EXAM 1 Theory of SOC

pdf

School

San Jacinto Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4322

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by LisaAnn1

1. According to Marx, human potential is a product of: A. “doing” or action B. material world C. creativity D. all of the above D. all of the above Karl Marx's theory emphasizes the importance of human activity, the material world, and creativity in the realization and development of human potential. According to Marx, human beings distinguish themselves from other animals through their capacity for conscious labor, which allows them to shape the material world to meet their needs. This "doing" or action is central to Marx's understanding of human nature and society. He believed that through labor, humans not only transform the material world but also develop their own potential and capabilities. Creativity plays a crucial role in this process, as it is through creative labor that humans express themselves and fulfill their potential. Thus, human potential, in Marx's view, is a product of the interaction between human action ("doing"), the material world, and the inherent creativity of labor. 2) According to Weber, the world has become: A. an enchanted place B. a haven for malcontents C. disenchanted D. an intellectualist rationalization C. disenchanted Max Weber described the modern world as having become "disenchanted" (Entzauberung). This concept refers to the process by which the magical and religious interpretation of the world, which filled it with meaning and mystery, is replaced by a rational, scientific understanding. In Weber's view, the modern world is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization, where traditional values and religious beliefs have lost their power and authority over society and individuals. This shift leads to a world viewed through the lens of rational logic, efficiency, and bureaucratic organization, rather than through spiritual or mystical explanations. 3) Durkheim’s study of anomic suicide is the foundation of contemporary studies of: A. religion and health B. inequalities in healthcare C. socialized medicine D. all of the above A. religion and health Émile Durkheim's study of anomic suicide is foundational to the sociological understanding of how social integration and regulation impact individual behaviors and societal health. While Durkheim's work on suicide, particularly anomic suicide, does indirectly touch upon themes that could relate to broader discussions on health (including mental health), its direct foundational influence is most clearly seen in studies concerning the relationship between religion (as a form of social integration) and health. Durkheim’s exploration of the social causes of suicide, including the concept of anomie (a state of normlessness that occurs during periods of significant social change or stress, where social norms are disrupted), has inspired subsequent research into how social and religious cohesion can affect health outcomes.

However, it's worth noting that while Durkheim's work is directly influential in areas related to social integration, regulation, and their impacts on health (including the study of religion and health), the broader implications of his theories can also be seen in discussions about healthcare systems. These include inequalities in healthcare and socialized medicine, as these topics also involve understanding the social factors that affect health outcomes. Nonetheless, these areas (B and C) are more indirectly related to Durkheim's specific studies on suicide and would be more broadly connected through his overall contributions to sociology rather than the direct foundation of contemporary studies in those fields. 4). Why have sociologists not identified "laws of society" that allow us to predict individual human behavior? A. because human behavior is both complex and spontaneous B. because sociology is still very young C. because no sociologist ever tried to discover such laws D. all of the above are correct. A. because human behavior is both complex and spontaneous Sociologists have not identified "laws of society" that allow for the prediction of individual human behavior primarily because human behavior is characterized by its complexity and spontaneity. Unlike in the natural sciences, where phenomena often follow predictable and consistent laws, human social behavior is influenced by a vast array of factors including cultural norms, personal experiences, social contexts, individual choices, and biological factors. This complexity makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create universal laws that can predict individual actions with high accuracy. While sociology has developed theories and frameworks to understand patterns of behavior and social phenomena, the discipline recognizes the inherent variability and agency within human behavior. Sociology, as a field, does seek to understand patterns and structures within societies, but it also acknowledges the limits of prediction due to the dynamic nature of human social life. 5) Comte described the earliest human societies as being within which level of societal development? A. theological stage B. metaphysical stage C. scientific stage D. post-scientific stage A. theological stage Auguste Comte, often considered the father of sociology, proposed a law of three stages through which human societies develop intellectually and socially. According to Comte, the first stage is the theological stage, where society explains the world and events within it through the lens of religion and supernatural beliefs. In this stage, natural phenomena are interpreted as the actions of gods or supernatural forces. This is followed by the metaphysical stage, where abstract philosophical reasoning starts to replace supernatural explanations, and finally, the scientific stage, where society seeks to understand the world through empirical observation, experimentation, and scientific reasoning. Comte argued that societies progress through these stages as they evolve and mature. 6) The conflict perspective would probably try to study a problem like prostitution by first understanding A. what part prostitution plays in the overall functioning of a society. B. what the experience of being a prostitute means to the prostitutes themselves. C. how prostitution has evolved as part of a more complex social system. D. the lack of political and economic power experienced by women in many societies.

D. the lack of political and economic power experienced by women in many societies. The conflict perspective focuses on the ways in which inequality, dominance, and conflict shape social life. This approach would likely study prostitution by examining the power imbalances and inequalities that lead to and result from prostitution, particularly how these dynamics reflect the broader lack of political and economic power experienced by women (and potentially other marginalized groups involved in prostitution) in many societies. This perspective emphasizes the structural and systemic factors that contribute to social problems, including how economic necessity, gender inequality, and social stratification compel individuals into prostitution. 7) Society X is facing a severe economic depression. As a result, a number of social movements begin to put pressure on the government to change a variety of policies, and eventually some policy changes are made that do improve the economic stability of the society. From a functionalist perspective, this situation illustrates: A. the power of elites to control a population. B. how symbols of power can be used to create the meaning of a situation. C. the interdependency of different components of our social system. D. the responsibility of people to fight political manipulation. C. the interdependency of different components of our social system. From a functionalist perspective, society is viewed as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. The scenario described illustrates the interdependency of different components of the social system, such as the economy, governmental policies, and social movements. When economic depression threatens the stability of Society X, social movements emerge to pressure the government for change. The eventual policy changes that improve economic stability highlight how different parts of society must function together to maintain or restore balance and order. This perspective emphasizes the functional necessity of adaptation and change within a society's institutions to ensure the overall health and stability of the system. 8) The Thomas Theorem states that: A. a role is as a role does B. people act out only the roles that their culture provides C. people know the world only through their language D. situations defined as real are real in their consequences D. situations defined as real are real in their consequences The Thomas Theorem, formulated by sociologists William I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas, essentially means that if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. This theorem highlights the powerful effect of perception on social behavior; it implies that the interpretation of a situation causes the action. This perspective emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and suggests that the way individuals define and perceive their circumstances can have tangible, objective outcomes on their actions and on society. 9)The social-conflict approach might well lead a sociologist to highlight: A. class differences in a high school population

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

B. gender inequality in college sports C. racial inequality in a company’s hiring and promotion practices D. all of the above are correct D. all of the above are correct The social-conflict approach focuses on the ways in which wealth, power, and status are distributed unequally within society and how these inequalities lead to conflict and change. It emphasizes the structural bases of inequalities and the social struggles they engender. Thus, a sociologist adopting this approach would likely be interested in exploring all of the scenarios mentioned, as they each reflect different dimensions of social inequality: A. Class differences in a high school population would be of interest as they can reflect broader societal inequalities and how they manifest in educational settings, potentially affecting students' opportunities and outcomes. B. Gender inequality in college sports could be examined to understand how gender roles and disparities are reinforced or challenged within the realm of athletics, impacting recognition, resources, and opportunities for athletes based on their gender. C. Racial inequality in a company’s hiring and promotion practices would be scrutinized to reveal systemic biases and barriers that perpetuate racial disparities in the workforce, affecting individuals' career trajectories and economic well-being. Each of these areas offers a lens through which to explore and critique the power dynamics and structural inequalities present in society, aligning well with the interests and concerns of the social-conflict approach. 10) Which of the following approaches to sociology seeks to challenge both the discipline and society? A. scientific B. interpretive C. critical D. Symbolic C. critical The critical approach to sociology not only seeks to understand society but also aims to critique and change it, challenging existing social structures and inequalities. This approach goes beyond merely describing social phenomena to actively questioning and confronting the underlying issues of power, inequality, and injustice within society. It challenges both the discipline of sociology itself, by critiquing its assumptions and methodologies, and society at large, by striving to address and transform social injustices. 1) According to Ferdinand Toennies, what is the difference between Gemeinscaft and Gesellschaft (describe)? Ferdinand Tönnies, a German sociologist, introduced the concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft to describe two types of social groups or associations, which he saw as representing the transition of society from a traditional to a modern state. These concepts highlight the shift in social relations that accompanied the development of industrial society.

Tönnies' distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft is not just a description of social forms but also a critique of the impersonal nature of modern, industrialized societies, reflecting a nostalgia for the perceived closeness and authenticity of pre-industrial community life. His work has had a lasting influence on sociological thought, particularly in the areas of social theory and the study of community and urban social structures. 1. Gemeinschaft (the old world) (Community): This term refers to social associations characterized by close personal and family ties, shared values and beliefs, and a strong sense of community and belonging. In Gemeinschaft, relationships are ends in themselves; they are valued for the personal, emotional bonds they represent. This type of association is typical of rural, pre-industrial societies, where social cohesion is strong, and social roles are well defined and based on tradition. The family, neighborhood, and community are prime examples of Gemeinschaft, where interactions are largely driven by feelings of togetherness and mutual aid. Example: 1. Traditional Rural Villages: In traditional rural villages, social relationships are typically characterized by close personal ties, mutual aid, and a strong sense of community. Residents often share common ancestors, traditions, and values, which foster a deep sense of belonging and collective identity. The interdependence in daily life and work, such as farming or local crafts, reinforces communal bonds. Decisions affecting the community are often made collectively, reflecting the communal spirit that defines Gemeinschaft. 2. Extended Families: Extended families exemplify Gemeinschaft through their complex web of relationships built on blood ties, marriage, and generational links. Within such families, there is a strong emphasis on mutual support, loyalty, and responsibility for each other's welfare. Family gatherings, celebrations, and rituals strengthen the emotional bonds and shared identity among members. The sense of belonging and emotional security provided by the extended family structure showcases the essence of Gemeinschaft. 3. Religious Congregations: Religious congregations, particularly those in small or close-knit communities, serve as another example of Gemeinschaft. Members of these congregations share a common faith, values, and rituals, which foster a strong sense of community and belonging. Activities such as worship services, religious education, and community service projects reinforce the communal bonds. The support and solidarity among members, especially during times of celebration or crisis, highlight the communal nature inherent in religious congregations. These examples of Gemeinschaft are characterized by strong personal relationships, shared values and beliefs, and a collective identity that transcends individual interests, reflecting Ferdinand Tönnies' concept of social cohesion based on natural will or emotional bonds. 2. Gesellschaft (the new world) (Society): In contrast, Gesellschaft describes social associations characterized by impersonal, formal, and instrumental relationships. These associations are typical of modern, industrial societies, where social bonds are more likely to be based on individual self-interest, contracts, and agreements rather than on kinship or personal ties. In Gesellschaft, relationships are a means to an end; they serve a specific purpose, such as economic exchange or professional collaboration. The state, corporations, and other large organizations exemplify Gesellschaft, where interactions are governed by laws and regulations, and social roles are determined by societal needs and functions rather than personal relationships. Example: 1. Large Corporations: Large corporations exemplify Gesellschaft through their formal organizational structures and impersonal relationships among employees, stakeholders, and customers. In these entities,

interactions are primarily based on roles, contracts, and professional duties rather than personal connections. The relationships are instrumental, aimed at achieving specific goals such as profit maximization, efficiency, and market expansion. The focus is on individual performance and achievement within the framework of the corporation's objectives, reflecting the characteristics of Gesellschaft with its emphasis on individual interests and formal social arrangements. 2. Urban Neighborhoods: Many urban neighborhoods, especially in large cities, demonstrate characteristics of Gesellschaft. Residents may live in close physical proximity but often lack strong personal ties or a sense of community. Interactions among neighbors tend to be more formal and infrequent, driven by necessity rather than genuine emotional connections. The diversity and transient nature of urban populations contribute to this phenomenon, as individuals come from various backgrounds and may not share common values, traditions, or goals. The social bonds in such neighborhoods are characterized more by coexistence and convenience rather than deep communal ties. 3. Online Communities and Social Networks: While online communities and social networks can foster a sense of belonging and shared interest, they often represent Gesellschaft in the way that interactions are structured. Members might come together based on specific interests, professional networking, or other targeted activities, but the relationships are typically more superficial and instrumental compared to those in traditional Gemeinschaft settings. The anonymity and virtual nature of these interactions allow for connections that are expansive yet often lack the depth and emotional bonds of physical communities. These platforms facilitate the exchange of information, services, and social interaction based on individual needs and preferences, mirroring the characteristics of Gesellschaft with its focus on purpose-driven, contractual relationships. These examples of Gesellschaft highlight the nature of modern, complex societies where social bonds are formed around specific objectives, roles, and interests, with an emphasis on individualism and formal social arrangements, in contrast to the communal and personal relationships characteristic of Gemeinschaft. 2) The key to sociology for Weber was understanding action and the thought processes and meanings leading to said action. What is the German term/word Weber used to describe this? Verstehen is the German term Weber used to describe why people do what they do by looking at things from their point of view. It's like putting yourself in someone else's shoes to get why they think and act a certain way, considering their personal experiences, beliefs, and emotions. 3) Weber suggested that in the future capitalism would lose its spirit and would succumb to increasing rationality and force society into a bureaucratic trap. What did call this? Max Weber referred to the increasing rationalization and bureaucratization of society, which he believed would lead to an "iron cage." This metaphor describes a situation where society becomes trapped in a system of rationalized, bureaucratic structures and procedures that, while efficient, limit individual freedom and creativity. Weber saw this process as a consequence of the Western quest for rationality, efficiency, and control, which, although initially driving the success of capitalism, would ultimately strip away the individualistic and value- oriented aspects of society, leaving a highly structured, impersonal world. Max Weber predicted that society would become more and more organized and run by strict rules and regulations, leading to a situation where people feel trapped in a system that values efficiency and order over individual freedom and creativity. He called this situation an "iron cage." In simpler terms, it's like saying

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

society would become like a machine, where everyone has to follow the rules very closely, and there's not much room to be different or creative. 4) According to Marx, all value comes from labor. What did he call the basic value of a commodity before it goes to market? According to Karl Marx, the basic value of a commodity before it goes to market is determined by the "labor value" or the amount of "socially necessary labor time" required to produce it. This concept refers to the average amount of labor time needed to produce a commodity under normal conditions of production, with average skill and intensity of labor, within a given society. Marx's analysis of commodities and their value forms a core part of his critique of political economy, particularly in his seminal work, "Capital." However, the specific term often associated with the concept of value before a commodity goes to market, reflecting its inherent value derived from labor, is not distinctly named as "basic value" in Marx's theory. Instead, Marx discusses the "value" of a commodity in terms of the labor embodied in it, without using a unique term for its pre-market value. Marx believed that a commodity's value is fundamentally determined by the amount of "socially necessary labor time" in its production. This concept refers to how long it takes to produce a commodity under average conditions, with average skill and effort, within a society. Marx's idea is that the labor put into making something is what gives it value before it even reaches the market. While Marx discussed the value of commodities in terms of the labor embodied in them, he didn't specifically use a term like "basic value" to describe a commodity's value before it hits the market. Instead, he focused on the idea that labor is the source of all value, and this value is reflected in the commodity through the amount of socially necessary labor time required for its production. This is a fundamental part of his critique of capitalism, where he argues that the exploitation of labor is the source of capitalists' profits. 5) Looking at question four, what did Marx call the value a commodity sells for on the market? Karl Marx called the value a commodity sells for on the market its "exchange value." This is how much a commodity can be traded for in the market. Think of it as the "price" you can swap it for other things or money. Exchange value is distinct from "use value," which is how useful or beneficial the commodity is to someone. Exchange value reflects the commodity's worth in the broader marketplace, where various factors, including supply and demand, can influence how much it can be exchanged or sold for. To put it in even simpler terms: - Exchange Value: This is how much a commodity can be traded for in the market. Think of it as the "price" you can swap it for other things or money. It changes based on how much people want it and how much of it is available (supply and demand). - Use Value: This is about how useful or beneficial the commodity is to someone. For example, a coat has a use value in keeping you warm. - Labor Value (Value): This idea comes from how much work (labor) is needed to make the commodity. Marx believed that the effort and time workers put into creating something give it its fundamental value. So, while a product's use value is about how useful it is, its exchange value is what it's worth in the market, which can fluctuate. And behind both these values, Marx sees labor value as the real backbone, reflecting the human labor required to produce any commodity.

6) What did Durkheim call the breakdown of solidarity characterized by a sense of loss and confusion where an individual or group does not know their place in society and is unable to find resolution through the institutions that have given them direction and meaning in the past? Émile Durkheim called this breakdown of solidarity "anomie." Anomie occurs when there's a mismatch between individual or group expectations and the wider society, often due to rapid social change or a breakdown in the effectiveness of societal norms and values to guide behavior. This state of normlessness, where the usual standards and values are unclear or no longer applicable, can lead to confusion, despair, and a lack of purpose among individuals or groups, making it difficult for them to find their place in society or to trust previously reliable institutions for direction and meaning. Durkheim called this breakdown of solidarity "anomie." This is a feeling of confusion , despair, and a lack of purpose that people experience when society's norms and values don't match up with what individuals see or expect. It's like when the rules of the game have changed, but nobody told you the new rules. 7) Spencer compared social institutions to what? Herbert Spencer compared social institutions to the organs of a living organism. He used this analogy to describe how different parts of society function interdependently, much like the organs in a body. Each social institution (like the economy, family, education, government, etc.) has a specific function that contributes to the overall health and stability of society, similar to how each organ in a body contributes to the overall health and functioning of the organism. This perspective is part of Spencer's broader sociological framework, which views society through a lens similar to that of biological organisms, emphasizing harmony, equilibrium, and the importance of each part in maintaining the whole. Spencer thought of society as a living body. He said that just like how different organs in a body work together to keep the body healthy and working right, different parts of society (like schools, families, businesses, and government) also work together to keep society running smoothly. Each part has its own job to do, but all the parts need each other to make sure everything goes well. Spencer's idea is like saying society is a big team, where every player has a special role, and they all need to work together to win the game. This way of looking at society helps us understand how important every part is and how they all fit together. 8) What did Marx call the state of social relations based on exchange based on the belief that a commodity has real value? Karl Marx referred to the state of social relations based on the belief that a commodity has real value as "commodity fetishism." Commodity fetishism describes the perception that the value of commodities arises from the commodities themselves, rather than from the labor and social relations involved in their production. In this view, the social and economic relationships between people appear as relationships between things (commodities). This concept is crucial in Marx's critique of capitalism, highlighting how the true nature of economic value and the exploitation inherent in the labor process are obscured in capitalist societies. Marx called the state of social relations based on the belief that a commodity has real value as "commodity fetishism." This idea is about how people think the value of things they buy and sell (like toys, clothes, or phones) comes from the things themselves, rather than from the labor and social relations involved in their production. But what's really happening, Marx says, is that people forget these things have value because of the work people do to make them and the way people interact with each other to produce and exchange them. In simpler terms, we start to see our connection with each other in terms of stuff we buy and sell, rather than the work and

relationships that actually create them. Marx believed this way of thinking is a big part of capitalism, and it hides how workers can be taken advantage of and how the real value of things is determined. 9) According to Durkheim, despite its obvious social costs, crime is what? despite its obvious social costs, crime is normal and an integral part of all societies. Durkheim argued that crime is inevitable because not everyone in society can be equally committed to the collective sentiments (the shared values and moral beliefs of a society). He believed that crime serves a social function by highlighting the boundaries of acceptable behavior, thus reinforcing social norms and values. When society reacts to crime by punishing offenders, it reaffirms the community's collective conscience and strengthens social cohesion. Furthermore, Durkheim suggested that crime could lead to social change; by challenging outdated norms and values, it can pave the way for new, more adaptive social norms to emerge. Durkheim said that crime is a normal part of all societies and it's actually impossible to have a society where nobody ever breaks the rules. He states not everyone is going to agree with or follow society's rules and values all the time. Durkheim believed that when crimes happen, they show everyone what behaviors are not okay, which helps remind people about the rules and brings them closer together when they react against the crime. So, in a way, dealing with crime helps strengthen the bonds between people in a society. He also thought that crime could lead to good changes. Sometimes, when people break the rules, it makes everyone rethink those rules. Maybe the rules are outdated or unfair, and the crime highlights that issue. So, through reacting to crime, society can evolve and come up with new, better rules that fit the current times better. 10) Durkheim considered the study of society as the study of what (what data is studied)? Durkheim considered the study of society as the study of social facts. Social facts are manners of acting, thinking, and feeling that exist outside the individual but exert control over the individual, shaping their actions and attitudes. These can include laws, values, beliefs, norms, customs, and any other societal structures that govern social life. Durkheim emphasized that social facts should be treated with the same objectivity as objects of study in the natural sciences. For him, understanding the characteristics and effects of social facts was key to comprehending the structure and function of society. Durkheim thought of society like a big puzzle made up of "social facts." These social facts are like invisible rules or patterns that control how people act, think, and feel. They can be things like laws, values, traditions, or unwritten rules that everyone follows without thinking about it. Durkheim believed that just like scientist's study rocks or animals to understand how they work, we should study these social facts to understand how society works. By looking at how these social facts affect people's lives, we can figure out how society is put together and why people do what they do. So, to Durkheim, understanding these social facts was the key to understanding how society is organized and functions. 11) Marx and Engels referred to the "ruling class" as the what? Marx and Engels referred to the "ruling class" as the "bourgeoisie." In their analysis, the bourgeoisie is the class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society, such as factories, land, and capital. This ownership gives them the power to exploit the working class, or "proletariat," who only own their labor and must sell it to

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

survive. Marx and Engels argued that the interests of the bourgeoisie are often presented as the universal interests of all society, even though they primarily serve to maintain and enhance the wealth and power of the ruling class at the expense of the working class. They referred to the "ruling class" as the "bourgeoisie." They're like the bosses of a capitalist society because they own the places and tools needed to make goods. This gives them a lot of power, especially over the "proletariat" or the working class. The working class doesn't own much except their ability to work, which they have to sell to the bosses to make money and live. Marx and Engels pointed out that the bosses' interests and goals are often shown as if they're good for everyone in society, but in reality, they mostly help the bosses stay rich and powerful. This setup means the bosses benefit by making more money, often at the expense of the workers, who might not get paid much or have good working conditions. 12) For Max Weber, there is no clearer expression of modern rationality than what? For Max Weber, there is no clearer expression of modern rationality than bureaucracy. Weber saw bureaucracy as the most efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized. According to him, bureaucracies are characterized by a hierarchical structure, a clear division of labor, a set of formal rules and procedures, and impersonal relationships among its members. This form of organization embodies the principles of rationality, predictability, efficiency, and impersonality, which Weber considered central to the functioning of modern societies. He believed that the bureaucratic structure was essential for the administration of complex societies and large-scale institutions, although he also warned about its potential to become an "iron cage," constraining individual freedom and creativity. Weber saw bureaucracy as the most efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized. With lots of rules and a clear order, he thought these big organizations were good at ensuring things ran smoothly and predictably. Which is important in modern societies where there's a lot to manage. Weber thought that bureaucracies, with lots of rules and a clear order, are a super important part of modern life. He believed they were the smartest and most efficient way to get things done, especially in big societies or companies. According to Weber, bureaucracies work well because they have a clear system for who's in charge of what, everyone knows the rules, and people aren't supposed to let personal feelings get in the way of their work. He thought these big organizations were good at ensuring things ran smoothly and predictably, which is important in modern societies where there's a lot to manage. But, Weber also gave a heads up that bureaucracies could be a bit of a double-edged sword. He worried that they might trap people in a world where there's too much focus on rules and efficiency, making it hard for people to think outside the box or to feel free. 13) According to Durkheim, the increase of people in a given area led to an increase in their social interaction; he labeled this phenomenon as what? According to Émile Durkheim, the increase of people in a given area leading to an increase in their social interaction is labeled as "dynamic density." Dynamic density refers to the concentration of people and the resulting increase in interactions among them within a society. This concept is crucial to Durkheim's theory of the development of society from simple, mechanically solid societies to more complex, organically solid societies. Dynamic density not only increases the quantity of interactions but also the quality, leading to more complex social relationships, greater social differentiation, and the evolution of society's moral and institutional framework.

Émile Durkheim had a cool idea called "dynamic density." He said that when more people live close together, they end up interacting more. This isn't just about how many people there are in a place, but also about how much they talk to each other and work together. Durkheim thought this was a big deal for how societies grow and change. He believed that long ago, societies were simple, and everyone did pretty much the same things. But as societies got busier and more people interacted, things got more complex. People started doing different jobs and roles, and the ways they related to each other became more complicated. This led to new social rules and institutions (like laws and organizations) that helped keep everything running smoothly. So, according to Durkheim, the more people interact (dynamic density), the more complex and organized society becomes, moving from everyone being pretty much the same to everyone having their own special part to play. 14) What is the theoretical approach in sociology that assumes society is a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability? The theoretical approach in sociology that assumes society is a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability is known as functionalism. Functionalism views society as an organism, where each part (such as institutions, norms, and roles) has a specific function that contributes to the overall equilibrium and maintenance of the society. This perspective emphasizes the importance of social institutions and their roles in maintaining social order, addressing societal needs, and promoting cohesion among members of the society. Key figures associated with functionalist theory include Émile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert K. Merton. Functionalism is like thinking of society as a big machine where every part has a special job to do. Just like in a body where the heart pumps blood and the lungs bring in air, in society, different parts (like schools, families, laws) do different things to keep everything running smoothly. The main idea is that all these parts work together to keep society stable and to make sure people get along with each other. This way of looking at society says that everything, even small things, has a purpose. Schools educate kids, laws keep order, families take care of each other, and all these actions help society work well. Some big names in this theory are Émile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert K. Merton. They thought understanding how all these parts fit together was key to understanding how society functions. 15) According to Marx, what is the only variable that must be exploited if capitalism is to seek continuous profits? According to Karl Marx, the only variable that must be exploited if capitalism is to seek continuous profits is labor. Marx argued that the source of profit in capitalism lies in the exploitation of the working class, or proletariat. He introduced the concept of "surplus value," which is the difference between the value workers produce through their labor and the wages they are paid for this labor. The capitalists (bourgeoisie), who own the means of production, pay workers less than the value of what they produce, and the surplus value generated by this difference is appropriated by the capitalists as profit. This exploitation of labor is, for Marx, the fundamental mechanism through which capital accumulates and the capitalist system sustains and expands itself. Karl Marx believed that for capitalism to keep making money, it must take advantage of workers. He explained that the way businesses make a profit is by paying workers less than the actual worth of what they produce. Marx called the extra value that workers create but don't get paid for "surplus value."

So, imagine you make toys and your work creates $100 worth of toys, but you only get paid $50. The extra $50, which you made but didn't get, goes to the business owners (the capitalists). This process of paying workers less than the value they create is what Marx said is at the heart of capitalism. It's how business owners get richer and how the system keeps growing, by continuously exploiting the work people do. 16) The term “sociology” was coined in 1838 by? The term "sociology" was coined in 1838 by the French philosopher Auguste Comte. Comte is often regarded as the father of sociology for his significant contributions to the field, including the establishment of sociology as a distinct discipline and his advocacy for applying scientific methods to the study of society. The word "sociology" was first used in 1838 by a French thinker named Auguste Comte. People often call Comte the "father of sociology" because he played a big role in making sociology its own area of study. He really pushed for the idea that we should study society using the same careful, scientific approaches that we use to study things like plants or the stars. 17) Both Marx and Weber argued that formal organizations, while efficient, have the ability to do what to people within them? Both Karl Marx and Max Weber argued that formal organizations, while efficient, have the ability to dehumanize the people within them. Marx saw formal organizations, especially those within capitalist systems, as exploiting workers, reducing them to mere cogs in the machinery of production, and alienating them from the products of their labor, their fellow workers, and their own human potential. Weber, on the other hand, was concerned with the rise of bureaucratic organizations and their potential to trap individuals in an "iron cage" of rationalized, impersonal rules and procedures that prioritize efficiency over individuality, leading to a sense of disenchantment and a loss of freedom. Both theorists highlighted the potential negative impacts of formal organizations on individual autonomy, creativity, and well-being. Karl Marx and Max Weber both thought that while organizations can run smoothly, they might also treat people more like tools than humans. Marx believed that in capitalist systems, companies use workers just to get work done, making them feel disconnected from what they make, the people they work with, and even their own talents and dreams. Weber was worried about how bureaucracies (organizations with lots of rules and a strict hierarchy) could make people feel trapped in a world where following rules is more important than being yourself. This could make people feel less free and less excited about life. Both of them were saying that even though organizations can do things efficiently, they might not always be good for our happiness or creativity. 18) One major criticism of Marx is that the great revolution has not occurred. What is one reason scholars suggest the revolution has not occurred? One major reason scholars suggest the revolution predicted by Karl Marx has not occurred is due to the flexibility and adaptability of capitalism. Marx underestimated the capacity of capitalist societies to reform and adapt in ways that could alleviate some of the worst forms of exploitation and inequality, thus reducing the immediate impetus for a revolutionary overthrow of the system. Several factors contribute to this perspective: 1. **Welfare State**: The development of the welfare state in many capitalist countries has significantly improved the living standards of the working class. Social safety nets, public education, healthcare systems, and labor laws have mitigated some of the harshest consequences of capitalism that Marx critiqued, such as extreme poverty and worker exploitation. 2. **Labor Movements and Reforms**: The successes of labor movements in achieving better wages, working conditions, and workers' rights have also played a role. These improvements have made the working class less likely to see the capitalist system as wholly oppressive, reducing the appeal of a total revolution.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

3. **Consumer Society**: The rise of consumer culture and the availability of affordable goods have also contributed to pacifying discontent. By increasing access to material comforts and consumer goods, capitalism has been able to generate a sense of well-being or satisfaction among many in the working class, despite underlying inequalities. 4. **Ideological Control**: Some argue that capitalist societies have been effective in promoting ideologies that support the status quo, such as the belief in individualism, the meritocracy myth, and the possibility of upward mobility. These beliefs can reduce the desire for radical change by suggesting that success is possible within the existing system for those who work hard enough. 5. **Globalization and Fragmentation of the Working Class**: The global nature of modern capitalism has led to a fragmentation of the working class, making it more challenging to organize a unified revolutionary movement. The outsourcing of labor to different parts of the world, where labor is cheaper, has also weakened the bargaining power of workers in more developed countries. These factors, among others, have contributed to the resilience of capitalism and the absence of the global proletarian revolution that Marx anticipated. Some experts think the big revolution Marx expected hasn't happened because capitalism is good at changing and fixing some of its big problems. Marx didn't fully see how capitalist societies could make changes that would make life better for workers, which would make people less eager to completely overthrow the system. Here's why: 1. **Welfare State**: In many places with capitalism, the government has created programs that help make life better for everyone, especially workers. Things like help when you're out of a job, public schools, healthcare, and laws to protect workers have made some of the worst parts of capitalism less severe. 2. **Labor Movements and Reforms**: Workers have come together to demand higher pay, safer places to work, and more rights. These victories have made life under capitalism more bearable for many workers, making the idea of a total revolution less attractive. 3. **Consumer Society**: The fact that lots of goods are now more affordable and people can buy more stuff has also helped calm down some of the dissatisfaction people might feel. Even if there are still big inequalities, being able to buy things can make people feel happier or more content. 4. **Ideological Control**: Capitalist societies are really good at spreading ideas that make the current system seem okay, like the idea that if you work hard enough, you can make it no matter what. These kinds of beliefs can make people less interested in trying to drastically change society. 5. **Globalization and Fragmentation of the Working Class**: Because capitalism is now a global thing, the working class isn't as united as it might need to be to start a worldwide revolution. Also, moving jobs to places where labor is cheaper has made it harder for workers in richer countries to fight for better conditions. All these reasons have helped capitalism stick around and avoid the kind of global revolution Marx thought was coming. 19) Conflict theory focuses on human interest versus Structural-functionalism which focuses on human what? Conflict theory focuses on human interest and the dynamics of power and inequality within society, highlighting how different groups compete for resources, power, and influence. Structural-functionalism, in contrast, focuses on human cooperation and the ways in which society's various parts work together to maintain

stability and harmony. It emphasizes the functions that different elements of society serve to keep the social system in equilibrium. Conflict theory is all about how people and groups fight over power, resources, and being in charge because society isn't equal. It looks at how this competition and struggle can lead to changes in society. On the other hand, structural-functionalism is about how everyone in society works together to keep things stable and peaceful. It talks about how every part of society has a job that helps keep everything balanced and running smoothly. 20) What three historical changes stimulated the development of the discipline of sociology (describe)? The development of sociology as a distinct discipline was stimulated by several significant historical changes during the 18th and 19th centuries. Three of the most influential changes were: 1. **The Industrial Revolution**: Beginning in the late 18th century, the Industrial Revolution dramatically transformed economies, societies, and cultures, primarily in Europe and North America. This transformation involved a shift from agrarian economies based on farming and artisanal craft production in rural areas to industrial economies characterized by factory production in urban areas. The Industrial Revolution led to significant social changes, including urbanization, changes in family structure, and new social classes, particularly the industrial working class (proletariat) and the industrial capitalists (bourgeoisie). These changes raised new questions about social order, stability, inequality, and the nature of work, which sociology sought to address. 2. **The Enlightenment**: The Enlightenment, a cultural and intellectual movement in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, emphasized reason, science, and individual rights over tradition and authority. Enlightenment thinkers critiqued existing social arrangements and explored ideas about democracy, equality, and liberty. This period encouraged people to question traditional norms and institutions, including religion, monarchy, and the class system, leading to demands for social reform. The ideas of the Enlightenment laid the philosophical foundations for sociology by promoting the belief that human society could be studied scientifically to improve human welfare. 3. **Political Revolutions**: The American Revolution (1775 – 1783) and the French Revolution (1789 – 1799) were significant political upheavals that challenged established social orders and inspired ideas about citizenship, democracy, and equality. These revolutions demonstrated the potential for massive social change and highlighted the roles of power, conflict, and ideology in shaping societies. They also raised questions about sovereignty, rights, and the nature of social contracts, prompting early sociologists to analyze the causes and consequences of social conflict and transformation. Together, these historical changes provided the context for the emergence of sociology as a discipline that seeks to understand the complexities of social life, the structure of societies, and the dynamics of social change. Early sociologists aimed to apply scientific methods to the study of society to uncover underlying social laws and improve the human condition. Sociology became its own field of study because of big changes that happened in the 18th and 19th centuries: 1. **The Industrial Revolution**: This was a huge change starting in the late 1700s that made countries move from farm-based economies to ones focused on factory work in cities. It led to a lot of people moving to cities, changes in families, and the creation of new social classes like factory workers and factory owners. These changes made people think about issues like how society is organized, the differences between rich and poor, and what work means, which are all questions sociology tries to answer.

2. **The Enlightenment**: This was a time in the 17th and 18th centuries when people in Europe started emphasizing science, reason, and individual rights over old traditions and authority. Thinkers during this time challenged old ways of doing things and talked about democracy, freedom, and equality. This movement made people question old rules and systems, setting the stage for sociology by suggesting that society could be studied in a scientific way to make life better. 3. **Political Revolutions**: The American and French Revolutions were big events that shook up the old social orders and brought up new ideas about people's rights, democracy, and what it means to be a citizen. These revolutions showed how society can change dramatically and made people think about power, conflict, and how societies are organized. They also made people wonder about how societies are formed and how they can change, which are key questions in sociology. All these big changes made people curious about how societies work, how they change, and how to make them better, leading to the birth of sociology as a way to scientifically study and understand society. The development of sociology as a discipline was significantly influenced by the Industrial Revolution, which transformed economies and societies through urbanization and the creation of new social classes, prompting questions about social order and inequality. The Enlightenment further fueled the discipline's emergence by emphasizing reason and individual rights, encouraging a scientific study of society to improve human welfare. Political revolutions, particularly in America and France, challenged traditional social orders and inspired analyses of power, conflict, and societal transformation, laying the groundwork for sociology to explore the complexities and dynamics of social change. The birth of sociology as a distinct field of study was driven by significant historical developments during the 18th and 19th centuries, including the Industrial Revolution, which transformed economies and societies; the Enlightenment, which emphasized reason and individual rights; and political revolutions, which challenged established social orders and introduced new ideas about democracy and citizenship. These events led to profound social changes, such as urbanization, the emergence of new social classes, shifts in family structures, and philosophical shifts that encouraged the scientific study of society to improve human welfare. Consequently, these transformations sparked curiosity and critical thinking about societal organization, inequality, and the dynamics of social change, paving the way for sociology to emerge as a discipline dedicated to understanding and improving society. Sociology became its own field of study largely because of big changes in the past. First, the Industrial Revolution changed how people lived and worked, moving many from farms to cities and creating new groups like factory workers and owners, which made people think about issues like who has power and why. Then, during the Enlightenment, people started to really value science and individual rights, leading to the idea that we could study society scientifically to make life better. Lastly, big revolutions in places like America and France shook up the old ways of doing things, making people interested in how societies can change dramatically. All these changes made folks curious about how society works and how it can be improved, setting the stage for the study of sociology.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

EXAM 1 Theory of SOC

Related Documents