1. The paradigm I find more insightful is the conflict paradigm.

2-A. In my opinion, the conflict paradigm is believable today more so than the order paradigm. I vision the American society adapting to change only because of the conflict that has occurred to create these changes. Powers are in place not by peaceful demonstration, but by money, status, argument and sometimes violence. The text talks briefly about unions, think about how the Teamsters union was founded and operated fifty years ago, it really is not much different today. Unions have a tougher time, but they still result to conflict to win their prize.

2-B. The conflict model as stated on page 59 "Synthesis of the Order and Conflict models", states the conflict model shows society as revolutionary, fast paced, divided etc. The conflict paradigm reflects that change can not happen unless force, power, or political power is involved. I support this empirical evidence because as stated in 2-A change in the American society does not occur gradually or simply much less, orderly.

3-A. Theoretical arguments that I can offer of the order paradigm are the weak do not gain. Americans do not adapt to change by a suggestion, it takes an act of strength and/or protest to invoke change.

3-B. Empirical evidence that I can offer to oppose the order paradigm is the events of the world today. The world is at war and it took a violent act for the majority of the countries to come together. It has definitely divided the world but the majority is supporting the United States. Would this have happened if we were not attacked? I think not.

4. One point I would like to make in why I support the conflict paradigm as the "American" way, is because when I read the assignment pgs. 53-77 I kept envisioning the Quaker people of today. What better example of order could their be than the Quaker people. The are a small group and quiet. Their society is their own. The majority of the American society could not live, grow or survive today living as the peaceful and self-serving Quaker society.

Another point that I have to support the conflict paradigm is the fact that the people can vote and pass a measure because the majority votes it in. Then low and behold some judge/politician bypasses the vote that the majority has voted in and says it can't be done.

I have to add that I did not support Doctor. aided suicide, however the measure was passed by the majority vote. Voting a process I would classify as an order paradigm. The majority voted in a measure and it was overturned by a decision of a few people because they saw it as inhumane. Never the less, the thoughts of the few with the "Power" overturned the thoughts and desires of the many. The only way that our society could react to events such as these and get noticed would be by acts of protest, violence, anger and/or aggression. To simply protest would not be enough. As I said I did not personally support this measure, but it sickens me to have the measures that our society votes in be over ruled by a few people who are granted with certain abilities due to status in job, society or what ever...

I guess to sum it up I hate to say I understand or relate to the conflict paradigm more so than the order paradigm. Nothing happens in our society that has any major impact without conflict, disagreement, argument etc.

Earline Rust