Todorovs View on Structuralism

Background

Todorov is a Bulgarian writer and philosopher. He grew up in Bulgaria. He moved to France and made a name for himself in his adopted country. Todorov made significant contributions in the field of literary theory, culture, and history.

His works appeared in books such as The Poetics of Prose, The Conquest of America, and Hope and Memory. He wrote the original version of The Two Principles of Narrative in 1978. Porter translated the article to English in 1990. The translated work appeared in a book entitled Genres in Discourse, and was published under the Cambridge University Press.

The title, Genres in Discourse is a misnomer, because its main theme is not about genres. It is a collection of essays that talks about different categories of literature. The article was written in response to questions regarding the nature of narratives.

Main Arguments

Todorov argues that a fascinating story adheres to the two principles of narrative: succession and transformation (Mills and Barlow, 2009). Todorov reached this conclusion by scrutinizing the works of other philosophers and literary experts.

He borrowed some of their ideas, and he offered his own interpretation of how to construct a narrative, sot that it resonates in the hearts and souls of readers all over the world. Todorovs understands the importance of repetition and difference within a narrative.

Repetition makes it easier for readers and the viewing public to immediately understand the premise of the story. Readers and moviegoers are not expected to understand everything that they read, or appreciate the intended message of the movie that they are watching. Nevertheless, they are expected to understand the premise of the story, so that they have the incentive to keep on reading.

For example, in an adventure story, the reader immediately senses that there is going to be a hero and a villain. Similar patterns recur in the creation of popular fairy tales. In adventure stories, the hero has to embark on a journey to prove his loyalty or his love for another person.

Todorov accepted the need for repetition. However, he also acknowledged the other side of the coin so-to-speak. He said that repetition and difference must go hand-in-hand in order to create unique stories. In this article, Todorov argued that the manifestation of the repetition and difference aspect of the narrative requires the application of a specific formula.

Todorov asserts that the mere presence of characters, the statements made about their needs and desires, these are not enough to constitute a narrative. Todorov pointed out that certain elements must be present in order to create a narrative.

With regards to the repetition aspect of the narrative, it requires the unfolding of an action, change, and difference (Mills & Barlow, 2009). With regards to the difference aspect of the narrative, it requires five obligatory elements:

1) the opening situation of equilibrium;

2) the degradation of the situation;

3) the state of disequilibrium;

4) the attempt to reestablish equilibrium;

5) the reestablishment of equilibrium (Mills and Barlow, 2009).

Evidence Offered

Todorov was able to prove his case by citing two stories. The first one was an Italian story written by a man named Boccaccio. The second story was a popular Russian fairy tale entitled The Swan-Geese.

Todorov tells the story of a man who lusted after his neighbors wife. Readers are naturally drawn to the story. For reasons that may be difficult for the uninitiated person to explain, there are certain elements to Boccaccios tale that made it an interesting story.

Todorov did not provide details on the story of the Swan-Geese. However, he mentioned several elements, and information regarding the said fairy tale that enabled the reader to get the gist of the story. Even if Todorov went through the outer layer of the story, readers are interested to find out the ending to the story.

In other words, The Swan-Geese is another example of a compelling narrative. Todorov went on to explain the reasons why it was a compelling story. Todorov was able to prove his main proposition by highlighting certain elements of Boccaccios story, and he proceeded to say that statement of facts does not constitute a narrative.

For example, the statement that says Ricciardo was in love with Catella does not draw readers to the story. There are so many people who are in love. Even if the author decided to add controversy, and say that Ricciardo lusted after his neighbors wife does not create enough momentum to propel the story forward.

It was only after the author revealed Ricciardos state of mind, and the disequilibrium within his heart that the story began to acquire traction. However, the story has to go forward, it must create action. Therefore, it has to follow a chronological order or a succession.

At the same time, the reader must see the transformation within the story, and within their hearts and minds. This occurs, as they try to interpret the changes that are occurring within the narrative, and within the characters of the story.

The same thing can be said about The Swan-Geese. The statement that says that a boy and girl were playing outside the house does not automatically constitute a narrative. It is a common occurrence that children play outside their homes.

It is only after the introduction of the statement saying the boy was kidnapped when the story began to move forward. In the same manner, the story has to follow a certain chronological structure in order to give way to the unfolding action.

Reactions

Todorov was correct when he pointed out the importance of succession and transformation, in the creation of a compelling story. The first part of the formula that requires a chronological unfolding of action is nothing new. Other philosophers and writers were able to describe this critical framework.

The interesting contribution of Todorov to the literary world was the way he combined the importance of the chronological unfolding of action, with the need to experience transformation within the story, and within the hearts and minds of the readers.

It is through the identification of the succession-transformation dynamic that Todoro was able to explain the secret recipe for creating compelling stories. He was correct in stating this argument, because the absence of the elements, such as, unfolding action, change, and difference, leads to the creation of a hollow structure.

In fact, Todorov was correct when he said that it creates a mere description of events. However, it is not a good example of a narrative. It is easy to agree with Todorov on this point, because uninspired storytelling contains a problematic framework, it is the unfolding of statements without an unfolding action that creates change.

One way to look at repetition and difference is by imagining the construction of a railway system. The establishment of the railroad tracks exemplifies the laying down of a familiar structure. The characters and the other elements of the story represent the train.

The transformation that occurs within the story represents the movement of the train. The movement of the train is the unfolding action that leads to change in scenery, and change in the overall components of the railway system. In other words, stories are compelling if it promises transformation.

It has to fulfill a basic requirement first, which is the repetitive elements of a basic narrative. It is important to secure these elements in order to develop the groundwork needed to fill in other vital parts. However, unsuccessful storytellers are only committed to the first requirement.

They were able to talk about the premise. They were able to talk about a man who fell in love with a beautiful girl. Without the capability to offer unfolding action and change, the story dies before it begins.

Conclusion

Todorov was able to prove his claim that successful storytelling and the creation of compelling stories require adherence to the principles of succession and transformation. He was able to prove his assertion by dissecting two stories. He was able to tell these stories in a compelling manner, and readers were interested to find out what happened at the end.

He went back to remove certain elements of the story, and all of a sudden, the same exciting stories suddenly lost steam and were no longer interesting. He went on to explain that the mere presence of characters, setting, and other specific information, does not constitute a narrative. He was correct in making this assertion. In fact, the idea of unfolding action is not a new thing.

Stories are like trains that require railroad tracks. The railroad tracks are established patterns, and established structures that are needed to jumpstart the story, and bring it to a satisfying end. In other words, a story has a beginning and an end. However, it was the description of the second principle, and its application to the creation of narratives that revealed Todorovs brilliant mind.

Without the second principle of transformation, stories are mere description of events. Without the element of change, stories are boring and repetitious descriptions of everyday occurrence. The statement that a girl was attracted to a boy is not a compelling story. It is stating the obvious. People are attracted to other people. However, the introduction of a transforming element creates fireworks within the story.

When the boy begins to create elaborate schemes in order to attract the girls attention, the story unfolds into another dimension. In other words, the story becomes interesting. It is also important to point out that Todorov did not only talk about the transformation that occurs within the narrative. He also pointed out the transformation within the readers heart and mind.

This is arguably his second greatest contribution to the discussion of structuralism. It is an ingenious way of describing how readers react to the stories that they enjoyed reading. The transformation within the readers heart and mind also explains the different interpretation of the story. Therefore, stories are not only unique because of the unique elements that are contained with the storyline, but also because of the different interpretations in the hearts and minds of the consumer of the said stories.

It is important to highlight Todorovs contributions in order to appreciate the work required to produce fascinating stories. Writers must take heed to what he has to say in order to prevent the creation of boring stories that readers will never read.

Reference

Mills, B. & Barlow, D. (2009). Reading media theory. New York: Routledge.

Structuralism Concept in Philosophy

Background

Identifying the Main Theorists in the Field

While analyzing the theory, it is imperative to highlight the difference between structuralism tendencies presented in American and the ones developed in Europe. The latter is associated with the study of structural linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure who focuses more on synchronic linguistics. The theorist was among the first who managed to apply structuralism to other disciplines. Significant contribution has been made to the study of semiotics, a science of signs. More importantly, Saussure was a core figure in developing modern methods studying language. Particular reference was made to historical dimensions of language, as well to how meanings are maintained and established (Barry 41).

Another notable theorist who has introduced researches on structuralism was Claude Levi-Straus. His studies were predominantly focused on the analysis of anthropology and sociology. In particular, structural approaches contributed to reproducing system of signs through cultural practices, including customs, religious rites, different types of texts, and many other culture-related activities.

Judging from the above position, the theory of structuralism has greatly contributing to the study of many social, cultural, and linguistic theories and disciplines. Therefore, it is purposeful to consider the tools and the main way of thinking as presented by Ferdinand de Saussure and Claude Levi-Straus.

Defining Structuralism as a Theory and a Cultural Tool

The concept of structuralism centers on the concept of outside influences on human perception of the world. From social point of view, the supporters of structuralism believe that the individuals are always guided by generally accepted social and cultural norms rather than by personal outlooks (Kumral 481). Within a linguistic perspective, structuralism explores social and collective aspects of language and focuses on its grammar rather than its actual application (Booker 20).

Barry also agrees that structuralism explores the structures that are imposed by our way of perceiving the world and organizing experience, rather than objective entities already existing in the external world (39). As a result, individuals are considered as subjects because they are created by existing structures. They are decentralized constructs that are involved into a particular social and cultural system.

Structuralism as a Base for Semiotics

A structural approach is heavily applied to semiotics, a field that deals with sign systems, conventions, and codes. A system of signs, therefore, includes different aspects of linguistics ranging from human language to the vocabulary used in the sphere of fashion. Because semiotics is premised on social constructs, it is closely connected to the concepts applied in structuralism (Booker 20). It has been previously mentioned, the fundamental concept of the science is sign. In this respect, semiotic theorists consider humans a subjects making and interpreting signs.

Importantly, because structuralism is highly associated with cultural concepts and dimensions, semiotics is also involved into the analysis of cultural patterns in language structures. In this respect, structuralism can be seen as a modern way of thinking that focuses on recurring patterns of though and behavior through analyzing elements of any system in terms of a highly abstract relational structure.

Outlooks on Structuralism as Presented by Saussure and Levi-Strauss

Linguistic model of Saussure

Signs and the Arbitrary Relationship between Signifier and Signified

Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of structuralism and linguistic, has presented an alternative outlook on analyzing languages as systems of signs. In this respect, the linguistics also introduced semiotics as a science of signs. His intellectual contribution to the development of linguistics has affected other scientists working in the sphere. According to Saussure, different languages originate from one language, which allows to conclude that language is based purely on the principle of signs and symbols (Booker 957).

Because of a variety of languages, the only means to identify the relationship between those is to define the natural (arbitrary) similarities. Saussure believes that all human languages have one purpose  to describe the external world. Saussure also suggests that the sign is the atom of language divided into the following parts: a signifier and a signified. A signifier is a sound concept whereas a signified is the concept that endows an object with a meaning.

The relations between those are arbitrary, or predetermined by natural resemblance. In other words, arbitrary relationships means that a person make use of generally accepted language meanings to describe a specific phenomenon. However, the language signs are not subject to an individual choice, but to a generally accepted convention (Booker 958).

Arbitrary connections can be brightly exemplified on the example the relationships between objects and their names. For instance, the word table is not correlated with its actual meaning because there is no logical connection between a word (a signifier) and what it actually designates.

However, the exceptions can be connected with onomatopoeic words, but even these ones differ from language to language and are based on conventions (Barry 42). In addition, Saussure also supported the idea of differences and oppositions, which was later discussed by Levi-Strauss. Hence, the scientist believed that language was nothing but a set of differences and oppositions deprived of fixed terms (Booker, 958).

Viewing the language from the point of a signifier and signified, Saussure also refers to the concepts of the langue and the parole, which will later be used by other structuralism, including Claude Levi-Straus who applied this principle to studying texts within cultural contexts.

Synchronic and Diachronic: The Study of a Language System

According to Saussure, language belongs to a larger system of conventional signs in culture. In this respect, language can be regarded as a structured system of symbol and signs that should be studies in a particular cultural period, or synchronically, but in a phenomenon changing over time (a diachronic approach) (Booker 958).

In this respect, there are two types of a language analysis: synchronic and diachronic. The former refers to the static evaluation of a text. In other words, the text is regarded as a set of interrelated concepts and established relations between those. It also analyzes how one concept is influenced by other. The second type is associated with the evolutional approach to a text study. It implies that the text is assessed through the prism of historic or cultural periods.

Reviewing diachronic and synchronic representations within a broader meaning of structuralism, it should be stressed that each objects or phenomena can also be interpreted within a specific time extract, or with regard to the temporary shifts. In such manner, it is possible to identify the way cultural and social conventions change in the course of time.

Structuralism in Anthropology: Anthropological Model of Levi-Straus

Claude Levi-Strauss was a notable anthropologist who made a significant contribution to the development of sociology and linguistics. From structural perspectives, the scholar believes that meaning is produced within a cultural context by means of various activities, practices and phenomena, being the main underpinnings of systems of signs.

The scholars belief is that events and phenomena of social anthropology are composed of communication, but not of functions (Booker 1415). While explaining the concept of gift, for instance, he suggests that gift giving in general and wife trafficking in particular are above all modes of communication (Booker 1416). Interpreting this, gifts can be considered words used for communication with each other.

While analyzing the individual tale (the so-called parole), Levi-Straus states that it does not have a complete meaning when it is separated from the entire cycle. It can be interpreted and analyzed only when it is presented in the context of the whole cycle, or the langue. At this point, the individual tales posited in larger contexts can be considered through the prism of differences and similarities.

For instance, the anthropologist placed a separate story about the Oedipus myth through a larger context of tales about the city of Thebes. Applying to a structural method, concrete motifs and details from the story are viewed in the light of larger structures. The dual oppositions can be presented in symbolic, archetypal, and thematic terms.

Doing a Structuralist Analysis: A Practical Application

Considering that a shift in one understanding one concept or elements generates shifts to other systems is involved into the main principle of a structuralist analysis. Using language a structural framework, allows the linguist to understand the meaning with regard to eternal cultural and social influences. Hence, while analyzing texts, the emphasis is primarily faced on the analysis of structures, rather than on their content, which contributes to preserving objectivity in the course of analysis.

Looking through the prism of a signifier and signified, let us consider the meanings of a word table, which, according to the dictionary, has several meanings (signified objects):

  1. a piece of furniture;
  2. figures and facts displayed in columns;
  3. type of geometrical figure.

Different signified notions are aligned to one signifier, but all of them are premised on the oppositions existing as conventions. However, these meanings cannot be recognized unless they are posited in context.

Comparing Structuralism Theory to Other Theories

Theory before Structuralism: Marxism

Because structuralism is closely associated with cultural and social contexts, Marxist theory can also be seen in the light of cultural concepts. Regarding this, many similarities occur between two theoretical frameworks. Similar to structuralism, Marxist theorists also support the idea that society should be viewed as structure that always undergoes change.

In particular, the Marxian interpretation of social and cultural contexts is premised in splitting the system into two parts: the base, a system in which the core is the mode of production and the superstructure that includes cultural and moral systems, social relations, and other institutions. Hence, the idea is that cultural and social systems are shaped on the basis of existing historical conditions. However, the base is not sufficient for determining all cultural and social institutions because it would mean that all communities are identical.

Both structuralism and Marxism decentralize the role of individuals in shaping cultural arrangements, including traditions and customs. However, the difference is that structuralism considers the external natural world as the one influencing human perception and shaping society in general whereas Marxists support the idea that modes of production, as well as class struggles, are at the core of cultural formation. Hence, both structuralism and Marxism do not recognize society as a group of individuals, but a set of intersections and relations in which the individuals are involved.

A distinctive feature of considering objects and concept as represented by structuralism and Marxism lies in diachronic and synchronic representation of cultural phenomenon. In particular, Saussure suggests that language, as well as cultural concepts should be studied within a certain period of time (synchronically) whereas Marxists view social and cultural progress through changes and transformations (diachronically) (Berger 42). In addition, class struggles define the character for development, similar to differences and oppositions define objects within larger concepts, as presented by structuralism.

While applying Marxism to interpreting texts, much emphasis should be placed on the development of consumer culture and strict communist ideology. In this respect, Marxist approach to interpreting meaning contrasts the structuralism approach. This is of particular concern to symbolic representations of texts.

Theory after Structuralism: Psychoanalytic Analysis

Similar to structuralism, the theory of psychoanalysis has also contributed to the study of sociology and linguistics, but the studies are focused on the notions contrasting to understanding individuals through contexts. In particular, a person-oriented approach opposes a decentralized dimension of structuralism. Hence, the language is viewed as detached from the natural world (or pure conventions, as presented by structuralists) (Barry 43).

Accepting this position implies that a text should not represent the real world. Such an assumption is congruent with Saussures definition of language as a set of arbitrary relations that does not depend on realitu, but on the structural differences within a language. The difference, however, lies in the fact that texts are closely associated with the concept of the self, which is withdrawn by structuralism.

While investigating the realms of languages, a French psychoanalytic Jacque Lacan draws parallels between personal development and literary theories (Barry 110). At this point, the scholar singles out several stages of the self: the Imagery and the Symbolic. The first stage is associated with idealized representation of the world. Lacan compares this stage is extensively used to characterized poetry as a literary genre.

Hence, the Imagery represents an anti-realist outlook on the worlds, similar to poetry aimed at idealizing the world through language of gestures that are beyond grammar and logic. The Symbolic is more consistent the realistic representation of the world, which is congruent with prose. Hence, the opposition between the Imaginary and the Symbolic is seen as the opposition between poetry and prose. Similar to personal development interacting with the Imaginary and the Symbolic, the literary genres also combine realistic and anti-realistic tendencies.

Conclusion

Structuralism discusses the individuals through their relations with the outside conventions. A decentralization of outlooks on personal development is determined by the existence of purely conventional terms. Looking at the language through the prism of structuralism allows use to regard it as set of differences and relations deprived of fix terms. Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of structuralism, also considers language as a sign system when there words are composed on signifying and signified concepts.

These meaning can be interpreted within a larger context, which also relates to Saussures model of the parole and the langue. The latter was used by another supporter of structuralism Claude Levi-Straus. Hence, the presented views on social constructions and literary theories supports the idea that structuralism is a powerful cultural tool contributing to understanding the recurring patterns of thought and behavior. These patterns, however, significantly differ from Marxist theory and Psychoanalysis. Nowadays, structuralism is represented through mass cultures that establishes the norms of society.

Works Cited

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. UK: Manchester University Press. 2002. Print.

Berger, Arthurs Asa. Cultural Criticism: A Primer of Key Concepts. US: SAGE, 1995. Print.

Booker, Keith. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. US: W.W. Norton & Co. 2001. Print.

Kumral, Necat. Semiotics and Language Learning: Speech as a Sociolinguistic Phenomenon. Ekev Academic Review 13.41 (2009): 481-494. Print.

Symbolic Interactionism and Siblings

Introduction

Human beings are social in nature and embrace relationships depending on their personal goals. Symbolic interactionism is a powerful theory that examines the nature of such connections between people in a specific community. They will apply the relevant symbols and language that can guide them to formulate meanings of their surrounding environments. The move to combine symbolic interactionism and siblings into a given research agenda will shed more light about the past attributes associated with the individuals relationships, how they communicate, and the impact of social class.

Incorporating Symbolic Interactionism and Siblings

Most of the past research studies focusing on the relationships established in families has revolved around the concepts of functionalism and conflict. The functional perspectives would describe how families socialize their children and regulate a wide range of activities. The conflict model, on the other hand, describes the possible sources of inequalities in the family and how siblings end up developing their own personalities. The symbolic interactionism theory can help a researcher targeting on siblings to focus more on the recorded situations and practices (Campione-Barr et al., 2015). Specifically, the researcher will understand how two or more brothers or sisters relate with each other. The study process will deliver additional insights for exploring their personal attributes, goals, and expectations.

Through such a lens, the researcher will be empowered to find additional meanings in the manner in which siblings fight each other or handle their differences. This model will require a detailed approach beyond the conflict strategy or theory. Additionally, the study process will create a new opportunity for focusing on the portrayed symbols and behaviors. In such a research process, the professional will be in a position to learn more about the siblings cultural attributes and scripts (Gabatz et al., 2017). The underlying argument is that any individual will be keen to interact with another in a unique manner that is in accordance with the promoted relationship.

When completing such a research, the symbolic interactionism model will present new perspectives on events, activities, and hobbies that are critical to specific family members. The evidence will also expose the meanings attached or associated with some of the identified activities (Gabatz et al., 2017). This process means that the researcher will acquire insights and ideas for learning more about a specific family, their past experiences, and their possible goals. In the same research, the investigator will shed more light about the siblings social class and what it means to them. Their status could also expose how they handle emerging differences, relate with other members of the society, and pursue their social and economic goals.

Symbolic interactionism theory goes further to expose the promoted styles of communication between siblings. Since no two individuals are the same, the model will allow the researcher to analyze each persons communication philosophy and connect the same to his or her social class (Sanner et al., 2018). Additionally, the exercise will expose more observations about the siblings expectations from each other.

Conclusion

The above discussion has revealed that the move to incorporate an element of symbolic interactionism and siblings in a given research will expand the agenda by exposing additional insights. The researcher will also be able to focus on a wide range of areas and link the findings to the participants future economic goals, social status, and conflict resolution mechanisms. This model would, therefore, be appropriate for researchers planning to learn more about sibling relationships.

References

Campione-Barr, N., Lindell, A. K., Giron, S. E., Killoren, S. E., & Greer, K. B. (2015). Domain differentiated disclosure to mothers and siblings and associations with sibling relationship quality and youth emotional adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1278 1291. Web.

Gabatz, R. I. B., Schwartz, E., Milbrath, V. M., Zillmer, J. G. V., & Neves, E. T. (2017). Attachment theory, symbolic interactionism and grounded theory: Articulating reference frameworks for research. Texto Contexto Enferm, 26(4), e1940017. 

Sanner, C., Russell, L. T., & Coleman, M., Ganong, L. (2018). Half-sibling and stepsibling relationships: A systematic integrative review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10, 765-784. 

Sociological Perspectives and Their Approaches to Research

Introduction

Sociologists use different theoretical perspectives when studying society and human interactions. There are three prominent theories in sociology: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory. This paper will introduce theorists of each of these three perspectives and the tenets of their theories. Further, qualitative and quantitative research methods will be defined, and an explanation will be offered regarding these research methods being approached from different sociological perspectives.

Introducing Sociologists and Their Perspectives

The first sociologist is Emile Durkheim, whose views adhere to the structural-functional theory, also called functionalism. Functionalism views society as comprised of different elements that serve to meet people’s various biological and social needs (Smith-Hawkins, 2020). According to the structural-functional perspective, all parts of society, such as family, government, and education, contribute to the entire society and maintain its stability (Griffiths et al., 2015). Durkheim believed that society functioned as a whole because people in it were connected by a common language, values, and symbols (Griffiths et al., 2015). Consequently, in order to study sociology, researchers should look beyond individuals and explore larger structures, such as laws, religion, and fashion.

One way in which Durkheim applied the structural-functional perspective to research is by studying social factors affecting suicide rates. He hypothesized that suicide rates could be influenced by differences in religious affiliation and, after reviewing the suicide statistics, he found that his hypothesis was confirmed (Griffiths et al., 2015). His findings showed that, although suicide was considered an individual phenomenon, such social structure as religion affected it, with Catholics being less likely to end their lives than Protestants (Griffiths et al., 2015). Thus, functionalists look at how larger social structures affect the lives of individuals and society as a whole.

The second sociologist is Karl Marx, who is considered the developer of the conflict theory. This theory posits that society represents “a competition for limited resources” (Smith-Hawkins, 2020, p. 4). Marx believed that society was comprised of people of different social classes who competed for scanty resources, such as employment and housing (Griffiths et al., 2015). Some individuals managed to obtain more resources, which put them in a position of power and allowed them to maintain the inequalities in society. According to Marx, social inequalities would become extreme one day, and it would force the disadvantaged classes to revolt (Griffiths et al., 2015). Whether Marx’s predictions are true or not, they demonstrate the major argument of the conflict theory, namely, that social changes are the result of conflicts in society. In addition, Marx believed that the economic structure determined the other elements of social structure (Griffiths et al., 2015). For example, in capitalism, the social conflict stems from the inequalities between the working class and the bourgeoisie, and it is assumed to lead to social change in the future.

The third sociologist is Herbert Mead, who is a representative of the symbolic interaction theory. While functionalism and conflict theory apply to the macro-level of society, symbolic interactionism analyzes society at a micro-level. This theory pays attention to the relationships among individuals in society (Smith-Hawkins, 2020). It is particularly focused on the patterns of one-on-one interaction between individuals. Symbolic interactionism also puts much emphasis on communication because this theory suggests that people make sense of the social world by means of language and symbols (Griffiths et al., 2015). Among symbolic interactionists, Mead was interested in studying the development of the mind and the self in the process of social interactions (Griffiths et al., 2015). He argued that people shaped their views of themselves depending on their social contacts with others. Mead also distinguished between the significant others, that is, specific people influencing the individual’s self, and generalized others, that is, the social group related to the individual (Griffiths et al., 2015). Thus, the symbolic interaction theory posits that society is created by means of meaningful contact between individuals.

The Research Topic and Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods

The research topic proposed for the evaluation from the three sociological perspectives is the dropout rates in higher education institutions in the GCC region. The topic can be approached using two different research methods: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative studies in sociology collect data using statistical methods such as surveys (Griffiths et al., 2015). They study a large number of participants and apply statistical data analysis to reveal whether the human behavior under exploration follows a certain pattern (Griffiths et al., 2015). Qualitative research methods include focus groups, in-depth interviews, observation, and textual analysis (Griffiths et al., 2015). This type of research aims to delve into people’s experiences and perceptions and, thus, understand human behaviors. Hence, qualitative and quantitative research methods differ in that the former relies on numerical data and large samples, and the latter uses non-numerical data and investigates special cases of human behaviors.

Approaches to the Study from Different Sociological Perspectives

The three sociologists would approach the topic of dropout rates differently. Durkheim, the representative of the structural-functional theory, would research this topic from the perspective of the interaction among structural elements of society. For example, the functionalist researcher could explore how religious affiliation affected students’ dropout rates. It would also be possible to study how other social institutions, such as government, family, or the economy influenced students’ decision to quit higher education. Such a study would apply the quantitative research method, just as Durkheim did in his research into the association between suicide and religion. In order to study dropout rates in higher education institutions, functionalists could review statistics and analyze them using statistical methods to identify patterns in students’ behaviors. Qualitative research methods are unlikely to be used by adepts at the structural-functional theory because this theory is focused on macro and middle levels of analysis, while qualitative research is suitable for a micro-level investigation.

Marx, the adherent of the conflict theory, would explore the issue of students’ dropout rates from the perspective of social conflicts, namely, socioeconomic inequalities. He might hypothesize that students from the lower social classes were more likely to quit higher education than those from the higher levels of society. He could base his hypothesis on the evidence that education had long been an indicator of a higher socioeconomic status and a privilege of the wealthy (Smith-Hawkins, 2020). Like functionalists, the adherents of the conflict theory would use quantitative research methods based on the use of statistics and large sample sizes. This is because the conflict theory is designed for a macro-level analysis.

Finally, Mead, a symbolic interactionist, would search for patterns of interactions among individuals to explain the issue of dropouts from higher education. The symbolic interactionist could hypothesize that students who quit universities were raised in an environment where higher education was not considered essential for personal and professional development. Or, such a researcher could test the hypothesis that poor communication with peers contributed to students’ decision to drop out. In order to conduct a study, symbolic interactionists are likely to use qualitative research methods because they aim to understand the patterns of one-on-one interaction and their influence on individuals’ behavior. Therefore, Mead could use the qualitative methods of participant observation or in-depth interviews to test the hypothesis about students’ dropout rates.

References

Griffiths, H., Keirns, N. J., Strayer, E., Cody-Rydzewski, S., Scaramuzzo, G., Sadler, T., Vyain, S., Bry, J., & Jones, F. (2015). . OpenStax College, Rice University.

Smith-Hawkins, P. (Ed.). (2020). Introduction to Sociology (AUBH Bahraini ed.). Unpublished manuscript.

Sociological Perspectives in Organizational Set-Up

Introduction

Arguments that exist within Sociology are largely based on the values that sociologists use to help them in their work. These values are usually clearly stated so that the people know exactly what a particular sociologist thinks about the basic nature of social life.

Discussion

For example, Karl Marx’s perspective on society emphasized relations of power and conflict. Those in a position of power—those who own the means of production in a capitalistic society—are locked in conflict with those they dominate, the workers who sell their labor in the marketplace. The interest of the owners lies in maintaining their authority and control over economic decisions, whereas the interest of the workers lies in overthrowing that class in order to be able to reap the profits of their own labor. In an organizational set-up, when adapting to a first corporate job, people almost never fully anticipate what they will encounter. However, one has to come to terms with the reality of a bureaucratic organization. New employees soon discover that others in the organization are often a roadblock to what they want to get done. Co-workers may not seem as bright, competent or productive as they should be. The new employee must learn to accept the human organization with all its weaknesses. “selling,” “compromising,” and “politicking” become essential skills. Employees also learn how to get ahead in the organization. They must discover how to relate to their bosses, establishing a balance between overdependence and rebellion. Power in an organization is not distributed equally or randomly. It has hierarchical social structure. By the very nature of power, some people have more than others although some systems distribute power more equitably than others do. Applying Marxist theories to the organizational set-up, managers are able to exercise their official power only when they served the interest of capitalist elites. When American workers started to form unions, it was no accident that the government took the side of the big business against the workers. The government served the interests of the dominant class. Because the bourgeoisie controls the means of production in a capitalist society, it directs not only economic activity but also institutions that shape the moral and intellectual life of the country in general (Sociological Perspectives).

Power has been the most studied concept in the studies pertaining to organizational behavior. Various authors have identified various sources of power and how these are being used in running and effecting changes in an organization. In said studies, however, power has been seen as a one-dimensional concept which, in effect, neglects its real essence. As Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2002) say, power should be discussed not as an absolute concept but rather a relative one.

In determining the effectiveness of each of the sources of power, as identified above, these sources must be studied in relation to the inherent characteristics of the person or group holding the power as well as in reference to the organization to which he belongs. This analysis should cover the power of the agent as well as that of the target persons and their relationship (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2002).

Power should be discussed not in isolation but in relation with other factors, such as the structure and behavior of an organization (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993), which would give researches the full dynamics of which source of power is most effective in an organization.

In a way, the Conflict Theory is similar to the Marx theory. This group of sociologists sees society as made-up of large social classes who have different experiences and interests. These three classes are the upper or ruling class with wealth, the middle class which consists of those who do not own the businesses they work for yet achieve their position through their education qualifications and the working or the manual workers in society. Through the socialization process, people begin to be competitive. “Although there are shared values, conflict theorists state that the ruling class sometimes imposes their values on their organizations through media, religion and institutions” (Sociological Perspectives).

Meanwhile, the Interactionism sociological perspective tends to focus on the individual, rather than organization. It is the way we create the social world through our behavior, rather than looking at how society creates the individual. From this perspective, society is not a living thing, but a fiction we create to try to make our lives orderly and predictable. Society, therefore, cannot force us to do anything, since it is only real for as long as we care to pretend that it is real (Sociological Perspectives).

It seems that higher residential segregation by race is strongly associated with a lower incidence of interracial friendships in metro areas across the nation. The absence of such bridges holds urgent implications for economic success, inter-group understanding, and democracy in America. These issues will continue to persist if the problem is not addressed to directly. An understanding of power in organizations and the different occupational salaried people using these perspectives can be broadened by looking at how society can, given the persistence of organizational segregation, for example, and the power of other mechanisms can be utilized. There should be more concrete steps at remedies aimed at incorporating a clear understanding of these sociological perspectives in the workplaces and civic institutions that deserve renewed attention (Sociological Perspectives).

Meanwhile, Max Weber’s theory argues that no single factor could explain all the major social change. The many different ideas and beliefs of a culture—not just its material means of production—play an important role in bringing about social change. Applying this in the organizational set-up, sometimes power is seen as they are typically concentrated in the lower echelons of the occupational strata, and access to many high paid career opportunities remain closed to them because of their culture. In other countries, only about 2-7% of the managers and administrators in Bangladesh, India and Indonesia were women. Women constituted a higher proportion but no more than 40% in most instances of the professional and technical workforce. The average wage earned by women workers is lower than that earned by male workers in most countries of the world. This is partly because women’s participation in the workforce is predominantly in lower paid occupational categories and sectors and as unpaid workers. “Women have attributed these economic discriminations to unequal customs laws and prejudices. Business managers often defend smaller payments to women on the grounds that men, unlike women, must be paid enough to support a family” (Bagby, 1981).

Unemployment is usually defined to include those not currently engaged in paid work but actively seeking work. Because women may not actively seek work if they believe none is available at a given time, or lack the access to formal channels such as employment agencies, or do not report themselves to be “available for work” in labor force surveys, they tend to be under-enumerated as unemployed. The definition of unemployment tends to vary across countries and hence intercountry comparisons on levels of unemployment are not feasible with the data currently available (Women’s Health in Southeast Asia).

Women encountered other economic difficulties, official and unofficial, not usually met by men. In some states a wife’s earnings were under the control of her husband. In others, she was not allowed to open a new business without her husband’s approval. The law usually held men responsible for the family’s debts, and women had more difficulty in getting home mortgages or business loans from banks. In some respects, the law seemed to regard women as minors or mental defectives who needed special protection on their jobs and in the handling of their money (Bagby, 1981).

Conclusion

Indeed, these sociological perspectives provide a framework for analyzing one’s experiences in the light of what is going on in the social world around us. We come to see that we are more than just actors involved in our own personal dramas. We are caught up in larger social patterns acted out on a broader social stage.

References

Bagby, Wesley (1981). Contemporary American Social Problems. Nelson-Hall, Inc. Publishers Chicago, Illinois.

Brass, D.J. & Burkhardt, M.E. (1993). Potential Power and Power Use: An Investigation of Structure and Behavior. Academy of Management Journal. 36(3): 441-470.

Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2002). Relative Power and Influence Strategy: The Effects of Agent-Target Organizational Power on Superiors’ Choices of Influence Strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 33(2). 2008. Web.

Sociological Perspectives. 2008. Web.

Women’s Health in Southeast Asia. 2008. Web.

The Connection Between Totemism and Structuralism

Totemism and structuralism are some of the key topics that place Levi-Strauss in the limelight. The two elements are not only important in the analysis of system composition, but also in determining the relationships between systems.

In structuralism, classification and systems play a foreground role in determining what makes a structure (Tilley 1990). This study seeks to identify what makes Levi-Straus theory of totemism and structuralism

Structuralism

According to Levi-Strauss, structuralism in the social context can be achieved through language, kinship relations, and myths. The four elements have different features which qualify them to be considered among the most reliable structures in human science.

For instance, Essential elements of linguistics offer the appropriate paradigms that can be used to elaborate the existence of structures in the social domain. Various linguistic components, such as language have been used to explain the existence of structures in human science (Derrida 1978).

In this regard, language is not only an element of culture, but a different type of structure that comprises of different components.

Language qualifies to be grouped among the structural bodies in the social arena such as art, culinary practices, rituals, kin connections, and exchange systems (Jenkins 1979).

Language as a structure within the human culture has various systems that are vital in the construction of a valid structure. A good example of system within structure of language is speech.

The system of speech is arranged in an organized way where every element plays an important role in constructing the system. The individual acts of speech make up the speech system. Subsequently, different speech systems make up the language structure.

In this regard, the theory tends to compare the system of speech with composition of a chess game where every move in the game is influenced by rules and conventions. The moves in the game constitute each system within the chase game.

The same case applies to language where speech system consists of different elements that move during communication (Tilley 1990).

Every system of language may take different stances. However, the interplay between the different systems enables the structure to convey a particular meaning. Despite the differences, the relationship between them is essential in building the ultimate structure.

For instance, in language every act of speech has to be comprehensive to achieve the objective of communication (Derrida 1978). Language as structure demonstrates the characteristics of various systems.

The different elements that constitute language have the privileges to undergo changes without significant effects in other elements. Therefore, any transformation on one of the elements may result to observable changes, which can be deduced empirically (Scholte 1981).

Kinship relationship is another element in cultural aspect that is used to elaborate on the existence of structures in the social domain. Kinship relation, just like language, can be categorized as a structure due to the existence of different systems that constitute the whole structure (Tilley 1990).

The ties between different groups and families are equal to the systems, which are analogous to the components within the linguistic context.

In this regard, it is therefore important to embrace the fact that language and kinship relations are major elements of communication in the social context (Radcliffe-Brown 1929).

In elaborating the connection between kinship members in the society, Levi-Strauss tends to contravene the suppositions raised by earlier theorists in the field of human science.

The scholar does not agree with the descriptions of kinship connections where biological linkages between the family members are used to exhibit the connections between different systems (Tilley 1990).

For instance, according to the biological linkages, kinship systems are constructed from the relationship between the father and the son, the mother and the daughter, and the father and the mother.

The connection extends to other members of the family, such as uncles, cousins, and nephews. Critics of biological linkage posit that a pair of relationship between family members cannot be used to elucidate the connections of different groups.

To this end, Levi-Straus applies the concept of myth and totemism in elaborating the connections between different groups and individuals that constitute kinship relations (Scholte1981). Structures in the social context reveal that human beings are the key building blocks of any social setting.

The interaction and relationships between the human beings contribute to the construction of social structure (Jenkins 1979). The theory portrays structures as elements that truly exist since they have the ability to surpass theoretical description.

Structures comprise of models that are derived from empirical authenticities. The true existence of structures is also hinged on their impacts on the social aspects of life (Derrida 1978).

Another element that qualifies for a structural analysis within the context of social dimension is the issue of myth. A myth in the society serves the purpose of telling stories that try to locate the existence and origin of different things in the society.

Myths have strong narrative powers that can be used to situate the existence and roles of human beings in the society.

However, myths tend to contravene the provisions of science or any aspect of logical thinking. Levi-Strauss’ theory of structuralism embraces the disparity between science and myth (Tilley 1990).

Myths as structures can also be exhibited in the case of history and archaeological works. For instance, history is structured like language since it has components and systems.

History not only explains the origins of things, but also employs a chronological order that is guided by proper infrastructure (Scholte 1981). History has strong narrative powers, which are used to highlight different elements of culture.

On the other hand, archaeology has structural elements that embrace transformation and development in various aspects (Derrida 1978). Archaeology as an element of structure exhibits cultural developments and changes in the society.

It also relies on historical records which are arranged in some order to exhibit the presence of structures (Radcliffe-Brown 1929).

The interplay between history, archaeology, and time also highlight the role of time in determining the existence of structures in the historical world. Archaeological records are arranged in some organized sequence based on their relationship with time (Levi-Strauss 1963).

Structuralism, as applied in the context of myths, relies on the relationship between different myths. Myths form the key component of oral tradition in every society.

The narrative powers of myths and interactions between different categories of myths tend to establish the structure in the linguistic world.

Myths portray the occurrences of different events in the society. The events may have significant relationships between them that are vital in conducting a comprehensive and reliable structural analysis.

For instance, each myth has a meaning which can be derived from the overall composition of myths within the system (Levi-Strauss 1963).

Mythical structures may be affected by changes in the society or geographical disparities. For instance, the relationship between the contemporary myths and the myths of the ancient world may be affected by changes in technology.

However, all myths have some identical features, which contribute to the composition of their structure.

The determinant factors of relationship such as infrastructure and ideas may be similar, but the adjustments in the environment may result to some contradictions that are related to content.

Despite the contradictions, it is widely evident that every myth in the society is developed from the existence of other myths in different regions.

A myth from a particular area may be used to influence the culture of the people in another foreign land. This connection exhibits the element of structure that is present in myths (Derrida 1978).

From the above structural analysis, it is therefore evident that every myth relies on the existence of another myth. A single myth is an incomplete portion of the overall mythical system. Myths rely on their interactions and relationships to explain the existence of humanity in the society.

However, their differences may communicate contradicting messages about human nature and existence (Bourdieu, 1977). The differences between the myths mainly stem from culture and infrastructural elements.

For instance, the composition of every infrastructure consists of different words, phrases, and sentences that can be divided into several parts. These parts convey different messages depending on the arrangement.

The structural analysis also reveals that the relationships between myths surpass historical and social thinking. The relationships are based on logical reasoning where the elements of the system depend on each other.

Myths as structures have transformational and constant differences, which determine their composition. In this case, myths can be compared to the human mind. Just like the mind, myths perform a collection of functions that interact to influence the composition of the system.

However, the main goal of a myth is to achieve some sense of social reality that can be decoded by the mind. Any event in a mythical context can be attributed to some social reasons (Bourdieu 1977).

To this end, Levi-Straus has made significant contributions in the field of human science. The author has played a greater role in describing structures from different perspectives.

His contributions in the sector have attracted enormous interest, especially with regards to the issue of structuralism. His theory purports the view that every social aspect of human life is marked by the presence of some structures.

The social world is therefore organized in the form of structures (Levi-Strauss 1963). Structures in their own rights have extensive genealogy in the social domain.

The theory also portrays structures in the social context as observable elements that have specific and empirical aspects analogous to the skeleton of a biological organism (Levi-Strauss 1963).

Totemism

Unlike structuralism that portrays the composition of different systems, totemism highlights the relationship between various elements in the system.

The concept reveals how the interdependence between various things in the environment enables them to interact and relate with each other (Derrida 1978). Totemism also reveals how the relationship can be influenced by individuals or groups for their own benefits.

Based on the differences between different functions of structuralism and functionalism, the element of totemism demonstrates the limitations of functions or benefits. Totemism further highlights the stance of structuralism in the analysis of such differences.

Totemism reveals how the interplay between different things in the world constitutes a structure. Relations that determine the existence of a structure may exist between plants, animals, individuals, and different collectivities in the society (Levi-Strauss 1963).

Totemism brings into to perspective aspects of relations that that span from mythological nuances to rituals in the society. The relations may also include beliefs that are associated with particular behaviours and practices in the society.

The aspect of totemism may also restrict particular behaviours within a clan or societal setting due to the relationship between the behaviours and structures of the clan (Tilley 1990). In traditional anthropological contexts, totemism has been associated with primitivism.

In such cases, totemism has been portrayed as a form of religion, which tends to promote the development of rudimentary structures (Radcliffe-Brown 1929).

The same stance is taken by Levi-Strauss, who expounds on the concept to include broader elements of culture that are associated with totemic practices (Scholte1981). However, functional branch of anthropology tends to associate totemism with biological functions.

In this regard, the concept is perceived as uncontrolled advancement among biological organisms. In the biological arena, totemism is used to highlight the interaction and relationship between different members of the ecosystem.

The concept demonstrates how the interaction between different animals and plants determine the composition of food chains and food pyramids in the ecosystem (Tilley 1990).

Totemism in the social and cultural aspect of human life has significant impacts on the food chains and pyramids in the ecosystem. For instance, rituals that govern the type of foods that should be eaten by human beings determine how animals and plants interact in the environment.

The rituals also control the population of plants in the surrounding. Totemism, therefore, gives human beings the privileges that not only control the composition of the ecosystem but also affects the beliefs and customs of the people (Bourdieu 1977).

Totemism exists in different categories. Moreover, the elements of content and form as applied in structuralism portray the disparities that exist between the different categories. The role of totemism in promoting the development of human science should not be overlooked.

The concept plays an important role in promoting social order. The concept ensures that there is stability among the various social components in the society.

It also fosters solidarity where individual and group objectives are integrated to promote the unity of the people in the society (Levi-Strauss 1963).

Plants and animals in the environment convey various symbols that promote unity of different groups. For instance, the rituals that govern the interaction between the people and other vital resources can be exhibited by the activities of groups such as fruit gatherers and hunters.

This position elucidates the role of totemic form in promoting group unity and the achievement of group objectives (Scholte 1981).

However, totemic benefits are only limited to particular plants and animals in the ecosystem. There are cases where certain animals and plants may not be located within the functional framework (Radcliffe-Brown 1929).

For example, animals that spread diseases such as mosquitoes represent totems that have no benefits to the human society. The same case applies to poisonous plants. In other circumstances, such totems may be useful, especially in areas where their benefits have been identified by particular individual.

Reference List

Bourdieu, P 1977, Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Derrida, J 1978, Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human science in writing and difference, Routledge & Kegan, London.

Jenkins, A 1979, The Social Theory of Claude Levi-Strauss, Macmillan, London.

Levi-Strauss, C 1963, Totemism, Beacon Press, Boston.

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R 1929, The sociological theory of totemism, Cohon & West, London.

Scholte, B 1981, Critical anthropology since its reinvention: The anthropology of pre-Capitalist societies, Macmillan, London.

Tilley, C, 1990, Claude Levi-Strauss: Structuralism and Beyond, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Sociological Perspectives on Religion

Defining religion is difficult since it not only encompasses on the belief in an infinite supernatural entity but also includes those with no belief systems such as theists. The ideology came with civilization when human felt a need to worship thus establishing various religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhist, Judaism and Chinese traditionalism.

However, Religion can be explained as an institution that comprises obedient humans with a high regard to a supernatural being who has divine powers and is believed to dictate the human destiny.

The supernatural powerful being is regarded as the reason behind occurrences of certain phenomenon in the universe and therefore has to be worshipped and appeased to award favors. It defines the reason behind human existence, his origin, his value and his fate which portrays man as dependent and unable to defend himself thus, a slave of the Supreme Being.

Its essence revolves around an individual’s sense of divinity and such individuals come together to practice their beliefs in the society and contributes to their culture. Religion touches on various aspects of human experiences with God’s divinity through faith, sacrifices and worship (Haught 24).

In religion, human beings are considered inferior under the Supreme Being and are guided by certain laws which help to recognize what is sacred and what is profane. Feelings are hard to separate from religion since human adores the sacred entity and failure to abide to the laws is followed by a sense of guilt.

The significance of religion is controversial although many agree that it is essential in offering moral guidance to humans to positively live. For instance, it warns of taking another person’s life or stealing other’s properties. These are some of the aspects that the legal systems duplicate and implement them in the society to guide man to live harmoniously with one another.

In addition, during sorrow e.g. death, religion comforts its followers with some like Christians believing of the promise of resurrection. However, religion is implicated with various historical wars and deaths. It is important in basing legal systems in the society. It forcefully tangles itself with the political and economic systems in shaping the society (Haught 187).

Some take advantage of it to enrich them financially and dictate other’s life to serve their personal interests. For instance, some of the churches established are meant to extract money from people’s pockets even to the extent of advertising themselves and enticing people to join them. This portrays greed and corruption instead of upholding moral values to alleviate humanity.

Religion affects people of all race and age globally and acts as a universal language for those with common believes. The social relevance of religion depends on the number of people that embrace it. If it is supported by the majority, its significance is reflected in the political systems and in the cultural values of the society. Critically, societies that strongly uphold religion are submerged in poverty which reflects its social impact since it controls the political and economic systems of that particular society.

The scenario reflects what Karl Marx pointed as “Religion is the opium of the masses” (Clark 257). Therefore, it could be used as a haven to exploit and oppress the members of the society. Poor members of the society cling to religion and the political systems may tend to support it so as to acquire social control. Elsewhere, religion may overwhelm the political systems to dominate other religions resulting to religious conflicts and civil wars

Works Cited

Clark Kelly. Reading in the Philosophy of Religion. New York. Broadview Press. 2000. Print.

Haught, John. What is Religion? : An Introduction. New Jersey: Paulist Press. 1990. Print.

Todorov’s View on Structuralism

Background

Todorov is a Bulgarian writer and philosopher. He grew up in Bulgaria. He moved to France and made a name for himself in his adopted country. Todorov made significant contributions in the field of literary theory, culture, and history.

His works appeared in books such as The Poetics of Prose, The Conquest of America, and Hope and Memory. He wrote the original version of The Two Principles of Narrative in 1978. Porter translated the article to English in 1990. The translated work appeared in a book entitled Genres in Discourse, and was published under the Cambridge University Press.

The title, Genres in Discourse is a misnomer, because its main theme is not about genres. It is a collection of essays that talks about different categories of literature. The article was written in response to questions regarding the nature of narratives.

Main Arguments

Todorov argues that a fascinating story adheres to the two principles of narrative: succession and transformation (Mills and Barlow, 2009). Todorov reached this conclusion by scrutinizing the works of other philosophers and literary experts.

He borrowed some of their ideas, and he offered his own interpretation of how to construct a narrative, sot that it resonates in the hearts and souls of readers all over the world. Todorov’s understands the importance of “repetition and difference” within a narrative.

Repetition makes it easier for readers and the viewing public to immediately understand the premise of the story. Readers and moviegoers are not expected to understand everything that they read, or appreciate the intended message of the movie that they are watching. Nevertheless, they are expected to understand the premise of the story, so that they have the incentive to keep on reading.

For example, in an adventure story, the reader immediately senses that there is going to be a hero and a villain. Similar patterns recur in the creation of popular fairy tales. In adventure stories, the hero has to embark on a journey to prove his loyalty or his love for another person.

Todorov accepted the need for repetition. However, he also acknowledged the other side of the coin so-to-speak. He said that “repetition and difference” must go hand-in-hand in order to create unique stories. In this article, Todorov argued that the manifestation of the “repetition and difference” aspect of the narrative requires the application of a specific formula.

Todorov asserts that the mere presence of characters, the statements made about their needs and desires, these are not enough to constitute a narrative. Todorov pointed out that certain elements must be present in order to create a narrative.

With regards to the “repetition” aspect of the narrative, it requires the unfolding of an action, change, and difference (Mills & Barlow, 2009). With regards to the “difference” aspect of the narrative, it requires five obligatory elements:

1) the opening situation of equilibrium;

2) the degradation of the situation;

3) the state of disequilibrium;

4) the attempt to reestablish equilibrium;

5) the reestablishment of equilibrium (Mills and Barlow, 2009).

Evidence Offered

Todorov was able to prove his case by citing two stories. The first one was an Italian story written by a man named Boccaccio. The second story was a popular Russian fairy tale entitled The Swan-Geese.

Todorov tells the story of a man who lusted after his neighbor’s wife. Readers are naturally drawn to the story. For reasons that may be difficult for the uninitiated person to explain, there are certain elements to Boccaccio’s tale that made it an interesting story.

Todorov did not provide details on the story of the Swan-Geese. However, he mentioned several elements, and information regarding the said fairy tale that enabled the reader to get the gist of the story. Even if Todorov went through the outer layer of the story, readers are interested to find out the ending to the story.

In other words, The Swan-Geese is another example of a compelling narrative. Todorov went on to explain the reasons why it was a compelling story. Todorov was able to prove his main proposition by highlighting certain elements of Boccaccio’s story, and he proceeded to say that statement of facts does not constitute a narrative.

For example, the statement that says Ricciardo was in love with Catella does not draw readers to the story. There are so many people who are in love. Even if the author decided to add controversy, and say that Ricciardo lusted after his neighbor’s wife does not create enough momentum to propel the story forward.

It was only after the author revealed Ricciardo’s state of mind, and the disequilibrium within his heart that the story began to acquire traction. However, the story has to go forward, it must create action. Therefore, it has to follow a chronological order or a succession.

At the same time, the reader must see the transformation within the story, and within their hearts and minds. This occurs, as they try to interpret the changes that are occurring within the narrative, and within the characters of the story.

The same thing can be said about The Swan-Geese. The statement that says that a boy and girl were playing outside the house does not automatically constitute a narrative. It is a common occurrence that children play outside their homes.

It is only after the introduction of the statement saying the boy was kidnapped when the story began to move forward. In the same manner, the story has to follow a certain chronological structure in order to give way to the unfolding action.

Reactions

Todorov was correct when he pointed out the importance of succession and transformation, in the creation of a compelling story. The first part of the formula that requires a chronological unfolding of action is nothing new. Other philosophers and writers were able to describe this critical framework.

The interesting contribution of Todorov to the literary world was the way he combined the importance of the chronological unfolding of action, with the need to experience transformation within the story, and within the hearts and minds of the readers.

It is through the identification of the succession-transformation dynamic that Todoro was able to explain the secret recipe for creating compelling stories. He was correct in stating this argument, because the absence of the elements, such as, unfolding action, change, and difference, leads to the creation of a hollow structure.

In fact, Todorov was correct when he said that it creates a mere description of events. However, it is not a good example of a narrative. It is easy to agree with Todorov on this point, because uninspired storytelling contains a problematic framework, it is the unfolding of statements without an unfolding action that creates change.

One way to look at “repetition and difference” is by imagining the construction of a railway system. The establishment of the railroad tracks exemplifies the laying down of a familiar structure. The characters and the other elements of the story represent the train.

The transformation that occurs within the story represents the movement of the train. The movement of the train is the unfolding action that leads to change in scenery, and change in the overall components of the railway system. In other words, stories are compelling if it promises transformation.

It has to fulfill a basic requirement first, which is the repetitive elements of a basic narrative. It is important to secure these elements in order to develop the groundwork needed to fill in other vital parts. However, unsuccessful storytellers are only committed to the first requirement.

They were able to talk about the premise. They were able to talk about a man who fell in love with a beautiful girl. Without the capability to offer unfolding action and change, the story dies before it begins.

Conclusion

Todorov was able to prove his claim that successful storytelling and the creation of compelling stories require adherence to the principles of succession and transformation. He was able to prove his assertion by dissecting two stories. He was able to tell these stories in a compelling manner, and readers were interested to find out what happened at the end.

He went back to remove certain elements of the story, and all of a sudden, the same exciting stories suddenly lost steam and were no longer interesting. He went on to explain that the mere presence of characters, setting, and other specific information, does not constitute a narrative. He was correct in making this assertion. In fact, the idea of unfolding action is not a new thing.

Stories are like trains that require railroad tracks. The railroad tracks are established patterns, and established structures that are needed to jumpstart the story, and bring it to a satisfying end. In other words, a story has a beginning and an end. However, it was the description of the second principle, and its application to the creation of narratives that revealed Todorov’s brilliant mind.

Without the second principle of transformation, stories are mere description of events. Without the element of change, stories are boring and repetitious descriptions of everyday occurrence. The statement that a girl was attracted to a boy is not a compelling story. It is stating the obvious. People are attracted to other people. However, the introduction of a transforming element creates fireworks within the story.

When the boy begins to create elaborate schemes in order to attract the girl’s attention, the story unfolds into another dimension. In other words, the story becomes interesting. It is also important to point out that Todorov did not only talk about the transformation that occurs within the narrative. He also pointed out the transformation within the reader’s heart and mind.

This is arguably his second greatest contribution to the discussion of structuralism. It is an ingenious way of describing how readers react to the stories that they enjoyed reading. The transformation within the reader’s heart and mind also explains the different interpretation of the story. Therefore, stories are not only unique because of the unique elements that are contained with the storyline, but also because of the different interpretations in the hearts and minds of the consumer of the said stories.

It is important to highlight Todorov’s contributions in order to appreciate the work required to produce fascinating stories. Writers must take heed to what he has to say in order to prevent the creation of boring stories that readers will never read.

Reference

Mills, B. & Barlow, D. (2009). Reading media theory. New York: Routledge.

The Role of Structuralism in Linguistics

In the unit under consideration, it is necessary to pay certain attention to the sphere of linguistics and several influential contributions connected to an idea of structuralism. Ferdinand de Saussure influenced considerably the chosen sphere and introduced a deep language analysis and importance of structuralism. Structuralism is usually defined as a general approach to various academic disciplines, and in linguistics, it is regarded as an analyzing phenomenon that is used to contrast different language elements which are related to each other in present. The main point of this approach is that the evaluation of the elements has to be organized synchronically but not diachronically.

An idea of structuralism lies in the fact that structures turn out to be specific inter-relationships within which culture is the major determinant of the meaning. Structuralism cannot be defined as a separate school of several authors because it is still more general approach that is characterized by a number of variations. However, the works by Ferdinand de Saussure remain to be the most significant sources which define the nature of structuralism and the development of structural linguistics. There are many grammatical rules which aim at exploring the meaning of an idea, and structural linguistics helps to relate these meanings through different times and cultures. Words consist of several elements which are the signifier and the signified. The signifier is a verbal element; and the signified is the meaning of the chosen word that may be spread in different societies.

In general, structuralism is a term that proves that language has a certain structure and consists of a special system of signs understanding of which promotes proper relation of meanings.

Ferdinand de Saussure is a structuralist regarding his definition of language as a set of multiple signs with emphasis on structure of this system. The linguist focuses on the structure of a field for linking a particular phonic sound (the signifier) with the corresponding idea (the signified). Thus, in the frames of the structuralist approach, Ferdinand de Saussure denies the significance of a single language sign taken separately without considering the context and its place in the system.

Sociological Perspectives on the Mass Media

How each theory applies to mass media; how they are similar and different

The functionalist school of thought presumes that every component of society is correlated such that it contributes towards the entire functioning of society. Functionalism holds that mass media is a coordinator of various components of the social system. Functionalists believe that if one component fails then somehow the entire society will be affected. Consequently, social consensus needs to take place through mechanical solidarity (Maintenance of similar values) and organic solidarity (existence of varied types of beliefs and values).

The media is an agent of socialization because it transmits certain elements of culture and values thus contributing towards common ideals of democracy, law, individualism and many others. Conversely, functionalism can look at the functions of human behaviors which can either be latent and unintentional or manifest and obvious. Manifest functions of the media include components such as selling products and encouraging demand for products thus leading to profit making for businesses.

Latent functions on the other hand refer to sustenance of the status quo by reinforcement of gender or racial stereotypes and also exclusion of certain groups. Functionalism therefore explains why the status quo is often maintained.

Conflict theory differs from functionalism because while functionalism tends to do dwell on how mass media contributes towards the correlation and hence overall functioning of society, conflict theory holds that mass media mostly fosters class domination. In other words, conflict theories are more cynical. In the conflict theory, it is stated that the mass media may appear autonomous but it is really focused on the capitalists who have monopolized media houses. The dominant culture is actually a representation of the material interests of those who really have power. Only the dominant class has the ability to carry forward meaning systems which are propagated by mass media.

Although sometimes mass media may try to question some of these roles, it often clear that the media lacks alternative modes of expression for those concerned. There are limitations inherent in the mass media as a social institution that make alternative views quite untenable (Gitlin, 2000). Overly, the conflict theory has the most negative view in social cohesion in society.

Symbolic interactionists hold that people tend to give meaning to their surroundings based on their experiences. Life is characterized by certain symbols which tend to have certain meanings and those meanings eventually affect how people interact with one another. The media plays a role in facilitating interactions among people because it often initiates most societal cues. Many people learn about slang or acquire particular behaviors from shows that they watch or the movies they like. Consequently, one can assert that mass media contributes towards people’s understanding of certain actions. They form part of people’s experiences or act as mirrors that reflect actual experiences that people have undergone thus enforcing those perceptions (Baudry, 1975).

All theories are similar in that they attempt to explain the fundamentals of society with regard to mass media. They all attempt to make explanations as to how mass media influences the actions of society through their views and belief systems. Functionalism, interactionism and conflict theories all accept that societies tend to have common knowledge because of the mass media. In terms of the differences between the theories, the conflict theory is the most cynical theory because it looks at how society’s divisions hence conflict is propagated through mass media.

Interactionism on the other hand differs from the other theories because of too much focus on the micro environment over the macro environment. It looks at how mass media influences interactions and realities of people. Social change is regarded as problematic in the functionalist society. Therefore, mass media reinforces the level of solidarity between these groups (Littlejohn, 2002).

How the theories affect views of the individual who is part of mass media

Functionalism holds that every single individual is somehow related to the larger component of society. Therefore, the audience, which is a major component of mass media will take on cues suggested by mass media. For example, a person who watches violent movies may develop a tolerance for aggression. On the other hand, this may be offset by the other person who learns a few tricks on handling aggressive people from the same movie. Views of individuals can be affected either positively or negatively in this school of thought because when a certain theory causes problems to a certain person, it is often neutralized by the benefits gained by other individuals’ new views.

Individuals tend to be pacified through the mass media as explained in the conflict theory. Here, assertions are rarely questioned by individuals because they trust the mass media so much. Indeed, individuals’ opinions and views are highly dependent on editors’ discretions as well as their choices. People’s reality is reliant on what gets reported by the mass media. Also, individuals’ views often perpetuate the continual domination of the elite through enforcement of consumer culture.

Various mass media outlets are supported and run through advertisements. They also inform individuals about trends and fashion. The media has a very strong effect on the youth as their purchases and behavior often reflect endorsements in the media.

For instance if a new style is in, media outlets will write stories about it, pinpoint celebrities who are wearing those outfits and display images of that trend. In the end, a young person is likely to be interested and will try his/ her best to purchase items that reflect that style. As a result, makers of the garments, shoes, shades will end up making more money and will keep being affluent. Mass media therefore perpetuates a materialist culture amongst individuals who then bring business to creators of those fashion trends and this keeps them in their social class.

In interactionism, the mass media invents ‘truth’ but also enforces ‘truth’ as experienced by people in their lives. People’s identities are constantly being changed owing to the information received by readers, listeners or viewers (Goffman, 1999). However, different people have different interpretations of what they view on television or what they read on the papers. This will depend on the extent of internalization by those groups concerned. On the other hand, some unrealistic depictions on the media sometimes contribute towards unrealistic understandings of the world by individuals. For example, sometimes small and fragile looking heroines may overpower twelve strong men in a fight and this may distort actual understandings of what the world is really about or how it works.

How the theory affects approach to social change in mass media

Functionalism looks at social change as a creator of a ripple effect in other areas of life since all components of society are related. Therefore, it is desirable for the status quo to be maintained. This theory would therefore hold that mass media supports enhancement of status quo and thus makes social change a problem. It would make society dysfunctional and thus impede its workings. In society, this can be seen by the fact that many media houses often select what items to cover and which ones to ignore in order to act as society’s gatekeeper. The mass media can mute certain differences in society; such as the under representation of gays in order to minimize social change.

On the other hand, conflict theory holds that social change is desirable because that is the only way that the proletariat can upset dominance of the bourgeois. Therefore, mass media may sometimes foster these conflicts even though this may not happen frequently. Many movies will portray inequalities in terms of race, economic well being or gender and will thus set the stage for conflicting values that may lead to social change.

On the other hand, the conflict theory looks at what may be considered as social change by other theorists as a way of dominating the masses. Mass media will often display humanitarian efforts in the news. To adherents of the conflict theory, this is seen as a capitalistic design that focuses on controlling the proletariat so as to ascertain that the poor remain in their place by giving them minor offerings (Baudry, 1975). Other theories would interpret such actions positively.

How each theory affects society’s view within mass media as an institution

Functionalism affects society’s views in this social institution because mass media acts as a method of observing the environment and disseminating information to the public. For instance if a certain legislation has been proposed in parliament, the public will learn through media reports that teachers’ salaries will remain low. This in turn implies that society will be more informed and politicians will be more accountable. Consequently, society will be more democratic.

Society becomes functional (transparent) through an active mass media. Social solidarity is yet another function that contributes towards society’s views of who they are. In the US, for example, everyone considers themselves as part of the nation because they know about a certain character on television like spider man. This causes people to relate with one another and thus promote social solidarity.

Adherents of the conflict theory believe that views of society are affected by mass media in a manner that spreads hegemony. In other words, this theory holds that mass media is just another agent of the dominant class. Ideas that are held by the dominant class usually become the major ideas accepted as normal and this serves their interests. For instance, many Americans think of McDonalds as a cultural symbol as depicted in media outlets; even soldiers in the Middle East talk about burgers from McDonalds.

Fancy advertisements intended on drawing on consumers’ patriotic sentiments have led to these opinions. However, preference for fast foods provides a great market for food manufacturers and restaurant chains thus serving the interest of the proletariat. The major contribution of the mass media in influencing society’s views according to adherents of the conflict theory is with regard to creation of materialistic and egocentric views (Gitlin, 2000).

An interactionist perspective would hold that making sense of realities is facilitated by the mass media. Journalists often explain the meaning of certain occurrences in the political, economic or social realm. Eventually, this contributes towards shared attitudes and interpretations. On the other hand, mass media also affects the manner in which communication takes place amongst regular persons. It contributes towards the spread of certain ways of talking or slang.

For instance, rap/rock music as displayed by various media outlets perpetuate the use of certain street slangs. Political campaigns have been characterized by the use of common terminologies that keep getting renewed with every election.

References

Baudry, J. (1975). Ideological effects of the basic cinematographic apparatus. Film quarterly, 28(2), 39-47.

Gitlin, T. (2000). Prime time ideology: hegemonic process in television entertainment. Social problems, 26(3), 251-266.

Goffman, E. (1999). The presentation of self in everyday life. NY: Doubleday.

Littlejohn, S. (2002). Theories of human communication. Belmont: Wadsworth.