In addition there are many disciplines that make use of the term culture such as history, sociology, anthropology and archaeology. This makes it challenging for one common definition of the term culture to be known, however common themes within these disciplines can be seen. The notion of a high and low culture then comes under the idea of judgment based on the hierarchy of society, these ideas of high culture and low culture then lead to the discussion of the value of culture (Barker, C 2007, p. 48). The term culture started to be used in critical theory during the time of Karl Marx, him and many theorists influenced by him such as Edward said and Antonio Gramsci, first used their theories to justify the concept of the word culture. These theorists used the term to describe the social formation in their studies of anthropology (Patterson, T, C 2009, p 91).
For instance the fragmented element of the narrative can both reflect Offreds 'state of mind' and contribute to the suggestions about Gilead as a nation/ society. The autobiographical narrative itself acts as a rebellion against Offreds dystopia. This is the primary function of the novel which must be considered. It is important to acknowledge that this is not a neutral description of events therefore the focus remains on Atwood's message rather than the issues of any fictional dystopia. Atwood reveals Offreds 'state of mind' through the use of flashbacks.
In the first of the essay it will be made clear that historians can objective only to a limited extent as they lean more towards being subjective. Yes objectivity exists but is very limited due to various factors such as personal prejudice, personal motives, among others. On the other hand the essay will argue that historians can be objective due to factors such as fact are facts, truth is discovered not invented. The ultimate goal of this essay to make it clear that historians are objective to a limited extent. The second part of the essay will discuss the relevance of the knowledge of subjectivity and objectivity to an ‘O’ level history teacher to show that it is highly relevant.
What he meant; the private troubles must be examined in the context of the social issues. In our days people feel like they are bounded by society where they seem to be trapped by social norms of this society. They can only overcome their troubles if they can see the connection between their life and the society’s history, and the norms and structures were created by this history. To be able to understand the connection the history of the society and the complexity of their lives have to be understood both. The conflicts and troubles that the
- analysis is often interpretive and as such is subjective in nature and therefore problematic. - both history and memory can be unreliable, their integration offers a more tangible and trustworthy representation of the past. - the blending of history and memory is empowering; revealing glimpses of the ordinary and
Jesse Meaney 29 October 2013 PCS 160 HUM: Conflict Dynamics and Transformation Macro level changes focus more on social structures, processes and problems, as well as their interrelationships. This approach in my opinion tends to minimize the people’s ability to act and overcome the limits of social structures. Macro conflict causes changes that produce the major social forces that shape change throughout a society. These changes usually do not occur quickly, but they instead change the ecological order, the system of stratification, and the social institutions of entire societies. Entire social classes are shaped by these macro level problems and changes.
When speaking from the personal level, the answer tends to be negative. As to one certain person, his appearance and behavior would probably derive from many factors, such economic situation, religious faith, living circumstances and even a transient frame of mind. If someone tries to judge a society's ideas and values according to a mere handful of people, then the conclusion may turn out to be meaningless or absurd. As the viewpoint fails to stand true while considering isolated issues, it evolves into a valid claim when we promote our discussion from the personal level up to the social level. Karl Marx, the founder of
Its theories were then taken on within the work of Emile Durkheim and a lot more recently by Talcott Parsons in America 1940-50's. From as far as functionalism has gone back, from about the 1830's onwards, it has been largely based on society being a system like the human body requiring a combination of social institutions in order to function. Its theorists seek to explain the existence of social institutions in accordance to the role they perform for society and focuses on society rather than the individual in it and hence it is a structural theory. Functionalist uses positivist methodology which is currently at decline as a modern research technique. Within society the functionalists outline what they call functional prerequisites, these are what society requires in order to exist.
Social Distance The technical term for this social distance is objectivity - the ability to remain detached, aloof or personally separate from the people you are researching. There are a couple of important dimensions to objectivity (namely, personal and methodological) but for the moment we can consider it as involving the ability to avoid: The intrusion of our personal beliefs (or values) into the research process. Influencing the way respondents reply to our questions or behaviour. Subjective Sociology This, in some ways, is similar to the aim in an unfocused interview. However, a new dimension is added to the research process by the ability to "see for yourself" the behaviour that people describe in an interview or questionnaire.
As James Rachels said, “Cultural Relativism might be true, but it might lead to some consequences, such as no longer being able to say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to ours, or we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society and even the idea of moral progress would be called into doubt.” Cultural Relativism has some good advantages; it helps us to keep an open mind about other people´s beliefs. On the other hand, Cultural Relativism is not a good system that should be followed by each culture separately because there are some universal rules that should be followed, for instance no murder. Laws should be created under morality, and they might not be perfect, but they are the best rules that we as humans have. Even though societies still have arguments about their beliefs because it is impossible to have complete peace because of our differences. For example, For the Greeks it was believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead, or the Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believed infanticide is immoral.