sponses.
As I placed my order with the vendor, a thought struck me, and I found myself ordering two sandwiches instead of one. I walked away from the food stand and approached the bum. For some reason, I didnÆt expect that he would want a sandwich. He wanted money, after all, not food. I extended a hand, and said, ôHere, are you hungry?ö The man, overwhelmed by my offer, took the sandwich from me with an expression of glee that made me swell. He shouted my praises and made an example of me to my stingier lunch companions. He shook my hand vigorously and stole off in triumph with the sandwich I had given him. I felt good.
I have since realized that understanding poverty, though important, will not undo it. Our actions make an impact upon those in need, and our ideas are only as good as the actions they spawn. I have not altered my position on the poor, and believe that most are as we all are: responsible for their own condition, and beholden to none. This idea need not, and should not, preclude one from being charitable, however. A lesson I am glad to have learned.
As I have grown older and been exposed to more people and ways of life, I have become more acutely aware of the difficulties associated with the Weberian perspective. By this, I mean that though the science of sociology offers many workable models for predicting and assessing human behavior, it is nonetheless very difficult to truly embrace Verstehen in the way that Weber conceived it. If, as the Henslin text asserts, WeberÆs conception of Verstehen infers a basically subjective approach in which the sociologist must ôgrasp by insightö the actions of others, then I am at a loss to know how to begin to implement such an approach (15-17). To stand in anotherÆs shoes, I have learned, is often impossible, particularly when those shoes belong to a member of a different religion.
A very good friend of mine is Catholic. I am not reli...