Society: Structural / Functionalist Perspective Essay, Research Paper
Take Home Exam 1
1. The Structural/Functionalist Perspective looks at society as a system of interconnected parts. It assumes that the bulk of society portions the same nucleus values and appropriate signifiers of behaviour. It looks at how relentless forms of behaviour or societal constructions function to implement society & # 8217 ; s values. It distinguishes between manifest and latent orders. Manifest maps are those intended and easy recognized by most members of society. An illustration of this would be faith or churches. Latent maps are those that are neither readily evident nor widely recognized. An illustration of this is the public public assistance system. Since there is a high degree of consensus about basic norms and values, the same can be said about the norm misdemeanors.
Ecological Perspective looks at the distribution of societal activities across infinite and clip. Social Disorganization Theory is a good illustration and theory used in the Ecological Perspectives. Social Disorganization Theory says that there are higher rates of aberrance where there aren & # 8217 ; t put norms or values. Large metropoliss for illustration have so many types of people with differing beliefs making all kinds of different things, ensuing in a really unorganised or & # 8220 ; disorganized & # 8221 ; point of view for the consensus to look at. This consequences in aberrance due to the fact that no 1 knows for certain everyone else & # 8217 ; s values and what is despised. The books concluding is that & # 8220 ; ecological conditions associated with urban life disrupt traditional societal controls, thereby advancing unconventional and aberrant behavior. & # 8221 ;
There are several similarities, and differences, both in the theories these positions contain and besides in the overall perspectives themselves. Some of the similarities are both positions look at the people that make up the society and there affect, as a whole, on the full community. How the people live their lives based on their ethical motives and values, turns into what is considered pervert in the society in which they live. Some towns may look at person as a pervert if they cuss under their breath. Yet, in another society, person could shout and cuss and be looked at as the norm. Another illustration of this on a more deviant-lawful comparing could be running xanthous visible radiations or rushing. In a little town if person did this with a constabulary auto about, you would likely be pulled over in a 2nd with a ticket. In a large metropolis nevertheless, with everyone making it & # 8220 ; the norm & # 8221 ; , the constabulary auto either has to draw over the full metropolis, or alteration with the times.
There are besides several differences. Structural Functionalist Perspective focuses more on peculiar societies whereas Ecological expressions more on how things are set up. A clearer illustration of this is that Structural Functionalist Perspective looks at the people in the society, it talks about their values and the norms, and how this makes up aberrant behaviour. Ecological Perspective looks at how where people live impact what is considered aberrant. It says that people don & # 8217 ; t needfully do persons aberrant, the major contributing factors are the location and society ecologically.
The film we watched, & # 8220 ; Trading Places & # 8221 ; was a great illustration that took a spot of both of these positions and showed how different factors can impact aberrant behaviour. Eddie Murphy plays a hapless felon and Dan Akroyd plays a affluent concern adult male. Ecologically they are both from the same metropolis in about the same portion of town. Eddie Murphy really visits Dan & # 8217 ; s workplace. But at the same clip they live separate lives both ecologically and structurally. Though they are from the same portion of town, Eddie lives on the streets and Dan lives in a high category apartment-type edifice. Structurally, Eddie deals with hapless aberrant people and he himself is a pervert. To him it is the norm to be aberrant. Peoples see him as a aberrant both from the apparels he wears and his overall attitude. Dan on the other manus gets respected even by people who don & # 8217 ; Ts know him based on his visual aspect and the sort of people he associates with. He is expected to move with a sense of pride and ego regard and have good values. Eddie is expected to be a pervert and even if he were seeking to be polite would still be viewed as pervert. When Dan is placed in the hapless looking apparels and non given anything to demo his stature visual aspect wise, he becomes & # 8220 ; disorganized & # 8221 ; . When Eddie is placed in nice vesture and a nice place, he is started to be treated with more regard and starts to move more mature. The people he used to tie in with he now sees as perverts, as in the scene where he throws a party in his new place merely to throw them out. One goes from a pervert to a adult male of good values with a sense of aberrant behaviour and non stepping beyond that line. The other goes from a adult male of good values to a aberrant adult male with no sense of right and incorrect. This full film shows non merely these two positions but besides how they truly can impact persons and a society.
4. One theory that could be used to analyse Eddie Perry would be the neutralisation theory. Its non rather clear in
the beginning but towards the terminal it starts to model him and do more sense. I had problem calculating out why precisely he would do these narratives up. And why he would sell, but merely sell certain drugs and in certain sums or at highly high monetary values yet would take others drugs for free. At first I thought it was kind of a power trip but them came the ill-famed PCP incident non to advert his minute with LSD, his most feared drug. Neutralization theory in a sense, makes excuses up for the person to make aberrant Acts of the Apostless. In this case, at foremost he won’t even think about selling PCP. No manner is he traveling to sell this drug. He has heard of excessively many bad things go oning ensuing from this drug being taken and he doesn’t desire to be a portion of it. This relates to the theory non because he is doing an alibi for himself to execute a aberrant act, that will come subsequently, but an alibi to allow others make aberrant Acts of the Apostless because of him ( The Denial of the Victim ) . Peer force per unit area entirely, is the alibi needed for Eddie to give in. Now for the LSD incident. Eddie is, without a uncertainty, anti-LSD. He won’t sell it and he certainly wont usage it. However, LSD, a supposed “white drug” and good known for loosening suppressions, eventually needs to be done to turn out a point. In his eyes he needs to take the drug to demo to his equals, both higher and lower ranking to him, that he is a normal individual, though one of the few inkinesss in a predominately white school, and that even he can merely “chill” sometimes, in order to suit in more.
As for the prevarications, they are clear even in his drug pickings. He will make anything merely to suit in or be portion of the norm. He feels like he has to make the dramatic to go one of the & # 8220 ; druggies & # 8221 ; . He makes up brainsick narratives about battles he has been in, gives in to peer force per unit area, and takes LSD, which in his eyes is the Satan, merely to be portion of the norm. This falls under the Strain Theory. He has all of these negative relationships with everyone. He turns to deviance to suit in. This is clear when they go to the Picnic at Fort Rock. He is at that place but he isn & # 8217 ; t like them. He can & # 8217 ; t merely chill out. He is so edgy. This is besides portion of the ground he takes LSD. Because he wants to turn out that he can allow his organic structure travel. One of the features with persons in Strain Theory is force and this comes out shortly after taking the LSD. After this the negative relationships merely grow worse. The worse the relationships got the more aberrant he became. Examples of this were clear when he returned to Harlem. Deviant acts such as force, which were non of his character were get downing to go on, and finally and finally his life of aberrance came to an terminal one hebdomad after graduation.
2. In Social Disorganization Theory there are no set norms or lines of aberrance. Reasonably much everything goes because there is no line between right and incorrect. Aberrance is really high for several grounds. There is no 1 to look at for values or ethical motives because of the broad assortment. Deviant behaviour is seen otherwise by everyone because of the assortment of values and ethical motives. The difficult thing about this is that there are no norms, and aberrance is anything against the norm.
With Social Learning people get at that place norms, values, ethical motives, and aberrance from watching others. There is a finer line of right and incorrect but it besides depends on who you learn from.
Two illustrations, one for each theory, can be taken from the film & # 8220 ; Gone in 60 Seconds. & # 8221 ; The younger brother falls into Acts of the Apostless of aberrance from watching his large brother bargain autos. He saw his brother making it, learned things from him, and went on to make these same pervert Acts of the Apostless when he grew up. The small brother is a great illustration of Social Learning Theory. As for the large brother, he fits under the Social Disorganization Theory. He grew up with all sorts of people. The people he did his pervert Acts of the Apostless from were from all walks of life. There wasn & # 8217 ; t a set of norms. Everyone was into the aberrant Acts of the Apostless for different grounds. The vicinity was less structured when he was a young person compared to now. The small brother lives in a society with clear set regulations. This is made clear with the jurisprudence enforcement functionaries and by non finishing the order.
There are some similarities between the two theories but more differences. Some of the similarities would be that in Social Learning Theory, everyone could be larning from different people. If this was the instance so it would fall under the other theory. In both theories aberrance has the opportunity to be really high. If all people learn from other is aberrant behaviours in one theory, and in the other there is no set boundaries for the regulations, the opportunity for immense sums of aberrance is really high.
As for the differences, the list could travel on and on. In Social Disorg. Theory, aberrance is non learned it is forced due to a deficiency or norms. In Social Learning Theory, the norms are those of the people or the society being learned from but, no lupus erythematosus, there are set norms to look at. In Social Learning Theory, you looking at the norms of society and the bold line dividing bad from good. In Social Disorg. Theory, with no norms, no set regulations to follow, aberrance tallies rampant.