He argued that capital society and social order are all link to a capital system to human beings. Durkheim on the other hand, argued that sociology should be look at social facts as objects. Roles and institutions act like bodily organs, each depending on other. The world should be divided into subjective and objective, regarding society as a reality in itself. Durkheim sees anomie as responsible for the world’s disorder of economics- the lack of morality and regulation resulted in overpowering the weak; thus, he feels that only norms can prevent the abuse of power and calls for regulation and equal opportunity from birth- the greater the equal opportunity the less need for restraint.
In this paper I will attempt to give an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideas and contributions each of the men made to their respective schools, and hopefully give my personal reasoning why one is more true than the other. Rationalism was developed by several important philosophers all around the 17th century. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz are all given credit for developing rationalism. Rationalism is the idea that reason and logic are the basis of knowledge. It says that knowledge is innate, and that it cannot come from sources such as the senses.
The political orientation of the researchers was liberal, and the research method was the mapping of social inequalities in educational outcomes using quantitative techniques to measure social mobility. Such an approach was 'liberal' in that inequality was opposed but its source was not, unlike the Marxists, located in the social structure. Modern societies were seen as inherently progressive and it was only archaic elements, such as class, that inhibits progress. Modification of these difficulties would produce restructure. The difficulty with this approach, as it later became clear, was that the problems identified by liberal sociologists set many educators to work in opposition to working class cultural practices.
In Stay Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, an essay that serves to respond to an essay by Salman Rushdie, Scott Russell Sanders used parallelism and metaphors to emphasize his beliefs that migration causes “disastrous consequences for the earth and for ourselves.” Sanders believes that “by settling in, we have a chance of making a durable home for ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our descendants.” The use of parallelism throughout Sanders’ essay was to emphasize his counter argument made by Rushdie. Rushdie articulates “that uprootings brings tolerance, while rootedness breeds intolerance; that imaginary homelands are preferable to geographical ones; that to be modern, enlightened, fully of our time is to be displaced,” showing that migration is good,in Rushdie’s perspective. Although we don’t know Sanders’ background, it is easy to speculate Rushdie’s perspective since he is a writer who migrated from India to England. If Rushdie believed that he disliked migration and had the same beliefs as Sanders, he would be contradicting his own actions. Sanders believes Rushdie’s beliefs are an “orthodoxy that... [Sanders]... wish[es] to encounter,” stating his belief that migration only harms the environment, not only to the creatures around us, but to ourselves as well.
Should the government influence the economy or stay away from it? Should economic policy be focused on long term results or short term problems? This and other such beliefs form the difference between the two major schools of thought in economics: Classical and Keynesian economics. For one thing, Keynes refuted Classical economics' claim that the Say's law holds. The strong form of the Say's law stated that the "costs of output are always covered in the aggregate by the sale-proceeds resulting from demand".
It is also a means to find equality among the different members of society. In criticism of Realism, Artifactualism states the Realists are too individualistic of their analyses of law and are too sensitive in regards to the constitutive law. In regards to the multiple theories discussed in part III of the article entitled “Mapping Legal Theory” by Richard F. Devlin from the Alberta Law Review, I believe the Marxist theory holds the same semblance to Artifactualism in terms of its interpretation of law. Marxist’s hold a belief that society revolves around the production of goods and the quality of society is determined by the how the relations are between the two classes within the production system. These two classes are the proletariats, who are
Many intellectuals during the Enlightenment explored new ideas in political economy; Adam Smith in his 1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was one of the most influential figures for the Americans. Smith admitted the mercantile system worked, yet criticized its principles. Expounding a doctrine of individualism, Smith was one of many voices stating that the economy, like the individual, should be free from detailed regulation from the state. Economic, as well as individual, self-interest and its outcome in the market should be allowed to function without state regulation. Although it was indeed approved by the First Continental Congress, the practice of mercantilism was replaced with a Smith-oriented form of liberalism in post-Revolutionary
Critical evaluation of research The purpose of this assignment is to critically evaluate the research article entitled above. Hek et al (1996) say that when we critique research material it is important to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Polit and Hungler (2001) would also agree with this and state that a research critique is a judicious, critical appraisal of the strengths and limitations and not just a review or summary of the article. Critical evaluation allows an individual to assess the worth of a research article by looking carefully at all parts of the study (Walsh & Wigens 2003). The aim therefore, is to critique and evaluate the chosen article in terms of strengths and weaknesses, to demonstrate an understanding of the research process and to relate this to professional practice.
My research of Classical Economics and Keynesian Economics has given me the opportunity to form an opinion on this greatly debated topic in economics. After researching this topic in great lengths, I have determined the Keynesian Economics far exceeds greatness for America compared to that of Classical Economics. I will begin my paper by first addressing my understanding of both economic theories, I will then compare and contrast both theories, and end my paper with my opinions on why I believe Keynesian Economics is what is best for America. Classical Economics is a theory that suggests by leaving the free market alone without human intervention; equilibrium will be obtained. This theory was the first school of thought for economists and one of the major theorists and founders of Classical Economics was Adam Smith.
In “Autonomy as Natural Equality: Inequality in ‘Egalitarian’ Societies” (Helliwell, 1995:359-375), Christine Helliwell argues that a common assumption in anthropological literature underlying the view of individual societies as ‘egalitarian’ is the conflation of ‘autonomy’ with ‘equality’ (Helliwell, 1995:359), and that this conflation itself stems from a questionable distinction between ‘the social’ and ‘the natural’ (Helliwell, 1995:362). An analysis of Helliwell’s central argument demonstrates that the problem she highlights extends beyond analytical conceptions of equality. The implications Helliwell’s argument raises have a broader implication for the way conceptual paradigms are employed in anthropological analysis. Although Helliwell introduces other complexities (not examined here due to space constraints), the primary focus of her essay is on the relationship between the Western conception of ’the natural’ and ’the social’ as mutually exclusive categories, and the Western tendency to conflate autonomy with ‘true equality‘ (specifically equality of opportunity), and the implications this has for anthropological understandings of both non-Western and Western social orders. To summarise Helliwell’s argument, there exists in anthropology a common practise of elaborating the questionable Western notion of the existence of a mutually exclusive distinction between ‘the natural’ and ‘the social’, into a paradigm in which equality of opportunity (achieved through autonomy) is both a necessary and sufficient characteristic of ‘true equality’ (Helliwell, 1995:361-362).