In sociological research, we propose three different perspectives that relate to our interaction with the world and its surroundings. Although some of these three contain some truth, the author of this paper believes that the structural functionalist view is more in line with the views in the religious field. In discussing our role in this life, the Bible clearly shows the existence of "the diversity of gifts...the difference in administration...and the diversity of actions". [1 Corinthians 12:4-6, King James] However, unfortunately, many people tend to focus on what others should do rather than their own responsibilities. The problem with Karl Marx's conflict theory is that it focuses only on one aspect of the problem situation. In his view, all the rich are evil, and all the poor are good. Through his thinking, if you have nothing, it is because the wealthy people are hoarding it to you, and in any case may shield wealth and means from you. Your only way is to rebel and steal the "taken for granted" thing: Robin Hood complex, so to speak. Although the author will never argue that all the rich have accumulated their licenses in a fair manner, he will never imply that all the poor are like this, simply because they are contained by the powerful. Marx did not consider that many wealthy people get this way by working hard and using their money wisely, and many poor people enter their country through irresponsible lifestyles or stay there.
In the symbolic-interactive perspective, we are proposing the idea that our symbols or labels on people determine how we treat them. The shortcoming of this theory is that, compared with other cultures, different nations and cultures will have contradictory symbols through the world. Even in culture, these symbols may change over time. Part of this fact stems from the fact that we are taught that there is no absolute truth. Therefore, we finally come to the conclusion that certain things are right, just changing our ideas in different places and even time. Right and wrong, right and wrong, right and wrong, right and wrong.
According to dictionary.com, structural functionalism is "a theoretical orientation that sees society as an interdependent part of its system, whose function contributes to the stability and survival of the system." ["Functionalism"] through the system, it means Any number of organizations with multiple groups or individuals must necessarily act and interact in a specific way so that the organism can survive. The use of organisms here refers to some sociologists, such as Auguste Comte, who see that the interactions of people in society work in much the same way as different parts of the organism. Although sociologist Robert Merton does not believe that the role of people in society and the interaction of biological organs is harmonious, he does believe that everyone has their own important role. Those who fail to function no longer contribute to the function of society. Instead, they increase dysfunction and undermine social balance. In religion, as in society, if you want to survive and continue, members must act in accordance with their assigned or chosen role. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human body, and each member of the church has a specific function. "Because the body is one, there are many members of the body, all members of the body, and many bodies are one body; so is Christ. Because I am not a hand, I am not a body; is it, is it not a body?" [1 Corinthians 1 :12,14 and 15]
Karl Marx believes that "the society is in a state of permanent conflict due to competition for limited resources" ["What is", 2016]. He believes that this conflict is the result of the wealthy and powerful [bourgeoisie] hoarding wealth and oppressing the poor [proletariat]. Marx divided his social view into three parts: thesis, opposition and synthesis. In his model, the thesis is the act of the rich to control the means of production and wealth. The opposition is the society against the hegemon, and the synthesis is the final society. However, this will not be the end, because once the synthesis is formed, it will in turn create another paper that will eventually lead to another opposition, and so on. Marx believes that if all conflicts can be resolved by themselves, then a perfect society will be formed, because everyone is now equal. Religion When the Bible discusses the correct relationship between different sites, it will touch the conflict. Although the Bible does show that we are equal in terms of justice, it says "...no one does good, no, no." [Psalm 14:3], it does show that in our lives, we It may not be necessary to walk with people around you. "But in a great house, there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wood and clay vessels; others are to commemorate, and some are to humiliate." [2 Timothy 2:20] The opposite of Marx; The Bible refers to rebellion. We should learn to appreciate our location and what we have. "...because I have learned, no matter what state I am in, I have to be satisfied." [Philippians 4:11] This is not to say that God requires us to be in a state of destruction forever. If we apply it ourselves, it is possible to dig ourselves out of our unfavorable property. "If a person thus clears himself from these [unequalities], he will become a vessel of glory, sanctification, and encounter with the use of the master, and prepare for every good work" [2 Timothy] 2:21]. Those in power must realize that the motivation to create a better society is not only the impact on workers; the responsible person also has responsibilities. "Masters, give your servants fair and equal..." [Colossians 4:1].
The symbolic interaction perspective shows that we view people and things around us based on our attached symbols. We look at different people based on whether they are our sisters or girlfriends, uncles or fathers, or any other number of symbols we assign to people around us. One caveat to this view is that the meaning of the symbol changes over time. Marriage and divorce are an example. The meaning of marriage has changed from two parties to each other and can feel each other "what can the other party do for me?". Divorce is no longer seen as a sign of failure, but as a symbol of freedom. In the past few years, the divorce rate has soared, and families and even friends have fallen apart. In religion, these same symbols are used; however, because they are designated by God, no change is allowed. "I don't change." [Malachi 3:6] In the place of divorce, the Bible says: "So they are no longer two people, but one person. What God is united, don't let people separate." [Matthew 19:6]
So when we consider these three points from the perspective of the Bible, which one should we focus on? When considering the symbolic-interactive perspective, we must keep in mind what the Bible says about our relationship with others. "...no matter what you should do to men, you must treat them like this..." [Matthew 7:12] "...an elder, but take him As a father; and as a young man of brethren..." [1 Timothy 5:1] In the direct conflict with the theory of conflict, we are obeyed by the Bible to obey those who have sovereignty over you. ... pay tribute to those who rule you..." [Hebrews 13:17 and 24], "... fear God. Respect the king. Servant, all fear Obey your masters; not only be kind and gentle, but also move forward." [1 Peter 2:17] When considering the structure-functionalist point of view, keep in mind that our most important concern should be fulfilling our responsibilities. very important. After he assigned his role to the disciples, one of them faced him and wanted to know what another student was going to do. Jesus said to him: "...What is that for you? Follow you." John 21:22]
Reference
Functionalism. [ND]. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved from Dictionary.com on February 23, 2016. Http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionalism
What is conflict theory? [2016]. Investopedia. Retrieved on February 23, 2016 from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp
Orignal From: The sociological perspective of religion
No comments:
Post a Comment