Sociology

Jack Wang LART 211 25 February 2013 Instructor: Natalie Panfili Summary In Joshua Adler’s essay, “Our Alarmist Society,” Adler point out a serious problem; alarmist have a lot bad influence in our society. In his essay, he said that “Scientific alarmism is becoming a way of life in the United States. ” We all know that alarmism can cause misunderstanding and trouble for listeners, but it can cause our life to become miserable if it becomes part of our living element. Based on Adler’s essay, in 1989, the U. S.

Customs Service banned South American grapes because people were poisoned by the grapes from Chile. The U. S. almost destroyed the economies of Peru and Chile, both countries are struggling countries and need U. S. business to maintain their living standards. Once the U. S. stops business with them, they will lose their basic quality of life. When South American countries are not making enough money for their daily living, they start selling illegal crops to America and give Uncle Sam a drug addiction in order to make him weaker.

The media plays a big role in this ball game, if the press thinks an event is important, they can make it sound as significant as they want and make it sound uncontrollable. However, when Joshua returned home on spring break and saw an old couple waiting for their food, the old woman said she heard other people say that eating yolk will kill you for sure so she wanted her eggs scrambled. She believed what other people said without finding the evidence and realized the yolk in her scrambled eggs.

If everyone believes in the same logic that she does, our egg-producing farms will immediately shut down. Alarmism could be both bad and good depending on how we use it; in today’s society, news can be spread very easily and we don’t really have time to think, we always try to find the solution to the problem without looking at the bigger picture. Critical thinking is one of the best ways to solve this problem, communication is also important but we need to be responsible for our own words.

Reading 1. 3 Jackall, R. (1988) Theories of decision-making process deliver to managers many essential tools such as risk and cost/benefits analysis, etc. which in tern routinizes administration. These tools cannot be used appropriately to manage of incalculable entities. The functional rationality approach is when activities precisely planned and estimated to reach some goal. This method is unlikely to be used by top managers because another important factors are involved such as ego or personal altitude.

If there is no special procedure for a particular problem, manager should focus on how to turn a situation into the right way in accordance with expectations from their boss. Some managerial people cannot make their own judgments. Instead, they are looking up and looking around for someone else’s opinion and finally they rely on it because of personal fears or inexperience. Another example of it is the mid-level decision-making paralysis in many American companies when a manager is trying to avoid of making a decision. In the case of inevitable decision, he or she would engage as many colleagues as possible for self-protection.

Many examples of recent administrative and economic problems within American companies have showed the tendency that managers are oriented to the short-term period when making decisions. This is due to the fact that MBA programs provide tools which are focuses mostly on a short-term attitude. The second reason would be that managers are under pressure for annual, quarterly, monthly and daily results and these factors push they out of thinking about the future, even though they realise that today’s minor difficulties could be tomorrow’s big crises.

Managers are also aware of blame time and when things go wrong it is necessary to be protected from consequences. This is the reason why they gravitate towards this fear being punished rather than reflecting critically. Bureaucracy disrupts working processes into parts and the results of the work therefore disconnected with the decisions, which had been made. Manager’s productivity depends on the position within management circle or their supervisors. There is no codes or systems for tracking personal responsibilities to be established.

To be successful manager means to move quickly within the levels of managerial hierarchy. It protects from going into problems too deeply at every level. Example I worked for four years as an instrument engineer in the Natural gas industry in Russia. I was involved into the decision making process associated with planning resources and finances for further projects and discussions about engineering-related difficulties. Firstly, when the question was complicated and involves financial resources, I checked the parameters of equipment many times and sent the results to my boss.

When I received the confirmation from him, I printed it out and managed the necessary signatures on it. I did not want to be responsible for any inconvenience because my boss has to carry out this kind of responsibility. It was extremely important for me as a lower-level manager to have the document that proves that all things are done in time and approved by middle-level manager. In case of inconveniences such as the late commissioning phase of facilities I showed the documents that all the steps were completed by me on time. Reading 4. 2  Reason, J. (1990)

The general view on accident’s causes within complex technological systems includes theoretical framework which is not only provides the data on how dangerous factors could be combined themselves, but also where and how to predict these tendencies and take necessary measures beforehand. There are many elements of production, which are also involved into accident causation. Fallible high-level manager’s decisions are a major contributing factor to an increase in risk, followed by the lack of line management, which in turn causes dangerous preconditions and unsafe acts (intended and unintended).

The latter are based on human’s psychological characteristics and conditions and are described as a combination of both potential hazards and errors, which could cause injury or damage. Likewise, a trajectory of an opportunity includes all these factors plus safeguards and productive events. Each of these has a window of opportunity in terms of an accident incidence. Therefore damage is highly possible when this trajectory is crossing all the windows at all the stages of production. The safe operation control consists of two features – feedback and response.

The theory points out that the most successful approach to manage the safety is by taken into consideration the failure types rather than the failure tokens. According to Westrum (1988) there are three groups of auctions – denial, repair and reform. The successful organization is taken actions in responding to safely data from the reform (bottom level). The fundamental distribution error relates to a personal incompetence of employee while on the other hand the fundamental surprise error is the situation when personal observation differs to a reality.

Thus, taken into consideration these terms and experience from the past major accidents such as Chernobyl, the nature of a malfunction has to be considered not only as pure technical but also as socio-technical. The people’s contribution to accidents is dominating the machine failure risk. Example I investigated many serious accidents related to the natural gas transportation process. For instance, one emergency stop of the 3. 2-megawatt gas turbine was caused by the malfunction of a frequency meter. After an analysis of reports I concluded that technical maintenance of this device was conducted improperly.

A responsible worker forgot to finish one procedure related to the metrology accuracy of this piece of equipment. Another example is when other gas turbine was stopped by alarm during normal working cycle. The reason for that was unplanned and uncoordinated upgrade of its automatic control system (ACS). From my point of view, the modern technology is very reliable and ACS is highly faultness but social factors as well as poor decision making are of the major reasons for emergency situations. For instance, social factors in Russia are included a low salary and the lack of a proper education. Reading 6. Beach (1993) A descriptive Image theory focuses on people’s individual decisions rather than group ones, and it is directly opposite to prescriptive classical theory of making decisions. There are also three decision-related images (structures), which have to be possessed by a decision maker. The value image is based on personal principles, behavior and beliefs. These are the source for generating goals. Thus, the ultimate criteria for this is when the decision maker consider the values to be relevant. Therefore potential goals and actions, if they are inconsistent with the relevant principles, will be refused.

The second image, which is called the trajectory image, includes potential goals, which have to be set and the third one, the strategic image, focuses on actions and plans that have to be performed for achieving targets. The important parts of the third image are tactic and forecast, which would be a crucial factors for monitoring a realisation progress of a particular goal. Decision-making process consists of two types of decisions such as adoption and progress which include the implementation of the compatibility and profitability tests.

The compatibility test is based on both types of decisions and compares candidates to three images, whereas in contrast the profitability test relates to the adoption decision only and uses the outcome after performing the compatibility test. For instance, the compatibility test selects few candidates, who successfully crossed through a selection criteria and the profitability test therefore chooses the best candidate from the previous sorting. Another important part of the Image theory is the process of framing decisions which is the action when the goal is identified and the plan is alled back if one exists. The data from the practical research suggests that it is unlikely that the decision maker tend to change the selection criteria without changes in principles, goals and plans. Example I was involved into the process of interviewing new workers within the Natural gas industry. I had to employ personnel with sufficient technical knowledge and skills because they have to work within hazardous areas and on potentially dangerous equipment. As a team leader I was hoping to find highly qualified workers with extensive experience for an average amount of salary.

After performing several meetings and consultations with potential staff within this salary category I concluded that no one was able to pass the criteria and possess theoretical knowledge and practical achievements from previous work experience. Because of that I decided to change the working images by changing the criteria. Therefore, I focused on workers who possess theoretical knowledge with engineering ideas in complex. Although they did not have extensive experience, they satisfied basic criteria and were able to perform tasks within their role (maintenance and repair).

And after this correction of principles I recruited staff for my team successfully. Reading 7. 3 Janis (1971) Groupthink is a way of thinking when members behave with a high level of concurrence and tend to adopt a soft line of criticism on colleague’s ideas or even on every critical issue. This is why they make inhumane decisions easily with serious consequences such as the huge number of people’s deaths. The more cohesive the group, the more the risk that the decision will be proposed without the deep analysis of other choices.

There are eight major symptoms of groupthink such as invulnerability, irrationality, ignorance of moral principles, stereotyped and unrealistic positions, group pressure against any critical views, member’s self-censorship, unanimity tendency within a group and the mind guard which is to protect the decision from any kind of the feedback. These indicators are typical for a bad decision making process which in tern may results the inhumane decision with serious consequences. Several steps could be adopted to prevent any group from group thinking.

In this case criticism should be accepted not only by members but also by a leader. Wide range of alternatives should also be taken into account as possible options. In a case of vital decisions several groups with different leaders should be established to work on the same problem. Before the final decision is made each member should discuss considerations in its unit of organisation and then provide a final response to the group. An outside expert should be invited to all meetings. One decision-maker within the group should criticise a position of the majority.

In the case of consensus the group should organise the final meeting for listening and discussing any doubts against the final decision. Although these actions have also drawbacks. For instance, when growing crisis requests an immediate solution there is no time for discussions and implementing many steps for decision making. Another example might be that the risk of the leakage of vital information would significantly increases when outside specialists are involved. All in all, it seems to be clear that top priority should be given in the prevention of any policymaking unit from the group thinking.

Behavioral scientists should also be involved into these processes. Example During my work in Russia a groupthink was played a crucial role because of many factors. Firstly, my colleagues were really close to each other and the company’s social policy was developed for this purpose. Therefore, we spent some days playing games and sports altogether. This resulted in the number of small close-connected teams within the group. Another point is that my boss had a top role during all the process of discussion. Therefore, I had een many examples of bad decision-making. For instance, the only criticism from experienced and old colleagues was taken into account despite obvious things that were given by young professionals. Another factor is that the small teams did know how to play games within this environment and how to speculate. From my point of view, taking into consideration the long-term period, most of the final decisions were satisfactory but insufficient. It means that the projects were performed according to the rules and practices within timelines.

But it can be clearly seen that due to the lack of criticism, for example, the total cost of the projects was increased. This way if the rules and steps of good decision practice were implemented, the cost and efficiency would significantly increase. Reading 8. 2 Callon (1987) The development of the technology has been explained by many social scientists using different available methods but they have not taken into account the point that the issue of the technology itself can also be represented as a sociological tool for an analysis. This also leads to the changes in understanding the dynamics of technology.

There are two sociological views on the dynamic of consumption, which were developed by sociologists Touraine and Bourdieu. Touraine showed that French consumers’ behavior mostly dictated by large monopolies and industry, whereas in contrast Bourdieu pointed out that competition between social classes within French society taken the first place in terms of consumption of goods and services. Therefore these theories were shown by battle between engineers of two powerful French companies in the early 1970s: Electricite de France (EDF) and Renault.

Despite the fact that both of them successfully proposed the concept of an electric car (VEL), the EDF’s theory failed because of unsolved technological difficulties related to the area of science and economy of the VEL, but the Renault did survive in the market because it focuses on not only the technological factors but also on rational views. This is the controversial result, because from the sociological point of view Renault’ specialists won this battle by a chance nor by implementing genius technological ideas.

This experience of engineers-sociologists is possible to use as a new methodological tool for exploring large sections of society as well as researching within the value of role of social movements in the progress of consumption. There is also a helpful tool which is named the actor network. It is the case when company’s technological strategy supported by many sections of society. It describes the dynamics of society in completely different way without using sociological explanations.

Firstly, in the case of implications of radical innovations within a technological sector engineers must mix technical and scientific analysis with sociology. Secondly, the actors network approach is efficient because it takes into account outside factors, which are related to common concepts of systems. Example I was responsible for implementing the concept of using compressed natural gas (CNG) as fuel for private cars and municipal buses instead of regular petrol. I was focused on the public transport such as buses because of the potential reduction of pollutions as well as the decrease of the total cost of fuel consumption.

Moreover, it was easier to install the necessary equipment on buses because the government agreed to subsidise the cost of these modifications. Whereas in contrast I concluded that private car owners would not agree with this idea because the Siberian region in Russia is a large area and the number of CNG filing stations was limited to only 7. Thus, it was clear for me that using CNG fuel people could not travel between major cities which is crucial factor. This approach was based on social behavior of people and their habits. Therefore, the main target for our new policy was a municipal transport within major cities.

Marx and Durkheim jointly cover the nucleus of the sociological thought on various issues. They encompass the major issues within the sociological tradition. Religion remained their favorite sociological subject and their have speculated over the issue in the modern sociological context. Marxian reflection on the sociology of religion is very limited whereas Durkheim has contributed largely on the philosophical and sociological issues pertaining to religion.  Marx is considered as an avant-garde sociologist on the concept of religion.

Being influenced by Hegel’s philosophy, Marx considers religion is a manifestation of “material realities and economic injustice”. Therefore, he labels problems in religion are eventually ultimate social problems. Most of the Marxian thought on the sociological aspects of religion is reflected in the quite a few opening paragraphs of his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction.” These are the same passages that include his widely quoted pronouncement on religion, that “it is the opium of the people.”

Nevertheless, this statement by Marx can not be taken as demonstration of Marxian religious view. It is often misquoted devoid of its context. Marx’s starts his essay “Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” with such words; “For Germany the criticism of religion is in the main complete, and criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism.” (Marx 1964B: 43) This raises the concerns why Marx has pronounced religious criticism as the essential element of all criticisms. The basic factor that compelled Marx to declare religious criticism as the basic form was the magnitude of significance that religion holds in the lives of humans.

Now the question arises why Marx has declared the criticism of religion as he basic of all criticisms. John Macmurrary considers that it was the acknowledgement of historical judgment on the part of Marx. It was an illustration of his understanding on the social function of religion. He says in this regard;

By criticism, in this phrase, we must be careful to understand what Marx understood by it, not the blank denial of religion, but the historical understanding of its necessity and function in society, which leads to its dialectical negation when its function is completed. Marx meant that the understanding of religion was the key to the understanding of social history. (Macmurrary 1935: 219)

Mckown reinforces the same understanding like Mcmurray that Marx deems religion as a useful social tool and this thinking developed as profound analysis of social history pertaining to religion. But Mckown further emphasizes that this statement has too much generalization. (Mckown, 1975. p.46)

Marx further asserts that religion is the production of social evolution and its serves society and state in several ways.  He does not eulogize religion but consider it of vital importance for layman as it enriches their lives with sense of worth. He says in this regards;

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. (Marx, 1964)

Appraisal of religion is primary as religion creates the inverted delusions that the religion world i.e life hereafter, deities etc. is factual and that the material world is a shadow of that real life. So in his criticism of “religion”, he hit any religion that capsizes the physical world from being the primary reality. As an acquittal from his explicit attack on, Marx lessens his negative perception by evaluating the foundational purpose of religion in this way;

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Marx’s religious viewpoint is not sympathetic toward religion and he does not consider it an extra-human phenomenon. But he is of the view hat religion is a product of society in order to provide solace to the distressed people. It was the mechanization of the poor to create an illusory world for themselves to create an escape from harsh realities of life. So he thinks that abolition of religion is necessary to eradicate the illusory world and create an environment for their real happiness. He says that religion is not a malady in itself but it is the indication and the remedy (simultaneously) of that malady i.e. religion is an expression and solution to a more fundamental happiness.

So Marxian assertions about religion are not negative as they are often understood and interpreted. It manifests that Marx has a “partial validation of religion” until a suitable economic system does not remove the causes that created it.

Marxian idea of religion derives its strength from his idea of “alienation”. He think hat it was “alienation” [1] that dehumanize the individuals and religious opium comes as a minimum resistance by the exploited people that provides illusory hope against the real exploitation. Another Marxian critic, Norman Birnbaum (1969), interpret this phenomenon in his way, to Marx, “religion is a spiritual response to a condition of alienation.” (p.126)

Illustrating the ultimate and real purpose of religion (contrary to the view of the commom folk), he further exaplin Marxian view; “Religion was conceived to be a powerful conservative force that served to perpetuate the domination of one social class at the expense of others.” (Ibid 127).” So this a cause and effect phenomenon as this illusory hope of common and exploited folk further distoirts the socio-economic condition and in this way self-alienation of individual oincreases with more reliance on religion.

Raines[2] sums up the Marxian sociology of religion in this way;

“Like the Hebrew prophets of old, Marx knew that to speak of social justice we must become socially self-critical, and that means becoming critical of the ruling powers—whether they be kings or priests or investment bankers…. For Marx, all ideas are relative to the social location and interests of their production. And like the prophets before him, the most revealing perspective is not from the top down or the center outward, but the…point of view of the exploited and marginalized. Suffering can see through and unveil official explanations; it can cry out and protest against the arrogance of power.” (Raines)

To Durkheim, religion was a social phenomenon that originates directly from the social needs of a society but he considers it an essential regulating force that shapes and determines the consciousness of a society. But its most important purpose is social cohesion. A close analysis of history by Durkheim[3] reflected that religion is a valid and vital force that binds the individuals and societies together.  Describing Durkheim motives o study religion on a broader level, Lewis Coser write in his monumental work “Maters of Sociological Thought”;

Durkheim’s earlier concern with social regulation was in the main focused on the more external forces of control, more particularly legal regulations that can be studied, so he argued, in the law books and without regard to individuals. Later he was led to consider forces of control that were internalized in individual consciousness. Being convinced that “society has to be present within the individual,” Durkheim, following the logic of his own theory, was led to the study of religion, one of the forces that created within individuals a sense of moral obligation to adhere to society’s demands. (Coser, 1977. p. 136)

Durkheim main concern was trace down the social origin of religion. the sociological interpretaion of religion. Fot this purpose, he tried to comprehend the basic forms of social religions. He  illustrated that Australian Toteism is the most rudimentary form of a religion. He considers that it was the basic social necessity of the social entity that compelled that group to devise a religious activity.

Further explaining the social origin of religion, Durkhein says that religion is an epitome of social cohesion. To Durkheim, society was not a mere collection of individual but is has other internal and external dimensions. Internally, it is the substantial device that moulds our beliefs and attitudes while on the external horizon, it exerts and maintains pressures from the society to facilitate conformity to the above-mentioned collective beliefs and attitudes. For these two purposes, it devised the religious activity. He thought that the absolute purpose of religion is to enable people to show a willingness put their invidual interests and personal propensities and to put interests of society ahead of their own.

So it capaciates the people to get ready for a cohesive social life. Ultimately, if individuals want to be happy, so they must regulate their individual needs and aspirations and their propensities must be confined into limits. This regulatory role must thus be executed by an external agency superior to the individual i.e. by society. Both these feature of social facts explains clearly that society is an independent entity that works for the collective benefits and dies not surrender to individual proclivities and requirements. Religion acts as social tool for this regulatory role of society. Religion internalizes that regulatory process and individuals act on that as an obligation. Durkheim consider religion as “society divinised” because religion only acts in the social domain.

Durkheim observes god of divine manifestations of it as society itself. He takes god in the functional perspective and attributes functional traits to god and further links these characteristics to social phenomenon. For example, he says that “god is first of all a being that man conceives of as superior to himself in some respects and one on whom he believes he depends. … Society also fosters in us the sense of perpetual dependence. … Society requires us to make ourselves its servants, forgetful of our own interests”. (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 208-209).

Durkheim deems religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 47).

He makes an important distinction in religious domain that is based on the separation of human experiences i.e. profane and the Sacred. Profane is the dominion of mundane life experiences i.e. routine work, daily life activities etc. This sphere has an ultimate utilitarian approach. The sacred realm constitutes of no-mundane experiences that includes he recognition of a non-empirical authority and non-utilitarian activities.  He says in this regard;

A society whose members are united by the fact that they think in the same way in regard to the sacred world and its relations with the profane world, and by the fact that they translate these common ideas to common practices, is what is called a Church. In all history, we do not find a single religion without a Church. (Elementary Forms for Religious Life, p. 44)

So a superior fusion of profane and sacred life makes the social cohesion that is necessary to put the civilization on the path of progress and prosperity. He describes the social association as an incarnation of relation between individuals and divinity. Coser says in this regard; “Religion is eminently social: it occurs in a social context, and, more importantly, when men celebrate sacred things, they unwittingly celebrate the power of their society. This power so transcends their own existence that they have to give it sacred significance in order to visualize it. (Coser, 1977. p. 136)

Durkheim does not support Comte’s assertion that humans must endeavor to create a new “humanitarian cult” based on the rational principles. Durkheim like Marx does not suggest an abrupt ending to religion but reinforces the Marxian that it should work until an appropriate alternative does not replace this vital sociological tool. He says in this regard, “We must discover the rational substitutes for these religious notions that for a long time have served as the vehicle for the most essential moral ideas.” (Moral Education, 1961. p.9)

Coser sums up the religions ultimate function as described by Durkhein, in this way;

Finally, religion has a euphoric function in that it serves to counteract feelings of frustration and loss of faith and certitude by reestablishing the believers’ sense of well-being, their sense of the essential rightness of the moral world of which they are a part. By countering the sense of loss, which, as in the case of death, may be experienced on both the individual and the collective level, religion helps to reestablish the balance of private and public confidence. (Coser, 1976. p.139)

So Both Marx and Durkheim consider religion important social tools that give purpose and meaning to the human life.[4] Both consider the values of world religions i.e. intrinsic value and dignity of human perspective an important element but Marx views it as a toll of the oppressor to perpetuate its practices and to provide a fictitious idealism of human dignity to the common folk.  However both consider institution of religion as an imperative social necessity hitherto.

References

Bellah, Robert. “Durkheim and History.” American Sociological Review 24 (1959): 447- 61.

Chiodi, P. Sartre and Marxism. Harvester Press Ltd. 1976.

Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context,

2nd Ed., Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1977.

Emile Durkheim, Moral Education. New York; The Free Press.1961.

Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York; The Free Press, 1954.

Macmurrary, John. The Early Development of Marx’s thought in Christianity and The

Social Revolution. Ed. John Lewis; Karl Polanyi; Donald K Kitchin. London,

Gollancz, 1935.

Mckown, Delos Banning. The classical Marxist critiques of religion: Marx, Engels,

Lenin, Kautsky. The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.

Marx. Karl. Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. 1844

Pickering, W. S. F. Durkheim’s Sociology of Religion: Themes and Theories. London: Routledge & K. Paul. 1984.

Raines, John. Marx on Religion. Philadelphia : Temple University Press, 2002.

[1] Chiodi, the famous Marxian critic, Has defined Marx concept of alienation in these words; “ It is the negative process by which a subject makes himself other than himself by virtue of a constraint which is capable of being removed on the initiative of the subject himself. “ (Chiodi, 1976. p.80)
[2] John Raines is Professor of Religion at Temple University.
[3] Most of the Durkheim’s critics regards his findings as theoretical and ahistorical contemplations but Bellah is of the view that “Almost all of [Durkheim’s] own researches draw heavily from historical and ethnological sources and are in fact organized in an historical framework” (p. 448).
[4] Durkheim considers it the ultimate function whereas Marx labels it as inverted and pretended reality.

The socius and the neighbor are two ways of relating with others. The socius pertains to the relationship with a group or a person through social function. In my understanding, this is a functional kind of relationship based on one’s label such as a student, for example, for being a part of an organization. Thus, in other words, the socius is the arbitrate relationship I have with others. The neighbor however, is a personal way of encountering the other as a person. It’s a relationship that develops deeper in degrees. It usually starts from an initial encounter that develops into a higher level of intimacy.

Therefore, the neighbor is the abrupt relationship with others. On The Level of Astonishment: In the parable of The Good Samaritan, the Levite and the priest were surprised by the event they encountered before them but since they had a prior commitment and being a responsible member of an institution, they were unavailable to entertain the man. The traveler however did not have any institution to answer to which makes him available for the man in need. Through the encounter, the traveler became present to the man. His behavior is his natural character because he’s doing such an act without an institution being a catalyst.

The Last Judgment on the other hand unveils the prophecy regarding the encounter of the Samaritan with the man. It is astonishing for the Samaritan to know the meaning of his simple, compassionate act. The Samaritan symbolizes the great acts of humans and encounter Christ in a way. Through this the message “Go and do likewise” is made known. On The Level of Reflection: There is no such thing as a “neighbor” if we base it on Sociology because according to its definition, Sociology is the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings.

That is why in this point of view, the neighbor is called a “man of regret, dreams and myth” meaning it doesn’t exist. The socius would refer the neighbor as outdated. The parable of the Good Samaritan would bring us to the reflection that if there are no beggars to be given charity in the future where humankind will no longer suffer or experience hunger, because of men’s ability to evolve technology, then there’s no place for a neighbor. People will be a part of an association and the parable and the prophecy will have lost its meaning.

This would bring us to the understanding that the socius is the “man of history” meaning he can mold the olden times. On The Level of Meditation: Both the socius and the neighbor are two dimensions of relating with others, an encounter. It shows how human relationship is in the current society. The neighbor is the private relationship we share with others and the socius is the publicity we make with our colleagues. In reality, there is no safe abode in our private lives without the protection of a public administration.

Therefore the neighbor emerges from the socius. But also, man is awakened when he is socially stripped. Charity is humble. It is the common intention of the socius and the neighbor, their common ground. The socius and the neighbor are the two faces of charity. It is charity that gives meaning to the social interaction and to the event of the encounter. An encounter is not dependent on history with its disputation between the socius and the neighbor. But history ropes the extent of charity.

‘Social Stratification is the division of large numbers of people into layers according to their relative property, power, and prestige; applies to both nations and to people within a nation, society, or other group. ’ (Henslin, James,2011) There are basically four systems to socially stratify a family. Social class, as one of the systems will be investigated in the following paragraphs. (1) Identification of my family’s social class position and explanations of it: Social class is fundamentally determined by how much wealth you have.

Income, education and gender are three major factors that I would consider to determine my family’s social class position. Concisely speaking, I came from a single-parent family which I only live with my mother. My mother is the only person who is officially employed in my family. Her occupation is a salesperson at a beauty centre with unstable income. One other important financial income of our family will be the alimony given from my father who no longer lives with us. Our household income per month is about $10,000. According to the 2006 Population By-census, the median monthly domestic household income (at current prices) was $ 17,250.

Although there are only two people in my family, our monthly income is nearly 40% below the median figure in 2006. Individually, my mother does not receive stable income so her monthly income tends to be lower than the median monthly income of an employed individual of $ 10,000. In conclusion, my family’s income is comparably low; especially the data was collected in 2006 which inflation has already been excluded. Education is counted as an essential factor determining social class as it’s believed that well-educated people can always get well-pay jobs with comfortable working environments.

As mentioned in the 2006 Population By-census report, people with higher educational attainment generally have higher income than less educated ones. Also, in the past few decades, only economically sufficient families could provide educations for their children. There are many middle-aged people nowadays do not have high-school qualifications. Thus, in the past few decades, the more educated a person was, the wealthier his/ her family would be. My mother did not finish high-school education while I have just started my university study. Finally, a very special factor—gender, is considered. ‘Gender is a basis for social stratification. (Henslin, James, 2011) All of us in a family are both females. Even though people in modern world advocate gender equality, women still suffer from gender inequality. Stated in the report of the 2006 Population By-census, the median monthly income from main employment of working men was higher than that of working women by some 30% during 1996–2006. Other than income, clothing, right to divorce and education are restricted in some Middle East countries (e. g. Iran). Hong Kong seems t o be a liberal city but there are still some deep-root traditions and thoughts that limit the social mobility of females.

Due to gender inequality, my mother was not allowed to attend high school and she is forced to receive lower pay comparing to her male colleagues with same working titles. To conclude, I would say gender serves as a force that aid pushing down my family’s social status. After the considerations of all these factors, I would place my family as working class or sometimes lower class. In term of Marx’s theory, my family would be the proletariat (workers). In term of Weber’s theory which considers three components of social class, I would still place my family as working or lower class. 2) Prediction of my own social class when I am 40 years old and the possible difference between my current family social class position and the future: It is extremely hard to predict my own social position when I am 40 years old which will be approximately two decades later as our world is never predictable. Nonetheless, if everything reminds unchanged in our world, I will be a clinical psychologist or at least graduate with bachelor degree. Ideally, I will be working for the government as a professional with ‘Iron Rice Bowl’. The salary I get will be higher than average.

According to the report on salary scale of common posts in the non-governmental organizations, the monthly salary of a clinical psychologist was $ 30,615 in 2009 which was 2 times higher than the median monthly income in 2006. In 20 years time, my mother will be retired hopefully and I will be the only financial support at home. My occupation, wealth, education level and income will be the main indicators to identify my social position in our society. According to Marx, I remain a proletariat who lacks of class consciousness as I do not perceive an occupation as a clinical psychologist as an exploited worker.

According to Wright, I may be on the level of managers or still workers. I guess I will not own any means of production or labor power but I hope I can still own control over investments or money capital (e. g. a flat unit). In short, from both Marx’s and Wright’s view, my social position will not differ a lot from my family’s current social class position. However, I doubt that their views are relatively simplistic and out-dated so I prefer Weber’s three components of social class (property, power and prestige). At the age of 40, as a professional, I may have a secretary which means I gain power on controlling my subordinates at work.

Also, prestige sounds more achievable as a professional with more respects. From his perspective, I may achieve vertical mobility and move to a higher-rank social position comparing to my family’s current social class position. Generally, I believe being a clinical psychologist can upgrade myself from a lower/working class to lower middle class. However, the above assumptions are made under the circumstances that nothing has changed. In my own opinion, there are some essential factors that I have to consider. For examples, the prestige and income I will get for being a clinical psychologist may not be that much as in the past.

This is because studying in universities is very common; getting a university degree will be easier than the past. Potentially, there will be more clinical psychologists in Hong Kong and salaries will be lowered when there are sufficient supplies. (3) Considerations of all advantages and/or disadvantages my family’s current social class position provides or poses in helping to determine the social class to which I see myself belonging when I am forty years old: First of all, I would like to state some of the disadvantages at the beginning.

Income is an important indicator determining class position. However, my mother’s income can be very unstable (as a typical factor of local working class). She can earn quite a lot this month but earn nothing in the following month. A few years ago while there was a structural change in the industry that I have considered not to continue my study but to work in order to support my family’s expenses. This kind of consideration may appear again if the economic condition is really bad.

Although the possibility is very low, income uncertainty can still block my sights from determining my future social class which is possibly determined by my education level. Also, social class is likely to be intergenerational so I am very likely to be part of the working/ lower class but not what I have expected in part (2). One significant advantage is that being a part of the lower/working class provides very strong motivation for me to study harder and move to the middle class rank in the future.

When being a part of the middle class becomes my goal, I can easily conclude what social position I will be in my 40s. References: (1) Thematic Report :Household Income Distributionin Hong Kong 2006 Population By-census http://www. statistics. gov. hk/publication/stat_report/population/B11200452006XXXXB0401. pdf (2) Salary Scale of Common Posts in the Non-governmental Organizations w. e. f 1. 4. 2009 http://www. swd. gov. hk/doc/ngo/Salary%20Scale%20of%20Common%20Posts%20wef%201%204%202009. pdf (3) Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (Henslin, James,2011)

Part 1 Sociology, the scientific study of social groups (Chapter 1 Module 1), focuses primly on how our social relationships not only influence our behavior but the development of society as a whole. Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels and from different perspectives. From concrete interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and social behavior, sociologists study everything from specific events (the micro level of analysis of small social patterns) to the “big picture” (the macro level of analysis of large social patterns).

The pioneering European sociologists, however, also offered a broad conceptualization of the fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views form the basis for today’s theoretical perspectives which provide sociologists with a concrete framework of philosophical positions for asking certain kinds of questions about society and its people. Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical perspectives: Interactionist, Functionalist, and Conflict (Chapter 1 Module 3).

These perspectives offer sociologists theoretical paradigms for explaining how society influences people, and vice versa. The Functionalist perspective views each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society’s functioning as a whole. An example of this is could be the cow worship in Indian society as the preservation of the cow allows it to plow the fields and produce milk, both of which are essential to long term survival of the inhabitants. In addition, the cow’s feces double as fertilizer as well as fuel for cooking.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is the Conflict perspective that assumes social behavior is best understood through tension between groups over power and the allocation of resources such as housing, money, services, and political representation. While this doesn’t always involve violence, such conflicts can be seen in labor negotiations, political elections, or the Occupy movement. The conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists hallenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak. Lastly, Interactionists generalize everyday forms of social interaction in order to explain society as a whole. This perspective directs sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber’s assertion(Chapter 1 Module 2) that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world.

Symbols have a shared social meaning that is understood and recognized by the entirety of a society. Widely recognized symbols such as tattoos, bumper stickers, and house flags allow individuals to communicate their values and beliefs to those around them. This nonverbal communication also consists of bodily gestures, facial expressions, and postures (Chapter 1 Module 3). Personally, I agree with some aspects of both the Functionalist and Conflict perspective as they present and image of how society should be construed and what it actually is.

To explain, functionalism appeals to my idealistic way of thinking as it relates to stability, order, and cohesion. I believed such a construct was fairly possible when examining our democratic from of government. In theory, the system is made to provide equal representation as well as flexibility in respect to the voice of the people such as the several amendments made to the constitution as well as our right to decide our government officials through the election process. Unfortunately, this system is great in theory but rarely comes into practice which leads to my belief in the conflict perspective.

The constant struggle between the top 1% and the middle class is fairly apparent in respect to education, taxes, and healthcare. This is due to the 1% having a strong influence over the private sector as well as controlling the majority of the wealth. These shape the patterns of everyday life as well as things such as racial, ethnic, and class inequality and relations among nations and regions of the world. All in all, the conflict perspective represents the realistic way in which I view the world while the functionalist beckons to my belief in a harmony and justice that can be attained with the proper execution of our democratic system.

While these views may contradict each other they also present the two ways I see the world: how things actually are and what they could be. * Part 2 Society can greatly impact the individual through its culture. As stated in Chapter 3 Module 9 culture is the totality of learned, socially transmitted customs, knowledge, material objects, and behavior. Each society’s distinctive culture presents its own form of cuisine, forms of recreation, family structure, and standards of right and wrong. These specific characteristics highly influence who we develop into as individuals.

In turn we impact society with our actions being separate individuals which create the culture through mutual cooperation. For example, if enough people vote in a new precedent that legalizes marijuana the culture is affected in a way that creates a new social norm. This adaptation of the set standard of rules and values that shape the society comes directly from the individuals that inhabit it. Social structure refers to the manner in which human relations and patterns of interaction repeat themselves in organized and “structured” ways(Chapter 5 Module 16).

Analyses of social structure point to the manner in which there are inequalities in human societies. Although individual, formal organizations, commonly identified as “institutions,” may be deliberately and intentionally created by people, the development and functioning of institutions in society in general may be regarded as an instance of emergence; that is, institutions arise, develop and function in a pattern of social self-organization, which goes beyond the conscious intentions of the individual humans involved.

As mechanisms of social interaction, societal institutions greatly influence individuals by setting certain expectations, goals, and regulations. They act as an organized pattern of beliefs and behavior centered on social such as: Government, Family, Education, and Media (Chapter 5 Module 16). Inequalities in these institutions can be see through the conflict perspective which views them as having inherently conservative natures, operating in gendered and racist environments, and help maintain privileges of the most powerful individuals and groups within society.

For example, public schools are mostly financed by property taxes. This arrangement allows more affluent areas to provide their children with better equipped schools and better paid teachers than the low income areas that can afford such resources. This inequality in the education system results in countless dropouts which contribute to the rising crime rate. Inequality based on gender, economic status, race, and ethnicity thrives in such an environment to which we might add discrimination based on age, physical, disability, and sexual orientation.

Horace Miner’s “Body Ritual Among the Nacirema” was one of the few readings in the class that challenged me sociologically by likening the current American society to a primitive tribe with clever wordplay. Even if the title isn’t an obvious indicator that it is American backwards, there are indicators in the story that help reveal the topic that is being discussed. Starting with a brief history of how the nation became the way it is, with Notgnishaw cutting down the cherry tree. Even to young children this idea of cutting down the tree may seem familiar, and it should because it is really Washington that cut the tree down.

The title Washington was spelled backwards to add an interesting twist to this story. Many people do not realize that words are backward; this idea gives readers the sense that this may actually be a tribe. The events that take place in our everyday lives are described as rituals. These rituals that are talked about are made to sound like the culture that partakes in such things is crazy. It starts with the ritual of getting ready in the morning, as a long drawn out process. The story then moves to talk about how American people have cabinets full of medications that supposedly make us better.

However, most the medications are used once or twice, but then left in the cabinet. Along with the amount of medications, there are the trips to the hospital that most people find necessary. Most adults are not afraid to go to the doctor for an illness, which only leads to more medications, but children have a fear of the people in white coats. Horace Miner demonstrates that “attitudes about the body” have a pervasive influence on many institutions in Nacirema society. Basically, he uses this entire article as a way to describe American rituals from an outsider’s point of view.

The sociological standpoint is that culture is based on rituals and that each culture defines its reality and acceptable behavior and chooses its authorities by rituals. These rituals help us discover our knowledge because it makes the rituals the authority and those who follow it the ones that know the truth as our society defines it. Sociologists define rituals as what you do on a regular basis, repeated over time; that which binds people together; shared beliefs; assigned roles; loyalty.

Structural-functional sociologist Emile Durkheim theorized that rituals support social order and roles and shared sets of values holds people together. Since rituals enforce these roles and values, they create social solidarity. * Part 3 Class refers to a group of people who have a similar level of wealth and income (Chapter 8 Module 26). Sociologists typically use three methods to determine social class: the objective method that measures and analyzes “hard” facts, the subjective method asks which people what they think of themselves, and the reputational method that asks what people think of others.

Results from these three research methods suggests that in the United States today approximately 15 to 20 percent are in the poor, lower class; 30 to 40 percent are in the working class; 40 to 50 percent are in the middle class; and 1 to 3 percent are in the rich, upper class. Wherever their money comes from, the upper class is exceptionally rich. They have more money than they could possibly spend, which leaves them with much leisure time for cultivating a variety of interests.

They live in exclusive neighborhoods, gather at expensive social clubs, and send their children to the finest schools. As might be expected, they also exercise a great deal of influence and power both nationally and globally. Class tends to be a touch subject especially in America as it reflects on the vast economic and social divide present in a country founded on the premise of being a land of opportunity. The United States is not a classless society. For example, people with a certain quality of life raise children differently than those with a different quality of life.

It is also very difficult for one to move from a certain position in life to a higher position. A concentration of wealth threatens to create a host of problems. Each of these points show that there are differences in life based on what kind of life one has ,thus demonstrating that class still exists. Social stratification it sets up a structure of roles for each person in the society and ensures that all the bases get covered. You need your share of laborers, executives, etc. In a free society this will be based on education and ability.

If you are a certain status, you are expected to do certain things and you have a certain amount of social power. The system is rarely upset but in many societies you can change your status if you prove you deserve a certain social standing. According to Karl Marx, class differentiation is the crucial determinant of social, economic, and political inequality (Chapter 8 Module 26). How this relates to America is the top 1% of the population controls 43% and of the wealth and pays little to taxes while the shrinking middle class pays an unfair amount of taxes.

There is an old saying that artists do not choose a form of art, but rather a form of art chooses them. This means that as people explore ways of doing creative work, they eventually find a way to which they are, for reasons hard to fathom, powerfully drawn. We can take this idea beyond the realm of art and observe that many people find a hobby, a sport, a craft, a topic of study, or a kind of work that seems naturally to compel their devotion. When this happens, people often strive with great intensity to acquire knowledge and skill.

The opportunity for one to explore a hobby or subject one finds interesting depends on crucial social conditions such as : economic stability, environmental influences, values, and morals. This points to those who are positively influenced having the freedom to participate in activities of their choice. What difference does it make if a person never has the experience of being chosen by a form of activity? The person who is drawn to a certain skill, sport, or activity has achieved a sense of purpose with the desire to improve on and progress in that skill. On the other hand, those without that xperience have a tougher time deciding what to do in their lives as that motivation to excel is misguided without a set occupation, skill, or pastime. * Part 4 Seeing the world through others eyes is essential to gaining understanding on how the world truly works in addition to becoming a well-rounded individual. Such a mindset allows one to acknowledge injustice and inequality in the world along with the desire to abolish it. With the use of sociological imagination, individuals can properly examine how their actions as well as the actions of others affect society and even the world as a whole.

This class has given me the advantage in respect to being socially responsible by surrounding me with a diverse collection of my peers, thus enhancing my social techniques in addition to learning more about myself in the process. With the introduction of the purple textbook, research project and online quizzes I learned valuable information about the world around me in ways I never could have imagined. This course has made me a better person with a new sense of empathy and social awareness.

Lester Frank Ward was a man of science. Sometimes dubbed as the “Father of American Sociology” or the “Social Darwin” Lester Ward was first a botanist and paleontologist. He understood the power of science. Ward wrote Dynamic Sociology and a few other works with the hopes to reinstate the importance of experimentation and the scientific method to sociology. He served as president of the American Sociological Society in 1906 and appointed assistant geologist of the U. S. Geological Survey, a position he held for two years.

Born to Justus and Silence on June 18, 1941, young Lester came from very humble beginnings. His parents were very poor and could not afford to send him to school. So, Ward taught himself at home. Even at a young age, Ward displayed exceptional intelligence. He taught himself how to speak different languages, Latin and Greek to name a few. His studies also included mathematics, botany, and geology. Although, he was not at the intellectual level as Comte or Voltaire, he made many contributions to all things social and founded sociology in America.

He went on to join the fight against the Rebels in 1862. He was sent home after the Battle of Chancellorsville after being shot three times. While healing from his wounds, he also saw the reality of war which is legalized murder. He realized that the real enemy was ignorance, superstition, and oppression. In college, he felt that if he was a recognized for his work in the natural sciences, then most would listen to him in the field of sociology. He believed that the natural sciences should be the base for social sciences.

Ward’s style of writing was known to be brilliant and crystal clear. One might think this stems from his uncanny talent for language. His writings are plain and comprehensible, which is a breath of fresh air for a reader who might not comprehend wordy and difficult styles of writing. Dynamic Sociology is one of Ward’s well known works. The reception at first was not that grand and Ward almost gave up on sociology to focus his energies on botany and geology. It eventually was praised by one of Ward’s toughest critics, Albion W.

Small. When Dynamic Sociology was translated into Russian, it caused such a stir in the Russian government that the Czar ordered all copies to be burned in the city square of St. Petersburg in 1891. This is what George Kennan had to say about the book burning: “I have tried in my humble way to serve the cause of liberty in Russia, but I have not been able to do it with ability enough to get my writings burned. You are evidently a very dangerous man” (Chugerman, 66). Pure Sociology is Ward’s most popular work.

The transition in Ward’s views of society from naturalistic to an almost completely cultural view is evident in this work. It got rave reviews overseas but, America was a bit cold towards it. Ward had many minor contributions to sociology, but there are three major contributions that have endure throughout the years. First was the emphasis which Ward placed upon psychic factors in interhuman relations (Chugerman, 3). Ward believed that human intelligence could guide and control wishes, desires, and feelings. Only the human mind can understand a society in which humans live.

A good example would be happiness. In Dynamic Sociology, Ward explains that “happiness in the popular restricted sense is the experiencing of the higher emotional pleasures afforded by the gratification of social, esthetic, moral, and intellectual taste”(Gerver, 7). Ward’s second contribution for the sociologist of today was his “emphasis upon human achievement as the proper subject matter for sociology” (Chugerman, 3). He did not believe that any species below man was capable of human achievement. This is proof of his different viewpoint previously mentioned.

His view of human society was mainly naturalistic, yet here one sees the change to a cultural view. Ward believed that desires and purposes were the foundation of culture that came about by accident at first, but could be morphed into intelligent social purposes. He also states that sociology is the science of that culture. His third major contribution to sociology is his “passionate affirmation of the possibility of intelligent social progress” (Chugerman, 3). He firmly believed in and pushed for the development of sociology as a science. He believed education was the safest method in which to develop intelligent social progress.

Ward’s definition of social progress is the “increase of happiness of mankind” (Chugerman, 4). Even then, some found this definition insufficient, yet it can’t be denied that Ward built a strong foundation for sociology with his philosophy. Telesis is the theory that through the power of mind, humans can take control of the situation and direct the evolution of human society. A telic society will develop individuals and therefore society as a whole. The higher the individual is develop, the more develop society will be. Progress depends on the achievements. Like Comte, Ward suggested that sociology should use the cientific method of the natural sciences. Ward’s constructed his synthetic method from Comte’s idea of synthesis and believed that science has no problems that cannot be solved.

The core of the synthetic method “is the law of causality, the magnetic pole which keeps the mind within the bounds of reason” (Chugerman, 100). To ignore this means to go back to metaphysics, where anything is possible and things happen without a cause. Ward’s philosophy as the love of wisdom is the ideal behind his sociocracy. Science keeps the philosopher grounded and not to fly off into mistaken the supernatural for reality. Science alone is the base of all philosophy” (Chugerman, 94). Ward also believed that philosophy is a branch of the scientific method. From philosophy as synthesis rises science-philosophy. Science and philosophy go hand in hand and Ward believed that “only a scientist can become a true philosopher” (Chugerman, 95). Ward became an advocate for women’s rights. Most sociologists disagreed with his theory that women were superior to men. Ward questioned how the mother of race came to be at such an inferior state and what forces has shaped them.

He stated that “male superiority was a fallacy and a result of tradition and prejudice” (Chugerman, 380). Ward’s sex theories were opposed by both sexes and had a small following. One female write, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, dedicated her work, The Man-Made World, to Ward. Ward was a champion for the equality of all races and classes. He believed that this could only be achieved through universal education. He fervently opposed eugenics, the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species.

Charlotte Gillman strongly agreed with this movement and Ward harshly criticized her for it. Lester Ward passed away in the year 1913 at age 72. Ward was an eccentric man and had few friends. The few eulogies given by his friends remembered a man who fought relentlessly for human freedom and equality. Sadly, the majority of the public only saw him as an old professor. Only those closest to him put him in the same rank as Comte or Huxley. His love for the common people and hard work secures his place in 20th century America.