Roles models chosen by the younger generation to follow, imitate, and emulate are a crucial social issue because they define one’s course in life and potential contribution to society. A role model is supposed to be someone whose behavior or achievement is or can be mimicked by others, particularly by younger people. Over the years, kids have been getting into more trouble, whether it’s with the law, gang-related, and even getting pregnant. Even though the need for more positive role models is a demand, most people are still not realizing this. Positive role models influence people’s actions well and help them strive to their full potential, but promoting them requires an understanding of how youngsters choose their role models in the first place.
The ways in which children and adolescents choose role models are a social issue of paramount importance, as such choices have a profound influence on people’s lives. The vast majority of behaviors that people demonstrate is not devised on one’s own but learned from others. This idea is a staple of social learning theory: people acquire and internalize “behaviors, attitudes, and social norms by imitating others” (Ruggeri et al. 1589). The examples from which to learn are particularly important at a young age because social learning mechanisms already activate in infancy (Ruggeri et al. 1589). As a result, infancy, childhood, and adolescent experiences play a defining role in personality development. Depending on the differences in available and chosen role models, social learning at a young age may lead “to the widely diverging outcomes” in different cases (Kearney and Levine 84). Due to this reason, the youngster’s choice of their role models is a crucial social issue that influences society as a whole through each of its members. Understanding how children and adolescent choose their role models is, therefore, essential to promote socially desirable behaviors.
One important distinction that one has to keep in mind is the age-related difference in the patterns of choosing role models to follow. Smaller children tend to pick adults as their examples due to their greater perceived authority and experience. As demonstrated by Ruggeri et al., when choosing a role model, a child of pre-adolescent age is likely to prefer an older person over a peer, if the two are perceived as equally reliable (1589). Adolescents, on the other hand, demonstrate a directly opposite pattern and tend to rebel against the authority of their elders. When presented with a choice between sufficiently reliable role models, an adolescent will be more likely to choose a peer over an adult (Ruggeri et al. 1595). Thus, if young children have no positive role models, the lack of pro-social motivations may become self-supporting, as young children grow without positive examples will become each other’s role models by adolescence. Therefore, guiding a child’s social learning is particularly crucial during the early stages of personal development when a child is more likely to follow a role model not belonging to his or her peers.
It is hard to imagine a community that could claim that the issue of role models chosen and appropriated by the younger generation does not concern it. A mentioned above, social learning is a process all humans engage in since infancy (Ruggeri et al. 1595). Correspondingly, its importance is also universal and affects every community regardless of its size, composition, or economic situation. As long as people, and, in particular, children observe and internalize others’ behaviors, the choice of role models will remain a prominent social issue.
Yet while no community is unaffected, the specific effects may still vary from case to case, depending on local circumstances. While social learning from role models occurs everywhere and all the time, the amount and variety of available models to follow depend heavily on the situation in any given community. In particular, the socioeconomic situation affects children’s and young adults’ choices, as there tend to be less positive examples promoting constructive pro-social motivations in distressed neighborhoods. For example, children with a low-income background are unlikely “to have economically successful role models and mentors in their own families and neighborhoods” (Kearney and Levine 84). As social learning largely depends on the models chosen, which, in turn, is defined by the variety of potential role models, the same tendency likely applies to pro-social and anti-social behaviors. As a result, children from struggling neighborhoods may end up learning and internalizing destructive and socially undesirable behavior not because they lack the virtue to do otherwise, but because they had no positive examples. Considering these facts, the social importance of role models becomes even greater, as it allows improving socioeconomic outcomes for children from low-income backgrounds.
In the age of digital technology and the Internet, one common assumption about the role models for contemporary youth is that the media act as the main source of role models for children and adolescents. The line of thinking is fairly clear: when the access is at an arm’s reach, it seems reasonable to assume that media – especially the digital ones – will play a progressively greater role. As a result, film, television, videogames, etc. easily become “a pervasive source of shared discourse and play content among younger children” (Hamlen and Imbesi 302-303). One may also assume that preschoolers will be more susceptible to media influence and more likely to pick their role models correspondingly simply because they stay home more than their older counterparts. Apart from that, the media’s influence on one’s choices in role models may depend on one’s socioeconomic background. Kearney and Levine point out that children from low-income neighborhoods are more likely to learn behaviors this way (84). Based on these and other observations, one may conclude that pervasive and omnipresent media are the main source of role models for today’s children and adolescents.
However, this notion seems to be a widely accepted fallacy, as children and adolescents actually tend to choose their role models differently. A study by Johnson et al., based on a racially diverse sample of 220 adolescents, sheds some light on the issue. According to the authors, the significant majority tend to choose their role models among family members, whether these are parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and any other relatives (Johnson et al. 133). Among the non-parental adults, the most prominent category of role models were teachers, although informal mentors and neighbors were also present (Johnson et al. 133). Finally, friends and other peers also featured rather prominently in the results (Johnson et al. 133). Moreover, there was no significant variation by race or gender among the responses. This evidence suggests that, despite the media’s influence, young people still prefer to find their role models among those they know personally and interact with on a daily basis. Thus, one should not discard the media’s impact, but, for most children and adolescents, role models come from their immediate surroundings.
Despite this evidence, the tendency to blame media and the role models it provides for the perceived decline in social mores is quite persistent. In some cases, it may even dominate the public’s mind, and some critics are too quick to explain socially undesirable behavior by the influence of bad models hailing from violent media. One of the most obvious manifestations of this tendency is the debates surrounding violent video games. The line of argument in this respect is simple and straightforward: on-screen perpetrators of violence “act as role models or sources of justification for behaving aggressively” (Gunter 59). This public perception is so well-entrenched that even the Federal Bureau of Investigations had once identified violent video games as a risk factor in the genesis of murder (Gunter 150). However, while there have been many studies on the subject, the effect of video games supposedly promoting anti-social behavior has not been adequately proven (Gunter 256). While public opinion seeks for the subversive influence of media, it becomes all the more likely that it will ignore the environment where most children actually get their role models: their communities and neighborhoods.
To promote pro-social behavior, children and adolescents need role models able to set positive examples. As mentioned above, the ways in which youngsters choose who to follow and emulate do demonstrate any significant variation between race or gender (Johnson et al. 133). It means that a largely universal approach to promoting positive role models is possible. It is also important to remember that younger children’s social scripts are more malleable, and, all things being equal, they are more likely to imitate adults rather than peers (Ruggeri et al. 1589). Due to these reasons, the early years of personal development are particularly crucial, and providing positive adult role models in this period is essential.
Apart from that, one should also remember that children and adolescents alike usually find examples to follow in their immediate surroundings. As noted above, they are most likely to mimic the behaviors of close relatives, authoritative adults, of friends among their peers (Johnson et al. 133). Also, the variety of available role models directly depends on a given community – for example, children from low-income backgrounds have trouble finding economically successful role models (Kearney and Levine 84). Put together, these two facts mean that social promotion of positive role models for youth should operate not only individually but also on the community level. If effective initiatives to help distressed communities are in place, the change in role models is likely to follow, potentially resulting in the virtuous cycle of these two reinforcing each other.
As one can see, role models are an essential component of personal development, especially for children and adolescents, and promoting the positive ones requires a thorough understanding of the issue. Every person engages in social learning since infancy, and one’s course in life largely depends on the examples that one has to emulate. Due to its universal nature, the problem is important for every community but can be more apparent in distressed neighborhoods with a lack of positive role models. A common fallacy is to blame media – be that video games, TV, or anything else – for supplying anti-social role models, but evidence suggests that children and adolescents usually choose them from their immediate surroundings. Thus, promoting positive role models should begin in the early stages of a child’s development and, ideally, address the issue on the community level as well as the individual one.
Works Cited
Gunter, Barrie. Does Playing Video Games Make Players More Violent? Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Hamlen, Karla L., and Krista J. Imbesi. “Role Models in the Media: A Content Analysis of Preschool Television Programs in the U.S.” Journal of Children and Media, vol. 14, no. 3, 2020, pp. 302-323.
Johnson, Sara K., et al. “Adolescents’ Character Role Models: Exploring Who Young People Look Up to as Examples of How to Be a Good Person.” Research in Human Development, vol. 13, no. 2, 2016, 126-141.
Kearney, Melissa S., and Phillip B. Levine. “Role Models, Mentors, and Media Influences.” The Future of Children, vol. 30, no. 1, 2020, pp. 83-106.
Ruggieri, Azzurra, et al. “The Influence of Adult and Peer Role Models on Children’ and Adolescents’ Sharing Decisions.” Child Development, vol.89, no. 5, 2018, pp. 1589-1598.
Why Is It Important To Study Bible?
Introduction
The Bible as the repository of wisdom and God’s written word is often taken for granted. However, it needs to be examined as the source of essential insights into the nature of human relationships and the use of ethical and moral standards based on which one should build relationships within a community (Counted & Watts, 2017). In its essence, the Bible is a book of instructions that is comprised of sixty-six books and letters written by multiple authors, which defines its importance as a set of crucial moral and ethical standards.
Main body
Moreover, applying a personal perspective, I should mention that reading the Bible gives me great joy and an opportunity to reflect on God’s words, as well as reflect on the transformation of my life in the way that is pleasing to Him. It is written in Joshua 1:8: “Keep this book of the law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful” (Joshua 1:8, New International Version). Studying the Bible leads to spiritual growth. Which, in turn, allows us to gain a deeper understanding of God’s role in our lives. Moreover, it gives us hope of eternal life in Heaven.
Furthermore, studying the Bible gives an opportunity to engage in a conversation with God. He welcomes us to boldly seek Him wholeheartedly and get to know Him on a more intimate and personal level. God reminds us to “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth” (Psalms 46:10, New International Version). The biblical verse above is central to understanding that we must not fear God, but, instead, acknowledge Him in every possible way.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Bible is the most comprehensive book that has ever been composed. It gives readers a spiritual insight by providing God’s wisdom and revealing His grace and mercy toward us. Therefore, we can depend on the word of God for guidance, courage, and discernment, “For Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105, New International Version). Thus, we will be able to keep ourselves on the path to salvation.
Reference
Counted, V., & Watts, F. (2017). Place attachment in the Bible: The role of attachment to sacred places in religious life. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 45(3), 218-232.
The Legalization Of Organ Market
Introduction
Selling human organs is unethical; they cannot be placed on par with other goods, they say. Now, is it ethical that seventeen people die every day waiting for an organ transplant? (Health Resources & Services Administration). For millions of people with serious illnesses, modern transplantation allowed prolonging life. However, it also gave rise to several new difficult moral, legal, and social issues. Transplant medicine for the past quarter of a century is facing a major concern of donor organ shortage. The legalization of organ sales is probably the only decision that will eliminate the corruption that has led to illegal organ trade, benefit the economy, and ultimately save more lives.
Main text
There are currently two official channels for obtaining organs and tissues for transplant: free-consent receipt from the living patient; or removal of organs from deceased people. Society is still avoiding accepting the human body as a commercial product. It is stated officially that donors should not benefit financially from the donation (Crepelle, 2016). A third channel is also possible – the sale of organs for transplantation by living people. However, trafficking in human organs is strictly prohibited by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the criminal codes of all developed countries (Gonzalez et al., 2020). The exception is Iran, where trade in organs is not criminalized. Due to the legislation, the country filled the need for vital body parts. Considering this example, the legal market for human organs must exist to save human lives.
Three main factors exist that the regulated organ market has the potential to benefit the country’s economy. The primary one is that the black market thrives despite being illegal, and the prospects of eliminating it are vague. The Global Financial Integrity report shows that the percent of operations with “illicitly acquired” organs approached 10% of transplants worldwide (Kar & Spanjers, 2016, p. 29). Nevertheless, legal marketing might end this monopoly, as the funds will be allocated to government and medical facilities instead of organ brokers. Moreover, the financial reward will create the necessary incentives for people who hesitate to decide which the lives of others depend on.
One more outcome is the increased financial aid to hospitals. In the case of a kidney transplant, money saved on dialysis due to timely transplants might finance other operations in hospitals (Crepelle, 2016). As a result, market competition will spur manufacturers of medical equipment to innovate to ensure transportation and organ transplants (Cherry, 2016). Thus, the transplantation sphere will grow and prosper, which, in turn, creates a need for competent medical staff, allowing more medical jobs. Consequently, adopting a legal market strategy will help the federal budget and dent the economy of an alternative, illegal market.
Establishing a market for organs nowadays is the subject of controversy. It is feared that new regulations can lead to the fact that a person, solely for reasons of personal profit, will reject his body parts for money (Cherry, 2016). The factor is proved by the cases from Iran, India, and Pakistan, where the vast majority of organ donors are the underprivileged (Moniruzzaman, 2018). This is a moral issue that applies to the entire donation system. Notwithstanding, the opportunity to fulfill organ shortage cannot be banned merely for the fact that poor people are willing to donate. Kuenzli (2018) argues that “some risky employment options” as coal mining or other trades are primarily done by impoverished people who are not condemned for this (p. 135). Besides, there is no proof that the argument is practically applicable to developed countries.
Today, rich people are ready to finance the black market and acquire organs, desperately trying to save their lives. In this matter, some scholars believe that regulation can be a key to the issue (Kuenzli, 2018). People with resources should be lawfully allowed to obtain and donate organs. Kuenzli (2018) adds that the open market principles should dominate in this case, where the individuals are not forced into the deal and offer organs willingly. Consequently, the organs will be healthier, for official medical facilities will be responsible for the operations, which enables them to acquire suitable and healthy organs for every individual case. Statistics show that illegal operations cause more severe complications, with overall mortality equaling almost 30% worldwide (Kar & Spanjers, 2016, p. 29). However, according to the Health Resources & Services Administration (2020), 92% of patients survive after a legal transplant from a living person. Thus, sound, newly procured organs can guarantee higher survival rates and longer lives for a transplant patient.
There are always more patients in need of transplantation than there are available organs. As a result, the waiting list for surgery increases, and patients await a transplant for five to six years (Health Resources & Services Administration, 2020). Without a private donor, states Cherry (2016), such patients are doomed to die. Market legalization could solve these problems. The first consequence is that there will be strong incentives for people to sell their organs not only in emergencies and extreme cases related to the issue of life and death.
Second, as the demand for donor material will be gradually satisfied, real opportunities appear for people on a waiting list to get the operation without delays fraught with life-threatening. In the United States alone, about six thousand people who did not have a chance to wait for a transplant operation of human organs die every year (Health Resources & Services Administration, 2020). Another nine thousand deceased after they were excluded from the waiting list due to being too sick to undergo the procedure (Cherry, 2016). Finally, there will be improved access to vital organs, which contributes to equity in society. Therefore, regardless of social status, both the poor and the rich will acquire the opportunity to save their lives.
Conclusion
To conclude, human life is more complicated than any theorizing and modeling. There is a strong possibility that forming an open market for human organs will increase their availability, help save lives, and control medical costs. It is also a more honest and moral act in matters of organ transplantation to patients in need. Social benefits from the resolute decision to legalize trading organs might outweigh all the possible costs. Everything possible should be done when human lives are at issue. Technology and science achievements may contribute to human survival on the planet by harvesting all the vital human parts in the future. However, now, humanity more than ever needs to unite and show sympathy, compassion, and love for its neighbor. If the financial reward is needed to attract attention to the life-saving issue, the world can get it.
References
Cherry, M. J. (2016). Kidney for sale by owner : human organs, transplantation, and the market. Georgetown University Press.
Crepelle, A. (2016). A market for human organs: An ethical solution to the organ shortage. Indiana Health Law Review, 13(1), 1-17. Web.
Gonzalez, J., Garijo, I., & Sanchez, A. (2020). Organ Trafficking and Migration: A Bibliometric Analysis of an Untold Story. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 1-11. Web.
Health Resources & Services Administration (2020). Organ Donation Statistics. Organdonor.Gov. Web.
Kar, D., & Spanjers, J. (2016). Transnational Crime and the Developing World. Global Financial Integrity. Web.
Kuenzli, K. D. (2018). Is Your Kidney for Sale? An Economic and Policy Perspective on the Legalization of a Living Kidney Vendor Program in the United States. Journal of Law and Commerce, 36(2), 131–156. Web.
Moniruzzaman, M. (2018). Against a regulated market in human organs: Ethical arguments and ethnographic insights from the organ trade in Bangladesh. Human Organization, 77(4), 323-331. Web.