Recent orders
The Impact The Sociological Theories, Functionalism, Conflict, And Interactionism Has On Education As A Social Institution
The Impact The Sociological Theories, Functionalism, Conflict, And Interactionism Has On Education As A Social Institution
Sociologists come up with theories to explain some phenomenon in the society. A theory can be defined as a proposed relationship that exists between more than two concepts. This is to say that a theory is an explanation as to why a certain phenomenon occurs. Sociologists analyze these phenomenons in the society from different perspectives and from different levels. From sweeping generalizations to concrete interpretations of social behavior and society, sociologists are able to study everything from macro levels of analysis of some of the large patterns in the society to the micro level analysis of some of the smallest patterns in the society. Today, sociologists apply three main theoretical approaches to this analysis: the functionalist approach, the symbolic interactionist perspective and the functionalist approach. These three approaches give sociologists theoretical paradigms in sociology for explaining how people influence the society and vice versa. Each approach distinctively conceptualizes social forces, society and human behavior. This paper will, therefore, look at these three sociological approaches and how they affect one of the most widely spread institution in the society, and that is the institution of education.
Each sociological theory applies to the institution of education differently. The functionalist theory, for instance focuses on the ways that universal education serves the society and all of its needs. Believers of this theory see education in its role of manifestation: conveying basic skills and knowledge to the next generation. The founder of the theory, Durkheim, identified the main role of the institution as one of socializing people in the mainstream society. ,oral education, as he referred to it, helped create a social structure that was more cohesive by bringing individuals together from diverse backgrounds, which echoes the traditional concern of immigrants’ Americanizing.
On the other hand, the conflict theory sees the purpose of the institution of education as maintaining inequality in the society and preserving power of those individuals who are dominant in the society. Conflict theories look at the same uses of education as functionalists. While functionalists look at education as a contribution that is essential to a society that is ordered, conflict theories see the system of education as perpetuating the status quo by structuring the lower classes to be obedient workers. However, the two theories agree that the system of education practices sorting, but they do not agree on how the system enacts this sorting. Functionalists argue that schools sort based on merit while conflict theories argue that schools sort based on ethnic lines and distinct classes. The symbolic interactionists, however, limit their analysis of education to what is directly observed as happenings in the classroom. They, therefore, put more emphasis on how the expectations of the teacher influence student perceptions, performance and attitudes.
Each of these theories affects the views of the people who are part of the institution differently. For instance, functionalist theories affect students in that it points to the latent roles of education as socializing people in the mainstream society and the transmission of social control and core values. The core values in the education system reflect those characteristics that support the economic and political systems that originally drove education. Therefore, students of these systems receive rewards for following directions, schedules, obeying authority and meeting deadlines.
The most essential value present in the American classroom are ideologies that advocate for liberty rights and independent actions, therefore, students who follow such systems are likely to learn early unlike those who do not follow this educational system. The conflict theories also affect the views of the students in these institutes by relentlessly arguing that the purpose of education is solely to create a more docile work force for maintaining capitalism and maintaining power structures and not for social opportunity or benefit. Individuals in these institutions, therefore, believe that schools sort out students according to their social classes and not according to their IQ test just to maintain those social and class borders. The interactionist theories, on the other hand, affect the views of those in the education institution to believe that students who get closer to the teachers are the ones who gain more attention and, therefore, perform better.
Social change in the education institution can also be affected by these theories. For instance, the interactionist theory can help facilitators of change understand better some of the factors that affect student performance. In doing this, the facilitators can demand that all students be given equal chances and opportunities to get closer to the teachers and to benefit from this closeness. The functionalist theories can help policy makers change those educational systems that do not promote quicker learning, competition and other factors that can improve educational achievement. The conflict theories, on the other hand, can influence educational institutions to base their sorting of students based on their IQ tests and not on their ethnic and class status in the society.
Each of these theories can also affect the views of the society about the educational institution. The functionalist theory, for example, can influence the society to view the system of education as one of the most essential institutions in the society that provides core values, education and socialization of the mainstream society to the students. Conflict theories can, on the other hand, influence the society to believe that the education institution is not adequate or fair in providing the society valuable benefits. It can make the society believe that the most privileged in education and the society are those individuals from the upper class. The interactionist theory might influence the society to believe that teachers, and, the labels and expectations they have of the students affect the performance and academic achievement of the students.
As we have seen from the paragraphs above, sociologist theories are essential in explaining a number of phenomenons in the society. Education is one of these that can be explained using these theories. The functions of education and the influences of performance in schools can, therefore, be explained and understood using these three theories.
Patterns of Jewish Culture Jewish Material Culture
(Name)
(Instructors’ name)
(Course)
(Date)
Patterns of Jewish Culture: Jewish Material Culture
Jewish material culture has often been influenced by both religious obligatory practices, as well as, the surrounding cultural environment in which the Jewish communities have lived (Kogman-Appel 187). For that reason, the Jewish material culture has been subjected to a number of changes especially in relation to the Jewish cultural symbols. Consequently, researchers argue that the Jewish material culture has carried various similarities with the cultures of other non-Jewish cultures. Accordingly, Jewish artistic techniques, symbols, shapes, as well as, cultural designs have differed along Jewish communities living in a particular place or time period, as they are influenced by the cultural environment in which these Jewish communities live. For a proper comprehension of the Jewish material culture, researchers and theologians explain that the Jewish material culture needs to be observed different perspectives. Specifically two main perspectives have been highlighted for the analysis of the Jewish material culture including the religious framework and the place of origin (Kogman-Appel 187). An analysis of the Jewish material culture from these two perspectives will help understand the significant social factors that have aided in the transformation or change of the Jewish material culture.
This paper examines the Jewish material culture as a pattern of Jewish culture. Specifically, the paper provides a discussion of how the Jewish material culture has developed and changed over time by examining Jewish material culture between the twelfth and fifteenth century, as well as, the twentieth century. The primary factors and social processes that have contributed to the changes of Jewish material culture will also be identified in the paper.
Twelfth to Fifteenth Century
The period between the twelfth and the fifteenth century was characterizes by a rich Jewish material culture that was highly influenced by Judaism. However, the regions in which most Jews called their homes were also highly influential on the Jewish material culture during this time. As earlier explained, the Jewish material culture differed from one region to another, and as research studies illustrate, the artistic ornaments and symbols used during this time also differed in their usage (Kogman-Appel 187). The earliest group of cultural ornaments and objects used during this period include Hanukkah lamps, Kiddush cups, Jewish marriage rings, aquamaniles, Torah finials, as well as, the Jewish religious scroll. The Hanukkah lamps were initially used as ceremonial lamps during this period, but their usage changed over time. With their characteristics of eight different light placed on the same level, the Hanukkah lamps were designed to sit of a flat surface during worship. Jews living in Spain, France, and the Rhineland had different designs and usage for these lamps, which was influenced by the respective cultures of these region. Jews living in Spain for example borrowed some bits and pieces of the Islamic culture and they used these lamps for worship (Borovaya 110-130). Jews living in France and the Rhineland, on the other hand, were more accustomed to hanging these lamps on the wall for decorative and artistic purposes.
The Kiddush cup was also another key object that was used during this period and as research studies explain, these cups were classified under domestic Judaica. Domestic Judaica artifacts were purposely used as gifts for wedding ceremonies. As researchers explain, domestic Judaica were found during mining and excavation in the Czech Republic in the town of Kutna Hora. Researchers assume that these cups were buried together with the Jews who were prosecuted during the Black death and were dated back to 1348 (Borovaya 110-130). These cups were first designed for use in the royal palace but they soon acquired a Jewish design as they were slowly incorporated into the Jewish culture. Researchers also identify the Torah finial as one of the most important documents to the Jewish material culture during this period. This object was first found by researchers in the twelfth century and was given the Jewish name, Rimmon, as it was integrated in the Jewish culture. This object was a religious symbol of the heavenly Jerusalem used by both the Jews and Christian during the Byzantine period (Kogman-Appel 187-234). These objects were mainly used in the church for religious practices, which researchers argue is the reason behind the survival of these objects within the Jewish material culture. These objects were also used as Jewish manuscripts as they had Jewish scripture encrypted on both sides of the torah finial for use during worship.
Conclusively, the only other kind of the Jewish ceremonial object linked to the torah was the torah scroll, as well as, the hand object that was used to read the scroll by the Jewish communities. The Torah scroll was used for religious practices as it signified the Jewish religious book (Kogman-Appel 187-234). This book was used for the purpose of prayer and worship by the Jewish community, and is the only material object that has survived to date. The hand-figure that was used to read the torah scroll was in the form of a silver pointer and a rod with the terminal point shaped as a hand. This object was used because the Jewish culture did not allow individuals to touch the scroll with their bare hands.
Twentieth Century
Research studies explain that Judaism and Jewish material culture that came up after the 19th century is much different from the earlier types of Jewish material culture. Jewish material culture in the twentieth century was highly characterized by modern movements, which embraced the repetition of the past cultural elements with a modern twist. Referred to as Art Nouveau in Germany and France the twentieth century Jewish material culture emphasizes the need for sinuous outlines and foliate forms (Kogman-Appel 187). Though the ornaments and objects that existed in the earlier period still existed during this time, they have undergone various changes with relation to their design and usage by the Jewish communities. These objects still embraced the cultural and religious connotation that they were created for but their usage was primarily for aesthetic purposes instead of religious practices.
The materials used to create these objects also differed from what was used in the earlier period. For example, the period between 1912 and 1913, saw the creation and introduction of new objects and ornaments by Friedrich Adler who designed various domestic Judaica for the Jews (Borovaya 110-130). The Kiddush cups, Hanukkah lamps, and seder plates created by this German practitioner were designed with a low an broad outline, which enclosed solid silver, which were contrasted with perforated nature ornaments. This clearly illustrates the shift from cultural and religious usage in the Jewish material culture to a more aesthetic use in the 20th century. In essence, the Jewish material culture in the 20th century embraced a modernist aesthetic whereby form came after function and the ornaments and objects used emphasized beauty rather than ornamentation.
Work Cited
Borras, J. T. and Badillos, A. S. Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: Judaism
from the Renaissance to modern times. UK: BRILL, 1999. Print.
Borovaya, Olga. Jews of Three Colors: The Path to Modernity in the Ladino Press at the Turn of
the Twentieth Century. Jewish Social Studies, 15.1(2008): 110-130.
Kogman-Appel. Jewish Art and Non-Jewish Culture: The Dynamics of Artistic Borrowing in
Medieval Hebrew Manuscript Illumination. Jewish History,15.3(2001): 187-234.
Koltun-Fromm, Ken. Material culture and Jewish thought in America. New York: Indiana
University Press, 2010. Print.
Passaic County Community College
Passaic County Community College
English Department
EN 102 Fall 2021 Final Exam
Writing Prompt: In a well-developed essay of five paragraphs, discuss the theme of anachronistic tradition that surfaces in Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery” and what you think the author wants readers to learn from this story.
Support your explanation and interpretations by integrating at least two quotes from the story to support your points. Be sure to remember proper quoting format. Include the author’s name and the page number in your parenthetical citation.
Ideas to Consider:
Why do the elders of the town insist on continuing the tradition of the lottery?
How did this tradition start and why are they opposed to discontinuing it?
How can a reader tell that there are those who wish to drop this tradition?
What do you think about this tradition of the lottery?
What other traditions in our society continue even though the original meaning for this tradition has been lost or forgotten?
What is one or some anachronistic traditions still alive in society today? (That is, a society still has the tradition but its continuation is so outdated.)