Essentially, these forms relate to a struggle for power and resources, one side being the oppressed and the other the oppressor. As racism holds unfounded bias, prejudice and discrimination within its core ideologies, the conflict theory undoubtedly supplies the best approach to obtaining a general conception of the effects racism has on society. Compared to functionalism or symbolic interactionism, the conflict theory addresses the exploitation of groups, ultimately making it the best course of action to begin a rational
American sociologists Goode and Ben –Yehuda accepted the importance of the concept but stressed it needed more depth. In an attempt to update the concept and provide more structured indicators, they proposed the following five as indicators of moral panic (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994:33-39). Volatility; The sudden eruption and subsiding of concern about a newly perceived threat to society from a category of people regarded as being moral deviants. Hostility; The deviants are regarded with intense hostility as enemies of the basic values of the society and attributed stereotypes of 'evil' behaviour. Measurable Concern; Concern about the threat can be measured by sociological research methods questionnaires and attitude surveys have been suggested.
This debate has also relied on some or the other form of dichotomy, for instance problem solving theory/critical theory, discovered/socially constructed knowledge, objective/subjective and others. An important development here has been the emergence of Social Constructivism which is seen, with its positivist epistemology and post-positivist ontology, as an effort to de-dichotomise the tendency of the Third Debate. However, in its attempt to do so Social Constructivism at one point dichotomises its position vis a vis the rationalist (Price and Smit 1998), nevertheless James Fearon and Alexander Wendt (2002)
It shows the danger in being too much of a collectivist, and it forces you to realize the momentousness of being an individualist. Also, it would be resourceful to take into consideration how Rand looks at the two concepts and flip them to see her point of view. It is crucial that we grasp the notion of collectivism, and the instability in being an over exasperated collectivist. While the traits of collectivity are centralized on the impoverishment
This paper examines both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Madison remark concerning ‘ factions ’ as the potential destructive social force to the society.To layout and examine, this paper will first outline and discuss on Rousseau’s understanding of factions in The Social Contract,and Madison’s discussion on factionalism in the Federalist Papers 10.But there are many component surrounded with their view’s on ‘factions’,so it is important to consider together. Firstly,I will consider the definition and the element surrounded with their view on factions. With regard to Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract,he believes that the society can only function to the extent that people have interest in common.And it can be attained only by reaching the general will which is expressed by the sovereign that is owned by any particular individual which later will create the form of law. Moreover, he also stated that there is the difference between the general will and the “ will of all ”.The “ will of all ” is only the accumulation of every thing that the individual want.But the the general will aim at the common good which achieve what is best for all which is the way of making the decision that he suggests.
Consequentialism is a theory stating morality is dependent on an action’s outcomes; the most noteworthy example of this theory is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is contested as critics find it overdemanding for application on the virtue of its extensiveness in the individual’s life and reliance on unpredictable consequences, and due to the depth of logic override necessary to maximise happiness in some situations. Rebuttals have been made, and in this essay, I will explain the principles of consequentialism and utilitarianism and argue that the refutations are unsuccessful. Consequentialists, as aforementioned, strive to create best overall consequences for the largest amount of people. Moral agents must aim to maximise happiness and minimise pain.
Hegel’s study is rich and difficult, reaching over the whole area of likely experience; but in order to show his important insights into the theme of “self and other” one should focus on his portrayal of the nature of the self-consciousness. Hegel sees the coordination between the Self and the Other as a struggle for acknowledgement, not an assumed harmony of persons mutually acknowledging each other or a harmony grounded on pre-established metaphysical conditions, the self needs this confrontation with the Other in order to achieve a certain sense of freedom and responsibility. In Hegel’s account, fully understanding what is at stake in his statements, it is crucial to explore more closely to the dialectical transformations that lead to the reaction to the self-consciousness as the necessary link of an inter-subjective relation. “Self-consciousness can only achieve its satisfaction in another
For most theorists and practitioners, CDA is critical because it is self-reflexive, that is, it openly admits and reflects upon the interests for which it is biased rather than claiming the possibility of objectivity and for this reason committed to progressive social change (Titscher et al., 2000: 144). Furthermore, discourse research is critical because it focuses on the discursive aspects of social problems and engages the ideological workings of discourse in the interest of power and the powerful by seeking to reveal the connections between language use and other elements of social life (van Dijk, 2008: 86; Fairclough, 2001: 230). Finally, CDA is critical because it assumes that “all thought is fundamentally mediated by power relations
Rawls was not happy whit the original arguments about what makes a social institution just. The utilitariam argument says that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has many problems, excpecially that it seems to be consistant with the belief of majorities over minorities. The institution argument holds that human intuit what is wright or wrong by some innate moral sense. Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach.
They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it. Throughout this essay, cultural relativism will be questioned, but also supported in some ways. The idea of cultural relativism reminds me of a sociological term--ethnocentrism--that essentially means the opposite. Ethnocentrism is essentially a bias about your own culture against other cultures. One can only see their culture (usually as dominant to the others), rather than attempting to see the perspective of whatever culture is in question.