The three sociological paradigms are one Functionalism which is a society viewed as a complex system whose parts work together to promote stability, order and common beliefs. The second is Conflict, a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict, change and a continuous power struggle. The third is Symbolic Interactions which is the way we communicate and symbolic meaning, harmony and cooperation. I also understand that a paradigm cannot be tested and that a theory can, which leads me to the two sociologists I chose that have a connection to all three paradigms I listed. The first is, Max Weber who was a German Conflict theorist who in part responsible for the development of the Symbolic Interactionist paradigm because he argued that meaning requires understanding.
However, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. (Preamble of the Declaration of Independence). Thoreau also had a side to his argument that sometimes people must take their liberation into their own hands and must utilize their right to peaceful protest. Thus justifying (and explaining) Thoreau’s not-so-subtle hint at civil disobedience, which the reader would be wise to notice, was the avenue that Mr. Thoreau himself chose to explore.
Powerful Branch (Bramble) In the United States Government there are three branches known as legislative, executive, and judicial that make up the government. Professor Ryan Emenaker likes to refer to these three branches as brambles. He refers to the branches as brambles because they have shared powers and the branches are always conflicting when it comes to who has what power. The United States government branches were suppose to be designed in a way that would not cause a conflict between them about which branch had what power. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches are suppose to be equal when it comes to the amount of power each of them have.
It was nice to see that with honestly comes respect and with respect comes loyalty. Wouldn’t it be nice if more people applied the law of solid ground to their way of living? It’s sad because this is not something you see much of anymore, it’s as if people are born careless and heartless. These are definitely not qualities that leaders can have. Colonel Shaw had character, heart and really cared about his soldiers and that’s what
Music remains the catalyst to sustain this relationship but it is the individual perspectives which make their histories unique. Paul; strives for fame and recognition of his skill. Keller has had the fame and acknowledges his error in believing in the power of this fame. His lessons for Paul are rarely about the music- though Paul is too naïve and hopeful to realise this. Keller is protecting Paul from music which is contrived to fit the standards of a society rather than the self.
Fame and glory are enjoyed momentarily, but eternal rewards are only available after death. Choosing an eternity of salvation is better than the glory of battle because after death, one cannot benefit from a life of infamy like one can from spiritual
Authority is a power exercised by a person in virtue of his office or trust; dominion; jurisdiction; authorization. In general, for any society to function it must be run by an authority. However, I think that questioning authority make a society stronger. In first, Dissent makes society stronger by representing the needs of the many. Modern examples include Martin Luther King and even Ralph Nader.
Which argument did you find most compelling? Why? I like the Appeal to Authority. He makes a good argument because people who did believe in God would realize that there is only one person in control. It can make people realize they don’t need a king because he is not in control of them, God is.
Charismatic leadership has its attributes and also traits. These were the leaders with exceptional qualities which made them almost god-like for their followers. Charismatic leaders appeal strongly to the values of the followers and it is this psychological bondage between the two which makes the charismatic leadership succeed. Charismatic leaders are most powerful in situations which require change. Originally, charisma referred to a gift from the Holy Spirit and used to denote the superhuman, supernatural qualities and characteristics of a holy prophet (Jayakody 2007).
Charisma in the 1952 Campaign Being able to inspire interest, enthusiasm or affection in others is a gift believed to be divinely conferred on people thus charisma has a religious meaning. This meaning was however turned political by Max Weber who portrayed it as an act of having self-confidence and complete self-devoutness in qualities of personal leadership like boldness and disclosure (Davies, 1954). He distinguishes charisma from leadership on the basis of tradition and through this he defines a charismatic leader as a leader who is well equipped with extraordinary powers to solve political problems. Charisma is a relationship between a leader and his followers and the relationship is gained through the ability of the leader to influence the followers through appeal and dedication. The relationship does however not depend just on the leader but also on the followers.