Compare, Contrast and Evaluate the Sociological Perspectives on the Ro

The role of education is to educate individuals within society and to prepare and qualify them for work in the economy as well as helping to integrate individuals into society and teach them the norms, values and morals of society. Yet there are three sociological theories that differ greatly between them on the role of education. These are Functionalism, Marxism and Liberalism.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Functionalists view the role of education as a means of socialising individuals and to integrate society, to keep society running smoothly and remain stable. Emile Durkheim, creator of the Organic Analogy, was a functionalist during the 1870’s. Durkheim believes that society can only survive if its members are committed to common social values and that education provides these to children and young people as well as raising awareness of their commitment to society. Durkheim also believed that schools teach young people that they must co-operate with their peers and be prepare to listen to and learn from their teachers. Individual pupils eventually learn to suspend their own self interests for those of society as a whole, work together and that success in education, just like in society, involves commitment to a value consensus. Similarly, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, functionalists during the 1970’s, believed that education is strongly linked to social stratification by members of society and that education ‘sifts, sorts and allocates’ people to their correct place in the economy and society. By rewarding the most talented and most dedicated by allowing them into the highest paid and highest status jobs, education performs the function which is always necessary to Functionalists – differentiating all members of society so that the system runs smoothly.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Like the functionalists, Marxists agree that education is functional in that it maintains the dominance of certain powerful groups in society. Unlike the functionalists, however, Marxists do not believe that it works for the benefit of all. Instead Marxists argue that the education system sustains one small group’s ideas about appropriate forms of schooling and assumptions about what knowledge is. The system also maintains different levels of access to knowledge for different groups and thereby prohibits the widespread dissemination of knowledge to everyone. Bowles and... ...cess in the economy of an individual is not always linked to success in school as well as the hidden curriculum being to restrictive as it does not allow society to gain a sense of self. The Marxist view that when the working class develops a class consciousness and realise that they are being exploited they will gather together to create a social revolution and overthrow capitalism and seize back the ruling class wealth and assets, does not apply to modern British society as there are very few people as the underdogs Marx describes are very few as the majority of society is fairly well off. Equally, the Liberalist view of the role of education is not applicable to modern British society as the majority of children are not yet ready for the responsibility to teach themselves, nor is society on a whole ready to accept the liberalists views on education. For these reasons Marxism is most applicable to modern British society as it takes into account the hierarchy within society and the inability to apply meritocracy due to our capitalist society. Therefore Marxism is the theory that has the most in common with modern British society and the theory most likely to apply to our society.

Couples Should Cohabit Before Marriage

Tanya Givans Mrs. Lamptey English-099 02-09-2010 Couples Should Cohabit before Marriage In the beginning of a relationship, there is a lot of excitement, giddiness, infatuation, lust and romance. As the relationship grows stronger, there are important decisions that need to be made. One in particular is the living arrangements of the couple. There are couples that decide to live together before marriage to see if their partnership will work. Some people are appalled by the fact that a couple would move in together and live as a married couple, because they believe it to be ungodly and that ex and children should only be a result of marriage. However, there are people who do not believe in religion, nor do they care if you live together before marriage or not . Couples should live together before marriage because they will learn more about themselves and each other before taking such a big step. Couples living together prior to marriage will find out if they are financially compatible . Once a couple makes the transition of moving in together, they will see how easy or hard it will be to manage their money. The fact of having one household instead f two will make it easy also all utility, water, grocery, and rent will be split in half. Living together before marriage will help a couple find out if maybe one is too frivolous with their money, and if the situation could be controlled before taking the next step into marriage. For example, maybe the boyfriend will get his paycheck go out to the bar spend and all of his money then come home broke. As a result, the girl is stuck paying the bills for the month. The financial burden of taken care of oneself is hard, but if a partner is irresponsible with their money, it can get expensive. Couples that live together before marriage also will learn more about themselves. After a couple has moved in together, they will have all of these expectations of each other. For example, my husband and I lived together before we were married, during this time we gave up our single lives. There was no partying at the clubs, hanging out with friends, or any nightlife what so ever. So being in this relationship meant that we would be totally devoted to each other. Giving up your single life to join with your partner means losing freedom, and a sense of ones self. Living together before marriage can help one to realize what a relationship is about, and if giving up their single life is what they are willing to sacrifice to share a lifetime with their partner. Marriage should last forever, so living together in advance can help a person realize if this is the life they want. Couples will learn more about their partner when living together before marriage. Hopefully, before a couple moves in together they will know if one another has any manners, bad habits or if one likes to fight. For example, when walking into the kitchen nd your boyfriend is moving the dishes out of the sink before he urinates in it. This would be disgusting and behavior like that is not acceptable. Or, after using the restroom he does not wash his hands. The lack of hand washing could actually be harmful especially if he prepares the family’s dinners. There are also more serious issues like when your partner is angry, will he or she get physically abusive. If a coupl e, has an irreparable problem in the relationship while living together then they can simply move out. Living together teaches a couple about their partners, and tolerance of each ther. In conclusion, some people may say that their religious practices do not allow them to live together before marriage, but I say couples should live together before marriage because they will learn more about themselves, their partners, and it is more convenient financially. Toleration of bad habits and the loss of one’s individualism will come with the territory of living together or being married. So if there are problems in the relationship now that cannot be fixed then it is safe to assume their will be problems if the couple foolishly decides to marry. .

Analysis Of Ernest J. Gainess A Lesson Before Dying

One of the many challenges associated with writing is that of writing style. It can help highlight the work when used effectively, or the opposite, if used ineffectively. Some have an intuitive grasp on matter while others struggle. In his book â€Å"A Lesson Before Dying†, author Ernest J. Gaines effectively conveys his story through his stylistic choices. He does this through Jefferson’s diary in chapter 29, Grant’s observations and thoughts throughout the story, and the â€Å"third-person perspective of chapter 30. These things elevate the immersion of the story and gives further insight into what Gaines is trying to convey. The whole of chapter 29 has a severe lack of any punctuation, correct spelling, and grammar. It is tough to read, but it†¦show more content†¦These things give us more information about Grant himself and the world he’s living in. For example, Grant thinks to himself: â€Å"Had Jefferson ever hit a home run?... You had to hit it just right, and that took timing and luck. Lily Green hit as many as anyone else†¦ But her luck ran out before she was twenty. Killed accidentally in a barroom in Baton Rouge.† (Gaines, 198) This one quote shows us that Grant is connecting the current events to the past events which is a recurring theme in the story. Grant first wonders about Jefferson and his time in school and then reminisces about his own time in school. Many from Grant’s generation is already dead. This is significant because a theme in the story is that of progression and change. Grant is trying his best to break out of a vicious cycle of racism by educating the younger generation. When Jefferson is sentenced to death Grant is devastated because he thinks nothing is changing. This is proven when Grant thinks to himself: â€Å"What am I doing? Am I reaching them at all? They are acting exactly as the old men did earlier. They are fifty years younger, mayber more, but doing the same thi ng those old men did who never attended school a day in their lives.† (Gaines, 51) This inner monologue reveals crucial information about the true subject of the story. It is not just a story about a one-time incident in a small town; it is painting a bigger picture of what racism is. Gaines expertlyShow MoreRelatedA Lesson While Living by Ernest Gaines1639 Words   |  7 Pages A Lesson While Living In a society where hardships occur daily, it is vital to have something to hold on to as an anchor. This reliance or commitment is in the form of friends, family, or even tangible possessions; however, humans sometimes have to fulfill deeds for others instead of continually thinking of themselves. Given these obligations, there results both a need and a desire to complete certain tasks for other individuals, for a community, or even for a higher power. In his novel, A Lesson