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.