Paradigms

The Evolutionary Theory

            The Evolutionary theory takes into account how societies came to be from the idea of “survival of the fittest”. The strong continues to charter the paths, leaving weaklings delayed in its trails in the fight for resources. The strong forms, charges, leads, wins, generates, paves, survives. The weak stoops, disintegrates, retreats, loses, degenerates, perishes. If this is how we look at how we came to be now, with general conclusions centered on 2 sides of the coin only, we might be understating the most salient elements of what makes one society develop, most importantly, survive. It directs our thinking to focus only on the extremes, to the ends and not the means employed, to celebrate the victories and weep over losses. To downplay the inner science and art of survival is not a justifiable viewpoint if we wish to intelligently understand our past, how we live in our present, and how the future will look after we command how we would like it to look. In this age where humanitarian principles are upheld and justice is called forth to transcend the everyday schemes of life, we do not simply undermine the weak. We help them regain strength, so that they can equally survive. A nation of strong people who work hand in hand is better than a nation where only the strong survives. It is a daunting task yes, given the magnitude poverty has stricken multiple nations and resources draining from capitalist exploitation, however, the ability to change things is not limited by distance, race, time, or capability, only black-and-white bigotry and giving up.      

Structural-Functional Paradigm

We all have a responsibility, a contribution to make, in exchange for security and the opportunity to live. When we were born into this world, we have marked a birthright to bring something in return for reception. We spend the first few years arming for paths we would take, meditating on the grand purposes we have been tasked to accomplish, and figuring the ills of society and how can we preserve the resources of our generation that affects our generation, that in turn affects us, in the lowest scale of comparison. We adjusts to this social order, cooperating with the rest of the population, performing our responsibilities with the highest sense of integrity imbued with nationalism and spiritual value to actively contribute in the attainment of our country’s national objectives. In the future, we will be part of the workforce working to employ something that is really timely, something that is more equal, workable, feasible, transparent, and participatory.

Social Conflict Paradigm

Power truly intoxicates. It continues to be used as a tool for domination and control; hence the basic issue of inequality still remains to be solved. Present systems has become unresponsive, irrelevant, and has engendered patronage politics, underdevelopment, poverty, and unresponsive governance. The other reality of life is that a high number of families live a hand-to-mouth existence. Their children are partners in the daily struggle to make ends meet. The children are raised to understand the importance of self-sufficiency and economy. When these children reach adulthood, increasing numbers of them are turning their backs on such a life. In this climate, in this culture, there are choices that can be made. The children in these families can exercise their right to choose how to live. In a nutshell, this is a representation of our community’s mural that the society’s upper echelons falsely sympathize. And yes, they have sensationalized their “big efforts”. But, what is big for them may be fleeting and collapsible at short notice. These parents represent the majority who continue to struggle to meet financial and health preservation.  Its not being so self-righteous, but at the same time one cannot blame this innocent perspective about how inequality of wealth distribution contribute much to the malady that continues to fill DOH’s epidemiological yearly reports. This being so economics is not an excuse to rule out the obvious link it has made to disease progression. These people has to gain proper access to adequate health care facilities, as poverty and morbidity go together to cause a vicious cycle. In an era of globalization and liberalization, strengthening the public health care facilities for them to gainfully utilize must be of foremost attention. If it is not plausible to free them from the poverty trap within our term goals, then the government can give them (at least) the medical benefits to secure that they still have hope to change their course in life. The society in general must initate an inspiring wave, an amplified hopeful practice – that achieves more, educates more, reinstalls more, complies more, and treats more, at a shorter course. It might not be long that we find ourselves looking at the positive course of figurative infinity and calculating significant differences in statistics. We have come to an age wherein we yield an equal treatment of theory and reality. However, I would prefer the doer than the hardcore theorist for obvious reasons. Ceteris paribus, address economic frailty of the underserved and uneducated (the society’s responsiblity) and enforced competitive medical care within their resources but not stereotyping in a sense what they don’t have (one of our vocation).

Indeed, the art of fighting for equality has transcended far beyond the physical dimensions. It has now become a fierce battle between philosophies and whether these philosophies are by themselves selfish and corrupt, or that which would yield to the majority. Freedom in society does not mean "to do what you what" but points that you have the same rights than everyone else in respecting this limit. In the real world where societies are plural, then it is both unavoidable and significant that people cause offense to the sensibilities of others. Inevitable, because where diverse beliefs are held, clashes are unavoidable. And we should deal with those clashes rather than suppress them. According to Kenan Malik’s 1996 speech at a debate organized by Intelligence Squared London, the right to 'subject each others' fundamental beliefs to criticism' is the bedrock of an open, diverse society. 'If liberty means anything', as George Orwell once put it, 'it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'.

Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm

Our everday dealings are not just a personal task, where people try to zilch within their whole system the mechanics of work. Rather, it is a partnership between beneficiaries and benefactors, producing the impact of effective change through consolidation of collective work. It’s an interpersonal task, gradually gaining camaraderie and community awareness. Moreover, it shares the thought of effectively mobilizing concerned individuals to effect a quiet revolution. Problems can be resolved, and development idealized and actualized through cooperation and strength of willpower. I think the beauty of this freedom to socially interact is when it is rightfully and responsibly exercised amidst cultural diversity. When we converse about diversity, what we imply is that the world is a messy place, packed of clashes and conflicts. That is all for the good, for such clashes and conflicts are the substance of political and cultural engagement. We should not be frightened of the mess, and want everything nicely parceled up, at no cost of conflict, all trimmed and ordered. This freedom is our eye to the truth, to efficiency, and to the evils in the system we aren’t aware of. Deprivation of these is deprivation of not just the marked unobservance of what is fundamental but an impediment to a life quality we deserve.