Malaria Disease: An Overview

Malaria Disease: An Overview Introduction: Malaria is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. Malaria is a very widespread disease in the tropics and subtropics regions of the world including Africa, South Asia, and South and Central America, affecting over 650 million people and killing 1 to 3 million. Over half affected and killed are young children in Sub-Saharan Africa. This disease is an enormous public-health problem because it only takes one bite by a mosquito infected with parasites that causes this infectious disease to become apart of a humans body. Malaria cannot be transmitted from one person to another by just standing next to them you have to have contact with them. Discussion: Malaria didnt just recently come about; it has affected on people for over 50,000 years. It could well have been a pathogen for the entire history but it has not been proven. The term malaria originated from medieval Italian and translated into â€Å"bad air†. Malaria has had a few names in the past like ague and marsh fever because of its association with swamps. Pioneer Discoveries: The first noted advance came in 1880 when Charles Louis Laveran, a French army doctor who worked in Algeria noticed parasites in the red blood cells of the infected people. He announced that malaria was caused by this protozoan and this was the first time that it had been known to cause a disease. The protozoan was later called Plasmodium by Ettore Marchiafava and Angelocelli. Some time later it was suggested that mosquitoes were transmitting this disease to humans by Carlos Finlay, a Cuban doctor. But it was Britains Sir Ronald Ross who finally proved it in 1898 by showing certain mosquito species transmitting malaria to birds and later isolated malaria parasites from salivary gland of mosquitoes that feed on infected bird. Sir Ross later became the Director of Malaria control effects in Panama, Greece, Egypt, and Macuitus. The works of Finlay, Ross, Marchifava, and Celli saved the lives of thousands of workers and helped developed methods used in future public health campaigns agai nst this disease. The bark of a cinchona tree that contains quinine was the first effective treatment for malaria. Global Initiatives: The Malaria Prevention Initiative spends over $1 billion a year to control malaria, the worlds largest health problem. In 2005 Bush launched the Presidents Malaria Initiative (PMI). He pledged to increase U.S. malaria funding more than $1.2 billion over five years in order to reduce death by malaria by fifty percent in fifteen African countries. He also challenged other countries to match him in things like private foundation and corporations that would help reduce the suffering and deaths caused by malaria. PMI had a goal and wanted it to be reached by contacting the child under 5 yrs of age and pregnant women. They will give these people proven and effective treatment measures. PMI also used a method that involved 4 keys components: indoor spraying of the homes with insectides, insecticide treated mosquito nets, lifesaving antimalarial drugs, and treatment to prevent malaria in pregnant women. PMI has impacted more than six million Africans just from the method with four key compon ents. PMI coordinates with national malaria control pregnancy and international partners including Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, The World Bank, and Malaria Booster Program to name a few. Diagnosing and Treating: The diagnosis and treatment of malarias severe form has become an important matter. The microscopic diagnosis of malaria requires skill, experience, and availability of everyone at all times. There are some tests that dont require as much skill but they havent been available in America for years. On June 13, 2007, the FDA approved the first malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) for use of laboratories in the U.S. The test uses whole blood and takes only fifteen minutes. RDT is not able to detect if a patient has Malaria if they are infected with another disease. Malarial Statistics: The Center of Disease Control receives reports of one thousand to fourteen thousand cases of malaria every year. Some of these are as a result of international travel. Nearly seventy-five percent are acquired from victims who dont use the recommended preventive medications. During the 1800s quinine was used as the only drug to treat malaria until World War Two when more effective medicines were developed. Malaria control in war areas was created during World War Two to control the spread of this disease by mosquitoes in the south especially those surrounding military bases where troops could be affected. Prevention: There are ways to prevent malaria: such as using repellents, wearing protective clothing, and using netting. It has become a leading cause in death worldwide. If a person is diagnosed early and treated it can be cured. But a lot of people live in areas where the disease is common and get infected repeatedly and never recover. There have been programs aimed towards prevention of malaria by killing mosquitoes that carry the disease. If a person goes to the doctor they can ask for a vaccine and a drug used for anti-malarial infections. Malaria is at a low rate in the U.S. but it is widespread around. If a person travels on an airplane where malaria patients have been they should be tested three to four times back to back. Conclusion: In conclusion, malaria is a widespread disease affecting more people daily. So everyone needs to protect themselves. Scientist are looking for a cure but there is not one yet found. There are people out there giving money to those foundations whose main purpose is to help those affected with the disease. For those people out there infected by Malaria dont give up because help is on the way. Bibliography Deresinski, Stan. Rapid Diagnostic Testing For Malaria. Infectious Disease Alert 26(2007): 133,134. Unknown, U.S. AID Health Programs: Malaria and Child Survival. Congressional Digest 86(2007): 198-199. â€Å"Health and Disease.† Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Britannica Online. Retrieved and accessed on from 15 Oct. 2007 http://search.eb.com/eb/article-258139 Does homosexual parenting have negative effects? Does homosexual parenting have negative effects? This research paper tries to review the same sex couples relationships regarding the role they play in parenthood and the effects both negative and positive that they likely would have on their children whether biological or adopted. It also reviews the societys perception of the gay men and the lesbian community and their rights to raise their children. A comparison of the effects of lesbian and the gay men parenting and that of heterosexual parenting will also be brought about in order to bring about the positive or negative side of homosexual parenting. This research paper will also review the results of the researches done on homosexual parenting, the arguments, the outcomes and conclusions. Introduction According to Bozett (1987), lesbians and gay men form families which are identical in appearance like those of non-gay families. Within the last couple of years in the gay and lesbian communities, there has been increased awareness of the fact that the possibility of being a parent is not ruled out by being gay. According to Drescher and Glazer (2001), traditionally, when one came out as lesbian or gay, it meant that one had to abandon any hope of ever becoming a parent or even to keep ones children if one had them already. However, with homosexuality in the open, more and more same sex couples are having new babies, are continuing to raise previous heterosexual relationships children and also are adopting children (Drescher Glazer, 2001). As a result, after coming out many gay men and lesbians are considering parenthood. Parenthood in the lesbian and gay men community may come about from joining of a homosexual parent legally with a spouse of the opposite sex who may have one or more children who may be adopted or biological. On the other hand, children may be adopted by lesbians and gay men as single parents who may or may not have a lover who takes the stepparent role. Some of the gay men or lesbians may choose to provide foster care as a way of parenting. Lesbians on the other hand, can opt to become parents through alternative fertilization. Other ways for the homosexuals to become parents is where single or coupled gay men use a surrogate mother and also where a lesbian is inseminated by one or more than one gay man. And thereafter rear the offspring as if it were related to them biologically (Bozett, 1987). According to Kurdek (2004), homosexual parenting is when gay men or lesbians become biological or non biological parents to one or more children. Despite the controversy surrounding marriage of the same couples recently, there has not been established a reliable number of estimates of lesbian and gay couples. According to an American survey data, 40-60 (%) of gay men and 45-80 (%) of lesbians are currently romantically involved. Because when one presents himself or herself to the public as part of a lesbian or gay couple is subjected to abuse, discrimination and even violence, these numbers are likely to be underestimated as many do not come out in the open (Kurdek, 2004). Effects of homosexual parenting According to Patterson (2000), the gay and lesbians family lives have been a source of controversy for a long time. Due to the stigma attached to the same sex identities, the lesbians and gay men who declare their identities risk their original family relationships. However, the gay men and lesbians have always succeeded in creating and to sustain family relationships despite the discrimination and prejudice (Patterson, 2000). According to studies, children who have been raised by lesbian mothers tend to conform to gender role behaviors and careers that are stereotypical. In a census conducted in US 2000, 33% of lesbian couple household and 22% of gay couple household reported at least an under 18 year child living in that home. By 2005, the number of children living in the same sex couple households were 270, 313 (Patterson, 2000). In Stacey and Biblarz (2001) words, gay marriage today has become rampant in our society and many countries are endorsing for its legalization. It is therefore no surprise that family issues on lesbigay have turned into a rapidly growing industry in social science research. Such researches bear on family policies and marriage that predetermine the Western Cultures held convictions on parenthood sexuality, and gender. As opponents and advocates square off in cultural wars, legislatures, state and federal courts and in the electoral arena over efforts to extend equal rights to foster care, child custody, marriage, and adoption to nonheterosexuals, they heatedly debate the implications of a body investigating how the parents sexual orientation affects the children. The research bodys findings are such that there are no differences notable between children brought up by heterosexual parents and those brought by gay and lesbian parents. They also find the same sex parents to be as effecti ve and competent as heterosexual parents (Stacey Biblarz, 2001). According to most studies conducted about homosexual parenting, outcome of children of the same sex parents is no better, nor worse than other childrens in terms of self esteem, academic achievement, quality and warmth of family relationships, peer group relationships, or behavioral difficulties and no likelihood of being gay than other kids (Carpenter, 2007). According to traditional opinions, homosexual parenting will have the following effects on their children 1. Provide an associate, a model and experiences which make a child engage in homosexual activities. 2. The probability of sexual victimization in childhood will increase. 3. Due to the disturbed behavioral and standards of the parents, the child will likely be psychologically and socially disturbed than other children who have been raised by straight parents (Homosexual parents, 2010). However, in a 2002 AAP report on gay parenting, it found no meaningful differences of children who have been raised by same sex parents from those raised by heterosexual parents. The committee first assessed the adjustments, behavior, and attitudes of gay and lesbian parents and found more similarities than there were differences in the attitudes and parenting styles of gay and non gay fathers. At the same time, the lesbian mothers had the same scores in psychological adjustment, attitudes and self esteem toward child rearing with the heterosexual mothers. The second study looks at the sexual orientation and gender identity of children who have been raised by gay parents. The study reported that none of those children showed any confusion in gender identity, wished to be of the other sex or engaged in behavior of the cross gender. There were also no differences found in the boys or girls preference of toys, activities, games, friendship or dressing code with the same sex parents in c omparison with heterosexual parents, nor sexual attraction difference or identification of self as gay (Stacey Biblarz, 2001). The third area of study looked at the emotional and social development of children. It compared children who have been raised by divorced lesbians with those raised by divorced heterosexual mothers. There was no difference found in behavioral difficulties, quality of family relationships, peer group relationships, academic success, and personality measures. The study however, suggest one meaningful difference that children raised by lesbian parents are more likely to tolerate diversity and are likely to be more nurturing towards younger kids than those children raised by heterosexual parents (Hirsch Sears, 2004). Most of the researches conducted about gay parenting have the same conclusion that the suggestion that children raised by gay parents suffer has no base. The only significant difference as suggested by some evidence is that children raised by same sex parents are much freer in occupation and behavior explorations which are not hampered by traditional gender roles than children raised by heterosexual parents and thus a good thing (Stacey Biblarz, 2001). According to Stacey and Biblarz (2001), those who oppose to parental rights of lesbian and gay couples claim that children of these couples are at a higher risk of outcomes that are negative. Most psychological research however, concludes that the developmental outcomes of kids raised by same sex parents and those raised by heterosexual parents are no different (Stacey Biblarz, 2001). Several lawyers and activists who are struggling to defend adoption petitions and child custody by gay men and lesbians or attaining the marriage rights of the same gender have been successful on drawing on the research (Stacey Biblarz, 2001). In reference to Kurdek (2004), a comparison of both partners from cohabiting gay and lesbian couples with no children was done with those of married heterosexual couples with children. Of the 50 (%) comparisons, there were no differences between the heterosexual partners with the gay and lesbian partners. Differences were found on the 78 (%) comparisons, which indicated that the same sex couples functioned better than did the heterosexuals. According to Kurdek, since the same variables were used to predict the concurrent relationship stability and quality for both same sex parents and heterosexual parents, he concludes that there should be generalization across the heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples by those processes which regulate the functioning in relationships (Kurdek, 2004). There are a few studies purport to establish characteristics of children raised by gay couple which are negative, these negative characteristics tend to however be discounted as they are associated with researchers and organizations that are anti gay. While there is a need for further study of gay parenting, it is much clear that theres no reason found by the objective researchers to accept the idea that children of gay parents need protection (Hirsch Sears, 2004). According to Rekers (2004), the Arkansas regulation that denies foster parents licenses to those adults behaving in a homosexual way has a rational basis from three reasons. These are: From the inherent structure and nature of homosexually behaving adults households, foster children are endangered as they are exposed to a substantial harmful stress levels that are far above heterosexual homes levels of stress. There is normally a high psychological disorder incidence in children entering foster care ranging from 29-96 (%); hence in the presence of adults with homosexual behavior in the foster home they are vulnerable to increased maladjustment and psychological harm (Hirsch Sears, 2004). Same sex relationships are substantially short lived and significantly less stable compared to a man and a woman marriage hence the rate of household transition is high in foster homes with same sex couples (Hirsch Sears, 2004). Foster children in homes with members behaving in a homosexual manner are deprived of the vitally needed positive child adjustment contributions which are due to the inherent nature of their foster homes and which are present only in heterosexual foster homes which are licensed. Some of these contributions are a father or a mother model, lack of a father or mother childbearing contributions, and lack of a wife -husband relationship model (Rekers, 2004). According to Gerstmann (2004), it is clear that it has not been certainly established by the social science data that the lesbian or gay men households are not optimal environments for children to be raised. But this does not make it for the society to irrationally assume that the biological father and mother should raise a child for its best. According to Social science data, we should be cautious to assume that traditional families compared to families of the same sex are better environments for raising children. Again, we actually cannot say that hypothesizing that children being raised by both a father and mother benefit is irrational (Gerstmann, 2004). Conclusion Lesbians and gay men form families which are identical in appearance like those of non-gay families. Within the last couple of years in the gay and lesbian communities, there has been increased awareness of the fact that the possibility of being a parent is not ruled out by being gay. Homosexual parenting is when gay men or lesbians become biological or non biological parents to one or more children. Despite the controversy surrounding marriage of the same couples recently, there has not been established a reliable number of estimates of lesbian and gay couples. This is because when one presents himself or herself to the public as part of a lesbian or gay couple is subjected to abuse, discrimination and even violence, these numbers are likely to be underestimated as many do not come out in the open. Most of the researches conducted about gay parenting have the same conclusion that the suggestion that children raised by gay parents suffer has no base. The only significant difference as suggested by some evidence is that children raised by same sex parents are much freer in occupation and behavior explorations which are not hampered by traditional gender roles than children raised by heterosexual parents and thus a good thing. It is clear that it has not been certainly established by the social science data that the lesbian or gay men households are not optimal environments for children to be raised. But this does not make it for the society to irrationally assume that the biological father and mother should raise a child for its best. According to Social science data, we should be cautious to assume that traditional families compared to families of the same sex are better environments for raising children.

Three Major Perspectives in Sociology Essay

Three Major Perspectives in Sociology Sociologists analyze social phenomena at different levels and from different perspectives. From concrete interpretations to sweeping generalizations of society and social behavior, sociologists study everything from specific events (the microlevel of analysis of small social patterns) to the â€Å"big picture† (the macro level of analysis of large social patterns). The pioneering European sociologists, however, also offered a broad conceptualization of the fundamentals of society and its workings. Their views form the basis for today’s theoretical perspectives, or paradigms, which provide sociologists with an orienting framework—a philosophical position—for asking certain kinds of questions about society and its people. Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical perspectives: the symbolic interactionist perspective, the functionalist perspective, and the conflict perspective. These perspectives offer sociologists theoretical paradigms for explaining how society influences people, and vice versa. Each perspective uniquely conceptualizes society, social forces, and human behavior (see Table 1). Read more: Functionalist Conflict and Interactionist Perspectives The symbolic interactionist perspective The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism, directs sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber’s assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the American philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this perspective to American sociology in the 1920s. According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Verbal conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the â€Å"sender,† and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the â€Å"receiver.† In other terms, words are not static â€Å"things†; they require intention and interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly interpret the world around them. Of course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as it refers to something beyond itself. Written music serves as an example. The black dots and lines become more than mere marks on the page; they refer to notes organized in such a way as to make musical sense. Thus, symbolic interactionists give serious thought to how people act, and then seek to determine what meanings individuals assign to their own actions and symbols, as well as to those of others. Consider applying symbolic interactionism to the American institution of marriage. Symbols may include wedding bands, vows of life†long commitment, a white bridal dress, a wedding cake, a Church ceremony, and flowers and music. American society attaches general meanings to these symbols, but individuals also maintain their own perceptions of what these and other symbols mean. For example, one of the spouses may see their circular wedding rings as symbolizing â€Å"never ending love,† while the other may see them as a mere financial expense. Much faulty communication can result from differences in the perception of the same events and symbols. Critics claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the â€Å"big picture.† In other words, symbolic interactionists may miss the larger issues of society by focusing too closely on the â€Å"trees† (for example, the size of the diamond in the wedding ring) rather than the â€Å"forest† (for example, the quality of the marriage). The perspective also receives criticism for slighting the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions. The functionalist perspective According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of society is interdependent and contributes to society’s functioning as a whole. The government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children become law†abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity occur. Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in which members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for society as a whole. Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms: Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain similar values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in which everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical solidarity. In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people in a society are interdependent, but hold to varying values and beliefs and engage in varying types of work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex societies such those in large American cities like New York in the 2000s. The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s. While European functionalists originally focused on explaining the inner workings of social order, American functionalists focused on discovering the functions of human behavior. Among these American functionalist sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides human functions into two types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions are unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a church or synagogue, for instance, is to worship as part of a religious community, but its latent function may be to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With common sense, manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not necessarily the case for latent functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A sociological approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of smaller parts and the functions of the whole. Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative functions of an event such as divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies the status quo and complacency on the part of society’s members. Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate naturally for any problems that may arise. The conflict perspective The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx’s writings on class struggles, presents society in a different light than do the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives. While these latter perspectives focus on the positive aspects of society that contribute to its stability, the conflict perspectivefocuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever†changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret an â€Å"elite† board of regents raising tuition to pay for esoteric new programs that raise the prestige of a local college as self†serving rather than as beneficial for students. Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx’s idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever†changing nature of society. Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order. Feminist theory is one of the major contemporary sociological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society with the purpose of using that knowledge to better women’s lives. Feminist theorists have also started to question the differences between women, including how race, class, ethnicity, and age intersect with gender. Feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society. There are four main types of feminist theory that attempt to explain the societal differences between men and women: Gender Differences: The gender difference perspective examines how women’s location in, and experience of, social situations differ from men’s. For example, cultural feminists look to the different values associated with womanhood and femininity as a reason why men and women experience the social world differently. Other feminist theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of labor in the household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how women have been marginalized and defined as the â€Å"other† in patriarchal societies. Women are thus seen as objects and are denied the opportunity for self-realization. Gender Inequality: Gender-inequality theories recognize that women’s location in, and experience of, social situations are not only different but also unequal to men’s. Liberal feminists argue that women have the same capacity as men for moral reasoning and agency, but that patriarchy, particularly the sexist patterning of the division of labor, has historically denied women the opportunity to express and practice this reasoning. Women have been isolated to the private sphere of the household and, thus, left without a voice in the public sphere. Even after women enter the public sphere, they are still expected to manage the private sphere and take care of household duties and child rearing. Liberal feminists point out that marriage is a site of gender inequality and that women do not benefit from being married as men do. Indeed, married women have higher levels of stress than unmarried women and married men. According to liberal feminists, the sexual division of labor in both the public and private spheres needs to be altered in order for women to achieve equality. Gender Oppression: Theories of gender oppression go further than theories of gender difference and gender inequality by arguing that not only are women different from or unequal to men, but that they are actively oppressed, subordinated, and even abused by men. Power is the key variable in the two main theories of gender oppression: psychoanalytic feminism and radical feminism. Psychoanalytic feminists attempt to explain power relations between men and women by reformulating Freud’s theories of the subconscious and unconscious, human emotions, and childhood development. They feel that conscious calculation cannot fully explain the production and reproduction of patriarchy. Radical feminists argue that being a woman is a positive thing in and of itself, but that this is not acknowledged in patriarchal societies where women are oppressed. They identify physical violence as being at the base of patriarchy, but they think that patriarchy can be defeated if women recognize their own value and strength, establish a sisterhood of trust with other women, confront oppression critically, and form female separatist networks in the private and public spheres. Structural Oppression: Structural oppression theories posit that women’s oppression and inequality are a result of capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Socialist feminists agree with Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels that the working class is exploited as a consequence of the capitalist mode of production, but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class but also to gender. Intersectionality theorists seek to explain oppression and inequality across a variety of variables, including class, gender, race, ethnicity, and age. They make the important insight that not all women experience oppression in the same way. White women and black women, for example, face different forms of discrimination in the workplace. Thus, different groups of women come to view the world through a shared standpoint of â€Å"heterogeneous commonality.† Comparing the Four Sociological Theories Introduction to Sociology: 4 Basic Theories Conflict Functionalism Symbolic Interactionism Social Exchange Macro Macro Micro Micro -Inequality lies at the core of society which leads to conflict -Resources are limited -Power is not evenly distributed -Competition is inevitable (winners & losers) -Negotiations based on influence, threats, promises, and consensus -Threats and coercion -Any resource can be used as tool of power or exploitation -War is natural -Haves and have nots -Privileges are protected by haves -Order is challenged by have nots -Examples of: Gender & Feminist -Uses biological model (society is like a living organism) -Society has interrelated parts -What are functions or dysfunctions of parts -Society finds balance and is stable -Equilibrium -Society adjusts to maintain balance -How are parts integrated -Manifest functions -Latent functions and dysfunctions -Example of: Systems Theory -Society is an ongoing process of many social interactions -Interactions based on symbolic context in which they occur -Subjective perceptions are critical to how symbols are interpreted -Communications -Meanings -Significant others -Roles -Relative deprivation -Self -Reality shaping in self and with others -Key Ideas: Social construction of reality Thomas Theorem Definition of situation -Example of: theories of self -Society is an ongoing series of exchanges which occur during interactions -Interactions based on formula: (Rewards- Costs)=Outcomes Rewards -Costs -Profit/Loss -Comparisons -Limited resources -Power -Legitimacy -Equity -Negotiations -Tradeoffs -Example of: Levinger=s model on divorce: (Attractions +/- Barriers)=/-(Alternative Attractions)

“Night” by Elie Wiesel Essay

Elie Wiesel, a famed author and survivor of the Holocaust stated quite simply that anyone who witnessed a crime, and did nothing to stop it is just as guilty as the one committing it. Elie Wiesel learned a lot about man’s nature by surviving the Holocaust, but his statement about a bystander being just as guilty as the actual criminal is wrong. People are responsible for there own actions, and it is not fair to blame someone for a crime they did not commit, whether they could have done something to stop it or not. During the Holocaust there were over 6 million people persecuted, but there were many more silent bystanders who were unable to do anything because they feared for their lives. It is human nature to look after your own wellbeing and those closest to you, and many people felt if they tried to do something to stop the persecution of Jews it would endanger them in one way or another. In some cases somebody can witness a horrible atrocity, but have no power to stop it. Elie wrote in his book about how he and his fellow Jews were forced to watch the hanging of a young and innocent child by the S.S. The Jews that witnessed the hanging of the boy were all silent bystanders who, according to Elie, should be punished in the same manner that the executioner was. This shows how wrong Elie’s judgment is. The Jews were unable to do anything to help the boy for fear of their own lives, people cannot be blamed for their most fundamental and primitive instinct which is self preservation. Elie Wiesel experienced a lot of pain and suffering during the Holocaust, but the silent bystanders cannot be punished the same way the actual criminal is no matter what the circumstance is. If Elie truly believes that a silent bystander is just as guilty as a criminal, then that would mean that he is guilty of hanging a young innocent boy and deserves to be killed or sent to prison. Although it’s easy to see where Elie’s statement is coming from and why he chose to make it, it is clear that he made his statement more out of emotion than actual logic. I disagree with his judgment because silent bystanders do not always have the power to stop or intervene with the crime without endangering themselves.

Quest for Identity in Maxine Hong Kingstons...

Quest for Identity in Maxine Hong Kingstons Autobiography, The Woman Warrior Maxine Hong Kingstons autobiography, The Woman Warrior, features a young Chinese-American constantly searching for an unusual bird that would serve as her impeccable guide on her quest for individuality (49). Instead of the flawless guide she seeks, Kingston develops under the influence of other teachers who either seem more fallible or less realistic. Dependent upon their guidance, she grows under the influence of American and Chinese schools and the role models of Brave Orchid, Fa Mu Lan, and Moon Orchid. Her education by these counselors consequently causes her to abandon her search for an escort, the bird to be found somewhere in the measureless sky,†¦show more content†¦The first response, Yes, I have . . . Thank you. signifies the conventional Chinese response, valuing politeness, displaying modesty and consideration of the other, saving face (Ling 147). However, Kingston wants to give the assimilated American response, valuing honesty and directness, frankly looking o ut for number one, and tinged with humor, and Kingston thinks to herself No, I havent. . . . Im starved. Do you have any cookies? I like chocolate chip cookies (Ling 147). As evidence of Kingstons indecisiveness, Ling clarifies Kingstons cultural disorientation perceptible in her word choice: The expressed fondness for chocolate chip cookies seems a playful and somewhat greedy response, which Im sure Kingston intended. Can it then be that Kingston is advocating Chinese politeness at the same time that she is complaining about it? Is she subverting American directness while seeming to embrace it? (Ling 147). At this point in her autobiography, Kingston remains disoriented about her position in the two enveloping cultures, and Ling suggests this idea by considering the significance of Kingstons two culturally different responses rather than only one- either American or Chinese. Another result of American integration and participation in American