![]() That is a logical problem - it posits that the cause can be found in the function - since we see schools prepping youth for the economy, schools must be required to prep youth for the economy. ![]() ![]() How do you know that *that* is the real function of schools? Because, according to functionalists, when you look at schools you see them prepping students for future economic roles. So for example, say you claim that schools exist so that a society can train young people to take up a role in the economy (in other words, schools function to prep youth for the economy). You have to step back and ask what theory is supposed to do - it is meant to move us beyond simply describing what we see and towards understanding what we see - to establish cause, to answer the question "Why are things the way they are? How did they come to be this way?"įunctionalism is unable to explain cause or social change. This is part of the reason that biology left functionalism behind in favor of evolutionary theory. The real problem with functionalism as a theory is that it is based on circular logic. I see no problem with functionalism itself as long as you don't take for granted that "stability" is good or that structures are good as many people claim functionalist do. Idc if Spencer was racist or whatever, I Mean I care, but if one foundational scholar defines functionalism a certain way I don't see why new scholars can't redefine the fields. Without saying that these foundations or systems should be continued. Whether you agree or not, I don't see why this wouldn't work.Įven if there's no moral considerations in functionalism, that should further add to the idea that functionalism doesn't necessarily legitimate ideas like racism, it just points out that things like racism are foundational and even necessary to certain systems. OK, I see thst conflict theory makes sense but i still don't see why a functionalist perspective wouldn't also work if we want to analyze an capitalism and acknowledge that their is a racial LOGIC to it that may be independent of actors. pdf and other download-ing links with the filetype. Got a question that doesn't quite fit /r/sociology? Ask the larger Social Sciences community at /r/asksocialscience. Not a sociologist? We welcome your participation, but users just spitballing or pushing an ideology may be banned to maintain standards of discourse. An online community of sociology enthusiasts is not a representative sample for pretty much anything, and as a result most surveys are not appropriate here: we are not going to help you do bad research. As above, we're not really here to help you do your homework, which is why we ask for your own content included and the actual standards are subjective. If you feel you’re the latter rather than the former, please don’t be surprised if we don’t agree.įoster discussion - aim to use postings as a source and have discussion in the comments, if the article particularly slanted or ideologically bent, this cuts off discussion: try submitting source material instead and include your preferred interpretation in the comments. There’s a lot of youtube channels, bloggers, and authors deserving of attention. Videos & blogs - context up front: there are a lot of very superficial “sociology” posts used more to promote a youtube channel, blogger, or author. Theory, content, and book reviews - need to add significant depth, context, or in-field relevance or critique of an established or topical work reviews should be used to grow knowledge, not promote a work, a reviewer, or an institution: the primary content needs to exist in the submission, the submission should not be urging the reader to ‘read more at _’ or ‘see more in my upcoming book, _’. Simply explaining an event as 'social behaviour' is not meeting a high-enough bar. Sociological interpretations may need to examine issue via multiple lenses or theories, for instance the “interpretation” should not be aiming to push a specific narrative or viewpoint. Some news around Sociology may be ok, but consider if all or most references to sociology could be changed to any other field and the core of the article would still make sense, it’s probably not sociological enough.Ĭurrent events - sociological explanation or exploration, focus again on the sociology more than the event itself. Sociological focus & content - the sociological thought needs to be primary focus. Having a question related to the topic is rarely sufficient. We are happy to talk Sociology with anyone, but we're not here to pad your reading list or do your homework for you. We ask that posts contain actual sociological content. For those interested in the study of groups, society, culture, social interactions, etc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |