human
Write a summary relating to two articles in question dwell upon such issues as division and stratification of the society (social, economic, cultural and so on).
assistant
The two articles in question dwell upon such issues as division and stratification of the society (social, economic, cultural and so on). At the same time, the articles focus on different aspects of people's lives to reveal the division and analyze its causes and effects.
human
Provide an essay based on the summary above.
assistant
#Comparing “Sociological Theory in the Classical Era” and “The Handbook of Economic Sociology” Essay
The two articles in question dwell upon such issues as division and stratification of the society (social, economic, cultural and so on). At the same time, the articles focus on different aspects of people’s lives to reveal the division and analyze its causes and effects.
Thus, Edles and Appelrouth (2014) concentrate on Durkheim’s theory of labor division while Smelser and Swedberg (2010) analyze consumption and its causes and effects. It is possible to note that the two articles provide valuable insights into the problem and they can be regarded as two facets of a multifaceted issue.
Thus, Edles and Appelrouth (2014) summarize the theory of Emile Durkheim. The theory is based on the assumption that there is a particular division of labor in the human society. At that, Durkheim sees two types of such division: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.
The researcher states that mechanical solidarity is a characteristic feature of ‘simple’ societies where all works are completed by all members of the society irrespective of their gender or status.
Whereas, organic solidarity is found in the vast majority of modern society. In such societies, different works are completed by different individuals or groups.
It is noteworthy that individuals (or groups of people) collaborate and they do not need to complete similar tasks as they form a complex system where different groups work in particular spheres and contribute to the development of the entire society.
It is necessary to add that the researcher stresses that labor division cannot be regarded as something negative. At that, it is noted that there can be extreme cases of such a division, which can negatively affect development of the society.
These extreme cases involve alienation of individuals who do not feel that they are a part of a larger group and work for the good of all. As a result, classes or even castes appear, which is a negative trend for a society.
It is possible to note that Edles and Appelrouth (2014) provide a good summary of major ideas of the theory. However, it would be beneficial for the article to have a broader perspective.
Clearly, the purpose of the writing was to make the reader acquainted with the theory, but it could become more understandable if it had more links with the modern times. Durkheim’s theory was developed at the end of the nineteenth century, but it is still applicable in modern settings.
However, the article does not link the theory to the present-day societies, which makes it weaker. At the same time, the article can be still seen as a very good explanatory or even background writing for the other article under consideration. Durkheim’s theory explains why social stratification occurs in modern societies.
As has been mentioned above, Smelser and Swedberg (2010) concentrate on the theory of consumption and the way sociology contributes to development of the theory. First, the researchers stress that economists often focus on consumption as a measure necessary to analyze production and distribution or rather the outcome of the two.
At the same time, Smelser and Swedberg (2010) note that consumption provides valuable insights into the stratification of the society. The researchers analyze the division in such spheres as economic status (labor), ethnicity and gender.
The researchers argue that consumption often reveals peculiarities of people’s social, economic status as well as their ethnicity and gender. Thus, it is clear that people have different buying preferences and researchers prove that these preferences are shaped by aspects mentioned above.
Interestingly, it turns out that consumption is closely connected with social activity and various movements (concerning racial or gender equality). The article in question combines elements of an overview of theories on the matter and a particular analysis of the nature of consumption.
It is possible to note that the article is very comprehensive and helps the reader understand a lot about consumption and various trends that have taken place in the society.
The authors show that consumption is closely connected with social stratification. Numerous real-life stories provide important insights into the issue and make the article credible and up-to-date.
Nonetheless, this article also has certain weaknesses. One of major downsides of the article is its superfluous comprehensiveness. The researchers try to provide different views on the matter and, at the same time, they seem to focus on the link between gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and consumption.
This approach is quite confusing. For instance, it first seems that Smelser and Swedberg (2010) plan to analyze different theories concerning consumption.
There is a certain focus on the way consumption is seen within the scope of economic studies. The researchers try to prove that sociology provides more insights into the issue and economists ignore many important issues.
Nonetheless, it soon becomes clear that Smelser and Swedberg (2010) tend to focus on stratification of the society and the way consumptions makes it conspicuous.
This is somewhat confusing. The article could be improved through division of the two aspects of the issue. At least, the researchers can provide more explicit headings and rearrange the information provided to make the text easier to follow.
Comparing the two articles in question, it is possible to note that the major difference lies in the approach used. Edles and Appelrouth (2014) focus on a single theory and do not try to adjust it to the present-day setting. On the contrary, Smelser and Swedberg (2010) have a very broad perspective and mention numerous theories.
The researchers also tie their theory of consumption to the modern times. It is important to add that the two articles should be read together as they help the reader obtain a full picture of the issue.
Thus, Durkheim’s theory helps understand causes and effects of stratification of the society while Smelser and Swedberg (2010) show the way the stratification is manifested in people’s consumption.
In conclusion, it is possible to note that the two articles provide important insights into the issue of the social stratification. The two sources have different approaches and this makes them a good supplement to each other. The articles in question have their strengths and downsides.
For instance, Edles and Appelrouth (2014) provide quite a narrow perspective while Smelser and Swedberg (2010) reveal many facets of the issue. It is possible to state that a flawless source would be a balance between the two.
Thus, the former should include some other theories and a link to the modern settings while the latter should be more focused on a particular aspect of the issue.
Nonetheless, the two articles provide the necessary knowledge on the social stratification as well as the nature of consumption, which is seen as one of the most significant features of the modern society.