Interactionist vs. Positivist

Sociologists are broken into different categories regarding their perspective and the way they approach
things such as their experiements. The two major categories are positivism and interactionism. Both theories are attempt to investigate sociological issues and functions, but from complete opposite spectrums.

In sociology interactionists are interested in the social process by which particular behaviors come to be understood as deviant and the consequences of these for those who are labelled deviant. It is a theoretical perspective that derives social processes from human interaction. Positivists on the other hand believe that in social as well as natural sciences, data derived from sensory experience and logical mathematical treatments of such data are together the exclusive source of all authentic knowledge. Personally I feel that from the interactionist's perspective one can better grasp the interaction and relationship of individuals and society.

Because sociology is a social science, the positivist perspective is unreasonable. Statistics that have not been developed from interviews, questionaires, or any type of human interaction cannot help a sociologist focus on what sociology is set to explain- the influence of our relationships around us and how they affect our behaviours and attitudes. A positivist who uses quantitative data alone is incapable of getting thorough insight as to how society influences individuals' behavior. An interactionsit focuses more so on validity (whether or not the researcher received the information/answer he or she set out to receive); which I think is important, because without it the whole experiement was a waste of time.

Any social science requires interaction with individuals closely related to the topic of interest. One can not gain a deepeer knowledge about sociological issues, without researching the issue and those that the issue greatly impacts (which requires complete interaction).

Culture of Poverty

The culture of poverty is a theory that ellaborates on the cycle of poverty. This theory was first proposed by anthropologist Oscar Lewis, and explains that poverty remains within a family throughout generations not only because of the lack of resources but also because poverty itself has its own set of consistent ethnic value. For instance an individual born into poverty has very little hope of escaping. After children accumulate the values and customs that come with poverty they are more than like inable to escape that underclass because that individual due to the lack of exposure will not be able to compete well with those who are born into the upperclass.

The culture of poverty theory goes further to explain that the members of the lowerclass due to their seclusion are unincluded in the country whcih they reside. Many of the decisions made are not centered around members of the lower class, and because of the lack of resources these individuals voices are not heard. Lewis believed that because the poor are uneducated they are unaware of occurances outside of their poverished society. Because they are unaware of the outside lifestyles, they lack class consciousness and are unlikely to riot or make a difference. Lewis argued that the moment an individual residing in poverty gains class consciousness they are no longer apart of the culture of poverty.

The culture of poverty is sad yet accurate. Many don't believe that it successfully evaluates the structure of poverty, but personally I do. I do feel that the obstacle for a member of poverty to experiece social mobility is much greater than those of any other group. Actually breaking the chain and getting out of the bondage poverty brings is not as simple as a trip to the nearest library.

Forces & Institutions' Influence on Popular culture: The puppet master (mass media)

According to wikipedia (which in this case is close to accurate) "popular culture is the totality of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes, images and other phenomena that are deemed preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture." Pop culture is known to be influenced directly by the media, in which it controls what is available for the mass to indulge in -whether it be clothes, news, or music. There may be other institutions or forces -for example, the elite- that impacts pop culture, but I believe that the mass media is one of the most influencial institutions effecting the structure and compnents of today's popular culture.

I believe that the media  controls further than just trends in our culture. It tells us what to wear, what to eat, what to say -how to say it, and even how to conduct our selfs. The mass media sets the norms within the popular culture. Movies aired on television show the mass the life of a typical high school student, homeless man, and even teenage mother. The radio constantly plays songs it feels we should listen to. By labeling a station as one that was made for teens or kids to enjoy, the audience is indirectly told that the music played on that station is music that teens or kids should listen to.

 Because the media controls what the majority of the population receives, it plays a major role in the very things people prefer. The individuals within society that indulge in the things of the popular culture do not fit the definition of a true individual, but instead a puppet available for the mass media's manipulation.