Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Origins of Sociology
For the last few days we have been discussing the early pioneers of the field of Sociology and events that influenced their thinking. For today's blog, I would like to discuss some of the issues that lead to an interest in the study of Sociology. Of the early pioneers mentioned, I would like us to think about their influence on society. As we do this, we want to consider the theories they established. For example, we learned about Herbert Spencer's perspective of Social Darwinism that promotes societies that are free of any forms of assistance and safety nets that help people who are in less fortunate places advance. This theory was very influential to many societies in the early 1900s as illustrated in the economic climate of many nations prior to the Great Depression. In America, the business climate was extremely fierce with a small number of wealthy executives and a large number of low paid workers, many of which were children. This was seen as enabling the "fittest" members of society to advance to their "proper position" in society as "the best and brightest" of leaders. The middle and working classes, as well as the poor were seen as less fit and also in their proper lot in life. This mindset influenced a cultural mindset that was short of compassionate. One example that comes to mind comes from the award winning movie Titanic. Towards the end of the movie as the ship is sinking one can't help but note which class of people had access to the limited amount of life boats. This is a great example of Social Darwinism at the time. If you have any insight about this particular point or any other points about the other pioneers and social conditions please feel free to discuss them on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Spencer is completely and totally wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf people have a proper lot in life, that means it was predetermined.
If it was predetermined, that means that fate exists.
If fate exists, it's certainly not scientific, which seems to make this theory invalid from the very beginning.
Marx was on the right track. I truly believe that people can live together under one economic banner.
yooooo blogging world. whats up.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of social darwinism is wrong and overly harsh, yet to a point it has a point. People do bring themselves to various points in life. People might gamble all their money away, which brings them to poverty, so they become a lower class for that. Then there are those that build themselves up from a lower station. This has especially become easier in modern times with the internet. People can create stange items or websites that will make people follow them. By having followers, they gain popularity, and with popularity comes a type of posistion in society.
ReplyDeleteAlthough people can build and break themselves in society, that doesn't mean they should get no help when they fall on hard times. People should work together because it might yourself who next falls on difficult times. It is this idea, the fact people should work together, that makes Spencer's theory wrong and overly harsh. We all need help from time to time, and it shouldn't just be denied us based simply on our social status.
I think Herbert Spencer only thought of Social Darwinism because he was what he viewed as the "fittest." If we took away his egg-headed haicut and his petticoats, he probably wouldn't like his idea very much. Then again, another person in time would have come up with that idea eventually. Karl Marx didn't have the best idea, either. I mean, I think it would be awesome to have everyone in the same class, but you know it would never happen. Everyone is greedy deep down and eventually people would start trying to get more for themselves. So I'll give Marx an E for Effort but neither Spencer's nor Marx's idea would work.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with either perspective. Spencer had selfish motives. Because he bad been born into a decent life, he was able to accept the idea that society should not be forced to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves. Had he been born into a poor, immigrant family, I'm sure his values would be different. For a sociologist, he sure didn't apply the idea of verstehen. Had he put himself in other's shoes, he may have been able to understand that, when born into a bad situation, it's not always easy to prosper... but everyone should have a chance.
ReplyDeleteMarx was too generous. He basically was like "Hey! Forget yourself and give what you have to the poor"... but what about the middle class? In a time of crisis, isn't it important to provide for yourself first? Why was there no compromise?
Rachael, you make a very good point in regards to how Spencer and Marx are polar opposites. Do you think that most societies are results of compromise between the Social Darwinist and Communist points of view?
ReplyDeleteKatie, you make a good point about human nature. I can understand how you refer to humans as greedy, but I usually refer to this aspect of human nature as competitive. I am not against competition, but I think that greed results from competition that reaches an unhealthy level.
ReplyDeleteLeftie, do you think that the internet will open up further opportunities for the creation of wealth or do you think that it has reached its peak?
ReplyDeleteTim, I like your reference to predetermination. You make a good argument against Spencer's theory. If a classless society is ever established in a society, how can that society maintain political stability that assures equal treatment of all classes of people including those who have political control?
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with Spencer. I do not like the way that he speaks of the different classes: the poor and the rich. He was a very greedy person, and greed is the root of all evil. His comment that the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor is inhuman! I like Marx's idea better. I think that although people may not be in the same economic class, they should all be treated the same.
ReplyDelete