Answer:
b. symbolic interactionism
Explanation:
In sociology and social psychology, the theory of symbolic interactionism focuses on the relationships between individuals who are part of a society. In this theory, one important thing is language and the whole concept of how we communicate with one another, in other words it states that it is through our verbal and non verbal language (also attitudes) that we make sense of our world and this language also shapes our own behavior at the same time.
In this example we have the statement "Gender is socially constructed and maintained in our everyday lives. Gender is something we 'do' on a daily basis. We can see that t<u>his statement refers to patterns of behavior that take place among individuals who are part of a society, it also mentions how gender is socially constructed and thus, we communicate it with our verbal and non-verbal language in our day-to-day lives.</u> Thus, this statement most likely comes from the symbolic interactionism perspective.
Jason studies Spanish for three years, and then switches to Pashto. When asked to remember Spanish vocabulary he can’t, instead he can only remember Pashto vocabulary. This is an example of <u>retroactive </u>interference.
Answer: Option D
<u>Explanation:</u>
Retro active interference means that the individual can not remember the older information that he had learnt because the recent information is acting as an obstacle in recalling the older information.
The new information is a problem which does not let the old information to be recalled. That is why Jason can not recall Spanish which he had learnt three years ago and only remembers Pashto which he had learnt recently. Pashto is acting as an obstacle in recalling the Spanish language.
<span>They believed that part of strengthening his rule was to force everyone to simply obey and not speak out against him and by decreeing even how people could write, what they could believe, and what they should do. He succeeded in molding the people to become more similar, to build massively, and to conquer more territory, but people grew to hate him and he became paranoid about assassination and death, and his family and court ended in killings and death.
I hope that helps you
</span>
From the information I know at this time i believe it is C.
hope this helps
Question:
Why do you think Lincoln didn't end slavery in the north?
Answer:
The proclamation didn't end slavery because it didn't affect the border slave states that weren't in rebellion, and it had no immediate effect in most of the deep South because, at least on the day it was issued, the slaves were in territory still controlled by the Confederacy.
Explanation:
Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count enslaved people for the purposes of representation in the federal government.
In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed enslaved people should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and enslavers. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854.
-Alan Becker
