Merton's Typology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2024
- Robert K. Merton's functional explanation for why some groups turn to deviant/criminal behavior while others do not. Merton uses a typology which explains our behaviors through our desire to incorporate legitimate (or illegitimate), socially approved means and goals.
This is incredible! Ten times more understandable than my university teacher's lectures! Thank you!
You explained my 1,5h class into 12 minutes! thank you
You see that in 1,5h? We see this in 5min at our university...
Fantastic explanation Debra. Clear concise and good examples. Voice control and modulations simple yet interesting and non monotonous.
Taking an exam later and there was reading material I couldn't understand, thanks for uploading thisvideo and helping out a student :DD
The picture is very intuitive. Thanks!
Best explanation God richly bless you
Great video, really cleared up Mertons Typology for me!
you explained this sooo clear! Thank you!
This was an amazing and helpful explanation! Thank you! Hopefully I pass my exam!
Thanks Debra! Great video
Thanks. Such a big help for my test.
Wonderful explanation!!!
So helpful!!! Thank you
Is rebel symbiotic with terrorist? I don't think so.
I had the same thought
Thank you! Helped me a lot!
Amazing explanation and representation 🥰👍
I'd like to embed this in my Canvas course for contemporary theory. But it says you have a setting on where it won't play back outside of youtube. Perhaps you'd be open to changing that setting? Thanks and good description!
It should be set up to share... here’s the html:
Does this work for you?
Thank you!!
this video has been very helpful
thank you debra you saved me
Great Job...Get me ready for exam !!!
Thank you, this was very helpful.
the rebellion description seems very off to the rest of my lecture videos and textbook on this... It's not "you have to fit MY needs!" but it's part of conflict theory, since the current norms work to fit the needs of the already-powerful. So change isn't always a bad or selfish thing. It's not bad to reject the idea that wealth = worth, or to argue that society shouldn't equate those
I agree! My other sources explained the theory as explaining how society forces people into deviant behavior by not allowing them to reach their full potential. I disagree with the rebel category. That's how we make meaningful change when the powers that be won't listen (and no, not through terrorism!)
thanks. well explained.
I dont want to change nothing ,your ider of life is simply to narrowed ❤ for financial reasons you was made like this 💚
Saved me !
very helpful thanku
Hi I teach an online class. May I post this video in the class? Thanks!
Hi Kristin, Yes, feel free to post providing you don't make any changes to the content. Thanks, Debra.
Thanks, Debra!
Ok u just saved me from failing my exam
I LOVE YOUUU
This video save my life... my grades
Why I became a soc major
Best lecture for Merton's strain theory
Rebellion: "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
👏👏👏👏👏👏
7:20 that example was waaaay to detailed hmmm i sense something there
XD
why does the innovator have to be a criminal??? Is it possibe the innovator could be an entrepreneur????
She mentions criminology, so I'd say that likely this is designed to be viewed by people studying this to use in analyzing/profiling criminals.
In a way, innovation in the industrial sense is "cheating", but I agree I don't like how in a strict sociological sense innovation is defined as criminal. Any rejection of institutional means shouldn't have to be criminal to obtain a goal. This theory does not seem to account for "real" innovation, which is the primary driver of shifts in industrial norms.
I suppose an example would be the assembly, which of course when it was introduced would have been deviant behavior, and in no way is criminal.
It's important to recognise the distinction between 'crime' and 'deviance'. Crime is defined by law. Deviance is defined by social norms and values. Not all crime is deviant and not all deviance is unlawful. However, some acts can fall into non or both categories.
'Innovation' then, can be seen as a deviant response to strain/anomie and/or a criminal one.
Her example is right but you are confused because she did not mention that there is positive andd negative deviance. Being an entrepreneur is positive.
Rebels unite! No more government. No more capitalism. BUILD MUTUALISM.
Why I became a Soc major
A rebellion isn't always a terrorist thanks
That is true... in Merton’s typology, it is one example. Rebellion, in the sense of this theory means anyone who goes against social norms to the point that they actively attempt to create new norms. This includes people who aren’t content with the current system and use whatever means necessary to change it. I wouldn’t include protestors in the sense that most protestors work within the boundaries of established laws and rules-even though they protest, they still follow rules. But, once protestors actively engage in fighting to change social norms, rules, and laws, they could fit into this category of Merton’s typology.
@@debramarshall905 Of course, I understand. but that doesn't make them terrorists, right? A terrorist blindly spreads death to innocent people but rebellions would have some particular goals and would act together with most of the other people- not attack them
@@marki2276 I see your point, but we know rebellions aren’t always inclusive of most people. Sure, there are such cases (just look at what’s happening in the US right now) where broad swaths of people have banded together in rebellion... where we say “enough is enough.” But, that isn’t representative of all rebellions. Some are much smaller in scope and do not interact with broader society (and may fail for that reason).
And remember, your comment is YOUR definition of a terrorist. If you ask the terrorist herself to define who she is, I’m willing to bet the definition would be different, less incendiary. This gets to the very heart of interpretive sociology, and symbolic interaction theory.
As sociologists, we do take the work of those before us (in this case, Merton) and make the case for reinterpretation of the original work. That’s what you’re asserting, and that’s great!
The main thing to remember about Merton’s rebel category is that these people/groups are working outside of the norms of society, actively trying to change society to a form they want it to be by whatever means necessary-that’s why the terrorists fit into this category-they reject both the means and the goals and actively work to change social foundations.
And, to take it a step further, I’d say that even though I used “terrorists” as an example, there could be positive examples of rebels. Thanks for the chat! 😊
The content creator clearly does not have a grasp on what it means for a government to be a MONOPOLY on the LEGITIMATE USE of violence. Being a MONOPOLY on the LEGITIMATE use of violence means competitors are disallowed from use of LEGITIMATE violence-- DEFENSE. Most importantly, this includes that warranted AGAINST THE MONOPOLIST, who may SELECTIVELY act. In selectively acting, legitimate acts of defense are not protected or enforced unless another entity challenges the monopolist in their use of legitimate violence. The monopolist of legitimate violence has no competitor to hold them to ONLY or DEPENDABLY EXERCISING legitimate violence, and so may do ILLEGITIMATE VIOLENCE or FAIL to use legitimate violence when warranted or PUNISH acts of legitimate violence-- defense-- from others. Thus, the most legitimate system is anarchy, the absence of a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, because all legitimate use of violence (defense) is acceptable and NO ONE IS ABOVE NATURAL LAWS. When people can defend themselves, they will no longer be slaves producing unearned income for leagues of monopolists.
HOW HORRIBLE TO OPPOSE AUTHORITY THAT ENSLAVES HUMANITY screams the content creator! But all of society must REJECT their goals (monopoly money chasing) and means (extraction of unearned income by passive owners of property) and ESTABLISH SOMETHING BETTER! REBELS UNITE!
I do not think this is a good explanation at all. Frankly, I think that these explanations are quite inaccurate and problematic.
don't believe there is someone hate money.
One must *always* go against society's norms; and innovators are inventors, they are sound people, so again, the typology itself is false, as it contradicts reality.
lol
im a ritualist then lol