Garfinkel suggests a view of social order that is premised more on habitual behavior then shared morals. Which of the three positions do you think most accurately depicts how our social order is maintained?
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 95327
Below you will find some questions to help guide you
in your first section essay. Remember, the essay functions as both a personal
reflection and an analysis on the material covered. The idea is to demonstrate that
you have understood important aspects of the material and are able to utilize the
new theoretical perspectives to understand or reevaluate issues or topics. There is
not a specific approach to take, though you may consider focusing on a contemporary
topic through the lens of the readings. Another viable approach is to critique the
theoretical positions in the Section and provide alternative explanations. The
response should be between 4-6 pages, double-spaced, 12pt font. Be sure to cite
your sources using ASA style.
Potential Ideas for Section Essay #1
1. Durkheim presents a strong notion of social structure that restricts the amount
of autonomy or free will an individual has. Do you agree with this view? Why or why
not? What implications are there for either position (strong social structure/weak
autonomy; weak social structure/strong autonomy)?
2. Durkheim argues that social cohesion arises out of our division of labor,
particularly as it necessitates a type of tacit reliance and cooperation. How does
this contrast with the popular notion of “rugged individualism” in the US?
Alternatively, Garfinkel suggests a view of social order that is premised more on
habitual behavior then shared morals. Which of the three positions do you think most
accurately depicts how our social order is maintained?
3. How useful do you find Durkheim’s notion of a “social fact”? Does he do an
adequate job of defending this concept, or does it still overlap with other
disciplines? Or, is it even possible to single out “social facts” from say, economic
or psychological ones? Why or why not?
Note: It is not necessary to use my suggestions.
If none of the ideas above strike your fancy and you are having difficulty
determining what to write about, consider the following:
1. Was there something important in the reading/theoretical position that you
strongly disagree with? If so, that disagreement may be a suitable topic for the
essay.
2. Do you think the theory(s) proposed have continued or contemporary relevance? If
so, how might that be demonstrated? If not, what evidence do you have to support
your argument? Either position might be a suitable topic for the essay.
3. Did you find one reading more compelling than the others? Why is that? Perhaps
you should direct your focus of the essay to that specific reading.
4. Have you identified any inconsistencies in the readings which may influence the
value of the ideas within? If so, what are they and what implications do these
inconsistencies have? This may also serve as the basis for the essay.
5. Do you have an alternative explanation for any of the theories posed? If so,
what is it? How would you defend your own theory?
6. Do you think that adopting the theoretical perspective(s) from this section would
help to give us a better understanding of a different field? For instance, does
Durkheim's theory of the division of labor give us a new way to look at or think
about mental health?