Bla Essay, Research Paper
The democracy we have in America today is very complex. This
democracy starts out with political ?parties whose main purpose
is to gain control of the government by winning elections?
Appelbaum and Chambliss(1997:366). ?In the United States, unlike
in most other democracies, there are only two political parties
with any substantial influence over government policies?
Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:366). Third parties are also
apparent in elections. These third parties are often successful
in smaller elections, but when we are dealing with national
elections it is very difficult for the third party to survive the
bigger two due to the lack of funding and publicity of the PAC?s
and other interest groups. However, third parties serve a very
good purpose. They provide us with more candidates giving us
more choices which is what democracy is about. According to my
class notes (lecture on government) third parties are sometimes
chosen when people are opposed to the candidates from the other
two parties. Third parties stand as a sign of choice as well.
Voting for a third party is also seen as voting for a better
selection of candidates rather than voting for the usual two
candidates from the other parties. The president of the United
States is not chosen on the popular vote of the people alone but
on the Electoral College ?whose vote is determined by the popular
vote of each state? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:367). This
Electoral College is in a sense a vote of the people but at the
same time it keeps bigger states from becoming to powerful
overwhelming the smaller states. The United States also has
three branches of government the legislative, judicial and
executive branches. ?The constitution of the United States
provides a system of checks and balances? Appelbaum and Chambliss
(1997:369). This system of checks and balances puts a limit on
the amount of power a single branch may have which protects both
the people and the individual branches government from one
another. I believe that the United States has a very efficient
form of government. It has many rules sewn into the constitution
to keep things running efficient and fairly.
?Democracy is a form of government in which citizens are
able to participate directly or indirectly in their own
governance, literally means the rule of the people? Appelbaum and
Chambliss (1997:366). According to my class notes (lecture on
democracies) this does not seem to be the case. It seems in some
cases that the rich or the elite have more influence than do
other citizens in the governing of out country. For example,
funding moneys and interest groups. The elite are able to donate
funding to their particular candidate or party in the form of
interest groups. They give money to interest groups, which is
then given to candidates for campaigning purposes that help the
candidates funds for president. For the most part this money is
not freely donated. The elite want to make sure that if their
money is donated to a candidate that their ideas and beliefs will
be supported in office if they do become president. With these
kind of issues in mind many others especially the poor will often
refrain from voting because they feel that their vote will not
count anyway.
This idea is very much a reality. ?The cost of campaigning
has gone up significantly in recent years, and today candidates
spend vast sums of money on political campaigns? Appelbaum and
Chambliss (1997:370). As said by Phil Gramm, people who give
money are the best friends a politician can have and the one that
spends the most money wins. So the impact of spending through
interest groups and PAC?s are very important.
There are many differing opinions on the issue of changing
families in the last forty to fifty years. I believe that if
someone were to look at today?s families in the same way as one
would have forty to fifty years ago they are going to be in for a
surprise. We have to realize that not only family has changed
but our culture and economy too have also changed. ?The idea of
family is a group of people who identify themselves as being
related to one another, usually by blood, marriages, or adoption,
and who share intimate relationships and dependency? Appelbaum
and Chambliss (1997:390). Our society?s language and definitions
have changed so much over the last forty to fifty years. For
example ?the meaning of nuclear family has also changed since
then? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:391). According to my class
notes (lecture on family) we used to classify a nuclear family as
a family with two biological parents and their children usually
more than one. Now in today?s times we classify the nuclear
family as ?a social group consisting of one or two parents and
their dependent children? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:391).
Our society has changed so much in the last fifty years that
single parenting is very common and is often looked at as a norm.
Another example of the changing times would be that of marriage.
Fifty years ago marriage was an acceptable relationship between
two people of the opposite sex. Now the definition is so basic
that marriage pretty much just has to be between to people
including people of the same sex.
If we are to look at today?s families as we did of those
forty to fifty years ago it would seem that America had lost its
sense of values. Families would also be looked upon as immoral
based on these same ideals. On the other hand if we look at
family today as in relation to our society as a whole I don?t
think that there would be to many surprises when it came to
looking at family.
When comparing both functional
on education they seem to be in no way the same. From a
functionalism perspective education seems to be explained as
preparing and educating people with basic skills to survive in
today?s world. As said by Emile Durkheim, emphasizing the
function of formal education in socializing people into the norms
and values as well as the skills that are needed for the society
to survive (Appelbaum and Chambliss 1997). The functionalism
theory is broadcasted as the ?functions and transmission of
general knowledge and specific skills? Appelbaum and Chambliss
(1997:453). On the other hand we have the conflict theory of
education. According to the conflict theory ?children are taught
at an early age to define their academic aspirations and
abilities in keeping with the social class of their parents. The
lower one?s social class, the less likely one is to value higher
education as a plausible avenue to upward mobility, and the less
likely one is to work to excel academically? Appelbaum and
Chambliss (1997:455). So in most cases the conflict theory
states that the class you are in is the one that you will stay in
throughout your life. Also as an example of my class notes
(lecture on education) most lower income families children will
receive a lower or less able education than would a person who is
of a higher class that would go to a private school for instance.
When comparing the two theories it seems that both
functionalism and conflict theories have some faults and some
merit. ?Education is a double edged sword. For some, it helps
to reduce inequality by opening up new possibilities for social
mobility. For others, it reinforces existing inequality by
providing unequal educational opportunities according to one?s
race, ethnicity, social class, or gender? Appelbaum and Chambliss
(1997:457).
?Emile Durkheim?s The Elementary Forms of the Religious
life (1965), written in 1912, propounded what has prove to be one
of the most influential and enduring theories in the sociology of
religion? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480). According to my
class notes (over religion) Durkheim based his studies on
Aborigines who?s religion had been the same for many years. ?He
found that the aborigines divided their world into to groups
which are profane and sacred? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480).
Profane being a sphere of routine daily life according to my
class notes (lecture on religion) and sacred as a more important
sphere with a spiritual background. ?Durkheim?s bold theoretical
conclusion was that, in all societies, the realm of the sacred
serves an important social function for the societies, the realm
of the sacred serves an important social function for the society
as a whole? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:480). ?Marx on the
other hand did not systematically study the nature of religion in
society, although he clearly recognized its central importance?
Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:481). Through a Marx view,
societies are divided into classes. For example Marx, divided
religion into hostile and opposing classes in his explanation of
religion (Appelbaum and Chambliss 1997). In one of Marx?s most
famous statement he says, ?Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of
soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people? (in
McClellan, 1997,p.64). I believe what Marx?s is saying here is
that religion is based mainly around a higher class of people
oppressing the poor and keeping them from becoming involved.
Like most theories Durkheim?s and Marx?s seem to have
strengths and weaknesses. According to my class notes (lecture
on religion) Durkheim seems to have many strong arguments that
seem to be logical but we also have to take in effect that his
studies were done on a Australian hunting and gathering tribe and
would not carry as much weight while looking through his
perspective in the twentieth century. Marx on the other hand has
a more modern approach which would appeal more to today?s times
but seems to put to much emphasis on what the elite can put over
on everyone else. For example, ?One of these problems is that
Marx?s notation that religion is a mystification enabling the
ruling class to pull the wool over everybody?s eyes is clearly
simplistic? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:481).
The separation of church and state is sociologically
problematic for many reasons. ?Sociology is the systematic study
of human social relations, groups, and societies? and when looked
at Sociological stand point there seems to be no separation
Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:6). Religion is not controlled by
the states so it acts upon society as does the government and
there seems to be know line drawn between the two so it is very
difficult to study. Since there is no governing of religion ?it
is also difficult to estimate reliably the number of people
belonging to churches? Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997:491).
According to my class notes (lecture on religion) although it is
hard to estimate the exact growth of religion we can tell that it
has grown steadily since the United States were founded. Another
reason this is problematic is because of the number of religious
organizations. ?One reason so many people belong to religious
organizations is that there are an enormous number of such
organizations one can belong to? Appelbaum and Chambliss
(1997:491). This also presents difficulty because of the number
of people belonging to multiple religious groups. Surveys also
seem to be misleading because the answers given during the survey
often seem to stretch the truth for example saying that you pray
more than you actually do.