Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Journal Response #1
Journal Response #1 Due Thursday, September 27th
Please answer at least one of the following questions:
Question #1: Chapter One discusses various schools of thought in terms of the role of sociologists in society. One view asserts that sociologists should simply study society while a second view espouses the belief that sociologists should use their research to reform society. Which do you feel is the role of sociologists and why?
Question #2: Chapter One discusses the three major theoretical perspectives in sociology: symbolic interactionism, functional analysis (also called functionalism and structural functionalism) and conflict theory. First, please list the level of analysis for each theory (ie: micro or macro). Second, which of the three theories do you feel makes the most sense to you? Please explain why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
i feel the role of a sociologist should use their research to reform society. yes, people do make society and could be stubborn at times, but if you give them knowledgable information they might use it for their own good and good for others.
After reading chapter one I feel that while social work as a field is separate from sociology as a science, sociology has no point if its findings are not applied to the societies studied. When I look at nature I often see patterns in that, the whole, or things on a large scale often profoundly resemble their parts, or things on a smaller scale. One example of this is the solar system vs. the atom. With a little imagination one (or at least I can) see the similar layout. A large body in the center, a proton in the atom, the sun in our solar system, orbited or circled by smaller electrons, or in the case of the solar system planets. I also see many similarities between the individual and the society. In a society long held beliefs and practices, traditions, are deeply imbedded just like habits can be in the individual. Profound and lasting change in society, like equal rights for African Americans or women takes a great amount of time and energy (still works in progress), just like it takes a lot of thought and time for a person to gradually change habits like smoking or personality traits like a bad temper. Just like an individual societies and cultures tend to gravitate and get along with those similar to themselves. This is probably why the U.S. has better diplomatic relations with many European countries as opposed to countries in Asia or Africa, or even South America.
So if a man who’s life has recently made several turns for the worse sits down and in desperation finally reflects back on the events of the past year to see what went wrong and finds that many mishaps happened because of his dependence on alcohol. Now that he realizes the problem is that he is an alcoholic, wouldn’t it be foolish to tuck that knowledge away and throw back another beer? Sociology to me seems to be self reflection on a large societal scale, so when sociologists see something wrong that can be changed to benefit society as a whole they should do it, to not do it would be foolish.
Before I stop I also wanted to say that Herbert Spencer’s theory is only useful insofar that it justifies greedy rich elitist jerks not putting back into the society that enabled them to be so rich in the first place. They say that interfering would only hurt in the long run but these same greedy rich elitist jerks have no problem with putting people at a disadvantage by giving them to little pay and to many hours in unsafe working conditions, they are hypocrites.
Level of analysis for each theory:
Symbolic Interactionism = Microsociological
Funtional Analysis = Macrosociological
Conflict Theory = Macrosociological
I do feel that all three of these theoretical perspectives make absolute sense because all human behavior has consequences. However, the one that I feel is most sensible is the Functional Analysis. We as people in a society function together. Social changes are inevitable so taking these changes and progressing with them will maintain harmony. I do also agree with focusing on the macro level of analysis and focusing on the larger scale. There are many factors far beyond face-to-face interaction and use of gestures or symbols that are necessary to effectively study human behavior.
Question 1
Well I feel that you need both sociologist that study the community and sociologist that study and reform the community. But obviously you need these two in moderation if you receive too much push to change from someone you start to get annoyed and don't listen to them anyway. When this happens you start to think that anyone who even thinks you should reform are not in a right state of mind.
But If they make you happy or in a good mood with the new reform you might praise all sociologist. IT all depends on what condition the community is in. If its in a down and depressed time then reform might be just what their looking for. but if they are in a good mood reform isn't such a good idea and then sociologist can study why their so happy to possibly change anything in the future should the community go down hill at some point.
I feel that the goal of a sociologist should not only reseach but also reform. A socialigists is given the education and the know how to study many differant diverse situation. I think they are given the oppertunity to make a differance in many peoples lives,so I believe that if their reseach is not applied it would be a waste of an oppertunity to make a differance in the world.
I think that socoilogist should use their research to reform the society. Why because they spend tremendous amount of time looking for the problem and solution of things in our society.By using it reform the society, it will help educate the world about how people think and do things in our society. If it shouldn't be use to reform the society, why should i spend money and time just to learn what's hapening in other cultures. Therefore, i strongly that sociologist should play a very big role by using their to impact people's lives.
To answer question number one I believe that it is important for sociology to not only study the society, but also to be used as a guide to make society better. It is the job of sociologist to study the social spectrum and the behaviors and patterns that compose it. But I believe that the goal of gathering information for sociology should be only objective, and that the information should only be put to use until after the research is complete. If the data is gathered with only the best outcome in mind (the outcome of creating a better society) the data may be biased and ultimately incorrect. So I believe that the information in sociology can be used to aid in social reform, but that should not be the goal of sociologists since the data may become corrupt even if it is for a “good cause.” Once the research is done then those in the proper fields should use information responsibly to help prevent issues of certain despair such as homelessness, suicide, and depression to name a few.
I am unsure if sociologists should be the final say in certain issues. What I mean by this is that I am unsure if science should govern certain moral issues. Example: what if sociologists were to gather information on what the main cause of conflict in the United States and they found that that was conflicts between religions? If the goal is to eliminate conflict wouldn’t taking some action against religion be imminent, and even if it isn’t the complete eradication of the religion or religions isn’t an option wouldn’t something core in these religions have to change? Maybe that is an extreme example, but I hope I made my point.
What is keeping an unethical person from becoming a sociologist? Nothing. A sociologist could do just as much harm as good to a society. Even though most people are optimistic for the better of all man kind. It truly all depends on the intensions of the person. I guess the thought of a society that was welcoming, fair, kind, and supportive compared the cold hard reality of today would be nice. However, I believe that some things are better left untouched, left as a nice idea instead of made into a reality. Have you ever wondered if the grass was greener on the other side? Think about it. Along with the thought of reforming society, you would have to take into account the domino effect. If you eliminate crime or criminal behavior, what else would change because it no longer existed? Would it have the down hill effect of eventually deleting laughter? I think that with trying to reform society, it infringes on a persons freewill. It would sort of take away what makes people so terribly great. I feel that a sociologist should offer their services to those who choose to participate in the reformation of their life. I don’t think it should be forced upon anyone. I think that people should be educated about the studies that sociologists perform and the results that are found. Everyone has choices to make everyday that can change their life and sometimes the lives of those that surround them. The world isn’t perfect and it never will be. There will however, always be the good people trying to make things better; the bad that will always try to get away with something, and the sociologists that study them both.
I feel that sociologist research is of importance to the study of society.The studies and statistics researched for society are very important to lerning and knowing where society issues are created and enticed to grow weather it be negative or positive.Sociologist studies help society to become aware of it's direction.
I think Herbert Spencer was wrong in his thinking. The poor deserve a chance to try to make a life for themselves.
Max Weber is obviously an atheist because he thinks that religion created capitalism. He definitely has his facts wrong about the Protestants of the Calvinist tradition. He says that "they began to look for signs that they were in God's will and to do this they lived frugal lives, saving their money and investing the surplus in order to make more." What they probably did was "saved their money" so they could send missionairies to other parts of the world. Also it's not a sin to invest one's money.
Even though racism was a way of life in the early 1900's the State Departartment should have never refused W.E.B.Du Bois a visa.
If sociologists didn't use their knowledge that they gained from their research that would be like chemists that found a cure for a disease not telling anybody about their findings. Also that would be like doctors telling their patients they know what's wrong with them,but not prescribing any medication for them. Also Rand has a point "sociology has no point if its findings are not applied to the societied studied".
Symbolic interactionism - micro
Functional Analysis - macro
Conflict theory - macro
Post a Comment