Within the research of sociology, we’re offered three various views regarding our interactions with the world and people in it. Though components of all three comprise some bits of reality, it’s this creator’s opinion that the structural-functionalism perspective is extra according to that held inside the sphere of faith. When discussing our roles on this life, the bible clearly states that there are “diversities of gifts… differences of administrations… and diversities of operations”. (I Corinthians 12:4-6, King James Model) It’s unlucky, nonetheless, that many individuals are likely to deal with what others must be doing, and never on their very own duty. The issue with Karl Marx’s battle principle is that it focuses solely on one side of a problematic state of affairs. In his view, all of the wealthy are evil, and all of the poor are good. By his pondering, if in case you have nothing, it’s as a result of those that are rich are hoarding it from you, and are by any means attainable shielding the wealth, and the means to it, from you. Your solely recourse is to insurgent and steal what’s “rightfully yours”: the Robin Hood advanced, so to talk. Whereas this creator would by no means argue that each one the rich have accrued their riches by simply means, he too would by no means recommend that each one the poor are thus, just because they’re being held again by the highly effective. Marx fails to take into consideration that most of the wealthy have gotten that approach by exhausting work and sensible use of their cash, and that most of the poor have additionally entered their state, or remained there, by an irresponsible life-style.

Within the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we’re offered with the concept that the symbols, or labels, we place on individuals decide how we act towards them. The downside to this principle is that all through the world, totally different peoples and cultures could have contradictory symbols when put next with these from different cultures. Even inside a tradition, these symbols might change in that means over time. This truth stems partially from the truth that we’re taught that there aren’t any absolutes. Thus, we wind up concluding that one thing is correct, solely to vary our thoughts about it when in a distinct place, and even time. Biblically talking, proper is correct and mistaken is mistaken, no matter the place or if you find yourself.

Structural-functionalism is, in keeping with dictionary.com, “a theoretical orientation that views society as a system of interdependent parts whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the system.” (“Functionalism”) By system, it’s meant any variety of organizations which have a number of teams or people, who by necessity, should act and work together in a selected method so that the organism might survive. The usage of organism right here is in reference to the truth that some sociologists, akin to Auguste Comte, noticed the interactions of individuals in a society working a lot the identical approach because the totally different components of a dwelling organism work collectively. Though sociologist Robert Merton did not view individuals’s roles in society as being synonymous with the interactions of a dwelling being’s organs, he did imagine that every being has its personal necessary function to play. Those that fail to play their half are not contributing to the capabilities of a society. They’re, relatively, including dysfunctions, which injury the equilibrium of a society. In faith, as in society, members should act in accordance with their assigned or chosen roles whether it is to outlive and perpetuate. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human physique, the place every particular person member of the church has a selected perform. “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?” (I Cor. 1:12, 14, & 15)

Karl Marx believed that “society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources” (“What is”, 2016). He believed that this battle was the results of the rich and highly effective (the bourgeoisie) hoarding their wealth and oppressing the poor (the proletariat). Marx separated his view of society into three components: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In his mannequin, the thesis was the act of the wealthy controlling the technique of manufacturing and wealth, the antithesis was the laborers rebelling towards the overlords, and the synthesis was the ultimate society fashioned. Nonetheless, this might not be the top, for as soon as the synthesis had fashioned, it will in flip create one other thesis which might ultimately result in one other antithesis, and so forth. Marx felt that if all conflicts ultimately resolved themselves, then the right society would have been fashioned, as everybody would now be equal. Faith touches upon this battle when the bible discusses the correct relationships between these of various stations. Though the bible does point out we’re all equal within the side of our righteousness when it says “… there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalm 14:3), it does point out that in our state of affairs in life we might not essentially be friends with these round us. “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.” (II Timothy 2:20) What Marx referred to as the antithesis; the bible refers to as revolt. We should always be taught to understand the place we’re and what we have now. “… for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Philippians 4:11) That is not to say that God requires us to be perpetually in a state of wreck. If we apply ourselves, it’s attainable to dig ourselves out of our unfavorable property. “If a man therefore purge himself from these (iniquities), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” (II Timothy 2:21). What these in energy should additionally notice, the impetus to create a greater society is not simply on the employees; these in cost even have a duty. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal… ” (Colossians 4:1).

The symbolic interactionism perspective states that we view these individuals and issues round us based mostly on what symbols we have now connected to them. We view individuals in a different way based mostly on whether or not they’re our sister or girlfriend, uncle or father, or another variety of symbols we have now assigned to these round us. One caveat of this attitude is that meanings of symbols will change over time. One instance is marriage and divorce. The that means of marriage has modified from two events uniting in mutual emotions of what they’ll do for one another to “what can the other do for me?” Divorce is not regarded down on as an indication of failure, however relatively as an emblem of freedom. In the previous few years the speed of divorce has skyrocketed, splitting households and even mates. In faith, these identical symbols are used; nonetheless, as a result of they’re designated by God, there isn’t any allowance for change. “I change not.” (Malachi 3:6) Within the space of divorce the bible says, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)

So when contemplating these three views from the perspective of the bible, which one ought to we consider? When contemplating the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we should take into account what the bible says about {our relationships} with others. “… whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them… ” (Matthew 7:12) “… an elder, but treat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren… ” (I Timothy 5:1) In a direct conflict with the battle principle, we’re commanded biblically to “obey them that have the rule over you… salute them that have the rule over you… ” (Hebrews 13:17 & 24), and “… Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.” (I Peter 2:17) When contemplating the structural-functionalism perspective, it is vitally necessary to remember that our most necessary concern must be to meet our personal tasks. After he had assigned roles to his disciples, and one among them had confronted him eager to know what one other disciple was going to do, Jesus stated to him, “… what is that to thee? follow thou me.” (John 21:22)

References

Functionalism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from Dictionary.com web site. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionalism

What’s the Conflict Theory? (2016). Investopedia. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from http://www.investopedia.com/phrases/c/conflict-theory.asp

Categories: Perspectives

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: