Social Problems and the Contemporary United States - Assignment Example

Anthropology Anthropology Essay One Social Problems and the Contemporary United s In this contemporary period, the United s is facing many social problems. Indeed, strategic measures are pragmatic at this time. For instance, smoking is endangering many lives in America as the habit is on the rise instead of declining. As more start indulging themselves into irresponsible behaviors such as smoking, social challenges are also building up (Smedley & Syme, 2000). Estimates show that smoking accounts for more than 5 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States today. Since most people know that smoking is hazardous to people’s health, just a limited number really understands what other social problems smoking can cause to both the people and the entire society. As stated, smoking results in death. According to the World Health Organization, smoking holds responsibility for every single death in five. Extent of Effects of Smoking as a Social Problem Apart from deaths, smoking extended illnesses such as cancer, respiratory and heart diseases among others. Facts maintain that continuous smoking can lead to cancer, which is a killer in both the contemporary United States and the world. Furthermore, smoking claims a higher percentage of heart diseases and respiratory illnesses in America. Smoking also causes liver cirrhosis, which, in turn, results in death if not treated early enough (McEachern, 2010). As people continue to wonder about the direct effects of smoking, research observations reveal that passive smoking, which is a common phenomenon among most Americans, causes lung cancer. Passive smoking is as endangering as it has links with cot death and asthma in children as well as glue gear (Barrett, 2009). Therefore, it is agreeable to say that smoking does not only affect whoever is smoking but also affects those around him. Additionally, contemporary United States, among other countries, is part of the largest producers of tobacco leafs. Tobacco planting results in deforestation as planters must clear the bushes before they replace them with tobacco trees (Gobo, 2004). This shows that the need for smoking leads to deforestation, which in the end results in lack of land for other agricultural purposes. Consequently, people suffer from poverty and other social problems due to tobacco plating in the contemporary United States. Further, the level of crime is on the increase in contemporary United States (Delamater & Myers, 2010). Criminal investigations record the habit of smoking among the youth as one of the most common motives of indulging in crime. This is because smoking among teenagers in contemporary United States goes hand in hand with other substance abuse. As a result, the need for more of these substances and lack of resources to acquire them among this generation accounts for their involvement in criminal activities (Barrett, 2009). Sociological Theory That Explains Smoking Interestingly, sociologists and other great thinkers tend to theorize almost everything. Through theorizing, they believe they can set forth better platforms where people can understand certain phenomena. The theory of structural functionalism explains smoking by aiding in establishing the factors that lead to smoking (McEachern, 2010). Additionally, it tries to expound on matters relevant to ways of stopping the habit of smoking. Sociologists in the criminal department have made the use of structural functionalism as a core element in trying to establish the type and amount of smokes, and the time consumed by smokers. The theory of structural functionalism tries to provide empirical and modified range of type of cigarette that a particular person has been smoking (Evans, 2009). This symbolic dialect also encompasses the application of the theory of symbolic interactionalism which is a social psychological instrument used by sociologists in establishing the amount of smokes consumed by the subject. Essay Two The Nature-Nurture Debate The nature-nurture controversy has been and still is a relative part of sociologists’ debate, which attempts to establish the vitality of a person’s innate qualities and personal experiences. Nature concerns innatism and nativism while nurture deals with behaviorism and empiricism. They all aid in causing or rather determining individual differences within both behavioral and physical character traits. Debate regarding these two elements in life centers upon the relative contributions made by environmental factors and genetic inheritance to human development (Keller, 2010). Old philosophers such as Plato suggested that some things expressed by people are inborn or rather occur naturally irrespective of the surrounding influences. On the other end, thinkers such as John Locke argued through tabula rasa, which is a belief suggesting that people’s minds begin as a blank slate (McEachern, 2010). With reference to this notion, people’s experience determines all that they are as well as their knowledge. Studies on Nature and Nurture Two studies comparing two twins observed that twins portray almost the same kind of traits. This came out after Jim Lewis and Jim Springer who were twins separated at the age of four weeks. Different families adopted these twins but, luckily, named them in the same way – James. They came to reunite when they were 39 years old. When they met, sources opine that they had uncanny similarities. Both of them worked partly as deputy sheriffs (Lerner, 2002). Additionally, they had distinguished abilities in carpentry and mechanical drawing. Surprisingly, both of them disliked spelling but loved mathematics dearly and they drove a similar type of vehicle. Both studies also found out that the twins had married wives with the same name, Linda. Both twins gave birth to sons and divorced their wives later where they, then, remarried different women (Evans, 2009). The Second Study The second study that involves the hereditary theory of nature seeks to explain that certain genes encoded within a human cell determine character traits such as body complexion and eye color of a person. An experiment carried out to support these assumptions noted that abstract traits, which include sexual orientation, aggression, and intelligence as well as personality, are similarly encoded in a person’s DNA (Carducci, 2009). This shows that the twins had similar likings and dislikes in their life, including the level of intelligence and sexual attractivism. Under this spectrum, both studies expounded that some behaviors and traits are hereditary. They are carried from one generation to another through genes. Similarities and Differences of These Studies Nevertheless, these twins did not have everything similar in all their life facets. One of the twins could express himself much better in writing while the other embraced oral communication. They also had difference in their hairstyles. One of them slicked his hair in the forehead while the other wore his at his back. The observations show that nature and nurture have a role to play in a person’s development (Brain & Mukheri, 2005). However, it is important to note that behavior and genetics mould people’s character traits. In the first study, researchers observed that these twins had a high likening for mathematics and dislike for spelling. This observation entailed that they had similar interests and passion for the same things (Evans, 2009). Conversely, both observations recorded that the twins’ hairstyles and modes of expression were dissimilar. Both studies concluded that environment and genetics are apparent in determining nature and nurture role in human development. In addition, the studies summarized that environment had minimal impact on the twins’ way of thinking – an observation, which entailed that genetics, are the responsible patterns that embed people’s thoughts (Kornblum, 2011). The studies also concluded that although both twins were completely different, they possessed identical genes, hence, providing reasons for their patterns of thought and development processes. Ideally, positive correlation dictates that familial genes and environment raise the issue of heritability estimate. Consequently, this component makes the breakdown of nature and nurture difficult to interpret (Carducci, 2009). Essay Three Describe Two Research Methods Used in Sociology Characterization is a sociological method of research employed by sociologist to investigate the traits of a given subject. In association with the central limit theorem, characterization helps sociologists attain repeated measurements, which, in turn, become conventional units depending on their samples (Giddens, 2010). Through this method, sociologists collect data using a variety of desired quantities as regards scientific discipline. For instance, to characterize effectively, researchers use questionnaires or interviews. This helps the researcher to several, targeted questionnaires, and interview questions for proper sub-sampling. Upon sampling this data, sociologists are able to provide people with a platform and framework for evaluating critically the many types of data that we all come across. This, in turn, assists people in making and interpreting assumptions about social life (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). Through use of interviews, standardization is possible from the detailed analysis of how the person fells, perceives the subject, and their personal opinion. Further still, there is a high response rate and allows for respondent’s own word recording. Ultimately, efficiency is possible since there is no interviewees influence from other parties. With characterization, the acquired measurements for quantities are variable and different from pseudo-sciences such as alchemy. Unlike some sciences where measurements undergo the usual process of graphing, tabulation, statistical manipulation, as well as mapping, characterization researchers sample data by investigating characteristics using a systemic method that involves direct observation of nature (Brain & Mukheri, 2005). In this case, sociologists are, therefore, able to produce objective knowledge with respect to social phenomena and natural sciences and in some areas with variable research. Interpretive sociology is another method used in sociological research. Under this method, sociologists examine the meanings of different actors attached to particular social phenomena. Additionally, meanings are subjective, indicating that the universal laws do not govern them (Tischler, 2010). Academic researches maintain that sociology is different from natural science since it associates with qualitative research. Once researchers design their questions and concepts as well as theories explaining certain natural phenomena, they embark on picking some level of analysis, method of gathering data, period, and a style of data psychoanalysis (Bidget & Lewin, 2004). Philosophical Justifications Philosophically, interpretive sociology deals with researched meanings, which the sociologists obtain and attach to social phenomena. Philosophy justifies interpretative sociological research by subjecting these meanings to qualitative research, and distinguishes sociology from natural science due to the latter’s governance by universal laws (Bernard, 2011). In cultural anthropology, researchers use numerous methods of studying people’s culture. Some of these methods are participation observation and interviews research. In participatory observation, researchers live within a chosen culture for a specific time and take part in the culture’s daily life within all its diversity and richness (Gray, 2002). In this case, anthropologists attempt to familiarize themselves with the chosen culture from within. In interviews research, researchers interact with the chosen community via language. It involves the anthropologists interviewing some of the native members of the community (Seale, 2003). In this vein, the anthropologists try very hard to learn almost every cultural function and history of that community. Interviews are justifiable philosophically because they involve conversation between the researchers and the focus group, thus they provide the qualitative data regarding the chosen group (Brain & Mukheri, 2005). In conclusion, the methods of research employed in sociology and anthropology share certain similarities and differences. The methods used in sociology and those stated in anthropology are similar in that they all rely on researched data. Sociology in the changing world rather points out a detrimental phenomenon where sociological and anthropological research methods such as those explained in this paper differ (Bernard, 2004). This is so due to the understanding of facts in anthropology. Interviews and participatory observations seek to provide tacit information with reference to tangible factors such as communication with the subject. However, in sociology, methods such as characterization and interpretive sociology tend to create facts out of hypotheses (Gubrium, 2004). In this context, it is agreeable to say that sociological methods produce data that might be questionable given the fact that reliable data must put into consideration the element of surety. References Andersen, M., & Taylor, H. (2007). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. New York: Cengage Learning. Barrett, S. (2009). Anthropology: A student’s guide to theory and method. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bernard, H. (2004). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: SAGE. Bernard, H. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham: Rowman Altamira. Bidget, S., & Lewin, C. (2004). Research methods in the social sciences. New York: SAGE. Brain, C., & Mukheri, P. (2005). Understanding child psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Carducci, B. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Delamater, J., & Myers, D. (2010). Social psychology. New York: Cengage Learning. Evans, B. et al. (2009). Health psychology: Theory, research and practice. New York: SAGE. Giddens, A. (2010). Sociology: Introductory readings. Oxford: Polity. Gobo, G. et al. (2004). Qualitative research practice. New York: SAGE. Gray, A. (2002). Research practice for cultural studies: Ethnographic methods and lived cultures. New York: SAGE. Gubrium, J. et al. (2004). Qualitative research practice. New York: SAGE. Keller, E. (2010). The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Durham: Duke University Press. Kornblum, W. (2011). Sociology in a changing world. New York: Cengage Learning. Lerner, R. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development. New York: Routledge. McEachern, W. (2010). Economics: A contemporary introduction. New York: Cengage Learning. Seale, C. (2003). Social research methods: A reader. New York: Routledge. Smedley, B., & Syme, S. (2000). Promoting health: Intervention strategies from social and behavioral research. New York: National Academies Press. Tischler, H. (2010). Introduction to sociology. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More