Answer:
Occupy movement could be explained through Durkheimn's Functionalism theory and Karl Marx's Conflict theory.
Studying collective behavior it could be stated that there is a collective conscience that condemns and punishes Occupy's actions and behaviors. Due to they could be considered deviant or criminal, offending this collective conscience, Durkheim would consider the Occupy movement as a "social fact". The movement would support Durkheim's theory as a social force because it is external to the individual.
This collective conscience can evolve to organic solidarity, and in the long run, there could be anomie, while the whole society no longer supports a collective consciousness in favor of what Wall Street stands for.
This change in collective conscience could be reflected in education, due to there would not be a single and unique collective conscience taught to all the students. This organic process derived from the division of labor is also shown on a full-range diversity of interests and, therefore, of interdependent students alienated from each other with singular perspectives about the Occupy movement.
Marx would support the last phenomenon as an example of a society splitting up into hostile classes facing each other. Alienation could be referred to as several students isolated from their society and competing among themselves. Another result of alienation is false consciousness, where beliefs, ideals or ideologies are not in the person's own best interest. These beliefs, ideas or ideologies are also present in an educational proposal that may not fit the individual's interests.
Under feudalism, lords were responsible for ruling different regions of a country.
These regions were given as a fief to the Lord by the King or a higher rank Lord in return for their loyalty and service.
Depending on the kingdom, this alliance between the King and his vassal could be inherited. If the king needed so, the Lord had to pay service of arms, gathering knights and soldiers for war. They also had to protect the land given and the people living in it for the King.
This was necessary for kings in Middle Ages because they didn’t have enough power and an army to protect their realms from invasions and raids. Lords were the ones who had private armies, so they could actually protect the country. This is why they became responsible for ruling different regions.
You can learn more about feudalism in the link below:
brainly.com/question/20082482
#SPJ4
Answer:
it is
3) A
4) false
5) A
most answers are online if you are concerned
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Free-rein leadership: The term "free-rein leadership" is also referred to as "Laissez-Faire", and is described as one of the types of leadership styles whereby leaders are considered hands-off and tends to allow his/her group members to make specific decisions. Significantly, managers set certain objectives & employees are kept free to do whatsoever is appropriate according to them to achieve or accomplish those objectives.
In the question above, Amari is using a free-rein leadership style, therefore, the given statement is "True".
