I have a test coming up in my Sociology class, so I will be talking about what we have been talking about. We are talking about the human mind in a way. Patterns of the world and what functions and structures each pattern has. Like explaining structural-functional approach, explaining social-conflict approach, and explaining symbolic-interaction approach. There are so many things, patterns, in the world that fits in each category and can be easily explained within that category, some subjects fit better in a certain category but at the same time it can usually fit in all three. To go along with explaining all the patterns in the world there is assumptions of all of them as well: assumptions of structural-function, social-conflict, and symbolic-interaction. In each category there is more than one option that a subject can go with. A subject can be dysfunctional but isn’t harmful to the collective, society, and therefore it can be tolerated. To go along with this example there are four other ideas in the structural-function approach; however there is only one that preforms a manifest function, this meaning that the collective maintains order and achieves its goals, no dysfunction mixed in with it, so four out of the five have a dysfunction. Social-conflict is more how it can help out one certain person, what benefits that person the most. Everyone will take care of their self-interest first before anyone else’s; therefore trying to result a conflict to their benefit. They want to be the one in power, trying to persuade others to think the way they think, some do buy into this and believe what they do. It’s fine to agree with someone just don’t believe and agree with everything they have to say, unless you 100% believe that is true. I don’t know of anyone who agrees with one person on every subject or idea in life. I sure as hell don’t. Social-conflict has three options under the approach that are quite similar, but are different enough to best support a separate idea. This approach explains sports very well. Your competitor is trying to get the best of you and beat you. If they succeed they feel powerful, and have power over you. Everyone tries to edge out their competition, whether it is a wide receiver trying to get in the best position to catch the football or a defender in basketball trying to get in a position that best benefits him to block the shot. There is major social-conflict in sports and everywhere. Now the third one, symbolic-interaction, is a way different approach than social-conflict, I think. It only has two options that are also kind of alike. Symbolic-interaction is shared values of people, there believes and the way they see things, agreeing with someone. We, my class, have talked about how people’s life experiences leads them to believing different or same things as others. Religion is a great example in this category. Some people are raised to be Jewish, Catholic, or Islamic. That is how that person is raised and probably has the same believes as others in that religion. Out of all these three there are assumptions of each, and I pretty much described those assumptions while explaining each approach. I think structural-function is the hardest to maybe remember in life or even use to explain something. I say this because there are so many different steps that fall into structural-functions, but at the same time that could be good because you can pick which step best fits the social pattern. So that’s what I have to say today, this helped me out just writing and thinking about it, so I will do better on the test in a couple of days by doing this. That is my assumption at least, ha.
anon on The copy cat of hospital … Micael also on Twins 11’= stupid also michael on Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie Grandpa on The tainted hall of famer… Waynesboro girls soc… on Getting some runs