Usefulness of structural approaches in understanding society

Usefulness of structural approaches in understanding society In this essay, we shall be discussing the 3 main structural approaches in society; Functionalism, Marxism and Feminism, and how useful they are in todays understanding of society. We shall look at the similarities and differences between each approach and critically assess them, by looking at the strengths and weaknesses for each. The key terms and concepts will be mentioned, as well as the key sociologists associated with each approach. The term sociology is defined in the dictionary as the study and classification of human societies. Overall, this is the study of people in different social groups, the way they behave, and how different parts of society influence peoples ideas and social behaviour. Belonging to a social group can affect how we see ourselves and how other people see us. Both of these factors can affect how our life works out. The main groups we tend to belong to are gender, class, ethnicity and age. The first approach we will be looking into is functionalism. This approach is a balanced, social equilibrium. A system in which there is a dynamic working balance among its interdependent parts. The ruling class benefits in every way from the operation of society, they believe in meritoctracy which basically means that they believe that they deserve to have the most powerful positions. The workers get far less than they deserve, but they do not question this due to the way they have been socialised. People are the product of social influences on them. Functionlism is closely associated with Talcott Parsons who was a key sociologist in the 1940s. This approach still provides us with a useful framework for the study of sociology today. Parsons came up with the idea that society is like a human body. Each part of the body has a function to keep it alive and healthy, just like each part of society work together and depend on each other. People are socialised into key values of society such as respect for authority and importance of family life, the result of this is value consensus. Functionalism provides good links between social institutions, it is a simple and clear approach to understand, however it completely ignors the freedom of choice. People have different values and attitudes, as well as the unequal distribution of wealth and power in a capitalist society. A Marxism view on the otherhand views conflict and division as normal features of society. Marxism is based on social class dominant ideology, just like functionalism it is a macro structure which means it is based on a larger scale. Karl Marx was around in the 19th century, he believed that a capitalist society is divided into two groups. All of societys dominant ideologies worked to favour the first group the bourgeoisie (Those with power, the owners of production) against the second group the proletariat (The workers, those without power). Marx also thought the ideologies worked to keep the power balance constant and he called this societys status quo. The relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is however unequal and as such based on conflict. The majority of the population accept the inequalities of the system because of the way that dominant institutions such as religion and educstion justify the economic and social situation. Marx describes them as suffering from false class consciousness due to the fact they are not aware of their real identity, they are exploited by the bourgeoisie. Marxism is a approach which suggests that we are brainwashed by ideology; you must respect authority, if you w ork hard you will do well, you must respect the rule of law. Lois Althusser (1971) was another marxism sociologist. He believed in ideological state apparatus which is basically another term for the agencies transmitting ruling class ideology such as schools and family. A good reason for the marxism approach is that it can account for large scale change, however there are many critisms such as it emphasised too much on conflict. People choose what to do and think and are not brainwashed by ideology. It could also be argued that capitalism has now improved peoples standards of living. The fact woman are now seen as being equal to men in the work place is one result of this. Marxist feminists argued that the ratio of woman to men was directly linked to their position within a capitalist society. Thus bringing us onto discuss our final approach, feminism. Feminism is a conflict between the sexes. It also takes a macro approach to studying society. Feminist sociologists argue that women do not have equal rights to men. There are four main tendencies within feminism; liberal, radical, marxist and black. Liberal feminists look for equilibrium with men and woman, they believe people should be treated fairly and given better paid jobs etc in accordance with theyre skills and effort and not due to what sex they are. Radical feminists believe that we live in a patriarchy society, which means woman are over powered by men. They believe that we no longer need men to procreate due to new technology available. Marxist feminists also believe in patriarchy, in a capatilist society, woman are neglected certain legal rights and therefore excluded from certain areas of work compared to men. Black feminism argue that white feminists ignore the position of a black woman as they have a double disadvantage due to racism and patriarchy. Famous feminism sociologists include Ann Oakley who in 1969 registered for a PHD on womens attitudes to housework, this subject pizzled the academic establishment at the time. She is best known for her work on sex and gender, housework, childbirth and feminist social science. Ann first became interested in feminism when she herself became a subject in the 1960s becoming a mother of two and realising herself how deeply undervalued and isolating womans work in the home can be. Ann believes that we still have ongoing sex equalilty issues today, woman still earn less and have less political power and do most of the worlds menial (but important) domestic work. She also has strong beliefs that gender issues in violence and crime cause huge social problems in todays society. Suggesting that most crimes of violence are committed by men.

Does Geography control your destiny? :: essays research papers

Human activity has major effects on geography. When studying the earth you can come to several conclusions about the geography of any particular civilization. Distribution of life in the civilization allows you to analyze whether their geography is their own destiny. Do people control their own destiny? Is geography something that people can control? Technology is really the key to why geography can be overcome by any people.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Throughout the history of the earth we have seen many countries leave their homeland. Most of these countries however, are those that are not landlocked. Countries which were not landlocked organized themselves and set sail for new territories to explore. Boat technology allowed for travel, resulting in the whole world becoming more accessible and allowing people to overcome what was thought to be indestructible geography. Obviously access to the sea lowers transport costs and aids economic growth. Yet this mattered less in earlier centuries. Even in some ancient civilizations, they learned to overcome the problem of not having technology. The original silk route from China to Europe used the camel rather than the ship. Only when ship design became advanced from the 15th century onwards did sea-borne trade gain centre-stage.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  India and China however, were landlocked and were by far the greatest industrial powers in the world till the Industrial revolution. Technology, not geography, helped temperate agriculture and industry to zoom ahead. One way a country overcomes geographical isolation is to improve its transportation infrastructure. Better roads, ports, paths, and other modes of transport provide access to world markets. But a country can only derive full benefits from these investments against a backdrop of good trade and macroeconomic policies. Consequently this leads to the belief that people again control the thought of their own geography.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Note that Europeans migrated in enormous numbers to warmer climates from the 17th century onwards. However these warmer climates were not always easy to live in. The conditions that a person living in a tropical climate would put up with were far greater than those who live in the subtropics. Global warming has been a huge concern in the entire world. In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, David S. Landes argues that Europe's temperate climate encouraged hard work and capitalist development, while the heat of the tropics brought reliance on slaves.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The communications revolution has shrunk distances. Bangalore, currently the software capital of India with Hyderabad a close second, has proven that landlocked countries can do just as well and that overcoming geography can happen.

Developments between 1860 and 1877 Essay

During the 1860s and the 1870s, Americans faced a social crisis that literally divided the nation to two. Social developments and constitutional changes that occurred within this time frame amounted to a devastating separation of people. The first major crisis, the Civil War, divided the nation sectionally and what ensued afterward, the Reconstruction, divided the nation completely. The Civil War lasted four years, from April of 1861 to April of 1865. It physically separated the nation into two, in which the South seceded from the North. The two sides fought for the struggle over slavery – the South was for it, while the North was against it. The South argued that the North was attempting to limit their rights given to them by the Constitution; their rights to exercise those powers were restrained heavily by the politically dominant North. The North at first made a statement stating that the main purpose of the war was to maintain the Union and to keep the South from breaking apart. However, as the war went on, Lincoln found fighting for these terms was impossible; he knew that the slaves had to be freed. This decision to abolish slavery stirred up controversy in the Union, for many white men, while they opposed slavery, did not like the idea that they were fighting for African-Americans. Many riots erupted from many Union states come draft day, clearly showing the unsettlement and dissatisfaction that Americans had with the idea of freeing slaves. The North not only had to deal with the South, but also with themselves. Following the Civil War, a period of time known as the Reconstruction came into effect. This was the time where the North attempted to rebuild the South and the time for the South to settle their differences and get over bitter feelings of losing the war. However, despite its good intentions, the Reconstruction was generally considered a failure by most historians. The Reconstruction was led by a certain group of Republicans known as the Radicals. These Radical Republicans wanted the South to pay for the financial cost of the war; they argued that the war was fought over differences initiated by the South, therefore the South was to pay for its cost. They did exactly what their name suggests: they enacted many radical laws, such as the 14th Amendment, which gave all people [except Native  Indians] in the United States citizenship, regardless of race. The 15th Amendment too was set into motion, guaranteeing all citizens suffrage. This allowed the former slaves to now vote for political candidates, giving them a say in the government. The South despised this idea; many conservatives began acts of terror to keep the African-Americans from voting. The most prominent group of white supremacists was the Ku Klux Klan, which utilized violence to scare African-Americans and to resist the Reconstruction. Aggression erupted throughout the nation as a result from the discontent over the issue of slavery and the rights of Africans. The United States was literally torn apart during the Civil War, as brothers fought one another and deaths piled up. Conditions further worsened during the Reconstruction, when the North refused to forgive the South and the South refused to apologize to the North. Violence became the only answer for many Americans during the late-19th century.

The 40s