|
|
Post by l|KUL|l Bishop KSO on Nov 17, 2003 17:49:36 GMT -5
I've been trying for 3 hours now to figure out how to complete this assignment, due Wednesday... I'm supposed to explain 3 case studies in a sociological context using the theoretical perspectives provided for each scenario...
Case 1:
Susan and Tomeka are partners in a lesbian relationship which has lasted for about 3 years. Susan has a 4 year old daughter from a previous relationship and has a very friendly relationship with her daughter's father. However, the relationship between Susan and Tomeka has become quite strained lately, mainly because Tomeka is beginning to feel left out and unimportant, especially in terms of the little girls socialization. How would the following theories explain this case:
FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE
-------------------
Case II:
Cambell Harrison is 27 years old, and for the last 7 years he has been incarcerated at Angola Prison. There has been so much he has missed and he wants desperately to fit in with the "free world", but Campbell has been experiencing difficulties, especially in terms of trying to establish his respect amongst new acquaintances. How would the following theories explain this case:
CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE
-------------------
Case III:
Daniel and Miguel have been good friends in their old neighborhood since they were little boys. Each has made the decision to attend the same university, but Daniel feels somewhat slighted and ignored because Miguel has started treating him differently, especially when around new friends. When confronted, Miguel defends himself by saying that Daniel is just imagining things and they're still cool... How would the following theories explain this case:
FEMINIST
CONFLICT
FUNCTIONALIST
-----
Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I can't figure it out at all.. I know exactly what each one of those perspectives has as a definition, the theories, founders, and history of each, but I can't apply it to any situation at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by krownz on Nov 17, 2003 18:19:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by l|KUL|l Bishop KSO on Nov 18, 2003 1:24:48 GMT -5
Case I
1. Tomeka's feelings are due to the fact that Susan is threatening their current relationship (on the meso level) by still engaging in activities and friendships with the person who formerly filled her (Tomeka’s) position within Georg Simmel’s triad (not to be confused with dyad). The fact that Tomeka and Susan are lesbians is not a relevant issue in this case study.
2. This case study must be explained using the Lesbian Feminist Perspective. Lesbian society utterly destroys the ideology that women are a "natural group", per se, and the idea that nature has been predetermined and set up for (them). There is truly no predestined fate biologically, psychologically, or economically that has been set to configure what a female should be or socially represent; it is merely society and civilization which creates these standards. Lesbian feminism states that women are a class for themselves, and it is their task as women to create a social setting in which women are not coercively dependant on men, which is precisely what Susan is NOT doing, in Tomeka's eyes, by allowing such a friendly and endearing or close relationship with the baby's dad to continue on. Another big shot in feminism - Monique Wittig, says basically that there are no slaves without masters, and therefore it is like there are no women without men... the parallel is easy to see, that in this case the male could be construed as attempting to subjugate the woman, that is, Susan. Lesbians are already creating their own class system, you can see this by the fact that they are out of the mindset of the woman and man relationship. It is not trivial that Tomeka sees Susan really going back to him, unless she is extremely insecure, rather it is the idea that a male is invading their woman-centered space... Also, since they (Susan and Tomeka) have been in this relationship since the kid was a year old, she feels as if she is a dominant parent, and the ex-husband's involvement threatens that.
3. Tomeka feels as though she's possibly losing both of her roles, as caregiver to the child and her relationship with Susan, due to Susan’s continued friendship with the father. As a human, Tomeka is something sui generis, that is, greater than the sum of her parts. Losing these 2 roles would be flatly unacceptable. The father, in and of himself may be representative of a reference to compulsory heterosexuality (see Adrienne Riche, lesbian poet) that makes her feel like less of a person, thus the self-doubt and unimportance which dominates her reasoning. Susan, by continuing to see her male ex, is distancing herself from Tomeka in much the same way as we distance those offenders of society's rules by placing them in prison. Then again, perhaps the only thing which Tomeka needs is 100ml of Thorazine.
Case II
1. Harrison’s attempt at reintegrating himself to a different level of society will not succeed due to its underlying fallacy, that is, his attempts to join a group in which he did not originate from. By having been incarcerated, he has joined the section commonly referred to as “criminals”. By nature, criminals are not desirable on any respectable social level. Regardless of his intelligence, race, or religion, Harrison’s new acquaintances will see him foremost as an ex-con, thus precluding any attempts to gain their respect unless such is done through extra-ordinary efforts. The fact that nearly a full generation has passed from the time in which Harrison was placed into the prison and the time by which he was released only adds to that difficulty. There are entirely new sets of societal standards which he must re-learn and fulfill before he may hope to gain the respect and acceptance among those he would with to join.
2. Harrison's re-entry into the workforce benefits society as a whole, because he is now an active consumer. This aids in economic growth (and perversely, economic debt). The fact that he wishes to gain others respect has no bearing in the matter; it's a red herring, much like the fact that ‘Case I’ depicted two lesbians.
3. Harrison’s desire to be respected after 7 years at hard labor represents one half of an action potential, if you will. The other half would be created by those whom he wishes to be respected by. Together, these two action potentials form into one meaning, upon which time both parties act on this meaning, be it in a positive manner for Harrison, or in a negative light. Harrison’s societal values have been warped by his incarceration. He has been unable, for 7 years, to have personal freedoms which his counterparts on the outside have taken for granted. He therefore must realign his current method of thinking from that of a prisoner to that of a free man. Things which he viewed one way, as a prisoner, now must be viewed and acted on differently, should he hope to truly join the rest of the “free world”. On a different note, his (Harrison’s) time in prison is also indicative of social distancing being placed into effect. He, as an offender, was distanced for 7 years from the rest of society, both mentally and physically (out of sight, out of mind, if you will). This also created a symbolic control, as well.
Case III
1. Miguel is experiencing a desire to be a part of a group which focuses mainly on a shared factor: race. Much as feminists desire a common woman-oriented language, Miguel wishes to have a Hispanic-oriented language, to fulfill a void which he never knew he had before with pride. Previously, Miguel was unable to socialize with other Hispanics on a large scale due to his placement geographically. Now that he has that ability, he is taking advantage of it. In addition, Miguel's invalidation of Daniel's concern that (their) friendship is waning is oppressive in the classical feminist sense, creating the untruth that his concern is not real. This more likely than not builds Miguel's self-esteem, a male status quo, if you will - primarily due to his socializing with members of his own ethnic background (now that he is in an environment conducive to his doing so). Should Miguel drop his ethnic friends, he will be rejecting a part of himself, as it were. Obviously, Miguel wishes to keep both his friendship with the other Hispanics, but at the same time, maintain relations with Daniel.
2. Miguel’s friends are likely instilling in him a social status which he has not had before, that is, being one of a group of having the same ethnicity. It is only natural for Miguel’s new ties, being so strong, to preponderate his existing relationship with Daniel. Daniel, as described by the case study, is more likely than not of Caucasian descent, which would mean he would not be readily admitted entry into a primarily Hispanic circle of friends. His attempts at piercing that veil will largely be unsuccessful and futile. So long as Miguel determines that being with those of like race is more important to him than being with life-long friends of a different color, then the friendship which he and Daniel once had will continue to wane.
3. Miguel’s new friends are threatening Daniel’s place in the “in-group”. Daniel’s confrontation is an attempt to reassert or recapture his lost status. Miguel’s defense regarding the situation is an example of symbolic protest, as it fulfilled a need in the conversation – thus balancing the conversation out. While he did not necessarily mean what he said (“You’re just imagining things, we’re still cool…”), it was what was expected of him, thus he fulfilled his role in maintaining the interaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by KuriKa on Nov 18, 2003 12:13:55 GMT -5
don't look...I repeat DO NOT do this,  ... Please, for you're own good... Im a big girl now (  ), eags. Take care of yourself.  |
|
|
|
Post by ÑèøMâñ5 on Nov 18, 2003 14:34:00 GMT -5
well that isnt over my head or nothing. nice to see that u got that done.
|
|
where'd you go 
