Soci Assignment 1 on Theory (011204)
Discuss the contribution to sociological theory of any TWO of the following theorists: (8 marks each – maximum 1½ pages)
- Durkheim or Parsons
- Marx
- Weber
- Mead
Emile Durkheim was considered as the person who has officially ‘created’ a scientific sociology through empirical studies; although there had been Comte and Spencer before him, their ideas were seen as outdated, and more of philosophical than scientific.
In his time, his scientific sociology has contributed to the understanding of how social order could be achieved in modernity, of how our lives as individuals are heavily influenced by the society we live in, and of the source of social change.
The underlying idea behind him is that of the assumption of human nature being driven by egoism (desire, passion, greed, selfishness), and therefore, a need of strong moral system to suppress and control egoism and to provide goal and guideline for their behaviour. When an individual lacks regulating norms or moral constraints, the person would become anomic (normlessness) and results in often undesirable consequences.
Society, in this case, provides morality and the ‘collective conscience’ that members of it abide by for a general consensus in society. The two functions of morality are of social integration (individuals sharing a shared set of value to be bonded as a group) and moral regulations (infinite desires of individuals being reined in by society’s guidelines) form the basis of his theory.
From there, he sees society as a structure in an organic view – an integrated ‘whole’ made up of parts, each performing specific, integrated and interdependent functions to the survival of the whole. Any part that is of no use would eventually be phased out, and the society would be in equilibrium at any time.
~*~*~*~*~
Karl Marx was born into a middle-class family in Germany, where he had later moved to France and then to England. In that process, he met many thinkers who influenced and shaped his theory.
To Marx, his key question is of the source of inequality and change, and often attributed it to capitalism (which was seen to be the root of many social problems). He seeked to develop a scientific explanation of change to create a utopia (from Sir Thomas More: “A utopia is an imaginative account of a perfect or ideal but unrealistic society) in a communist society through revolution.
From Germany, he was influenced by Hegal and Feuerbach, from which he derived his dialectic approach and alienation concept respectively. From France, he got the idea of ‘communes’ from St Simon, a taste of the working class from Engels, and through French history, the use of revolution through class struggle. And from England, he further borrowed on Adam Smith’s idea of the division of labour and David Ricardo’s theory of rent.
Underlying his theory, he believed in the positive aspects of human nature, as opposed to Durkheim. He believed that human beings need to have the ability to display their creativity and potential to produce the means of subsistence. He also believed that cooperating and working together is a natural and social process, and that human beings are ‘conscious’ and sentient beings. Any lack of the above aspects would result in man becoming alienated to himself.
As yet, his theory is often projected against capitalism, where in the midst to attain greater profit by capitalists, workers are often exploited, and results in class stratification, and the eventual alienation of oneself as a failure to fulfill the basic needs of humans. This inequality is thus the root of all problems.
Present a social issue/problem facing contemporary society and discuss how Durkheim, Marx and Mead might explain the issue differently. (No need to write their abstract theories) (9 marks – maximum 1½ pages)
Increasingly, the number of pets being abandoned by their owners has risen exponentially. The sharp rise has resulted in the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) to take prompt action in launching a campaign to encourage responsible pet-ownership, and to adopt rather than buy a pet.
Durkheim, alongside with his theory, believe that humans are primarily driven by egoism, and that is directly caused by the individuals’ relationship with society. Society, thus, have to provide the morality and ‘collective conscience’ for the individuals to be integrated into the group and to rein in their egoism to be in line with the society’s ‘regulations’.
In this case, these ‘irresponsible pet-owners’ are seen to be driven by egoism, where the term ‘ownership’ is taken literally and the pet is treated as a material item with no feelings. After getting tired of them, these ‘possessions’ are disposed of without further consideration. These individuals then are seen to be suffering from a lack of integration with fellow beings, thus a deviance in the shared value of the society. Also, it means that they are unable to keep a check on their selfishness, where they chose to take the easy way out rather than doing the right thing of making sure they keep up with their responsibility, or taking the responsibility to find someone responsible for it. The individual could be said to be suffering from anomie, a feeling of normlessness.
Marx, however, believed that Man is intrinsically good in nature, but that they are often oppressed by the economic circumstances they are in. The average working-class man is often being exploited by the capitalists (people who own the capitals towards the production of goods and services), and in doing so, deprive them of their basic requirements to being a sentient being. These requirements of using their ability and creativity to produce the means of subsistence, of cooperating as a natural and social process, and being ‘conscious’ are essential so that the person would not become alienated to oneself.
In this case, the abandoning of pets would be seen as the indirect workings of capitalism. These pet-owners are the average working-class people who are exploited by capitalists, and therefore even getting the meager subsistence level would be difficult, much less the ability to showcase their creativity. Instead of mere cooperating, individuals are then made to work alone and specialize, and thus, losing consciousness. In the whole process of alienation, these pet-owners are ‘forced’ by society to give up on their pets as a result of their compromised situation.
Mead, however, share the view that Man are individuals who influences the society, and not the vice versa. He sees man as having a mind of their own, to deliberately and rationally plan the course of action. He sees Man as having an “I” and “Self”, where one is of the person and the other as of the person being perceived. Society is then a network of interpersonal communication and interactions among individuals going on with their lives.
In this case, the abandonment of pets is seen as a somewhat selfish behaviour; the man, as “I”, has desires to be fulfilled, but the desires are fueled by the “Self”, where the desires are seen to part of the identity, “I”. As society is seen to be made up of a group of individuals, and having to answer to no one, having a pet is made a personal decision, and abandonment of pets are seen as yet another personal decision.
What are the similarities and differences between conflict and consensus mode of society. (4 marks – maximum ½ pages)
These conflict and consensus theories are similar in that they look at the whole of society. They are concerned with the influence of society on individuals, as well as the relationships between different parts of society, emphasizing on the ways in which individuals conform to social order as a result of structure.
However, the fundamental difference is in the way the see the state of social order in society. The consensus theorists see order, and a general equilibrium of the norms and values of society. The conflict theorists, however, see consensus as a ‘false consciousness’ that lulls people to perceive what benefits the capitalists.
The consensus theorists see social structure as a way of regulating norms and values of society, so people follow through; individuals are therefore born into social structures and have to live, learn, socialize and follow the existing norms and values of their societies. The conflict theorists, however, disagrees and sees it as not by choice but indirect coercion.
Consensus theorists see society as a structure of an integrated ‘whole’ made up of parts, each performing specific, integrated and symbiotic functions to the survival of the whole. Any part that is of no use would eventually be phased out, and the society would be in equilibrium at any time. Conflict theorists however, see the parts as having different importance, and the bias towards the ruling class. Education, for the consensus theorists, socializes individuals into having the same set of values, but for the conflict theorist, a sycophantic following skewed to the capitalists.
- Durkheim or Parsons
- Marx
- Weber
- Mead
Emile Durkheim was considered as the person who has officially ‘created’ a scientific sociology through empirical studies; although there had been Comte and Spencer before him, their ideas were seen as outdated, and more of philosophical than scientific.
In his time, his scientific sociology has contributed to the understanding of how social order could be achieved in modernity, of how our lives as individuals are heavily influenced by the society we live in, and of the source of social change.
The underlying idea behind him is that of the assumption of human nature being driven by egoism (desire, passion, greed, selfishness), and therefore, a need of strong moral system to suppress and control egoism and to provide goal and guideline for their behaviour. When an individual lacks regulating norms or moral constraints, the person would become anomic (normlessness) and results in often undesirable consequences.
Society, in this case, provides morality and the ‘collective conscience’ that members of it abide by for a general consensus in society. The two functions of morality are of social integration (individuals sharing a shared set of value to be bonded as a group) and moral regulations (infinite desires of individuals being reined in by society’s guidelines) form the basis of his theory.
From there, he sees society as a structure in an organic view – an integrated ‘whole’ made up of parts, each performing specific, integrated and interdependent functions to the survival of the whole. Any part that is of no use would eventually be phased out, and the society would be in equilibrium at any time.
~*~*~*~*~
Karl Marx was born into a middle-class family in Germany, where he had later moved to France and then to England. In that process, he met many thinkers who influenced and shaped his theory.
To Marx, his key question is of the source of inequality and change, and often attributed it to capitalism (which was seen to be the root of many social problems). He seeked to develop a scientific explanation of change to create a utopia (from Sir Thomas More: “A utopia is an imaginative account of a perfect or ideal but unrealistic society) in a communist society through revolution.
From Germany, he was influenced by Hegal and Feuerbach, from which he derived his dialectic approach and alienation concept respectively. From France, he got the idea of ‘communes’ from St Simon, a taste of the working class from Engels, and through French history, the use of revolution through class struggle. And from England, he further borrowed on Adam Smith’s idea of the division of labour and David Ricardo’s theory of rent.
Underlying his theory, he believed in the positive aspects of human nature, as opposed to Durkheim. He believed that human beings need to have the ability to display their creativity and potential to produce the means of subsistence. He also believed that cooperating and working together is a natural and social process, and that human beings are ‘conscious’ and sentient beings. Any lack of the above aspects would result in man becoming alienated to himself.
As yet, his theory is often projected against capitalism, where in the midst to attain greater profit by capitalists, workers are often exploited, and results in class stratification, and the eventual alienation of oneself as a failure to fulfill the basic needs of humans. This inequality is thus the root of all problems.
Present a social issue/problem facing contemporary society and discuss how Durkheim, Marx and Mead might explain the issue differently. (No need to write their abstract theories) (9 marks – maximum 1½ pages)
Increasingly, the number of pets being abandoned by their owners has risen exponentially. The sharp rise has resulted in the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) to take prompt action in launching a campaign to encourage responsible pet-ownership, and to adopt rather than buy a pet.
Durkheim, alongside with his theory, believe that humans are primarily driven by egoism, and that is directly caused by the individuals’ relationship with society. Society, thus, have to provide the morality and ‘collective conscience’ for the individuals to be integrated into the group and to rein in their egoism to be in line with the society’s ‘regulations’.
In this case, these ‘irresponsible pet-owners’ are seen to be driven by egoism, where the term ‘ownership’ is taken literally and the pet is treated as a material item with no feelings. After getting tired of them, these ‘possessions’ are disposed of without further consideration. These individuals then are seen to be suffering from a lack of integration with fellow beings, thus a deviance in the shared value of the society. Also, it means that they are unable to keep a check on their selfishness, where they chose to take the easy way out rather than doing the right thing of making sure they keep up with their responsibility, or taking the responsibility to find someone responsible for it. The individual could be said to be suffering from anomie, a feeling of normlessness.
Marx, however, believed that Man is intrinsically good in nature, but that they are often oppressed by the economic circumstances they are in. The average working-class man is often being exploited by the capitalists (people who own the capitals towards the production of goods and services), and in doing so, deprive them of their basic requirements to being a sentient being. These requirements of using their ability and creativity to produce the means of subsistence, of cooperating as a natural and social process, and being ‘conscious’ are essential so that the person would not become alienated to oneself.
In this case, the abandoning of pets would be seen as the indirect workings of capitalism. These pet-owners are the average working-class people who are exploited by capitalists, and therefore even getting the meager subsistence level would be difficult, much less the ability to showcase their creativity. Instead of mere cooperating, individuals are then made to work alone and specialize, and thus, losing consciousness. In the whole process of alienation, these pet-owners are ‘forced’ by society to give up on their pets as a result of their compromised situation.
Mead, however, share the view that Man are individuals who influences the society, and not the vice versa. He sees man as having a mind of their own, to deliberately and rationally plan the course of action. He sees Man as having an “I” and “Self”, where one is of the person and the other as of the person being perceived. Society is then a network of interpersonal communication and interactions among individuals going on with their lives.
In this case, the abandonment of pets is seen as a somewhat selfish behaviour; the man, as “I”, has desires to be fulfilled, but the desires are fueled by the “Self”, where the desires are seen to part of the identity, “I”. As society is seen to be made up of a group of individuals, and having to answer to no one, having a pet is made a personal decision, and abandonment of pets are seen as yet another personal decision.
What are the similarities and differences between conflict and consensus mode of society. (4 marks – maximum ½ pages)
These conflict and consensus theories are similar in that they look at the whole of society. They are concerned with the influence of society on individuals, as well as the relationships between different parts of society, emphasizing on the ways in which individuals conform to social order as a result of structure.
However, the fundamental difference is in the way the see the state of social order in society. The consensus theorists see order, and a general equilibrium of the norms and values of society. The conflict theorists, however, see consensus as a ‘false consciousness’ that lulls people to perceive what benefits the capitalists.
The consensus theorists see social structure as a way of regulating norms and values of society, so people follow through; individuals are therefore born into social structures and have to live, learn, socialize and follow the existing norms and values of their societies. The conflict theorists, however, disagrees and sees it as not by choice but indirect coercion.
Consensus theorists see society as a structure of an integrated ‘whole’ made up of parts, each performing specific, integrated and symbiotic functions to the survival of the whole. Any part that is of no use would eventually be phased out, and the society would be in equilibrium at any time. Conflict theorists however, see the parts as having different importance, and the bias towards the ruling class. Education, for the consensus theorists, socializes individuals into having the same set of values, but for the conflict theorist, a sycophantic following skewed to the capitalists.
posted by 유산 @ 1:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home