Our blog topic for this week is to discuss Capitalism. The good and the bad! Capitalism is defined by Wikipedia as "considered by scholars to be an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and wage labor."
Some Pros of Capitalism
You are free to make your own choices (right or wrong) in the market place.
You own your life and the means to produce for your life.
You can choose to run your own business or get a job with ease of government regulation.
You get the highest quality of products for the cheapest prices.
You get the highest variety of the types of goods and services you can purchase.
You are free to innovate and invent without the government getting in your way.
You don't have to pay taxes beyond that of the basics to protect your rights
You have the right to own property and develop it as you choose
You have the right to earn as much money as you want
Capitalism has given the highest standards of living
The Cons of Capitalism
There are no cons. Stop being a communist.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Globalization
Happy Easter everyone. I don't have eggs, unfortunately. Anyways, the blog topic this week is: the pros and cons of Globalization. Globalization is defined as: the increasingly global relationships of culture, people, and economic activity. Basically, it brings the world together and what not, typically through technological means.
I think globalization is good, but of course there are bad things about it too. We learned in sociology class that it is a means of the "satanic capitalists" to exploit the weaker, poorer, foreigners to do a lot of work for little pay. Still, that's typically better than what they get. The little pay they receive is enough for them to live, and they accept those conditions for a reason. Their economy gets better because more jobs are available for them. So even though they are taken advantage of, they benefit in the end.
Also, the world integrates together and becomes closer. Trade is built up. Anyone can communicate with anyone no matter how far a person is. When added all together, the pros of globalization is just better than the cons. It just is.
I think globalization is good, but of course there are bad things about it too. We learned in sociology class that it is a means of the "satanic capitalists" to exploit the weaker, poorer, foreigners to do a lot of work for little pay. Still, that's typically better than what they get. The little pay they receive is enough for them to live, and they accept those conditions for a reason. Their economy gets better because more jobs are available for them. So even though they are taken advantage of, they benefit in the end.
Also, the world integrates together and becomes closer. Trade is built up. Anyone can communicate with anyone no matter how far a person is. When added all together, the pros of globalization is just better than the cons. It just is.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Poorness
Hey guys!
An important part of sociology is the discussion of poverty. The culture of poverty is a theory that describes poverty as a never-ending cycle. Many sociologists believe that people are stuck in it for their entire lives and the generations after, while others believe it's only temporary and easy to break out of.
People in poverty are born into it. They accept it as a part of them, and do not think they can get out. Thus, they act the part and assume their role. They are socialized into it. This sparks the cycle which the underclass is stuck in. This means if you have poor parents, you're bound to be poor, and your children, etc.
I don't believe that poverty is a never ending cycle. If you're determined to break your role, you can. Celebrities do it all the time, srsly.
An important part of sociology is the discussion of poverty. The culture of poverty is a theory that describes poverty as a never-ending cycle. Many sociologists believe that people are stuck in it for their entire lives and the generations after, while others believe it's only temporary and easy to break out of.
People in poverty are born into it. They accept it as a part of them, and do not think they can get out. Thus, they act the part and assume their role. They are socialized into it. This sparks the cycle which the underclass is stuck in. This means if you have poor parents, you're bound to be poor, and your children, etc.
I don't believe that poverty is a never ending cycle. If you're determined to break your role, you can. Celebrities do it all the time, srsly.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
STUFF
Hey guys! So this week my blog is about the sociological perspective to discuss forces and institutions that shape the popular culture.
WELL. Like Omar, I'm going to discuss the High Culture (capital letters for emphasis). What is the high culture, you ask? I shall tell you, good reader!
High culture refers to the culture of the elite. They are the refined, educated, and let's not forget... wealthy!
So basically, high culture is the culture of the super rich.
The term was introduced by Matthew Arnold. The theory that a high culture exists describes it as the best, most refined culture. Everyone else is common folk. Those of the high culture run everything, while we follow like cattle. This fits hand in hand with the Elite Theory.
The Elite Theory contends that a small minority--the super rich and elite--holds the most power and basically run everything.
So, how does this apply to the topic? Well, the high culture (super rich) decide what is popular. The high culture decides what is portrayed through the media. The high culture creates institutions that the common folk use.
Common trends in art and music is decided by the high culture. After they do it, then the popular culture wants it. Look at those expensive designer clothes/purses poor women (like my mother -_- ) want so badly. They see the high culture women wearing them first.
WELL. Like Omar, I'm going to discuss the High Culture (capital letters for emphasis). What is the high culture, you ask? I shall tell you, good reader!
High culture refers to the culture of the elite. They are the refined, educated, and let's not forget... wealthy!
So basically, high culture is the culture of the super rich.
The term was introduced by Matthew Arnold. The theory that a high culture exists describes it as the best, most refined culture. Everyone else is common folk. Those of the high culture run everything, while we follow like cattle. This fits hand in hand with the Elite Theory.
The Elite Theory contends that a small minority--the super rich and elite--holds the most power and basically run everything.
So, how does this apply to the topic? Well, the high culture (super rich) decide what is popular. The high culture decides what is portrayed through the media. The high culture creates institutions that the common folk use.
Common trends in art and music is decided by the high culture. After they do it, then the popular culture wants it. Look at those expensive designer clothes/purses poor women (like my mother -_- ) want so badly. They see the high culture women wearing them first.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism.
For starters, let me explain the definition of our topic this week. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that "places emphasis on micro-scale social interaction to provide subjective meaning in human behavior."
That sounds like giberish. Basically, symbolic interaction portrays a family as a unit of interacting "personalities." It describes the ways that people interact through "symbols" (such as words, gestures, rules, and roles).
It was developed by Herbert Blumer. He set three basic ideas of the perspective:
-"Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
-"The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and society."
-"These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."
So, society supplies you with a role, and you act accordingly or "deviantly." By integrating ourselves into society and learning how to interact with others and our roles, we develop our sense of self.
In my opinion, symbolic interactionism is a justified part of sociology. Even if the theory lends itself to psychology, it explains how people act and why. Seeing as sociology is the study of the functioning of human society, this seems like a pretty important aspect of that (understanding why people act the way they do/how they are integrated in society and their roles.)
For starters, let me explain the definition of our topic this week. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that "places emphasis on micro-scale social interaction to provide subjective meaning in human behavior."
That sounds like giberish. Basically, symbolic interaction portrays a family as a unit of interacting "personalities." It describes the ways that people interact through "symbols" (such as words, gestures, rules, and roles).
It was developed by Herbert Blumer. He set three basic ideas of the perspective:
-"Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
-"The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and society."
-"These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."
So, society supplies you with a role, and you act accordingly or "deviantly." By integrating ourselves into society and learning how to interact with others and our roles, we develop our sense of self.
In my opinion, symbolic interactionism is a justified part of sociology. Even if the theory lends itself to psychology, it explains how people act and why. Seeing as sociology is the study of the functioning of human society, this seems like a pretty important aspect of that (understanding why people act the way they do/how they are integrated in society and their roles.)
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Functionalism vs Marxism
So. Functionalism vs Marxism... which will withstand our rapidly changing society?
I don't think it's that tough of a question, really. Especially considering Marxism SUCKS.
Okay, so, to explain... Functionalism is a theory by Durkheim that says that everyone and everything in society serves a function. It describes the roles each person places (employee, student, parent, etc). Functionalism also describes how we are socialized and begin to learn the norms and values of society through contact with others in the society to be normal people. So, basically, it explains what functions we serve and how we've become the way we are.
Marxism is a more retarded theory by some freaky communist who predicts that the workers of society will realize they're being exploited and resort to communism. He thinks capitalism is the root of all evil, blah, blah, blah. He's crazy. Like, Marxism isn't even worth explaining. But because I have to, it's just: Capitalism is the spawn of Satan. Workers are exploited by the rich. They'll overthrow them. Communist, classless, "equal" society results.
That STILL hasn't come true and it's nowhere near close to how our society is today.
So functionalism FTW.
I don't think it's that tough of a question, really. Especially considering Marxism SUCKS.
Okay, so, to explain... Functionalism is a theory by Durkheim that says that everyone and everything in society serves a function. It describes the roles each person places (employee, student, parent, etc). Functionalism also describes how we are socialized and begin to learn the norms and values of society through contact with others in the society to be normal people. So, basically, it explains what functions we serve and how we've become the way we are.
Marxism is a more retarded theory by some freaky communist who predicts that the workers of society will realize they're being exploited and resort to communism. He thinks capitalism is the root of all evil, blah, blah, blah. He's crazy. Like, Marxism isn't even worth explaining. But because I have to, it's just: Capitalism is the spawn of Satan. Workers are exploited by the rich. They'll overthrow them. Communist, classless, "equal" society results.
That STILL hasn't come true and it's nowhere near close to how our society is today.
So functionalism FTW.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
ONLINE CLASSES
Online classes... I dreaded the word a few months ago. Personally, online classes seemed much more horrible to me than real classes. Why? It's like homework you HAVE to do (and at home, nonetheless!) It was just extra work on top of in-school work, and it wasn't something I felt like dealing with... (also why I was afraid of STEP-UP at first)
However, I've grown to accept them more. Online classes are actually quite handy.
For one, as a STEP-UPper, I can do them in school, which means no take-home-y-ness.
Secondly, it's much easier to help yourself and your friends. AKA cheat.
Really, does anyone not cheat with online work...
You can use each other's exact assignments and even take tests together. Can't do that in a real classroom setting. Well, you can... but it's harder. Cheating on tests is risky business that I don't even bother with in school. Homework, on the other hand...
Still, you'd have to write it out for class, whereas online you just copy and paste.
ANYWAY.
I'd say those are huge pros.
(Btw, in case my online teacher sees this... I'm totally lying. Like, trying to get in the mind of dirty cheaters. I would never, personally!)
Oh, and it's really flexible. I can do my online work whenever I want. And there's no deadlines!! I love that.
So while online work may be extra work on top of school, it's flexibility vs classroom setting makes less hellish.
However, I've grown to accept them more. Online classes are actually quite handy.
For one, as a STEP-UPper, I can do them in school, which means no take-home-y-ness.
Secondly, it's much easier to help yourself and your friends. AKA cheat.
Really, does anyone not cheat with online work...
You can use each other's exact assignments and even take tests together. Can't do that in a real classroom setting. Well, you can... but it's harder. Cheating on tests is risky business that I don't even bother with in school. Homework, on the other hand...
Still, you'd have to write it out for class, whereas online you just copy and paste.
ANYWAY.
I'd say those are huge pros.
(Btw, in case my online teacher sees this... I'm totally lying. Like, trying to get in the mind of dirty cheaters. I would never, personally!)
Oh, and it's really flexible. I can do my online work whenever I want. And there's no deadlines!! I love that.
So while online work may be extra work on top of school, it's flexibility vs classroom setting makes less hellish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)