Posts
Last week in Wednesdays New
York Times, there were two important articles that address the current
economic crisis, more importantly and related to our class, the articles
demonstrate the connection between social institutions, namely American
capitalism and our values, and the
various other social institutions that make up the social structure of American
society.
The first article, written by Thomas L. Friedman, entitled,
“Capitalism, Version 2012” asks
readers about the type of America we want to see in the future and directly
ties the alternatives to the Capitalist system in the United States. Click the link below to read the story:One of the chief features of the article is the notion that the there are three types of capitalism. Each version offers different applications of free market principles. In addition each version provides different benefits to Americans and is grounded in cultural ideology. In other words, the different versions of capitalism described by Friedman offer different visions of American and strategies to obtain them based on one’s cultural beliefs and rely on capitalism to enact the vision. For example, some readers believe that the government should not provide a safety net for its citizens (I.e. welfare, public education) and there is a version of capitalism that meets this vision. While other versions of capitalism offer a partnership between the private and public sectors in order to provide a safety net for Americans, as well as to regulate various social institutions such as the banks to ensure that economic crises such as the recession of 2008 do not happen.
What's interesting about this article is that it displays the ways that the various social institutions interact with one another to create the social structure, in this case the economic and political systems in the United States. The type of capitalism that the United States embraces is a reflection of the political institutions and the choices its members select, while citizens will decide on the politicians that they will choose based on their personal ideology (culture). These various systems are interacting with one another to shape the social structure.
Okay, I've talked way too much during this entry. Read the next article on your own and tell me how this article is related to sociology, and specifically our chapter on Society. The name of the article is “Why I am Leaving Goldman Sachs”. The link is listed below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=all
Both articles show how the various social institutions are connected to make up American society. Until next week...
That article about leaving Goldman Sachs was great. I read it a few days ago when it was first posted. It reminded me of what it was like to work for Citigroup. They too had a culture based on generating high returns over actually helping their clients achieve any measure of financial success.
ReplyDeleteAs far as how the article pertains to sociology I think it shows how "society" isn't just a description of all people in a particular nation or geographic region. It shows how individual institutions can have a culture and society of their own. One that exists inside of a larger society. The author refers to the changes that have played out over the past 12 years of his employment...the changes in "Goldman's Culture". He experienced a change in Goldman's interior society and left because he no longer felt like he fit in. Over 12 years of employment he slowly became a member of an interior Goldman subculture and finally a member of a Goldman counterculture which eventually lead to his resignation.
I read the article titled "Capitalism, Version 2012" and agree with what the author of the article is writing. He doesn't just talk about Capitalism in America but he writes about ways we can improve the American economy. He also talks about what the other countries are doing and comparing them to us.
ReplyDeleteI also vouch for what Dominic has wrote just above me. The author experienced cultural diffusion and that's why he lost the will to be working in that environment. After working in that field for 12 years it evolved into a point where he was unsatisfied with the progress the firm was making. Essentially the " Goldman's Culture " was fading and that resulted in his decision.
ReplyDeleteI read Greg Smith's article and my understanding of the situation is that the institution he works for is changing their values. They started as a investment firm dedicated to helping their clients, recently they have let go of that value. They are more interested in making money and not so much of how they get it. Now do we know the whole story? no we don't I can't imagine what its like to work for a company of such high regard, dealing with that much money. For a executive making that much money to leave it tells us that he no longer felt he belonged. He spoke as if his job wasn't a "secondary group" but more of a "primary group". With a secondary group like one at work people meet to achieve a goal and that's it nothing deeper not as deep as you can have with a primary group which pertains to family and close friends. Over time values change and he left not so much because the company's value changed it because his didn't change with it.
ReplyDelete