Social Theories

[JD]

I was wondering if there were any links on general social theories like Conflict Theory, Rational-Choice Theory, Post-Modernism, etc. I am a Sociology Major at the moment and was studying Conflict Theory (of course, why else would I be hear). I took a class on Social Theory that expanded on the usual theories and added some new ones as well. Since then, I have decided to combine Conflict and Rational Choice into a new type of philosophical theory with practical applications. Marx was the basis of Conflict Theory as most here know (I have to say that was the easiest two weeks, while we were going over that one). Conflict can be used to define the problems in a society better than any other, and it accepts that there are problems while the ones before claimed that society held itself in a strange balance that was created through the system. So, you use Conflict Theory to define the problems and what should be done. (Really Simple Example: There are lots of poor people and very few rich people, who control everything.) CT says that is a problem and the poor need to be elevated, because the needs of the many outweigh the luxuries of the few. The major debate has been, how do we do that?

Rational Choice takes a micro level analysis built on the same structure as CT. You can figure out what a person will choose to do as long a s you know what is going on around him. CT says that the economic system is the main influence in what happens to a person and what they wil choose to do. RCT says something like, in this situation, an individual will _____, while in another, the same individual will _____ (you can fill in the blanks) . It is CT down to a micro level in a sense. For an example on how to combine them: Drug Addiction. Drug Addiction affects the poor at an ASTOUNDINGLY more prevelant aret than the rich. I don't need to go any further than that end. You can all figure out what I would usually say about that. Now RBC says, why does a person continue to use drugs, and what would make them choose not to use? Guaranteed treatment instead of prisons helps. Legalization and allowing for careful testing of batches would also help. This would mean less control from the Black Market, which is pure and nasty Capitalism at its core. Then we get to the biggest factor of all: Economic structure. If people had what they needed and were given a fullfilling job, not as a cog in a piece of machinery, but as a vital part of society (or were at least viewed as such) there would be less people becoming addicted to drugs. This list can go on for every problem.

This is what I like in social theory. Here, we have not only made the claim that Socialism is a better system, but we have also shown how it will cure society's ills in a rational sense, instead of Godly intervention or victim blaming. It is so rational (sometmes to a fault) that it can't be beat. A person is a rational being, making irrational choices in irrational situations. Change the system to a rational one, one that actually does create stability, and people will make better decisions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JD
Drug Addiction affects the poor at an ASTOUNDINGLY more prevalent rate than the rich.

Disputable. The wealthy are in a position to manage their drug usage in ways that usually avoid the attentions of the DEA gestapo; the poor are not.

The wealthy have real privacy rights that the police are reluctant to challenge...and sometimes cannot challenge. The poor have no such rights; the police assume that the poor are probably criminals and act accordingly.

The wealthy can get their drugs delivered; the poor must buy theirs on the streets.

The wealthy can afford their habits; the poor must often commit crimes of some sort to be able to pay street prices for their drugs.

Even when apprehended, the wealthy go to "rehab"...the poor go to prison.

Things are not always what they seem.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hiero]

Just remember that Marxism at academic institutes is called Academic Marxism.

These Marxist have roots in the Marxists after Marx who toned down their veiws to not be associated withe USSR, and to not follow the same fate of Marx who was constantly exiled from countries due to his proposing of revolution.

So its a form of Marxism that saved them from being thrown out of the universities.

These Marxist do not believe or do but do not emphasis that conflict leads into change, with contradictories resulting themselves.

So just keep that in your mind, as i do since i am majoring in Sociology as well. I sometimes ask myself, is this liberal or truelly a marxist idea, Where would marx go with this anaylsis etc

[JD]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 19 2005, 03:51 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 19 2005, 03:51 PM)
JD
Drug Addiction affects the poor at an ASTOUNDINGLY more prevalent rate than the rich.

Disputable. The wealthy are in a position to manage their drug usage in ways that usually avoid the attentions of the DEA gestapo; the poor are not.

The wealthy have real privacy rights that the police are reluctant to challenge...and sometimes cannot challenge. The poor have no such rights; the police assume that the poor are probably criminals and act accordingly.

The wealthy can get their drugs delivered; the poor must buy theirs on the streets.

The wealthy can afford their habits; the poor must often commit crimes of some sort to be able to pay street prices for their drugs.

Even when apprehended, the wealthy go to "rehab"...the poor go to prison.

Things are not always what they seem.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Thats the point! The poor are being made to suffer, once again because they are poor. They end up with the "dirty drugs", probably become more dependent on them, and are the ones taken to jail instead of "Rehab". Tis is why I ended my point by saying that the most important factor was economic. If your economic "status" is lower, you get s#!& on. If we really wanted to end the problem, this would be how. Change the economic system!

Now, as for "rehab", this system of drug addiction "reform" is based entirely on the prevailing beliefs of the bourgoisie. A rich man entering into a treatment center will be looked at as "one of the guys". They are pampered and sucked up to , and shown off as a "model citizen" for the retraining center. A poor man will be looked down on as a lost cause. They are only there as a stop gap to another "jail, institution, or death". Everytime they say they want to get better, the treatment staff will put them down.

I have seen this with my own eyes, as, after a very confusing bout with prescrition medications, that lead to health problems, and the labeling of an alcoholic ( I still don't know how they called me an alcoholic when it was clearly the pharmaceuticals that were causing me problems), I made the mistake of believing these places could help. They don't. They are based on a almost cultish devotion to the beliefs of a couple of drunks who thought that the only way to clarity form addiction was becoming a born again christian. Its not science. Might I add that these two gentleman were a Rascist Doctor and a Scheister Stock Broker.

Attacking treatment might sound starnge from someone who was just promoting it in my last post, however, I do believe in different forms of treatment. One of the forms I do agree with is, coincidentaly, based in Rational Choice Therapies. RC theory and RC therapy are somewhat different. But, I believe that both can lead to the realization that you are being oppressed. You were in jail for drugs and not the rich because they are oppressing you, not because you are mysteriously diseased. This isn't the point of RCT, but I think it could be a surprising outcome for those who are using it. They are trying to get them to change their thinking, the way they cope with probelms. Why wouldn't the realization that you are being oppressed come from that change as well?

[percept¡on]

Rational Choice theory is useless. It is neoclassical economics applied to all facets of human behavior. It says that individuals have well-ordered preferences which they seek to maximize in the most rational (read: economically efficient) manner possible. It assumes a) people have preferences which are endogenous (not social or conditioned), b) they have access to the information and reasoning ability necesarry to pursue these interests at all times and in all situations, c) people are interest maximizers, in other words they will pursue the maximum individual satisfaction possible in every situation and d) social groups are just an aggregate of atomistic individuals, i.e. social/collective action is simply the sum of many individual (rationally calculated) actions.

The appeal of rational choice theory (it has quite a following in political science and sociology) is that its models have a fairly good track record at correctly predicting certain outcomes. But that is the appeal of neoclassical economic models as well, and both are essentially a bunch of hand-waving hocus pocus nonsense that is fairly disconnected from the real world.

[Sihvyl]

I gotta agree with perception. I can't say I'm educated on the subject, but just trying to run things in a rational sense, although it seems/could/ and possibly would work in some situations, it would require that the things the decisions are being made for [humans] are steriotypical. Of course, some of the popular steriotypes are true for the most part, but take a second and look at the screen. If your an American, this is a very irrational place to be..Rev left.

[JD]

Now, when I look out at the people today, after what has just happened here, I can honsetly say that a certain amount of "rational choice" was made. People with no food "rationally chose" to get food from stores. People inthe media made a "raional choice" to finally ask questions about what is going on, which was pretty remarkable coming from the Shepard Smiths and Geraldo Riveras of the world. Then people can say that those in power made a "rational choice" to cut funding for flood preparedness, so they would get richer. Now, the people of the country are making a "rational choice" to ask questions as to why those in power should have the ability ot make those "rational choices".

Remember, I AM on rev left for a reason. I am a Marxist, labor siding, union organizing (outside of the AFL-CIO) person, who understands the world in terms of limited resources, competition, and domination by people who have done nothing more than being born into wealth. OK, think about this, isn't it a "rational choice" for people who are oppressed to gather together across boundaries of causes, because the real cause are the people in power. Now that is a very Multi-Systemic view, another theory I like, but one that has a certain amount of RCT to it.

Another thing, don't discredit the Sociologist Academics here in the US. Most of them are trying to put together the opposition within the belly of the beast. It is a very precarious situation, which unfortunatly, was helped by the events in New Orleans this past week.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:46 AM



Now, when I look out at the people today, after what has just happened here, I can honsetly say that a certain amount of "rational choice" was made. People with no food "rationally chose" to get food from stores. People inthe media made a "raional choice" to finally ask questions about what is going on, which was pretty remarkable coming from the Shepard Smiths and Geraldo Riveras of the world. Then people can say that those in power made a "rational choice" to cut funding for flood preparedness, so they would get richer. Now, the people of the country are making a "rational choice" to ask questions as to why those in power should have the ability ot make those "rational choices".


That is the appeal of rational choice theory, it is easy to explain everything as the result of a rational calculus on the part of individuals. I'm glad to see that you're excited about a new theory you've learned, but I'm trying to save you the time and embarrasment of getting caught up in it.



OK, think about this, isn't it a "rational choice" for people who are oppressed to gather together across boundaries of causes, because the real cause are the people in power.

Actually, no, because of the difficulty of collective action, free rider problems, and prisoners' dillemma situations. Which is why most RC theorists try to downplay collective action. There is no credible RC theory for collective, social, or 'public' choice.



Another thing, don't discredit the Sociologist Academics here in the US. Most of them are trying to put together the opposition within the belly of the beast. It is a very precarious situation, which unfortunatly, was helped by the events in New Orleans this past week.

Listen, if you want to take on the power structure you don't utilize theories developed explicitly to justify that power structure. Rational choice theory was developed by neoclassical economists to justify their idea of homo economicus. If you are a RC theorists you are a neoclassical economist, simple as that.

[JD]

Well, I'mnot really excited about it, because I have known of it for a while. It was something i learned bout in an attempt (very successful attempt) to get myself off of the over-prescrtibed psychotropic drugs that drug companies are peddling on the "street" to keep people from seeing what is going on around them. Little side bar, I bet these drugs will se a huge increase in pescriptions after Katrina. I used it to change my thinking. Instead of just accepting what I was told I used it to start to question what is going on.

So, I think I will have to say this, and I really appreciate the feedbakc because it has helped me think about the focus of my position, that I like RCT as a psychological theor, because it is based more in the socioeconomic theory in psych. OK, so when you read into the socioeconomic theory in psych, it is rooted inthe social psychologists who are pverwhelmingly leftist in what they believe needs done. That is why I became a sociology major and student. Every day I get to read and study Marx, C. Wright Mills, Gramsci, and Chomsky as part of my studies. I have recieved so much literature on areas like the I.W.W., which I am now a member of, that are invaluable to seeing the big picture.

Another note, in the US, theories are taught, used, and interpreted differently then, say, Great Britain, and Great Britain views them differently then France (and so on down the line). The point is, these are philosophies of social order and change. Anyone can take from these philosophies what they need to understand the world. And I have used them to understand the world in a way that makes many people in this country cringe to hear. :ph34r: