Blog Twelve

Anthony Giddens talked a lot about post modernity and globalization. He also highlighted that as a consequence of social constructions of reality, globalization, technology such as social media, and pluralism, society has changed. Giddens argued that in modern society, when society is stronger and larger, then it is harder to control. He thought that we don’t live in a postmodern society.

Postmodernism would be traveling into the unknown. Modern society was clear, predictable and had universal truth. Modern society deals with specialization in the division of labor. In postmodern society, what will it be like? It’s an unpredictable society, unclear, and has no universal truths. Giddens was a critic of postmodernity because to say there is no structure, no norms and no formal organization, that’s just an absurd and farfetched idea.

Postmodernity can be seen in art galleries today. A lot of art has become abstract with unclear meanings. Traditional artwork is sort of the past while postmodernity art is very open to interpretation. I think in certain systems of society that postmodernity can be witnessed, but I agree with Giddens that the idea of absolutely no structure just doesn’t seem plausible. I think the art scene can reflect postmodern notions, though. It’s easy to interpret art in your own way, but abstract pieces keep a viewer guessing, throwing them into unpredictability and unclear meanings.

I found this video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU2yGtmcjlQ) about postmodern artwork being rejected in art galleries. It’s a video calling for all ages and all artists who have had their artwork rejected for being ‘too modern.’ That’s interesting to me because it’s subjective to say someone’s art is too modern. Maybe that’s where art is heading…to a postmodern world? Maybe other aspects of society will move to a postmodern world as well? 

Blog Eleven

Dorothy Smith is similar to other theorists in this unit. Up until the 1950s, sociologists were objective and worked with sociology in a top-down way. Smith realized that this methodology of sociology was very distant from the subject and projected a lot of cold emotions. She said this methodology needed to change, otherwise with thin descriptions sociology would be superficial. Dorothy Smith’s standpoint theory is all about her new methodology for sociology. Like Geertz, she emphasized thick descriptions, a sort of one on one with people and with cases. Dorothy Smith emphasized experience over perspective, in order to get a detailed look into a case, one needs to be in the group.

If top down and perspective was emphasized before, I wonder how theorists even learned about their subjects in an emotional way. Armchair anthropology came before participant observation in anthropology, which is sort of like thin versus thick descriptions or the term ‘experience.’ In order to collect insight on a group, such as the homeless book sellers, a sociologist should become a part of the group and share ‘experience’ with the group, which is similar to anthropology because ethnographies occur from participant observation nowadays. It seems like anthropology and sociology are overlapping disciplines.

There’s a video on youtube that I watched, called Dorothy Smith’s Standpoint (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ldZ-EPmM1k) and the creator of the video, a female with a PhD, states that in her undergraduate education her sociology professor neglected to talk about Dorothy Smith because he didn’t perceive her way of doing sociology as a credible way for research. Um what? Can someone punch that teacher? The creator was very interested in Smith and she states that Smith’s standpoint was very interested in the experiences of the subordinated and becoming a part of the group to see the perspective of the subordinate subject. I really liked this video because this PhD female, Debra Marshall, seems to praise Dorothy Smith.

I shall end with..two facts about Dorothy Smith… she’s still alive… and she’s a Canadian!

Blog Ten

Clifford Geertz. First of all I’d just like to admire his name Clifford…that’s an awesome name. Second of all, I think it’s interesting that he was also a student of Talcott Parsons, just like Merton was. Merton followed Parson’s footsteps while Geertz was critical of his teacher.

Geertz was a cultural anthropologist. He was interested in the role of ethnographies and symbols. As simple as it is, he talks about thin and thick descriptions. He takes the example of boys who are winking, but are they really winking? If you haven’t analyzed the situation of the boys, then it’s a thin description which to Geertz isn’t true anthropology. In order to understand the situation of each boy, one must dive deeper into each scenario. This would be Geertz’s thick description. This is the heart of real anthropology and ethnographies.

Geertz also defines culture. He believes it is a system of inherited concepts that are expressed in symbolic forms. Culture is public because meaning is. Symbols are objects that we prescribe a meaning to and all agree upon the meaning. The middle finger is a symbol. What is it? The middle finger is a finger on each hand which is surrounded by the ring finger and forefinger. Profanely, it is just a finger but since we prescribed meaning to it, it became an obscene gesture. Weirdly enough this gesture dates back to the classical era, when this symbol was referring to anal intercourse. Also, a symbol such as this could be a symbol for a specific country. For example, the middle finger could be an obscene gesture in the United States, but not in Australia. In certain countries, giving the “V” sign, otherwise known as the peace sign, with the back of the hand facing the person, could be taken as obscene, equivalent to our middle finger.

I don’t know if any of you remember the character Mr. Bean, but on one of the episodes he perceives giving the middle finger as a good symbol. He snaps a picture of a man on a motorcycle so the man gives Mr. Bean the bird. He then proceeds to flip everyone off with a smile because he doesn’t know it’s an offensive symbol. He is not well received, but it makes me laugh every time. This timeless clip is called Mr. Bean Points his Middle Finger. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH0kugMR4BI) This is a great example that Mr. Bean doesn’t share the same meaning of the symbol. Lesson learned; understand the prescribed meaning of shared symbols in a country or you might get beaten up. 

Blog Nine

Erving Goffman examined status, roles, and what he called the self-label. Social status is a particular social position while a role is the behavior that is expected of someone that holds a particular status. Self-label is an identity that one presents to others in an attempt to try to attain their impression they give off to others.

Goffman is attributing power to the individual with creating their own identity. If you meet someone new, you as an individual have a lot of power to present yourself and how you interact and essentially, how you create your own identity to that other individual.

It’s interesting that Goffman examined the disconnect between status and roles. If we expect someone to fill a certain role due to their status, and they don’t, then we’re not only thrown off, but it becomes sort of an awkward situation. How we act should align with the self-label we give to ourselves, otherwise, it’s almost fake or hypocritical. If I have an identity or self-label that is against alcohol and I present a certain set of priorities, and I go out into the world and go against what I just said was my label, it becomes one uncomfortable situation.

Not only this, but Goffman also looked at stigmas. A stigma is a negative label. It becomes difficult to achieve roles and overall acceptance due to stigmas. In between self-label and roles lay the stigmas. Stigmas are very hard to get rid of and sometimes can last for decades, such as a stigmatization of African American people and high rates of crime. If you’re driving through a bad neighborhood where predominately African American people live, you might stigmatize everyone that they are trouble seekers.

There’s a set of videos on youtube called Kill Stigma for a ‘kill stigma campaign.’ They are videos trying to kill stigmas for things such as stigmas for drug abuse, autism, schizophrenia, etc. The one I liked the most was “Stigma Associated with Autism:KILL STIGMA” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hseZ32OcInQ) This video talks about stigmas that can be demoralizing and how the stigmas that society has placed on autism makes family members of autistic individuals almost ashamed of their relative. These stigmas related to mental disorders or abuses don’t seem to ever cease. 

Blog Eight

Georg Simmel analyzes what he calls ‘the stranger.’ He structures society in three categories.

1.      Psychological aspects of social life

2.      Interpersonal Relationships

3.      Spirit of the Times

He describes the first category as internally what the brain thinks, what’s inside of your mind as a human being. Category two discusses the interactions with others that you have. Category three is essentially culture and society. He describes a two way flow. If you start at number one, the brain affects how we interact with people and also influences larger cultural patterns. It can create culture essentially, like norms or values. On the flipside, culture can influence interactions in society, but also affect one’s personal beliefs.

I see the two way flow mostly in one direction. Culture and society’s values directly affect one’s own beliefs and values. In our society, most people are raised to believe in God. Most people are raised to believe that they should strive to make a lot of money. Our culture emphasizes higher education. We have distinct societal norms. We all drive cars, probably can be wasteful with natural resources, and underappreciate what we have. We enculturate as young children and base our ideas in life off of the culture we take on. In a developed country such as the United States, our culture emphasizes certain traits or characteristics. It’s interesting to look at people who reside in an underdeveloped country. Their culture can be drastically different than ours and a lot of their beliefs contrast with ours. If we look at the emphasis of higher education, we have this emphasis due to the opportunity of higher education. Underdeveloped countries might not have these opportunities, so work and family is emphasized instead. This emphasis of their culture affects their beliefs just like our cultural ideals affect our psychological aspect. Also, I think it’s interesting because the U.S. GDP per capita is roughly 48.3 thousand dollars, while a lot of underdeveloped small African countries are in the hundreds, such as Zimbabwe which is roughly 350 dollars. Such small countries have a great emphasis on culture because it had been constructed many generations before their time. On the flipside, someone could assume leadership easily in a small country so their individual beliefs could affect society/culture, so I wonder if people’s internal thoughts affect larger cultural patterns and interactions more in a small country.

I found a video on youtube called “What is Culture?” where people were asked to define what it means. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57KW6RO8Rcs) I think after all the classes I’ve taken in college, I still don’t know a concrete definition of culture, but I do know that culture has an effect on social interactions and one’s own mind/beliefs/values. I feel like we strive to comply with societal norms and to mingle into our own culture, thus why our brains base a lot off of our culture. 

Blog Seven

Anna Julia Cooper explored the sociology of race. She believed that individuals aren’t completely accountable because it isn’t the fault of one person but the entire society and culture to blame. Cooper looked at how societies dealt with minority groups. There are four models to deal with this. Pluralism is the first model. Pluralism is the act of celebrating cultural diversity and having equal rights for everyone. Assimilation is the second model which is where the minority group loses cultural variability and assumes the dominant culture. Segregation is when there’s a distinct separation, either formal or informal, of a group of people. Cities are racially segregated sometimes. Genocide is the last model. This is the deliberate killing of a group of people. All four of these models are dealing with the majority minority dynamic in society. There are a multitude of examples in the United States where all four models have been visible.

I am in a tribal government class this semester and I think this majority minority dynamic directly applies to the Native Americans in the United States. All four models have directly affected their lives.

In the late 1800s, Native American children were ripped from their homes and placed in boarding schools where they were expected to learn blacksmithing, sewing, laundry, etc. The children were beaten if they spoke their native tongue and no freedom of religion was granted to them. These schools were Americanizing Indian children and also teaching them a trade. Once their schooling was over, they were displaced into American society where they faced mental breakdowns and the suicide rate skyrocketed. They were attempted to be assimilated.

Segregation occurred when the government created the Indian Removal Act in 1830. Indian peoples were forced to move west and their land was allotted under the Dawes Act of 1887, which also forced assimilation, but also segregation. Tribes ended up on reservations, but that’s a complicated situation as well.

 

Genocide has definitely been witnessed in tribal life. Not only did a lot of Native Americans perish on the Trail of tears, where about 15,000 natives died on the march, but coastal Indians in California were legally killed. Bounties were placed on Indian heads. In the 1840s there were 150,000 natives, but by the year 1890, there were 17,000 natives left. The government allowed people to slaughter the Indians and essentially scalp them. People were granted $1 for a woman, $2 for a man, and 25 cents for a baby Native American. Not only did genocide occur with mass scalping, but small pox blankets were given to natives as ‘gifts’ but little did they know they were about to contract a deadly disease.

Lastly, pluralism is evident when we celebrate Native American’s cultural diversity. People explore native life and try to understand their rituals and practices against our own. Unfortunately, I think this is the model that is least evident in Native American’s lives in the course of their unique history. Taking this tribal government class allows me to really understand that this majority minority dynamic will never be fair in accordance to natives in the United States. I think natives just want fair treatment and ideally to be peacefully left alone. 

Drums of Thunder is a video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvNAHByKPM that demonstrates Native uniqueness and a great reason why we should genuinely accept and celebrate their way of life. 

Blog Six

Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a very interesting woman. She’s covered in courses such as sociology, history, and economics. She believed that certain roles in society for women could stunt a woman’s creative and personal development. How can a woman achieve self-actualization if she were cooped up in her home? A woman, simultaneously, has to depend on a man’s income because she’s financially dependent on him, which results in an inferior status. Since there was a visible division of labor along gender lines, women were plagued with the duty of the household. Gilman dissects the roles of men and women, which was unheard of for a woman of her time to do so.

The most interesting part of Gilman’s sociology, to me, is her public and private sphere theory and also the androcentric culture she was witnessing. The public sphere is dominated by men. Men work in this sphere and interact in this sphere, a sphere outside of the home. A female dominates the private sphere, a more intimate secluded sphere. She came up with a geography to oppression. She was emphasizing that every perspective was through a male viewpoint. Males dominated society. This androcentric culture reinforced and maintained a lot of gender roles, where a woman is basically a domestic servant in her own home while her husband worked for the family. Male positions held power and authority, and what power did women possess?

In my history of women class this semester, we talked about Gilman. She was very critical of women’s domestic role. She was concerned that being a wife and a mother was just not going to cut it for women…they longed for something more. She was a member of Heterodoxy. This was basically the first feminist organization in the United States for radical feminist members. It’s interesting because this term meant the opposite of orthodox. It was unorthodox, very atypical, but Gilman herself believed in unorthodox views in society for a woman. She should be given more credit and mentioned more often in courses than she is. I watched this youtube clip on some facts from her life. “The Life of Charlotte Perkins Gilman” is a well-made clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0VYTV_ee2E). 

Facts I learned about Charlotte Gilman:

-She was the niece of Catharine Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Isabella Beecher Hooker, all very strong and influential women of their time

-After she gave birth to her daughter, she suffered from postpartum depression

-She was a big proponent of Nationalism

-After she divorced her first husband, she married her cousin, but he died young of a cerebral hemorrhage

-After her cousin/husband passed, she moved to the west coast to be near her estranged daughter

-She was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer and suffered from it for three years before she committed suicide by overdosing on chloroform

Her life was too short. 

Blog Five

Harriet Martineau is a very interesting character. She believed that “the role of sociologist as that of public educator.” Her writing addressed absolutely everyone.

Martineau’s law of social life was simple: “the great ends of human association aim above all to the grand one-the only one-human happiness.” We strive for happiness, but how do we arrive there? She studied the fundamental organization of society by examining patterns of human relationships and activities within society. Her comparative approach led her to look at things such as attitude towards money, nature, entertainment, norms of housing, sexuality, etc.

But one of the most interesting things she talked about was anomaly. This term refers to the misalignment between morals and manners. This disruption essentially inhibits happiness. If the United States values things, or preaches to value certain traits, such as freedom and equality, then why do anomalies exist? Wage gaps, access to education, sexism, discrimination, women’s lower status—all of these things are a disruption to happiness. This isn’t equality, and some of it is just down right bull. Then there’s Gross National Happiness. And what the hell is that? With no universal definition of happiness, what would the GNH be? The term was coined by the fourth Dragon King in Bhutan. He was committed to building an economy that would serve their culture and Buddhist values. Their economic development should be balanced with the people’s well-being. As a goal, their cultural life should have a stronger sense of community.

I think it’s interesting if you ask someone to define happiness or the essentials to make you happy; everyone’s answer will vary with some overlapping. If you ask an eight year old boy what makes him happy, he might say a toy or a bike. Some people may say money, others may say Jesus, some may say just being alive. That’s exactly what this youtube video did called “What IS Happiness?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXUHdwB-ph0). Some people say their relationship makes them happy, shopping, love, their children, etc. At the same time, some people say that the harder you try to be happy, the unhappier the individual becomes. One man says it’s hard to be happy when he continues to see poor people clash with rich people. There are unlimited answers to this question. 

Blog Four

Max Weber, in his writings, described power and authority. Power is the likelihood that your demands are obeyed; a domination. Authority is a type of power; a legitimate domination. People are accepting of it. Weber highlights three types of authority:

1.      Rational

2.      Traditional

3.      Charismatic

Traditional authority is all about doing things the way they have always been done. Usually, these traditions are passed down from generation to generation, and also consist of religion and beliefs. Rational authority is about laws and knowledge. Charismatic authority is all about exercising a compelling inspiring charm. This person or group is fascinating and strong in character.

I think charismatic authority is specifically intriguing. I looked up ten influential charismatic leaders on the web, just for fun, and came up with this list:

10. Napoleon Bonaparte

9. Fidel Castro

8. Winston Churchill

7. Mahatma Ghandi

6. Adolf Hitler

5. Martin Luther King, Jr.

4. Malcolm X

3. Nelson Mandela

2. Joseph Stalin

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt

These aren’t in any specific order of importance. A charismatic leader is said to possess certain traits, such as: self-confident, inspirational, articulate, revolutionary, and being supportive. As anyone can tell, most of these listed people are political leaders. They served as leaders of countries, leaders of civil rights movements, and sometimes, leaders of genocides. All of these individuals possessed charisma. I found a video on youtube which reminded me that some of the most charismatic speakers aren’t famous people at all, they’re blended into society with all of us. This college professor speaks at graduation about the cancer he was diagnosed with and the advice he has for students. I think some of the best speeches can bring tears to someone’s eyes. These speeches usually can relate to each and every one of us and in this video in particular, I felt like it was my dad talking to me about life, because he was relatable and very commendable. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WmryhioApY). 

Blog Three

Emile Durkheim discusses the division of labor in the 1890s. In 1893, he highlights mechanical and organic solidarity. In mechanical solidarity, Durkheim connects the individual to society without this such, intermediary. Society is organized collectively; all members share same beliefs, basically a collective conscious. This is seen in more primitive societies. There is low differentiation with an emphasis on the common good. Conformity is seen abundantly. In organic solidarity, individualism and specialization are highlighted. Society is a system of different functions; individuals have a distinct job and personality. There is a high differentiation in this society, emphasizing the individual. This system is seen in civilized societies.

Durkheim viewed this division of labor as more productive, being that it created worker solidarity. He was interested in the differences between traditional and modern societies. He witnessed the division of labor changing from mechanical to organic solidarity. He even discusses how the division of labor is beneficial to society because it ‘increases reproductive capacity, the skill of the workman, and it creates a feeling of solidarity between people.’ On the other hand, Marx viewed the division of labor as a way to alienate the worker under capitalism. He also believed it was inevitable because technology kept advancing. Marx was concerned with changing social relations due to capitalism, while Durkheim’s focus was on the individual and society and the relationship between the two.

If the goal of the division of labor is to create solidarity among people in a society, can there be social conflict? People in a society have to mutually accept norms/institutions, but that’s not possible in an industrialized capitalist society, at least at this time in the 1890s it hadn’t been achieved. Due to this, anomic division of labor surfaces. This Marxist terms implies a lack of regulation and integration; a lack of social norms. This term also suggests that individuals become isolated by their specific role in organic solidarity. If people lose a sense of being essential in the whole of society, then wouldn’t they feel alienated? I’m starting to make small connections here and there between Marx and Durkheim, although my brain has a hard time adjusting to think sociologically.

Drawing off a familiar name, Durkheim saw Tocqueville’s study of democracy in America and believed that civil associations could result in social solidity. These associations could replace the roles of certain institutions. These would function as social organizations, among have other functions. People in the groups share a collective identity.

I think the inner sociological nerd is beginning to come out of me. “Hey Hey Durkheim” is a song on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgA41FMY0oQ) which sings out some of Durkheim’s contributions to sociology along with appropriate pictures. I think it’s a very cool and if I had the ability to rhyme and sing even remotely well, I would probably attempt it. 

Blog Two

Karl Marx critiques society in the late 19^th century. He comes up with the idea of alienation of the species being. All human beings want to reach their fullest amount of life, but as always, there are numerous obstacles. There are a few components of his alienation idea. An individual has alienation from:

-          Productive activity

-          Product

-          Fellow workers

-          Human potential

With this said, Marx believed that alienation is an indication of the industrial age and capitalism. A worker in a production line sees only the item he/she produces and has no control over the final product. This individual has no relationship with the product and works purely for the pay check. The worker has no satisfaction in the work he/she does.

There are many social behaviors that result from alienation. Suicide is the ultimate result of alienation, but also school shootings, drug and alcohol abuse, and also addictions such as gambling or shopping can occur from feeling so alienated from society. Work, in today’s society, is still depersonalized and alienation is well witnessed in today’s work places.

I’ve been thinking lately where I will end up working when I’m out of college…….most likely a cubicle, a small area divided off from everyone else’s tiny office. Do I look forward to this? Absolutely not. When I think about this, I become very sad. Then, I looked up a song I haven’t heard in a while, The Cubicle Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4NpBZ2jiH8). This song follows the theme of James Blunt’s song “You’re Beautiful,” except with much better lyrics. This song just makes me laugh and demonstrates how someone who works in a cubicle is severed from a lot of human contact, just a person and their computer, in their 6x6 board room. I’d love to end this blog on a brighter note, but Marx is right. Plus, even without alienation in the workplace, would individuals reach their fullest human potential without this obstacle? 

Blog One

Let’s talk about materialism. I’d like to say that I’m not materialistic, but to some degree everyone is. I like to have the newest things and follow certain modern trends. I may not be able to afford some of the things that I want, but I aspire and try hard to achieve getting these luxuries. For some people these materialistic items are like a Gucci handbag or an Ipad, but mine is more like a Segway.

Tocqueville discusses in his writing that materialism is different in Democracy versus an Aristocracy. In a democratic nation, materialism is high and there is a high drive to have materialistic goods. In an Aristocracy, materialism sort of depends on the class that you fall into. For goodness sake, we have a day, Black Friday, that is all about shopping for materialistic items and spending lots of money, which sadly, I participate in every year. I’d say Tocqueville’s theory still holds true today about materialism in the United States. 

On that note, I don’t feel so bad if I’m materialistic because it seems like we all are, according to Tocqueville.

While trying to wrap my mind around materialism, I was messing around on Youtube and I happened to come across this video, a very sarcastic sense of the term materialism called “SMOOTH E, ‘Materialism.’”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AvkgrXb-dU) This video is selling a bubble free scrub to solve ‘all teen problems’ of buying materialistic items. This video is sort of spot on about materialism in our country, although it seems a little sexist, but it demonstrates that material items are sometimes chosen over necessities, like food…FOOD! (For those of you who don’t know me, food is my ultimate weakness).

There’s the old saying that money can’t buy you happiness. I wonder why our culture is so wrapped around materialistic items if they won’t even give us concrete happiness in the long run. I think our splurge of materialistic items is a temporary fix for our happiness, but I’d say my materialistic items tend to make me content, but my unhappiness comes when I look at my credit card bill.