Huynh 1

Jefferson Huynh

Professor Mozzini

Sociology 1

21 May 2017

A Sociological Analysis of a Social Experiment: Banning Muslims

The social experiment, which deals with the issues of banning Muslims in the United,

deals with a highly controversial topic discussed in todays world. To test peoples reactions

whether banning Muslims would be morally correct, actor Moe Zahrieh holds a sign titled Hug

me if you support banning Muslims while wearing a Trump mask. Onlookers of Manhattan

mainly passed by; however, some people voiced their oppositions by stating, Thats not the

right thing to do. To a greater extent, some even embarked in violence to voice their disapproval

of banning Muslims. When citizens were asked why it was not morally correct to ban Muslims,

one person argued how they were all entitled to have rights and freely live in America. Another

person refutes her point by stating that the country was mainly made up by immigrants, and how

the act of banning a specific race is disgraceful as it exemplifies the issue of racism. In the end,

the social experiment yielded a high amount of people opposing the ban of Muslims; though

some did agree with the ban, they had no logical arguments that backed up their claim.

In terms of Comtes sociological approach, he would incorporate positivism, observation

and use of social statics in this type of social experiment. When incorporating an observational

method, Comte would likely seek the current laws that governs todays society. In this case, he

would discover that the two differences of the group are mainly derived from difference of social

dynamics. Such factors that Comte would hypothesize are reasons that influence people into

supporting or opposing the ban on Muslims, which can be stemmed from supporting Trumps
 Huynh 2

ideologies to believing that all humans should be treated equally. When applying social statics,

Comte would determine the three principles of social statics for the two following groupsthe

group that supports the ban of Muslims and the other that opposes the ban. He would likely

determine the language spoken by the groups, the religion they believe in, and lastly, what

division of labor they belong to.

In terms of Durkheims sociological approach, he would consider the functional analysis

of the social experiment and determine the recipients social class leading to their responses to

the ban of Muslims. When watching the difference of behaviors exhibited from the group, he

would likely question what factors evoked such responses that support or do not support the ban.

Such factors that can be considered are the city the citizens live in, their race, and religious

preferences. When determining the social class of the two groups and their moral beliefs,

Durkheim can also consider the two different groups political stances. Those who advocated for

the ban on Muslims most likely voted for Trump and supported one of his stances on reducing

tax rates. On the other hand, those who opposed of the ban most likely voted for another

presidential candidate who advocated for higher tax rates on the rich. Alongside, Durkheim

would argue that Trumps political stance can greatly shape an individuals actions. For example,

if Trump were to regard immigrants or Muslims as subhuman, his followers would believe in

that information. Groups of people who support Trump will most likely socially integrate their

ideas together, which can be passed to the next generation.

In terms of Marxs sociological approach, he would apply the perspective of conflict

theory. By applying the conflict theory, Marx would consider the group of people advocating the

ban and the group of people opposing the ban as two distinct groupsthe ruling class and

working class. The ideology of owning and controlling mass production, can be applied in
 Huynh 3

modern society. For instance, Marx would view the mass production companies being similar to

big corporations that business tycoons run. Similarly, he would also view the ruling class being

similar to Republicans; their social status, which is apparent, will differ greatly from the working

class. Marx would also argue that the higher class would view Muslims as non-Americans who is

tainting the American dream with their social background. Additionally, he would view the

working class as immigrants that are trying to find work in search of the American Dream.

From his standpoint, the social clashes between the two distinct groups result due to differences

of class, race, and religious beliefs.

From learning about other sociologists theories, I believe that the social experiment

mostly relates to the conflict paradigm. As showcased in the video, the dominant group are those

who support the ban of Muslims; those who oppose of the ban would be the subordinate group.

With one of Trumps actions such as imposing strict regulations on immigrants, it is apparent

that the dominant group does not favor immigrants due to the possibility of them stealing their

jobs. The belief of immigrants stealing other peoples jobs is an intangible resource; from this,

it results into social clashes between one another due to higher competition of finding work.

When working to gain money, most people visualize the American Dream as living a lavish

lifestyle with luxurious items. An example of a tangible resource would be a house, car or

money; the dominant group and subordinate group is competing with one another to gain this

type of resource. The dominant group, who has more privilege than the subordinate group, is less

likely to face racist remarks. For instance, news outlets constantly perpetuate Muslims as

terrorists; whereas for other religious groups, they are not branded as terrorists to society.