I'll bring up again the subjective nature of rational and perception. Human capital, or social capital, assumes that the rational is concurrent with all actors. That's not the case as can be exemplified in numerous interactions online via Catfish type interactions. For those directly involved in those situations the behavior exhibited is totally rational and acceptable. Those outside of it potentially find amusement, and therefore apply that capital in a different way. Are both wrong, right, or is one distinctly correct over the other? Ten years ago the collective would argue that the norm leans towards the behavior is not rational. Now, with more and more solidarity with internet interaction occurring what's the norm? I feel it's less convincing from ten years ago. That lens is ever changing according to social norms, and norms applied to one's self.

The free rider in this theory can actually be the intellectual personality that we are studying can't it?. What's wrong with the free riding actor? There is no such thing as a utopia, so why would we expect the collective to be all encompassing? This part of the theory I wasn't a fan about. As generations cross over and old methodologies morph into new ones, the free riders are required to question the system. Why can't the free riders be the actors to help keep the collective in check? Just food for thought.

Rational choice is exactly that, rational. Defining what is rational does not have a universal standard. So as the weight test of pros, cons, and best decision process occur in the actor(s) minds, what is rational to one actor may not be rational to another. The mental scale isn't one that can truly be measured. Rationality is subjective in nature and it's important that as decisions are made that are considered against the "norm" effort is made to first define the rational before perusing any further.

The interactionism tradition looks at society and allowing individual concentration among symbols or rituals that have emotional importance. The individual contribution will benefit the greater good of society by acting upon its perceived importance. A good wedding is perceived as an expensive one. Certain pieces are expected, which then allow for economic stability. Interactions at weddings (like funerals) encourage conversation and personal interaction that wouldn't ordinarily occur. Collins makes the point that society is essentially in our own minds. Our own perceptions created around encounters, conversations, etc create our picture of what should be. Those who participate in that continue that "self." The issue at hand, in my opinion, centers around the ceremony of a wedding period. The cultural origination of making sure the bride's family is taken care of has transformed into an elaborate showing of financial prowess. This has occurred as society, and individuals, perceive their own importance of self.

The author outlines the functionalism view quite concisely in this article. In the functionalism view all pieces work together to create a means. The economy remains stable, specialty wedding service oriented business maintain steady income, and the economy gets a constant influx of funds. Again, Rose outlines this well in his video presentation and explains that the interconnecting parts give solidarity and structure to the whole. The wedding industry is its own entity. To remove that from the economy and society would eradicate a large financial contribution to the greater whole. It would also disrupt various social traditions, hierarchies, and preconceived expectations for weddings in general. Collins states in his :Four Sociological Traditions" that social rituals create solidarity and symbols. To apply that to this article to remove that would disrupt social flow and participation from different sectors of society. That would have it's own rippling effect which would alter, and possibly destroy, the institution of marriage.

The conflict theory in this article mirror's Rose's explanation of his descriptive lens in his presentation video. In the conflict theory some win and some lose. That's the expected result. Those who can afford an expensive wedding gain prestige and popularity among their peers. The wedding becomes a show, showmanship requires funds, and those to support those funds. Those who can't afford an expensive wedding potentially loses "stature" in the eyes of current society. The conflict theory flaunts the inequality regarding financial hierarchy. Collins even states that dominance is distributed, and indicative, of social class and economic resources. Both individuals give sufficient evidence of this theory in their writings, presentation, and this article.