User:Malikjk/sandbox

= Sociology =

Race and Ethnicity
In order to understand race and ethnic relations it is important for a person to have a general idea of what is being referred to when discussing the concepts of ‘race’ and 'Ethnic group'. Both of these concepts are socially constructed categories promptly dividing people across a Continuum. Although difference of race is mentioned in historical texts, problems began to surface come the age of European colonialism; an era when differential treatment of dark skinned people was in fact a result of race classifications. Social inequality was only justified by the concept of race and the introduction of racist belief due to that. Ethnic groups on the other hand are socially constructed and defined according their cultural language, morals, beliefs, religion, etc. Race and Ethnic relations differ in a sense that an ethnic group’s ethnicity is defined by any member’s cultural identity and can change if a person adopts other cultural characteristics. In the short term, there is a strong correlation between political, economic, and social status and ethnic boundaries which can result in categorical discrimination. On the other hand, in the long term there are major changes in mobility across ethnic boundaries. Ethnic boundaries will continue to shift historically and many individuals will have numerous ethnic identities; and although ethnic factors of sociology are not the only social identity formations, ethnic boundaries can still be defined and seen in connection with social conflict.

Media
When looking into media sociology, Daniel Bell stated that the dominant paradigm is in fact “received knowledge” of “personal influence”. Bell claims that the paradigm has drained attention from the media’s power to define what is normal, abnormal, political, the ability to establish political agendas for the purpose of social attention, and the containment, channeling, and exclusion of others. “personal influence” is linked closely to the “hypodermic” theory which states that society is a mass society; and these mass communications inject the passive, vulnerable public with ideas, attitudes, and dispositions. Social psychologists coined the term ‘gatekeeper’ in order to further explain the flow of news content in the media. In news media, a journalist can be seen as a Gatekeeper; a gatekeeper typically decides what can be displayed and what cannot which raises questions as to why. There are three perspectives on gatekeeping that are commonly brought up. The first perspective is of the political economy, and its influence on the outcome of news content in relevance to the economic structure. The second perspective is of greater relevance to mainstream sociology; which is the belief that a journalist’s connection with occupational routines, decision making powers, and organizational restraints will influence the outcome of news media. The third, more anthropological approach is the importance of cultural symbols disregarding organizational and occupational routines.

Mass media is said to be a significant force in today’s modern culture; sociologists refer to this as a mediated culture where media reflects and creates the culture itself. Communities and individuals are continuously flooded with a large amount of messages from different mediums including television, magazines, video games, newspapers, etc. Pierre Bourdieu on the other hand is critical of theorists that emphasize the impact of television and advertising on an individual’s social and cultural tastes. Bourdieu argues that they underestimate the roles of Social class influences along with the influence of schooling, and that they are an active factor in cultural production and consumption. Bourdieu considers the quest for intellectual freedom to be a daunting struggle against obstacles such as administrative power, commercial interests of publishing whether political or economic, and the concentration of power in the media.

War
War in this modern day is seen as violent, inhumane, and savage. Socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon view of war is greatly contrasted when compared to other popular socialists. Although Proudhon did acknowledge that wars cost nations a tremendous amount of lives and resources, he still insisted that war itself has a positive role to play in society today. Proudhon’s claims of war in one way or another being essential to humanity, and a great manifestation of our individual and social life, set him apart from his contemporaries. Many complained that Proudhon’s study was full of contradictions, illogical, and lacked well-reasoned information. Sociology as a discipline has not been very successful in producing theories about the nature of warfare. Martin Shaw stated that most thinkers about society have not been able to completely understand the impact of wars on society in general. Many have categorized war as abnormal, exceptional, and unnatural, but most thinkers tend to treat war as if it were a self-containing process, generally functional according to its own rules and laws. There will always be difficulty with the definition or war from a sociological perspectives since the sociology of war continues to appear as a great amount intellectual, intercultural, and bias information.