Greetings, class. The introduction of Durkhiem's theory coincides with major changes in modernization throughout the world in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Individuals in a rural setting may have completely differing norms than the city societies they were introduced to in search of jobs. With this merger of societies, the interpretation of deviant behavior outside of social norms would have needed to be changed. What do you think are some examples of deviant behaviors that rural people moving to the city landscape would have displayed? ~ 

100 words response to scott:

Good morning Class,

I have decided to pick question 1 for this week forum. I will say this week forum was challenging for me to explain, but I think I covered all main points.

Compare and contrast the functionalist view of social stratification and the conflict theory's view of social stratification.

Functionalist view of social stratification believe that society is like an organism. Like for example like look the unit in the military there one guy that really smart and know how work computer, some are really fit, and some are excellent marksmen’s. I think might lost some people with that example, so here one more every has a vital role in the military where it administration, communications, supply and grunts. We all need each like how a body need a heart, brain, blood, lung… to survive. Now the conflict theory’s view of social stratification is divided up in two groups the workers or the owners(capitalist). The example is how they describe in our lesson “Capitalists own the means of production, like factories and fields. Workers don’t own the means of production, and must sell their labor for income”

How does social stratification influence the daily interactions of individuals? How do systems of class, based on factors such as prestige, power, income, and wealth, influence your own daily routines, as well as your beliefs and attitudes? Illustrate your ideas with examples.

Well first to make it easy we currently live in an open stratification. But what dose that mean to me? It means we have the ability to change our social class (not easy task to do) define at birth what your class will be unlike a close stratification will be like you born from royalty, so hence that your class for most or all your life. So an example of an open Social stratification will be American dream where you can mold your life by taking time to achieve your goal and become most anything you want because you and every has the same opportunity reaching your dream job (granted not the case for some jobs). So let look the different of class it will be easy for someone who was born rich to live life with a sliver spoon and being hand everything and not worry to have to pay for school to get a education but let’s compare that man or women that grow up in poor family in order to change his social class he/she got wanted it and work hard for it by get great grades, job (to pay for if that was the case) and varies scholarships in order to get there dream job. If and only if they become rich and successful. Don’t get me wrong you also be any class and be successful but I feel the one that are successful always works hard, advance little by little and persistent toward there goal not just keeping busy for the time being. How you feel base on these factors? Do you feel like I to strict on this matter? Thank for reading this and I hope you have a wonderful day.

Reference

URLhttps://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/arts-and-humanities-common/Universal/SOCI/111/elf/lesson-4/elf_index.html

Website Title Login Required – APUS CLE

Article Title Login Required

Date Accessed December 28, 2017

Reply back to scott 100 words to what he asked me:Good morning James,

Merry Christmas and can you have believed it is week four already because I can’t believe it. Time is a flying and it is good to see that you are working hard. I can tell because your forum took a lot of thought and has some great insight to. Can you give name of a nation that you know that are not develop yet? I do agree that the functionalist perspective is an accurate theory because everyone input is importance to this country (to a certain extent). Now I can see some inequality, when I was Station in Riyadh Saudi Arabia by how the women couldn’t drive and couldn’t have as many equal right due their culture which nothing wrong with that because that there way of living. Thank for reading this. I hope you have a wonderful day and keep up the splendid work.

-Scott  

Respond 100 words to reed: 1.  Compare and contrast the functionalist view of social stratification and the conflict theory's view of social stratification. How does social stratification influence the daily interactions of individuals? How do systems of class, based on factors such as prestige, power, income, and wealth, influence your own daily routines, as well as your beliefs and attitudes? Illustrate your ideas with examples.

In our lesson social stratification is discussed. There are a couple of different types of stratification presented early in the lesson described as closed and open forms of stratification. An example of a closed form would be slavery. Closed meaning that individuals do not have the ability and or opportunity to move up in the system. A good example of an open system would be, in most people’s opinion, a democracy. In this case people are stratified according to wealth and or income and presumable would be able to move up if their level of wealth changed.

In a functionalist stratification of society, according to Durkheim, people are sorted according to their abilities and talents. Those who have the ability to produce something or to become successful will therefore be at the higher end of the social class. Durkheim likens this to organisms or organs in the human body. All doing different things but overall the efforts of individuals serve the ultimate purpose of making a society exist. The worth of these talents or abilities would determine where an individual ranks in the social stratification. (College, 2015)

In a social conflict theory stratification, according to Karl Marx, there is not really a means for individuals to change their social status. They are more or less born into their class which is one of two areas. They are both the owners and operators of the wealth and control how it is made or they are not and therefore must cater to those with the wealth. In the lesson and example is made by comparing those who own a factory to being the ones in control of the wealth and power. They are able to maintain their position by using the wealth they have and or increasing it. Those who do not possess the wealth are forced to sell their labor to the factory owners in order to generate income and as a result will never rise to a higher level of wealth. (College, 2015)

I prefer Durkheim’s model and I feel like that is the situation for Americans today. If someone works hard and has a skill or talent to produce they may move up in the social classes. There are still examples of Marx’s theory of conflict theory in today’s world as well. In third world countries we still see forms of slavery and a few individuals with wealth and or power controlling most of the others indigenous to the area.

Reference

College, O. (2015, January 12). Introduction to Sociology. OpenStax College. Retrieved from http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3/

Reply 100 words to reed on a question that he asked me: Hello James

In your forum, well done by the way, you mention that some countries or nations exploit others. Do you think the U.S.A is guilty of that? I wonder if there was a change accepted to move away from fossil fuel would the nations that are in power now be the same? I think that there is a good degree of social stratification based on wealth across the world and this stems greatly from the resources and goods that a nation or country can provide. Taking the middle east for example, I doubt there would much U.S. involvement in conflict there if there wasn’t a lot of oil and precious minerals at stake. Did you know that Russia initially invaded Afghanistan in the 1980’s to pave the way for a natural gas pipeline?

I would agree that the functionalist perspective on stratification is most widely accurate in todays society however there are still examples of the conflict theory. I’ve been to several third world countries in my travels and experienced the people that live in them. There is an ignorance to the ways of most first world countries that practically precludes those individuals from aspiring to achieve a higher status. They just don’t realize that there is the potential for more out there and as a result don’t even try. They feel that what they were born into is what they deserve and no more or no less. The Western and American perspective is much different in that if you have the will and desire to achieve then usually that is exactly what you will do.