1. Which paradigm do you find more insightful, the order or conflict paradigm?

Hmm, this is kind of a tough question, because as we go I will learn more, the answer may change...or opinion. Right now I agree with what they stated in the beginning of this book, that order and conflict are balanced in society.

Right now I find my place in conflict, because I feel a lot of society does compete, and we award the competitors. If it was for the cohesion of society, we would not reward and promote them so high above all the rest of us.

2. Try to identify the strengths of the paradigm you chose above, including the following:

a. Theoretical Arguments: What theoretical arguments can you offer in support of this paradigm? (e.g. "The conflict paradigm is theoretically superior because it offers a better explanation for why and how societies change.") Explain your argument as well as you can.

I believe conflict gives a reason for change, but it is an ordered change that is brought about. We compete as a society to be better, and the society as a whole changes.



b. Empirical Evidence: What empirical evidence can you offer in support of this paradigm? (e.g. "The conflict paradigm is supported by evidence of the gross and growing levels of social inequality in the U.S. today.")

Look at the space race, it was a complete competition to see who could get there first. If it weren't for that, we wouldn't have a great deal of the technology we take for granted today. Through competition our entire social habits, and lives changed. It was changed in an orderly fashion though, as everyone as a whole grew into the fold.


3. Try to identify the weaknesses of the other paradigm:

a. Theoretical Arguments: What theoretical arguments can you offer to oppose this paradigm? (e.g. "The order paradigm is theoretically inferior because it relies on a biological theory of change that doesn't apply to societies or humans")

Order holds to the whole working as a team, when we are divided into sections as it says. Sometimes order forms in pockets, but competition, and conflict breeds when those pockets meet. Order falls weak in that regard, as it seems to make the world, and society sound like a field of roses. Forgetting the thorns.


b. Empirical Evidence: What empirical evidence can you offer to oppose this paradigm? (e.g. The Order paradigm is disputed by evidence of current rapid rates of change, such as globalization, which occur due to factors largely outside of the "organism")

Sit down into a neighborhood and look street to street. You will see groups of people huddled together, forming their own cycle. Their own clique. It isn't unlikely if you looked beyond that, you would see many of these cliques, and when they come in contact with each other..competition breeds. For instance, gang members as a harsh example. They form their own groups, and their own function, then when they rub against each other the wrong way, competition spreads like a rash...


4. Any other points you would make regarding the debate between these paradigms?

The book points out in a few areas, by being so opposite they compliment each other. If you look at anything today, you will get a perfect example, take two separate groups, watch them interact, watch order and conflict first hand.