to appreciate the changes it has made to make our everyday lives simpler. nana012
ReplyDeleteI like how she explained the 3 sociologist views on society. Very cut and dry. They pretty much all have the same views. Durkheims mechanical solidarity reminds me of long ago. Where families pretty much farmed their own food, made their own clothes etc. Organic solidarity is what we have today. Someone else makes the clothes, farms the goods, and produces pretty much anything one would need. Then we spend money we have worked for to purchase these goods and the things that we'll need. We have become a dependent society. I like Tonnies theories. His Gemeinschaft theory reminds me of small towns around here. Towns where everyone knows each other and each others business. The Gesellschaft theory is like an urban city. Where we know our neighbor but not every aspect of their life. We can visit a grocery store and not know every person in the store. When it comes to Lenski, I really like what he is able to speak on. I agree we are becoming dependent on technology for information among other things. We no longer have to put in much effort to obtain anything. We have become lazy and unappreciative.
ReplyDeleteKingOli1016^^
Delete