Read all three theoretical perspectives outlined on the chart on page 78. I would like you to write a two paragraph answer.
The
first paragraph, I would like you to choose a theoretical perspective
that you agree with. In your answer I would like you to provide a
different, specific example from that in your book (from society) that
relates to the main points of the perspective and explain how/why it
relates. I would also like you to address why you felt this perspective
was most aligned with your views. You must include YOUR answer to the
bolded question for the perspective you chose from pg. 78. This
paragraph should be between 5-7 sentences in length.
In
the second paragraph, I would like you to choose a theoretical
perspective that you disagree with. I would like you to address why you
disagree with perspective and provide reasoning on why the argument
presented on pg. 78 is weak or invalid. Please provide specific examples
from society to prove your point. This paragraph should be between 5-7
sentences in length.
This
post is due by 3 pm on Friday, October 18th. Be aware of spelling and
grammatical errors in your answer. This should be written in complete
sentence format. Please see me-prior to due date-if you have any
questions. Points possible 20. Points will be awarded based on argument
and logical thought process...not just the completion of the blog.
The theoretical perspective that I agree the most with is Functionalism. This perspective aligns with my views a lot when it states that it rewards those with ability and drive. I agree a lot with that statement because I also believe that life is what you make of it and if you want to accomplish things and try hard to do so you will be rewarded in the end. An example of Functionalism would be athletes, the kids chosen to start are the determined kids who put in the extra hours of practice.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that I disagree with is Symbolic Interactionism. I disagree with this perspective because it says race influences are opinion of people and may take into account social issues such as a job opportunities. I don't feel that the color of a person's skin is as influential as that person's language, actions and manners are. An example of race not being an influence of opinion is shown in the movie the Pursuit of Happiness when a black guy without a shirt goes into an job interview which he is given because of his character and not his appearance.
I disagree with your example with Functionalism. The kids chosen to start are not always determined kids. With some athletics, coaches have their favorites. No matter how good someone will try or how much time they put in, they may not start because of favoritism. Which is wrong on so many levels because the people who actually put time and effort sit on the bench and don't get time to play. But this is just my opinion.
Delete-- (BOSS) what would you say if a man walked in here with no shirt and I hired him? what would you say?
Delete-- (WILL) He must have had on some really nice pants.
You have a great point morgan, but appearance/ first impressions means everything I believe. Even though appearence shouldn't affect the way we interact with another person it does and i catch my self doing it quite often. When in public i see a nasty looking, out of shape adult i think to myself... wow that guy is really good character. I bet he eats McDonald's daily and does drugs just as frequent. We are all guilty of judging by appearance but it is the way many cultures operate. After all if that person was to work for a company they must be on their best behavior and they must act as a ambassador for their company.
I disagree with your example of symbolic interactionism because I think most people when they seem someone are quick to judge by the color of their skin. They don't stop and think or try to get to know someone they put a label on them and keep going. For example, when people see and Arabic person they automatically think oh they are probably a terrorist, when really that person probably isn't. Even though just judging people like that is wrong most people still do it.
DeleteThe theoretical perspective that I agree with most is that of the symbolic interactionism perspective. This view is similar to my belief that peoples' views of the world can vary depending on their situation in life. Also, this perspective takes into account how your situation in life with your appearance and attitude, all plays into the first impression you give someone and can hurt that like say when you go to get a job. Take Amy's life in The Secret Life of the American Teenager for example, as a pregnant teenager she is looked down upon as an irresponsible person and is denied job after job because she obviously made a mistake. The constant being looked-down upon feeling makes her change her view of the world and of herself in that if someone makes one bad choice then they are a terrible person for the rest of their lives. I believe that in Amy's case, yeah people of our society look down on people like her and anyone else who makes an obvious mistake and will forever effect how people see them. This ultimately changes that person's view of the world to make it feel like it's impossible to move on and succeed in life because everyone just judges them unfairly.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that I disagree with most is that of the conflict theory perspective. This perspective suggests that there's more opportunities for the rich than there are for the poor, which I don't fully agree with. I believe that sure the poor do struggle more than the rich, but there are many low-end yet honest jobs out there even if it's just working at a fast food restaurant- and Lord knows there's how many fast food restaurants out there and that are constantly hiring! I believe that if you're poor, you're going to be the most willing to find any way possible to make ends meet which there are many opportunities to do so, even if they are crappy. Also, this perspective implies that there's an isolation between the poor and the rest of society which is absolutely false due to the fact that you can walk through Hollywood (rich people land) and see hundreds of the poor, and the homeless. Obviously the scale of society may tip towards that of the rich due to the fact that they have money to blow, however, they are more lazy and will hire the poor to do the work that they don't want to do such as cleaning and yard work, providing even more opportunities for the poor. So long as the rich think they're all high and mighty and too good to do poor peoples' work, there will always be a tip in the scale of opportunities for the poor.
I agree with you symbolic interactionism example. (I love that show!)
DeleteThe theoretical perspective that I most agree with is Functionalism. I most agree with this perspective because according to the book, “the economic system rewards those with ability and drive, while the system allows those who are less motivated to fall behind of their own merits.” I agree with this because I believe that the harder you work for something the more likely you are to succeed. If you are not willing to help yourself, you should not expect others to help you. For example a student who is falling behind in class may blame the teacher and say that they are not doing their job to teach it to them, when in reality they have not been doing their homework or asking for help on the subject. The student’s lack of motivation and drive will show in their grades when they receive bad scores on their tests, but it is not the teacher’s fault that the student is not putting in the effort. I believe that you have to be willing to put in the work to get the success.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that I disagree with is the Conflict Theory. This theory states that the rich have more opportunities than the poor, which I don’t completely agree with. The poor start out having the same opportunities as everyone else from the beginning in that everyone has the opportunity to go to school. Everyone can use this opportunity to make something out of themselves and get ahead. Some people just choose to not take the opportunities in front of them. It is not that the rich are any better; they have just taken a different path to get where they are.
The theoretical perspective that I agree with is Symbolic Interactionism perspective. I believe that this view is the most like my views. Like when I say that I am a mom and some people judge because I am only 17 years old. My point is that people hear me and judge me instead of getting to know me and realize that I am talking about my cat. For, example in society if you would go to an interview and you would wear a dress. That's fine, but if you would have any tattoos on your arms or legs you would be asked to cover them up if you would get the job. Or in some cases they will not even hire you.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that I disagree with is Functionalism. I disagree with the facts in the book stating that for both the rich and poor the economic system rewards those with ability and drive while the system allows those who are lazy to fall.I think this is invalid because I believe no matter what if you are rich you will never have an economic problem even if you are lazy. For example, the Kardashian's all of the girls came from money and now they really don't do anything they pay someone else to do it for them. So, the economic system rewards them even though they don't have drive and don't work. I feel that functionalism is not a true perspective because people who try and strive hard never really get anywhere, but then you have the Kardashian's who are rewarded for doing nothing.
A theoretical perspective that I agreed with was the conflict theory. An example of conflict theory is if half the students who came from wealthy families got favored by a teacher because the other students were poorer and didn’t have all the education needed so the teacher would not help them as much. I believe that this example relates to society because society is not fair and tends to favor the wealthy. I felt that this perspective was most aligned to my views because when the question, “How does society tip the scales in certain segments?” This question made me think of how the neighborhoods that are poor and are really unlivable can’t be helped but the neighborhoods that have a good image always get help if things start to look bad and so I feel that wealthy people are favored.
ReplyDeleteSymbolic Interactionism is the theoretical perspective that I disagree with. I disagree with Symbolic Interactionism because I don’t think that race influences the opinions of people and effect job opportunities. If anybody works hard and takes every good opportunity they get, I think that they can accomplish anything or get any job no matter what race you are. An example of race not influencing opinions of people are shown when Jackie Robinson became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball, he was able to play because he was a good player not because of the different race he was. Also in our society now look at president Obama he was elected for the job. Some people may judge him but he got the job because he worked hard and strived to make a plan for the country that everyone would agree with.
I have to disagree with you Hunter, but I may be wrong. I don't believe that teachers are going to help someone who is rich more than the ones that are poor just because of that reason. I believe that there is going to be an underlying reason behind it. We stereotype poor people as being stupid and not having any education, but that's not always true. Maybe those people that are poor are neglected at home and their parents don't care about them, so they are going to behave badly making the teachers think in a negative ways towards them. So to me there is an underlying meaning as to why some teachers are going to treat some students differently from others.
DeleteA teacher's duty is not to classify students, it is to teach them and therefore they should treat you just the same as the kid who is a negative fog for the class. Respect for the "bad" kids can be different, but it shouldn't show.
DeleteThe theoretical perspective that i most agree with is Symbolic interactionism. When I was going in for an interview at my old job that was bought out but other people they told me i had to take my lip ring out and change my hair back to a normal color because I didn't fit in and look like everyone else. Or when I take my little sister Jesaiah out to do something people look at me with disgust because they think I'm a teen mom. An example in society is Miley Cyrus' "Wrecking Ball" video. Everyone judged her thinking she was just being slutty and exposing herself when actually she was making a statement and talking about her life.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective i don't agree with is Conflict theory. It states that rich people have better and more opportunities than the poor. I don't agree with this because if the poor have the drive like the rich do then they can accomplish things. They could make things better for themselves and do something with their life but they are choosing to keep it the way it is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that I agreed with is Symbolic Interactionism. I believe my views are most like this view because I see myself judging people based on the symbols and stereotypes that we associate with people. For instance, whenever I see an Indian doctor at a hospital, I instantly don't like them. This is because of my previous experiences with Indian doctors, but just because the Indian doctors that I have been associated with are rude and obnoxious doesn't mean they are all that way. Others in the world may see this the same way I do. They may think all Indian doctors are rude, but people who have hade nice Indian doctors may think otherwise. This shows how symbolic interactionism is based off how people perceive the world based on their on person experiences or the experiences of the ones around us.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the Functionalist point of view. In my opinion what the book says about the rich and the poor being rewarded the same ways isn't true. I think that everyone starts out equal and are rewarded as they go, but once their rewards has caused them to be rich they stop working as hard. While the rich can sit on the couch and still make money because of the media, the poor and middle classed people are out their working for every penny that they can get. This shows that the rich are always going to be better than the middle-class and the poor and they don't have to work for it. For example for those who play sports, or sit the bench, both may work hard at practice and try their hardest and do good things, but if you don't impress one person then you aren't going to play. This can then be seen as favoritism because a person that sits the bench may work just as hard, be just as fast, and be just as good, but they aren't going to play the same amount of time due to favoritism.
For rich people though they stay rich because of investments and interest. And in reality you don't have someone with the power to put you in the game or pull you. It is your responsibility to get to the position you want it and if you want it like you want to breathe you shall receivith they prize (success and self gratification).
DeleteA theoretical perspective I agree with is functionalism. I agree with the book when it discusses that the people who work harder and are more dedicated will, in the long run, become successful. That is the way it should be because people who work harder should be rewarded and the ones that just try to get by, by sucking up or cheating should get what they deserve. For example when a student uses past student’s test, to help them because many teachers keep the same test, they ultimately will pass that class. Then in the future when they do not have any tests to help them and they need to know past things they will fail. The reason we have to go to school is to prepare ourselves for the future and to have the knowledge to become successful and when you just cheat your way through high school you are not benefitting yourself in any way. Those who did study and worked hard to understand the stuff may not even get as good of a grade as the one who cheated, but in the long run they will be more knowledgeable making them a better qualified person for future jobs and colleges.
ReplyDeleteA theoretical perspective I disagree with is conflict theory, which discusses the idea that rich people have more opportunities than poor people. I do not think that poor people have fewer opportunities than rich people. Maybe they don’t because they do not have enough money, but if they worked hard enough they could pull themselves out of that stage in their life and make more money to have those same opportunities as rich people. A lot of the time the reason for someone being poor is because they didn’t make the right decisions in life, therefore making it hard for them to get a well paying job and to provide themselves with these good opportunities that the rich people have.
The theoretical perspective i agree most with is functionalism. I agree with functionalism because "those with drive and ability" are rewarded while "those that are less motivated fall behind." I see this with welfare. They may not be falling behind financially because the people are paying them to sit around and watch T.V all day, but morally and spiritually they are. They are not motivated so they choose not to partake in their role in life and instead feed off of the motivated and those with the drive. Not all welfare recipients deserve it. There are many who are very capable but choose not to take life by the horns and go with it. Their souls should degrade and erode away with the guilt hitting them like a gushing mountain river. Those that have the drive will always be rewarded with pride. I believe society should help those who are less advantaged and suffer due to a true conflict. I believe we can help them without much effort. If everybody helps a little bit it could add up. We must all do our part though. I was in tiffin the other day and there was a hitchhiker and i was in a hurry but i stopped and offered him a ride up the road a few miles but due to not having a ahead of him in a few miles he declined the offer but he was so happy that i stopped. I believe we can eradicate poverty with small acts of kindness from everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that i disagree with is symbolic interactionism. I disagree with this because race has little to do with a persons life anymore. It is so mixed that you can't really put a finger to it and i believe it isn't the color of their skin that keeps them from being accomplished but rather their attitude and drive. I have met a lot of Asians and let me tell you they were not all smart or good at math. I've met some blacks and they weren't always in gangs with no belts. Stereotypes just do not work anymore and that is why i disagree with the example from the book.
The theoritical perspective that I agree with most is functionalism. I believe with this perspective because when it states the “ability and drive.” This is aligned with my view beause I believe that that there is always something that people want to work hard for to earn. An example of this is wanting to get a job. This is an example because wanting to get a job people are putting fourth their best of abilitly to get the job so they are searching for jobs making sure they have good resumes and whatever else is possible to get the job, they are driven. This is why I believe I the functionalism perspective.
ReplyDeleteSymbolic Interactionism is the theoritical perspective that I do not agree with. A statement that I disagree with on this theory is “race influences our opinions of people.” This is not true for everybody and as time has went on it is not a big factor because minority groups are growing and the white people will eventually be the minority after time. An example of this is how we have an African-American President. It goes to show since he won over a white person that people do not care so much over race ot the color of their skin it matters on what type of person they are going to be. This is why symbolic interactionism does not have a valid point.
The theoretical perspective that i agree with most is symbolic interactionism. People are very quick to judge now days even without noticing it. But it is how our society has become. People stand out and try to be different on purpose. What is the fun of just blending in with a crowd and not really being the real you? An example of this would be at a funeral. Most of the time people wear all black. But other times people will wear bright colors which are suppose to symbolize as happy. But is it respectful? At the funeral home it might be seen as rude but the main thing is you showed up. My opinion people should stand out and be recognized as someone that they are. Even if it wasn't purposely suppose to happen, such as getting pregnant while still being in high school. Not many teenagers want that and I don't believe that it is a mistake. Its the beauty of life and later in life that kid will be your pride and joy. I believe that if you don't do stupid things while your young you'll have nothing to laugh at when your old.
ReplyDeleteFunctionalism is the theoritical perspective that i disagree with. This perspective rewards people with ability and drive. But in all honesty even if you work for what you want you don't always get it. This goes along with the poor and rich as well. Most rich people inherit family money and don't really have to do anything. Which I find crappy because poor or homeless people are struggling trying to put food on the table and a roof over their families heads. An example would be being on a sports team and sitting bench. If you don't have the "name" then your not going to get playing time. If you work your butt off or just sit there your still not going to get playing time. So why should you try your hardest to get rewarded nothing?
I agree with your thoughts on symbolic interactionism because I don't think everyone should try to blend in with the crowd I think you should be the person you want to be.
DeleteThe theoretical perspective that I agree with the most is the conflict theory. The reason that I agree with this is that this theory states that the scales of opportunity are not balanced between the rich and poor but rather it favors the rich because the rich have the money and can afford to advance themselves. The rich and powerful keeping people down can be seen in many aspects of America because people who are rich are always trying to get more money while the majority of Americans are always worrying about how much they have. One example of this is during the recent government shutdown around a million government workers were laid off for half a month and during that time they received no money and many feared for their houses but they were unable to do anything because the rich politicians who had all the power where unable to work together. The thing about this that really shows conflict theory is that some of these politicains who were responsible for people not having jobs thought that they should still be paid because they had nice houses that they needed to pay for. My answer to the question How does society tip the scales in certain segments? is that if you are a broke minority the majority of the rich white segment will not want to help you climb out of poverty because it will mean less money and power for them.
ReplyDeleteThe theory that I disagree with the most is functionalism. The reason for this is that functionalism states that the economic system rewards those with ability and drive while the system allows those who are less motivated to fall behind of their own merits. The reason I disagree with this is that there are people out there that live in poverty because they don't care enough to try but there are also others who have multiple jobs and put everything they have into those jobs but still can't get ahead because they may be a minority and the people in charge look down upon them. Another reason that I disagree with this view is because the hard work may only be rewarded if you are a white person because like it or not racism is still apart of our society no matter how much people try to hide it.
I agree with the conflict theorists’ perspective because I believe that there is a definite division in the treatment of different groups of people. While there are many ways to receive financial aid and scholarships to help pay for college, there is still a clear advantage for the wealthy because they have an easier time paying for it. When people can’t afford to go to college they often aren’t able to send their children to college either because they weren’t able to get that extra education that is required for many careers today. It leads to a cycle that is very hard to break. This is just one way in our society that the wealthy are favored over the poor. This aligns with my views because I believe that as much as we talk about equality there are still a lot of places where everyone isn’t completely equal. An example from class was when Mrs. Losey talked about Floyd losing his restaurant reservation to Brad Pitt because Brad Pitt is more important than him. That can be used as a metaphor for society as a whole: The wealthier are more important and because of that they are the top priority.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective I do not agree with is functionalism. In the book it talks about how in our society everyone who works hard will be rewarded while those who don’t fall behind. I don’t agree with this because there are a lot of people who do work hard and put in as much time as they possibly can but are still barely scraping by. Then there are people who are born into enormous wealth and don’t have to do a thing to earn it. Some people work their way to the top, but there’s still a lot of people who come from wealthy families and don’t have to do a thing. An example which was also used in class is Paris Hilton. She’s from one of the wealthiest families in the country and has every opportunity she could ever want, but if her wealth was given out to someone who worked to earn it, she’d be near the end of the list. Sometimes people can fight their way out of financial problems, but often times there’s nothing that can be done, which I touched on in my argument for conflict theory. It’s probably not the way it should be, but it’s the way our society works.
I agree with the Funcitonalist theory because i think people are definitely being discriminated against in regards to their race because when you first see a person you judge them by their looks and everyone is guilty of it and if their a different race then most people already have a stereotype in their head of them. For example black people they automatically think oh im going to get shot or oh they are a gangster. I think people should get to know them before they judge them.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that I agree with most is the conflict theory. I agree with this one most because I do not think that people get treated equally. There is definitely discrimination towards people who are poor, or have a different skin color. An example of this would be the educational system. People with more money are quicker to get accepted into schools and receive scholarship money. People with little money are often not able to send their children to school because they can not afford it. Society tips the scales in certain segments because the wealthy is favored over the poor in our society, and like it said in the book wealthier cities are quicker to be rebuilt after mass destruction than the poor communities will.
ReplyDeleteThe theoretical perspective that I do not agree with is functionalism. It says that the economic system rewards people with "ability and drive". While that is true, I believe that there are many people out there with lots of ability and drive that do not get rewarded. For example we have all the migrant workers that work in the fields hand picking tomatoes everyday. That is very hard work and they get less pay than anyone. So to say that if you are a hard worker, you will get rewarded, may be true, but it is not the case for all people.