In this session, we talked about the two types of social theory. I was fairly, okay I was really, familiar wth the theories as I took SA 101 just last semester and the course was all about social theories and I learned about Marx and Durkheim. These theories by Carroll try to explain why there is inequality in our society. In one hand, there is the consensus perspective where it says that inequality is a function of society and that it must persist because it is for the betterment of society. Here, it talks about the importance of our values and how the exercise of power is just in order to promote those values. I think that Carroll didn't study Durkheim very well because there are dysfunctions in society. Sometimes, something bad persists in order to push good things to happen. Inequality, for me, is a bad thing that pushes people to fight for justice. But when justice is finally achieved, then the dysfunction disappears. It talks about how society works in order to fix the discrepancy. If things are not meant to be there, then society tries to fix it.
When you think about it, inequality has been here for a very long time and it doesn't seem to be getting fixed. This leads me to rethink whether society really is trying to fix this dysfunction, or is it trying to perpetuate it. If If I think in favor of the latter, I would be thinking about the coersion theory. Marx and Weber talk about the cnflict theory and how everybody is driven by their personal interests and it usually comes at the expense of others. Society persists because there is conflict that is keeping it afloat. Carroll talks about how society is just a structure of power relationships and that people in power want to stay in power, and use the values to legitimize their power. Sounds very Marxist right? And I think in our society, this is more likely the case. People become more sneaky with their use of power by disguising it as a fight for justice.
Then Carroll proposes that in order for change to occur in the consensus theory, it needs to be incremental change. On the otehr hand, the coersion theory says that change must be radical. In the context of the Philippines, society has been sick for very long and we need to have radical change and the intersection must be to use the values as a way to motivate people to change and change fast. If you've noticed. society is still pretty sick and it becomes harder I think because the thought of having radical changes while still prioritizing the values we uphold don't really mix. They are from two opposite perspectives and they clash. This makes it hard for people to work together but then there are still some people who do it and I think this is where the negative experience of contrast by Schilenbeeckx comes in. He talks about the reflex reaction that people have when a situation should not be. That I think is the intersection. We are moved to action immediately when we experience something that should not be and this is based on the biases that we have. These biases come from the value system where we were brought up I think.
Going back to a time when I felt this, we were all talking about the RH Bill being passed right after they made ammendments. I read it and saw that the ammendments they made just made the law useless. It created so many loopholes in the law that it was practically saying there is no incentive for people to provide reproductive health services and you wont get penalized if you don't give it so why bother. It lost its teeth and what I thought could be revolutionary in the health sectors just became another useless piece of paper. I couldn't contain myself and I had to be heard. I had t let people know of the repercussions of this law being passed and so I blogged about it. You can see it here: http://lafilleaveclepain.blogspot.com/2014/04/washing-hands-on-rh-bill.html
No comments:
Post a Comment