Compare And Contrast Karl Marx And Emile Durkheim

Functionalists points out that deviance also has functions. Emilie Durkehiem, the classical functionalists theories came to a surprising conclusion. Deviance is functional for society. Deviance contributes to the social order in three ways: Deviance clarifies moral boundaries and affirms norms, deviance encourages social unity, and deviance promotes social change. By moral boundaries, Durkheim referred to a groups ideas on how people should think and act.

He argued that one of the main tasks of sociology was to transform personal problems into public and political issues or vice versa. To have sociological imagination is to have “vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society" (Mills 2). Overall, sociological imagination is the concept which is based on social locators. As mentioned previously, there is a difficulty to grasp control on class, gender, and race because a person is born into these three categories. In a practical sense, my personal choices are shaped by my social locators.

Goffman does not deny what traditional symbolic interactionists argue. Instead he is more interested in how the presence of other individuals, social arrangements, social order, social hierarchy and the interaction order shape the image of ones ‘self’. Goffman studied & explored the nature of ones self and its relation to the broader moral codes & social attidudes that shape agents interaction

The theory is that dominant groups want to preserve institutions that give them power. Additinally, this model gives the state has a degree of autonomy in order to maintain class hegemony; however, its primary role is to serve the interest of the dominant group. Finally, if the dialectic model is deemed as applicable if the following conditions are in place: (a) process of social institutions, that expel what is beneficial to dominant classes, (b) evidence of latent class conflict, divergent interest, or observable class

Introduction Great thinkers, including Plato and Aristotle opened the doors to studying society; they based their thoughts on creating an “ideal society”. The science of Sociology was later developed in the early 19th century by Auguste Comte, who coined the word “Sociology”. He began to study society, using “critical thinking”. Comte believed that only by really understanding society could we begin to change it. In this Essay I will compare and contrast two major theoretical perspectives in Sociology.

The end result is a narrow-minded perspective that can hold down others who express other opinions or live in an opposing manner. In The Chrysalids, Waknuk’s society attempts to limit the community’s interaction with those who have unique

C. Wright Mills wanted to understand how transformations in our society or around the world could affect our everyday lives. This curiosity led to Mills doing research, asking questions, and eventually coining the term “sociological imagination”, which he describes as a way to help emphasize the value of adopting a sociological perspective for understanding the world around us. He believed one of the key ways people could understand society and social change was to apply this social imagination. We as people normally think of our own problems as being a private matter of character, chance, or circumstance, and we overlook the fact that these may be caused in part by, or are at least occurring within, a specific cultural and historical context.

Rather than looking at a social system overall, such as the total population of a country, interactionism focuses on a smaller-scale social interactions, such as the interactions between characters or small social groups. Interactionism in sociology focuses on the way that we act, or make careful choices concerning our behaviours that continue from how we understand situations. In other words, humans are not only reacting to social provocations; we are social actors and need to alter our behaviour based on the actions of others. Interactionism in sociology reviews how different social actors make sense of or understand the behaviour of those surrounding us. This evidence can be used to understand the social construction of the world, which is focused on not only the meanings that we give to behaviour, but also how we understand the meanings of behaviour of ourselves and others.

The purpose of this paper is to inform the reader of social normalities and prejudice in society. Social normalities can be described, measured, and can influence the expression of prejudice. People adhere firmly to social norms when expression prejudice and the expression of hostility depends on norms. The data can be predicted through many theories and common sense. Individual tolerance often represents group tolerance due to the different norms in that group.

In society we struggle with individuality, this can be explained by society not wanting to be different from one another because the thought of being harassed and being embarrassed frightens society. Conformity makes everyone appear, buy, and drive the same and this doesn’t allow others to express themselves, self esteem, and the act of