A college graduate examines her income and wealth in relation to others. She is interested in . a. Social differentiation b. Social stratification c. Social equality d. Social change
My confession : This blog contained the lecture from my sociology class that i learned at college in order to share the knowledge and information thus I copy and paste it to my blog. Sharing is Caring.
outside link for reference
- Home
- chapter 7 opentext sociology
- Pearson Plus access Ebook
- Deviance and Social Control
- Sociologyguide.com
- Chapter 6 - Conformity and Deviance
- Deviance Thesis
- sociology openstax ebook
- Lumen learning website
- sparknotes sociology
- Homework study.com
- chapter 7 pdf file
- Compassion, and Criticism, for the White Working Class
- course lumenlearning website
- American revolution
- Capitalism revolution
- Revolution war Political science
- Form of government
- John Locke on the idea that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins” (1689)
- Khan Academy world history
- Essay -overpopulation
- sociology assignment study-Com
- styles of parenting
- chapter 14 marriage and divorce
- Sociological Perspectives on Education
- Turnitin
- Ten Thousand year of pachiatry
Monday, December 12, 2022
chegg quizz
11.5.2: Terrorism
11.5: War and Terrorism: Implementing Political Objectives
11.5.2: Terrorism
Mustafa Jabbar, in Najaf, Iraq, is proud of his first born, a baby boy. Yet he said, “I will put mines in the baby and blow him up.” (Sengupta 2004) Can feelings really run so deep that a father would sacrifice his only son? Some groups nourish hatred, endlessly chronicling the injustices and atrocities of their archenemy. Stirred in a cauldron of bitter hatred, antagonism can span generations, its embers sometimes burning for centuries. The combination of perceived injustice and righteous hatred fuels the desire to strike out, but what can a group do if it is weaker than its enemy? Unable to meet its more powerful opponent on the battlefield, one option is terrorism, violence intended to create fear to bring about political objectives. And, yes, if the hatred is strong enough, this can mean blowing up your only child. Boy soldiers in Uganda. Credit: Mike Goldwater/Alamy Stock Photo Suicide terrorism, a weapon sometimes chosen by the weaker group, captures headlines around the world. Among the groups that have used this weapon are the Palestinians against the Israelis and the Iraqis against U.S. troops. The suicide terrorism that has had the most profound effects on our lives is the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, under the direction of Osama bin Laden. What kind of sick people become suicide terrorists? This is the topic of the following Down-to-Earth Sociology. Down-to-Earth Sociology Who Are the Suicide Terrorists? Testing Your Stereotypes We carry a lot of untested ideas around in our heads, and we use those ideas to make sense out of our experiences. When something happens, we place the event into a mental file of “similar events,” which gives us a way of interpreting it. This is a normal process. We all do it all the time. Without stereotypes—ideas of what people, things, and events are like—we could not get through everyday life. As we traverse society, our files of “similar people” and “similar events” are usually adequate. That is, the explanations we get from our interpretations usually satisfy our “need to understand.” Sometimes, however, our mental files for classifying people and events leave us perplexed, not knowing what to make of things.
For most of us, suicide terrorism is like this. We don’t know any terrorists or suicide bombers, so it is hard to imagine someone becoming one. Let’s see if we can flesh out our mental files a bit. Sociologist Marc Sageman (2008, 2019) wondered about terrorists, too. Finding that his mental files were inadequate to understand them, he decided that research might provide the answer. Sageman had an unusual advantage for gaining access to data—he had been in the CIA. Through his contacts, he studied four hundred al-Qaeda terrorists who had targeted the United States. He was able to examine thousands of pages of their trial records. So let’s use Sageman’s research to test some common ideas. I think you’ll find that the data blow away stereotypes of terrorists. • Here’s a common stereotype. Terrorists come from backgrounds of poverty. Cunning leaders take advantage of their frustration and direct it toward striking out at an enemy. Not true. Three-quarters of the terrorists came from the middle and upper classes. • How about the deranged loner, then? We carry around images like this concerning serial and mass murderers. It is a sort of catch-all stereotype that we have. These people can’t get along with anyone; they stew in their loneliness and misery, and all this bubbles up in misapplied violence. You know, the workplace killer sort of image, loners "going postal.” Not true, either. Sageman found that 90 percent of the terrorists came from caring, intact families. On top of this, 73 percent were married, and most of them had children. This woman, Ahlam Tamimi, is unlikely to match your stereotype of a suicide terrorist. She is serving 16 life sentences in an Israeli prison for her involvement in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem. Credit: TAMIMI/SIPA/SIPA/Newscom • Let’s try another one. Terrorists are uneducated, ignorant people, so those cunning leaders can manipulate them easily. We have to drop this one, too. Sageman found that 63 percent of the terrorists had gone to college. Three-quarters worked in professional and semiprofessional occupations. Some were scientists, engineers, and architects. What? Most terrorists are intelligent, educated, family-oriented, professional people? How can this be? Sageman found that suicide terrorists had gone through a process of radicalization. Here is their trajectory: Moral outrage. They became angry, even enraged, about something they felt was terribly wrong. Ideology. They interpreted their moral outrage within a radical, militant understanding of Islamic teachings. Shared outrage and ideology.
They found like-minded people, sometimes on the Internet, especially in chat rooms.
Group support for radical action. They decided that thinking and talking were not enough. The moral wrong needed direct action. The choice was an act of terrorism. To understand terrorists, then, it is not the individual that we need to look at. We need to focus on group dynamics, how the group influences the individual, and how the individual influences the group (as we studied in Chapter 5). In one sense, however, the image of the loner does come close. Seventy percent of these terrorists committed themselves to extreme acts while they were living away from the country where they grew up. They became homesick, sought out people like themselves, and ended up at radical mosques where they learned a militant script. Constantly, then, sociologists seek to understand the relationship between the individual and the group.
This fascinating endeavor sometimes blows away stereotypes.
For Your Consideration
→ How do you think we can help eliminate the process of radicalization that turns people into terrorists?
→ Sageman concludes that this process of radicalization has sprouted networks of homegrown, leaderless terrorists who don’t need al-Qaeda to direct them. He also concludes that this process will eventually wear itself out. Do you agree? Why or why not?
11.5.1: Why Countries Go to War:
11.5.1: Why Countries Go to War:
Conditions and Fuels Why do countries choose war as a means to handle disputes? As usual, sociologists answer this question not by focusing on factors within humans, such as aggressive impulses, but by looking for social causes—conditions in society that encourage or discourage combat between nations. Sociologist Nicholas Timasheff (1965) identified three essential conditions for war. The first is an antagonistic situation in which two or more states confront incompatible objectives. For example, each may want the same land or resources. The second is a cultural tradition of war. Because their nation has fought wars in the past, the leaders of a group see war as an option for dealing with serious disputes with other nations. The third is a “fuel” that heats the antagonistic situation to a boiling point, so that politicians cross the line from thinking about war to actually waging it. Timasheff identified seven such “fuels.” He found that war is likely if a country’s leaders see the antagonistic situation as an opportunity to achieve one or more of these objectives: Seven Fuels of War View Flashcards Seven Fuels of War View Flashcards
- Power: dominating a weaker nation
- Unity: uniting rival groups within their country
- Revenge: settling “old scores” from earlier conflicts
- Prestige: defending the nation’s “honor”
- Leaders: protecting or exalting the leaders’ positions
- Ethnicity: bringing under their rule “our people” who are living in another country
- Beliefs: converting others to religious or political beliefs
You can use these three essential conditions and seven fuels to analyze any war. They will help you understand why politicians at that time chose this political action.
Few want to say that we honor war and killing, but we do. The centrality of war and killing in the teaching of history and the honoring of the patriots who founded a country are two indications. A third is the display of past weapons in parks and museums. A fourth is the monuments that commemorate wars and battles. Discarded weapons, as with this M48 U.S. Army tank in Hue, Vietnam, sometimes become children’s playthings.
The Flesh and Blood of War
Sociological analysis can be cold and dispassionate. These “fuels” of war are like this: accurate and insightful, but cold. Throughout this book, I’ve tried to bring you the flesh and blood of topics, to help you see the ways that people experience life.
So let’s do this again.
Behind these “fuels” are politicians who make the bloody choice to go to war.
They do not fight the war themselves, of course. They sit back and watch it from the comfort of their homes and offices. Some even profit from the war by making investments in companies that produce weapons. For most politicians, the deaths are bloodless affairs. It is young men and, increasingly, young women, who do the killing—and dying—for them. Some soldiers are killed on the battlefield; others survive but are mutilated for the rest of their lives.
Many who survive with their body intact suffer emotionally.
Some of my students have shared their suffering with me, but let me close this section with one of the most powerful statements I have come across.
A soldier from California wrote this just before he put a bullet through his brain (Smith 1980): I can’t sleep anymore.
When I was in Vietnam, we came across a North Vietnamese soldier with a man, a woman, and a three- or four-year-old girl. We had to shoot them all. I can’t get the little girl’s face out of my mind. I hope that God will forgive me . . . . I can’t.
11.5: War and Terrorism: Implementing Political Objective
War and Terrorism: Implementing Political Objectives 11.5 Explain why countries go to war and why some groups choose terrorism. “War is merely a continuation of politics by other means.” Carl von Clausewitz, 1918 Some students have asked why I include war and terrorism as topics of politics. The quote from Carl von Clausewitz, who entered the Prussian military at the age of 12 and rose to the rank of major general, gives the succinct answer. War and terrorism are tools used to pursue political goals. Let’s look at this aspect of politics. Hearing from the Author: War and Terrorism Listen to the Audio
11.4.3: Which View Is Right?
11.4.3: Which View Is Right?
The functionalist and conflict views of power in U.S. society cannot be reconciled. Either competing interests block any single group from being dominant, as functionalists assert, or a power elite oversees the major decisions of the United States, as conflict theorists maintain. After years of rancorous arguments by proponents of each view, researchers seem to have come up with the answer. Political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page (2014) reviewed 1,800 policy decisions made by the U.S. government. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the wealthy and business groups are the major influence in U.S. policy. With such solid research and firm conclusions, the controversy seemed to be settled. But far from it. The research has come under attack (Gilens and Page 2016). Other researchers who reviewed the data they used have found that the middle class and the wealthy agreed on 90 percent of the policy decisions. In addition, when the two disagreed, they each got their way about half the time (Enns 2015; Branham et al. 2017). At this point, then, the pluralist/elitist controversy continues.
11.4: Who Rules the United States?
11.4: Who Rules the United States? PT Who Rules the United States? 11.4 Compare the functionalist (pluralist) and conflict (power elite) perspectives of U.S. power. With lobbyists and PACs wielding such influence, just whom do U.S. senators and representatives really represent? This question has led to a lively debate among sociologists. Let’s compare the functionalist and conflict perspectives.
11.4.1: The Functionalist Perspective: Pluralism
11.4.1: The Functionalist Perspective:
Pluralism Functionalists view the state as having arisen out of the basic needs of the social group. To protect themselves from oppressors, people formed a government and gave it the monopoly on violence. The risk is that the state can turn that force against its own citizens. To return to the example used earlier, states have a tendency to become muggers. People try to find a balance between having no government—which would lead to anarchy, a condition of disorder and violence—and having a government that protects them from violence, but that also may turn against them. When functioning well, then, the state is a balanced system that protects its citizens both from one another and from government. What keeps the U.S. government from turning against its citizens? Functionalists say that pluralism, a diffusion of power among many special-interest groups, prevents any one group from gaining control of the government and using it to oppress the people (Bentley 1908; Dahl 1961, 1982; Sangiovanni 2019). To keep the government from coming under the control of any one group, the founders of the United States set up three branches of government: the executive branch (the president), the judiciary branch (the courts), and the legislative branch (the Senate and House of Representatives). Each is sworn to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees rights to citizens, and each can nullify the actions of the other two. This system, known as checks and balances, was designed to ensure that no one branch of government dominates the others.
In Sum Our pluralist society has many parts—women, men, racial–ethnic groups, farmers, factory and office workers, religious organizations, bankers, bosses, the unemployed, the retired—as well as such broad categories as the rich, middle class, and poor. As each group pursues its own interests, it is balanced by other groups that are pursuing theirs. To attain their goals, groups must make compromises and work together. Because these many groups have political muscle to flex at the polls, politicians try to design policies that please as many groups as they can. This, say functionalists, makes the political system responsive to the people, and no group dominates.
-
The Venetians Taking Riva sul Garda from the Milanese in 1440, ca. 1570, Jacopo Robusti, (fresco) Credit: DeAgostini/Superstock Let’s contr...
-
7.2.2: Max Weber: Property, Power, and Prestige Max Weber (1864–1920) was an outspoken critic of Marx. Weber argued that property is only p...
-
Dis1 - Discussion #1 - Today's Technology ...
