While classical theory was described in class by many different authors and their writings, there is one thing that seems to bring many of their themes together. It creates an image of the canon that is not appealing when it comes to ideas and how to get a more varied type of dialogue. This is because a canon is described as very limiting and narrow which doesn’t allow for a lot of different perspectives. This occurred when the Big Three, (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim), were creating their writings. There wasn’t much consultation that was occurring between themselves and others. There also wasn’t much diversity amongst them either. All three were white men. This calls for work to be produced that is thought out and well written but also very one sided and biased. This is not a good description for any set of writings to have as writing should garner a relationship that the reader can seek that they can apply to their own lives. When the writing is such as it is written by all white men, the conclusions that they arrive to may seem to not be possible to relate to by others such as a minority or a woman. These are the problems that are described with the canon. Even today there can be positive effects that can be aided with diversity.
Whenever I find myself amongst those with similar views as myself, lots of conversations begin. They seem to be completed very quickly mainly because everyone agrees with one another on what the issue was and how it should have been resolved. This is because we all have similar tastes and think in similar ways. This cause for few arguments but it also creates a sort of boredom throughout the gathering. There aren’t many other conversations to start after the initial few are discussed and reasoned with. This is vastly different than the conversations that I have with my friends that are different than me. This is a group that creates so much diversity that we all represent a different time zone around the world whenever we get together. We come from many countries yet are living in the U.S. and are dealing with the same issues daily yet our conversations rarely have all of us on the same page. This usually occurs with one of us starting a conversation on a situation where we felt that there was something wrong that occurred. We proceed to explain how we would have acted in the situation if we were placed in the main person’s shoes. This is where everyone else starts with their opinion of how they would have acted. This is never the same for anyone in the group. Everyone would have acted differently. This would normally get lots of conversation rather than having everyone agree with one another. This also creates lots of value in the worth of the conversation.
This diversity that my friends group creates, leads to a less narrow and less limiting conversation which ultimately leads to a fun time had by all my friends. The first group, while we are all similar, like the Big Three, there is something missing in having all the ideas and thoughts to be so narrow that there is variety and enthusiasm that is missing from the mix. This is how the canon looks like when there is so much potential for many more theories to be created and that is why the canon has a problem with its limiting and narrow functions.
Whenever I find myself amongst those with similar views as myself, lots of conversations begin. They seem to be completed very quickly mainly because everyone agrees with one another on what the issue was and how it should have been resolved. This is because we all have similar tastes and think in similar ways. This cause for few arguments but it also creates a sort of boredom throughout the gathering. There aren’t many other conversations to start after the initial few are discussed and reasoned with. This is vastly different than the conversations that I have with my friends that are different than me. This is a group that creates so much diversity that we all represent a different time zone around the world whenever we get together. We come from many countries yet are living in the U.S. and are dealing with the same issues daily yet our conversations rarely have all of us on the same page. This usually occurs with one of us starting a conversation on a situation where we felt that there was something wrong that occurred. We proceed to explain how we would have acted in the situation if we were placed in the main person’s shoes. This is where everyone else starts with their opinion of how they would have acted. This is never the same for anyone in the group. Everyone would have acted differently. This would normally get lots of conversation rather than having everyone agree with one another. This also creates lots of value in the worth of the conversation.
This diversity that my friends group creates, leads to a less narrow and less limiting conversation which ultimately leads to a fun time had by all my friends. The first group, while we are all similar, like the Big Three, there is something missing in having all the ideas and thoughts to be so narrow that there is variety and enthusiasm that is missing from the mix. This is how the canon looks like when there is so much potential for many more theories to be created and that is why the canon has a problem with its limiting and narrow functions.