Based on this experience, do you agree with the Thomas theorem (you should define the Thomas Theorem in your own words)? Why or why not?

After reading the chapter and reviewing the PowerPoint and supplemental readings on the course site, you should complete the following tasks:
Answer the questions below. Your responses should be about one, 5 to 7 sentence, paragraph per question set (meaning numbers 1,2,3, etc should be about one paragraph in length.) Your responses should demonstrate a clear engagement and understanding of the course material, critical application of the sociological concepts/theory and should include clear grammar and sentence structure. Please review the assignment rubric under ‘Course Resources’ for clearer indication of grading distribution and let me know if you have any questions/concerns.
Questions:
Think of a self-fulfilling prophecy that you’ve experienced or that you have seen in a popular show, web-series or from someone you know. Based on this experience, do you agree with the Thomas theorem (you should define the Thomas Theorem in your own words)? Why or why not? What are some positives and negatives of this theorem?
Trigger Warning: Sensitive Topics explored in this question: Using the Durkheimien lens (that is, using Durkheim’s arguments), what types of suicide are apparent today and how are these related to culture (think back to chapter 3 and our discussion on values/beliefs)? Give a common day example of each type of the four types of suicide described by Durkheim (i.e. search for different sources that describe each of the types of suicide). You should practice your APA formatting (extra help under ‘Course Resources’) and include your sources for each of the suicides on a reference page. (Again, this is for practice and you will not be deducted points for messing up the APA formatting).
Give an example of when you have used instrumental-rational action (as described by Weber) in your everyday life. How do you feel that rationalization has impacted your life and the relationships that you have with other people? Give some examples of how over-rationalization can be detrimental in some way.
Make a list of as many statuses, ascribed and achieved, that you have (at least 5). Don’t forget things like dog owner, gardener, traveler, student, runner, employee. How many statuses do you have? In which ones are there role conflicts?
Learning Objectives
Describe Durkheim’s functionalist view of society
Understand the conflict theorist view of society
Explain Marx’s concepts of class and alienation
Identify how symbolic interactionists understand society
Figure 4.5 Warren Buffett’s ideas about taxation and spending habits of the very wealthy are controversial, particularly since they raise questions about America’s embedded system of class structure and social power. The three major sociological paradigms differ in their perspectives on these issues. (Photo courtesy of Medill DC/flickr)
While many sociologists have contributed to research on society and social interaction, three thinkers form the base of modern-day perspectives. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber developed different theoretical approaches to help us understand the way societies function.
Émile Durkheim and Functionalism
As a functionalist, Émile Durkheim’s (1858–1917) perspective on society stressed the necessary interconnectivity of all of its elements. To Durkheim, society was greater than the sum of its parts. He asserted that individual behavior was not the same as collective behavior and that studying collective behavior was quite different from studying an individual’s actions. Durkheim called the communal beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society the collective conscience. In his quest to understand what causes individuals to act in similar and predictable ways, he wrote, “If I do not submit to the conventions of society, if in my dress I do not conform to the customs observed in my country and in my class, the ridicule I provoke, the social isolation in which I am kept, produce, although in an attenuated form, the same effects as punishment” (Durkheim 1895). Durkheim also believed that social integration, or the strength of ties that people have to their social groups, was a key factor in social life.
Following the ideas of Comte and Spencer, Durkheim likened society to a living organism, in which each organ plays a necessary role in keeping the being alive. Even the socially deviant members of society are necessary, Durkheim argued, as punishments for deviance affirm established cultural values and norms. That is, punishment of a crime reaffirms our moral consciousness. “A crime is a crime because we condemn it,” Durkheim wrote in 1893. “An act offends the common consciousness not because it is criminal, but it is criminal because it offends that consciousness” (Durkheim 1893). Durkheim called these elements of society “social facts.” By this, he meant that social forces were to be considered real and existed outside the individual.
As an observer of his social world, Durkheim was not entirely satisfied with the direction of society in his day. His primary concern was that the cultural glue that held society together was failing, and people were becoming more divided. In his book The Division of Labor in Society (1893), Durkheim argued that as society grew more complex, social order made the transition from mechanical to organic.
Preindustrial societies, Durkheim explained, were held together by mechanical solidarity, a type of social order maintained by the collective conscience of a culture. Societies with mechanical solidarity act in a mechanical fashion; things are done mostly because they have always been done that way. This type of thinking was common in preindustrial societies where strong bonds of kinship and a low division of labor created shared morals and values among people, such as hunter-gatherer groups. When people tend to do the same type of work, Durkheim argued, they tend to think and act alike.
In industrial societies, mechanical solidarity is replaced with organic solidarity, which is social order based around an acceptance of economic and social differences. In capitalist societies, Durkheim wrote, division of labor becomes so specialized that everyone is doing different things. Instead of punishing members of a society for failure to assimilate to common values, organic solidarity allows people with differing values to coexist. Laws exist as formalized morals and are based on restitution rather than revenge.
While the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity is, in the long run, advantageous for a society, Durkheim noted that it can be a time of chaos and “normlessness.” One of the outcomes of the transition is something he called social anomie. Anomie—literally, “without law”—is a situation in which society no longer has the support of a firm collective consciousness. Collective norms are weakened. People, while more interdependent to accomplish complex tasks, are also alienated from each other. Anomie is experienced in times of social uncertainty, such as war or a great upturn or downturn in the economy. As societies reach an advanced stage of organic solidarity, they avoid anomie by redeveloping a set of shared norms. According to Durkheim, once a society achieves organic solidarity, it has finished its development.

Last Completed Projects