Ooh Arr, That Be One O' Them Structuralist Theories!

Structuralist theories are sociological theories that believe that society is split into different segments (Education, the family, the law etc) and that each of these segments defines us throughout our lives.

There are two main structuralist theories. The first is the Functionalist Theory, fronted by Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons, which sees society as an organic thing, and everyone within it grows through said sections in society. The other is the Conflict Theory, fronted by Karl Marx, which is based on economic sections in society. It basically states that whatever economic situation you are in as a child, that is what class you will end up in when working (eg poor people will end up in the working class) and that each segment of society defines you and moulds you into the type of person to fit into that class.

And while I am in full awe of the spectacle that is Karlos Marx's beard, I feel there is a problem with the Conflict Theory. He makes it all too simple. To simply say that all aspects of society mould us into certain classes is too blunt. Theories have to be quite vague as there are always exceptions to rules. And I feel there are too many exceptions to the Conflict Theory for it to be proven.

Whereas Talcum Powders and Emily Durkham-And-Cheese's Functionalist theory is easier to agree with. I feel that there is new learning in every part of society. And while Marx's theory helps to explain why people rebel and why there is conflict in society, the same can be said of the Functionalist theory. I see it as: throughout every segment of society we are taught to cope with and integrate with that segment, but there are people who understand this wrong. Each segment helps a person to grow as more of an individual, but people can pick up on the growth wrong. Not everyone grows in the same way after living through each segment.

Mydentities

Identities define us.
We all have our own identity formed through different aspects of our personality. Opinions and preferences are part of it, but also race, gender. Even hair colour can come into play.
Simple traits or opinions are part of a person's full identity, and they help people form opinions and even relationships.
Because people tend to be more inclined to associate with people of similar identities to themselves, group identities can be formed. For example, music and fashion sense brought in the teenage phenomenon of emo and scene kids, and they quickly became labelled as a group and had, to the outside world, a similar identity.
It is when identities turn into stereotypes that problems can arise. People assuming they know a person through one or two defining identity features. This poses a problem for minorities espescially, as that one identity feature can lead people to think they know the rest.
It is ultimately our personality on the whole that sets our identity, and within groups everyone has there own identity. Be it the angry one, the quiet one or even the player, identities give people their own place. On the whole, groups may appear to have similar identities. Students, OAPs, Twilight fans etc, but an identity means diversity, which means it is nearly impossible to identify a full group of people, or even two people, by exactly the same identity, because everything we do or like identifies us.