In your own words, describe how a sociologist views the social world as a(n): 1. Functionalist 2. Conflict Theorist 3. Interactionist 4....

A functionalist sociologist looks at the ways in which the different parts of society are interconnected and rely on each other. In their view, one part of society fills a role that helps the operation of the society as a whole. A functionalist sociologist might look at the interrelatedness or interconnectedness of the water to the glass (and to the faucet, etc). In other words, a functionalist would understand that several components go into creating...

A functionalist sociologist looks at the ways in which the different parts of society are interconnected and rely on each other. In their view, one part of society fills a role that helps the operation of the society as a whole. A functionalist sociologist might look at the interrelatedness or interconnectedness of the water to the glass (and to the faucet, etc). In other words, a functionalist would understand that several components go into creating the glass of water.

A conflict theorist examines the tensions and stresses that result from the unequal distribution of resources in society and looks at these tensions as  catalysts for social change. A conflict theorist might look at the full part of the glass as causing tensions for the empty part of the glass.

The interactionist theory looks at the symbolic meanings people attach to everyday interactions between people. In other words, interactions between people are framed by the symbolic meanings we attach to them. A person from this school of thought might look at what the glass of water symbolizes. For example, is it in a fancy Evian bottle? That type of glass of water would symbolize a world of wealth and privilege.

The postmodern theory stresses the declining importance of once-formative institutions such as the state, church, marriage, school, etc. In an increasingly global and media-driven society, each individual is free to choose his, her, or their own lifestyle. A postmodern sociologist might decide that whatever way the person wants to look at the half-full glass is up to that person's own taste and values. 

Suggest ideas for an essay on existentialism and its relations to modern day literature. The essay needs to explore how existentialism reveals...

An essay on the relationship between existentialism and modern literature might focus on both the larger existentialist themes that appear throughout modern works and specific character studies. The existential crisis presents itself throughout modern literature, and it typically involves a moment of realization in which the main character is confronted with the lack of inherent meaning in life.

Existentialism in Modern Literature

Existentialism is alive and well in modern literature. Fight Club by author Chuck Palahniuk is a great example of existentialism presented through the lens of modern literature. The main character is a young man struggling with mental health issues who exhibits many of the classic ideas of existentialist thought. He rebels against society and its postmodern sensibilities, refusing to accept a world in which everything, including personal identity, is a commodity. The unnamed narrator goes through an existential crisis in which he questions whether his own life has any meaning. He is without goals or prospects and is confronted with the endless consumer cycle his life has become, which prompts him to take steps to create his own meaning. In this sense, Fight Club is both an existentialist story and a rebellion against postmodern thought.

Philosophies of Life and the Human Condition

Existentialism relates to philosophies of life and the human condition in many significant ways, the chief of which is the idea of the meaning of life. While other philosophies allow the individual to define life's meaning according to some inherent value in social structures, existentialism calls the very idea of meaning into question. In existentialist thought, meaning is entirely dependent upon the individual. If there is any meaning in the human condition, existentialist philosophers argue that it is up to the individual to create and define it. In this sense, the existentialist philosophy of life is a rebellion against blind obedience to authority and societal expectations and it results in a highly individualized mode of living.

One of the greater implications of existentialist thought on the human condition is that if meaning is a product of individual choice, so is suffering. No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre is an existentialist work that delves into the idea that Hell, used as a metaphor for human suffering, is created by humans and inflicted both upon the self and others. As Sartre expressed through his work, human existence may be an accident, but it is up to humans to use the freedom that has been given to them by chance to determine what purpose their lives will have, if any.

Existential Plights in Characters

Throughout modern literature, existentialist themes often result in a crisis of identity or purpose for the main character. From the ubiquitous "mid-life crisis" to existential crises in youth, characters at all stages of life are shown to experience moments of questioning that lead them to a deeper understanding of the meaning of life. This understanding can range from personal to universal in scope. In the Fight Club example, the narrator's existential plight manifests in the form of Tyler Durden, a creation of the narrator's imagination. The narrator's existential plight reaches its climax when he realizes that he created Tyler and he is both in control of and responsible for the harm he brings to others.

Should preventing atrocities as President Obama said on his Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities (August 2011) "be a core national...

President Obama's Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities was meant as an attempt to stop crimes against humanity.  In the study directive, the president cites the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide as two crimes where Americans did not act decisively.  The president also cites the refugee crisis created by these mass killings and he states that Americans often have only two options in dealing with these disasters: military intervention or doing nothing at all.  In this directive, Obama seeks to enlist the help of allies within the region of the atrocity and governmental agencies such as the Peace Corps and the Department of Homeland Security so that the government will have more flexibility in dealing with these disasters.  

I admire the idea of the US wanting to stand for human rights worldwide.  I also admire the idea of the president wanting to use non-military force to handle the atrocity. The US has had long-term military engagements to protect human rights around the world; in some cases, these engagements can cost billions of dollars.  I would like to add that it is dangerous for the world to rely on the United States to prevent genocide all over the world.  The US's history shows that it is willing to intervene in a region when it is not fully aware of the facts.  While it means well, sometimes this engagement is only effective while the US is present, and US defense forces cannot be present for every threatened group in the world.  While it is admirable for the US to enlist the help of allies, I feel as though the job of preventing atrocities is better suited to the United Nations.  The US, if it wishes, can lead the fight to prevent refugee crises there, but it would be better if the country did not appear to act alone as the sole world policeman.  

For the second part of the question, it is in the US's interest to prevent atrocities.  Refugee crises put pressure on other countries in the region and abroad--the recent Syrian refugee crisis comes to mind, as it strains the resources of Turkey and Jordan among other nations.  Also, Europeans are struggling to come up with a humane solution to the millions of desperate people seeking asylum.  In some cases, the chaos from these humanitarian disasters can lead to security threats entering the country. The US should not turn a blind eye to these people who seek help, but it should not consider itself the only one qualified to give this help.  

Write a research problem that would be best studied using a non-probability sample.

Non-probability sampling does not use a random sample, and, therefore, researchers can not assume that the sample represents the population as a whole. Non-probability sampling is often conducted on purpose when it is not feasible or economical to carry out a probability sample (which uses random selection). Sometimes, non-probabilty sampling is done by accident, when researchers, for example, only use college students in their studies (as such subjects are easily available to researchers in universities).

...

Non-probability sampling does not use a random sample, and, therefore, researchers can not assume that the sample represents the population as a whole. Non-probability sampling is often conducted on purpose when it is not feasible or economical to carry out a probability sample (which uses random selection). Sometimes, non-probabilty sampling is done by accident, when researchers, for example, only use college students in their studies (as such subjects are easily available to researchers in universities).

An example of when a researcher might want to use a non-probability sample is the study of what medical experts in the cardiology field think about a procedure such as a new method for heart surgery. This study will not involve large numbers of subjects but instead will choose from the small population of doctors who work in cardiology and will ask these doctors' opinions. Using such a sample is useful in this case because the researcher is not interested in what a wider sample thinks of the procedure, and the researcher knows that the doctors' opinions do not represent a random sample and therefore can not be generalized to larger populations--such as doctors as a whole or to larger populations. 

What were the benefits of being in the British empire?

One advantage is that the British provided the infrastructure needed for a colony to develop. The British built roads, ports, and canals. They also constructed government buildings. A second advantage was that the language was the same throughout the British Empire. English was the language that was used. Imperialism brought diversity to the British Empire. As Britain did more trading, people from these foreign areas came to Britain. These people brought their cultures with them....

One advantage is that the British provided the infrastructure needed for a colony to develop. The British built roads, ports, and canals. They also constructed government buildings. A second advantage was that the language was the same throughout the British Empire. English was the language that was used. Imperialism brought diversity to the British Empire. As Britain did more trading, people from these foreign areas came to Britain. These people brought their cultures with them. The British also help spread democratic ideas to the places they ruled. The British had an established system of law and order that was brought to their colonies. The British also focused on education and emphasized the development of an educational system in the places they controlled. Finally, the British helped their former colonies if they were part of the British Commonwealth after the colonies became independent.

Why does Duke Solinus use the word “intestine” to refer to a feud between Syracuse and Ephesus while outlining their history and structure of...

The word "intestine" at that time meant the same as "internal." So Duke Solinus, in outlining the feud between Syracuse and Ephesus, is referring to an internal, or civil, conflict. Yet there is quite a large geographical distance between Syracuse and Ephesus that makes it hard to understand how the ongoing feud can be described in such a way.

One possible explanation lies in the fact that Syracuse is politically subordinate to Ephesus; Duke Solinus...

The word "intestine" at that time meant the same as "internal." So Duke Solinus, in outlining the feud between Syracuse and Ephesus, is referring to an internal, or civil, conflict. Yet there is quite a large geographical distance between Syracuse and Ephesus that makes it hard to understand how the ongoing feud can be described in such a way.

One possible explanation lies in the fact that Syracuse is politically subordinate to Ephesus; Duke Solinus has been patron to Antipholus of Syracuse, who is very much the junior partner in their relationship. The relative weakness of Syracuse in relation to Ephesus is illustrated by Solinus's contemptuous dismissal of Syracusans as Egeon's "seditious countrymen." The duke regards the people of Syracuse as being in rebellion against the dominance and control of Ephesus.

But there is more than a hint of rhetoric about Solinus's account of the feud. If the Syracusans are indeed subordinate as he seems to indicate, then there is no real sense in which the conflict can be described as internal. Rather, it's a revolt by the weaker power against the stronger after groaning under the lash of economic exploitation for nearly twenty years.

Why is the term "Romantic Movement" misleading?

The term "Romantic Movement" (also: Romantic Era, Romanticism) might be misleading to modern ears because of our understanding of what it means to be romantic. When we talk about "romance" today, we most often do so in the context of love or intimate relationships. One might think of roses, candles, and wooing their sweetheart. Romanticism was actually less focused on love or intimacy than it was on individualism and emotional expression. Themes such as horror,...

The term "Romantic Movement" (also: Romantic Era, Romanticism) might be misleading to modern ears because of our understanding of what it means to be romantic. When we talk about "romance" today, we most often do so in the context of love or intimate relationships. One might think of roses, candles, and wooing their sweetheart. Romanticism was actually less focused on love or intimacy than it was on individualism and emotional expression. Themes such as horror, longing, and an appreciation for nature are all part of the romantic movement.

To a lesser extent, one might consider the term "movement" to be the misleading part. Personally, when I hear the term, I think of great political revolutions and social upheavals. Intellectual and artistic movements work far more implicitly than this. Though Romanticism did have a great effect on politics (particularly nationalist sentiment,) the intended end goal was not necessarily to inspire nationalism or liberalism. Rather, the Romantic Movement was a personal rejection of post-industrialist life and a perceived sense of moral or societal decay, as expressed through literature and the arts.