Summary)
People are trying to maximize their
share of limited resources. Given that resources are limited, struggles will
inevitably lead to conflict and competition. This is the basic argument of
conflict theory.
The ideas that form the basis of
conflict theory can be traced back to early philosophy. Han Fei Tzu (280-233
BC) and other ancient Chinese philosophers taught that humans are inherently
weak and lazy people. Thus, men were able to conclude that the only way they
could be controlled was through punishment.
The Greek philosopher Paul II
(205-125 BC) focused on his work on the Roman Republic. He believed that
society changed and turned into a monarchy, and that the monarchy was based on
justice and legitimate authority. Therefore, Polybius believed that in order to
maintain the government, the Roman government, like the monarchy, aristocratic
politics and democracy, constituted the government that combined the best
elements.
Many philosophers had similar ideas about conflict and
society. Marx believed that conflict was mainly caused by class conflicts and
socioeconomic aspects within the industry. Max Weber suggested that power,
prestige and property were added to social conflicts and that such conflicts
were found in all aspects of society. According to Mills, one of the consequences
of conflict between people with competitive interests and resources is the
creation of a social structure. Many of these philosophers had similar ideas
about conflict and society, and the theory of conflict continued to evolve.
New/Interesting
things I learned)
It
was interesting that conflict theory can be applied to both democracy,
socialist countries and dictatorship. Particularly interesting was the
existence of conflict theory in socialist countries. And I was able to go back
to the early philosophers and learn the history of conflict theory.
And
it was interesting that extreme inequalities in power and wealth levels present
in the United States are the central theme of conflict theory. We have now
found that the great disparities between the American social classes are due to
a variety of reasons, such as lack of access to quality health care, reduced
educational opportunities, and the absence of social networks that provide
opportunities for upward mobility. From this, I was able to understand why the
United States is becoming a central theme in conflict theory.
Discussion Point)
By.http://cfs7.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzkzMTUzQGZzNy50aXN0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzAvMTIuanBn
The differences in
the methodology of conflict theory include radical conflicts and moderate
conflicts.
Historically,
politicians in times of frequent devastation have tended to solve problems
moderately, but this trend has not been the driving force to overcome social
norms and evils. Radicalism, on the other hand, says that the methodology has
been somewhat radical and sometimes extreme, but it has become a great driving
force for social development. However, radical political movements can cause
social deviations to be widespread and damage to the process.
Moderateism is an
attitude that takes a moderate way of action, ideology, and media, not
radicality. For example, Korea 's candlelight vigils have achieved results
while struggling in the system.
I wonder if you
think that either radical or moderate can develop a society that is even
better.
Comments
Post a Comment