A Free Market with Opportunity Restrictions: Capitalism

The ideology of capitalism stems from the idea that society is organized in such a way that the wealth and means of production are privately owned by capitalist also known as business owners. It is believed that through this system all individuals have equal opportunity to succeed seeing that it was constructed with a free market economy; this means that there is little or no government intervention so business can transact freely.

Through capitalism, many people have been able to explore their own business aspirations; If you have the supply and there is a demand for the product, more then likely your business will be successful. As a result, capitalism has allowed the poorest individual to become a successful entrepreneur. However, it is also this idea of prevalence that needs leads to the negative aspect of capitalism.

Capital is based on the monetary value of your business. The value of this in capitalism is what leads to capital being the controlling force of all individuals. Because "capitalist" own the means of production, this forces those who interact in production to be subservient to all those who control it. This is where the Marxist view of capitalism comes in. As a result of not having control over the means of production all those who participate in it have to put with the terrible conditions. You may live in a country with equal opportunity yet your opportunity is restricted to the perimeters the elite set. Marxists belief that this sense of oppression will lead to class consciousness and cause the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie, also known as the capitalists. Capitalism comes with the freedom to invest the market but not to help in its creation.

When Separate People Become One: Globalization

Globalization refers to the unification of of culture, people, and economic activity internationally. This has stemmed from the idea that a single world order has been created out of social and economic relationships. Globalization has allowed countries that are more developed to aid in the economic development of less and under developed countries. As a result business owners have been afforded greater investment opportunities. However this benefit only results if the economy permits. While globalization can provide a business owner with international success, it can also lead a company to an internal debacle. If the economy of a country, within a globalized unit experiences failure, the other countries within the unit may unwillingly be pulled down by the economic failure of that country. The country who collapsed may cause the other countries in the unit to collapse even further. The ongoing fiasco within the European Union is a clear example of how the mistakes of one country could lead others to plummet. A good lesson for one to keep to heart when thinking about globalizing: choose your friends wisely.

Interactionism: Interaction with Society

Hello fellow bloggers! I want to give a quick shout out to Ms. Stephanie Adams, if it wasn't for you I would not have remembered we had a blog, so thank you Steph, thank.....YOU. Anyways, this week's topic assesses which sociological approach--interactionism or positivism--can provide better insight into sociological issues. Well, when you think of sociological issues, what exactly is that referring to? Sociological issues could be anything such as crime rates, job opportunity, cultural divide (like hispanics and whites), or education. Positivism takes a more scientific approach towards sociological issues. If a positivist decided to investigate this problem, he/she would collect data quantitatively and probably use a method such as random sampling. Even though this method can give a general idea of the problems that occurring within the community (if questions are directed properly), the researcher is still missing out on vital information a direct confrontation with an individual in the community can provide. Interactionism calls for more interaction (hence the name) with the individuals in society. From that qualitative data can be derived. Qualitative data gives an in-depth of human behavior. So when it comes to sociological issues, a qualitative approach provides answers as to why these sociological issues have arises and the affect is has on the people so a solution may be found. For an issue to be solved, someone has to explain the problem. Interactionism seems to be the best choice towards this principle.

The Bottom Line: The Culture of Poverty

The idea of a "culture of poverty" was originally founded by Oscar Lewis. Oscar Lewis looked past poverty's functionality in society and instead delved into the norms and values of those who are impoverished. His research demonstrated that the poor, had there own system of norms and values. Just like individuals in high culture set out the standard for what is innovative and beautiful in society, individuals within the culture of poverty have their own distinct lifestyle specifically structure for those who are impoverished; "it has a structure, a rationale, and defense mechanisms without which the poor could hardly carry on." The culture of poverty, mimics the principles of a subculture; impoverished predecessors pass down the principles and morals of the poor to forthcoming generations. Practices such as this one, suggest that the poor lives a distinct way of life that is essentially intertwined to the functionality of society.

Monkey See, Monkey Do: High Culture

Hello fellow bloggers :D, this week we have to use a sociological perspective and discuss the forces and institutions
that help shape popular culture. Instead of using the typical Marxism, Functionalism, or Symbolic Interactionism to answer this question, I've decided to use high culture :D.

High culture, developed by Matthew Arnold, is the theory that a superior form of culture serves as the premise for virtue, reason, and human excellence. "The best that has been thought and said in the world", is laced within high culture. Those who exist outside of the "higher culture", are considered to be the common folk or, in other words, the average individual. Through the use of institutions and forces such as the educational system and the mass media, the higher culture imposes certain principles and beliefs into the common folk resulting in the shaping of the popular culture. Popular culture are those things that are considered trendy and valuable by the common folk. What are the things that are considered trendy? Things that are most likely held by the "higher culture". Ultimately, in this tense, popular culture serves as slaves to the dominance of the higher culture.

Symbolic Interactionism: Finding its Place in a Sociological World

Symbolic Interactionism, developed by G.H. Mead, is a sociological perspective that uses symbols portrayed amongst individuals in order to derive motive and meaning (language being the most notable). In symbolic interactionism, symbols serve as the core elements of all human interaction.
There has been much dispute over the context of symbolic interactionism; is this a sociological perspective or does it play a greater role as a psychological approach. Even though symbolic interactionism tends to focus more on the individual's behavior, ultimately the focus does contribute to the overall study of society. For example, making connections as to what a symbol represents could interpret why a certain area acts in a specific manner; Or an observation on irrational behavior being correlated to a recent trend of symbols that sparked in the area. Really what I'm trying to convey is that micro studies like symbolic interactionism do have a macro impact. Symbolic Interactionism may dwell more into the individual psyche but that intrusion is still influential and beneficial to sociology.

No Blesse Oblige: The Marxist Ideology

Hello fellow bloggers!
You know it just dawned on me; there are really eight of us that the previous statement applies to......we're pretty lonely aren't we?

Anyway, this week's blog asks for us to choose which ideology--Functionalism or Marxism--will be able to keep up with our continuously adapting world. Evidently, the answer to the question is really Functionalism (developed by Emile Durkheim and expanded upon by Talcott Parsons) however, obvious questions like these tend to leave concepts like Marxism under the gutter. Therefore, I have decided to do my blog on Marxism, an ideology that probably will never go into affect but has a real positive direction towards it.

Marxism, the theory that criticizes the capitalist perspective (of material wants), believes in the formation of a superior, egalitarian society ran by the working class (proletariat) instead of the oppressive factory owners (bourgeoisie). Marxism is structured on the idea of societal control and not elite domination. The concept of "No Blesse oblige" or the rule of the few over the many, is the epitomy of what the Marcists are against. In Marxist eyes, a nation will start out as a capitalist and gradually deviate from capitalism to communism as the workers begin to realize that they are being given unfair wages for very laborious work. Eventually the "working class" will gain class consciousness (sociology term) and rise up against the "factory owners". Now this ideology is good philosophically but it is almost impossible for it to be utilized realistically. Our nation, for instance, is so enveloped in the idea of free market competition that moving into an egalitarian society, which is what Marxism implicitly promotes, would seem unfair to those who like to compete even though there "competition" leads to more suffering. In essence, Marxism serves as a good premise as to what direction a nation should take yet in this competitive world, Marxism will remain just that: an idea.