Sumblog 12

Being a part of a group or having an identity is something that we cherish so dearly people die, or even kill for it. Samuel P Huntington saw these patterns of conflict on many different levels affecting many different people. We had a world with both the modern people who cannot quite reach out to what group they belong to (Black or white) for instance in bi racial kids. Or possably the old ways of the world (Amish) kids and their choices. These separations lead us to an idea in which we do not belong. In a world that is separated from the modern industrial world to the ritual farm communities. The Cold War had a large effect of the spread of industrialized ideas of the west and the more conservative collectivistic view in the east. Both sides were scared of each other for the simple idea that they did not understand each other, and they were different. The way we look at culture is threw the traditions that are passed along by our relatives. Our parent teaches us our morals and our ideologies political regimes and we may even inherit their conflict. We have to look at civilization on two different levels, the macro and the micro level. The Micro level is the smaller level of life; the everyday routines and the smaller community, a town. The Macro level is looking at the big picture, the economy, the military overall the counties or areas well-being on a global scale. Huntington expresses that we have a major social conflict between the old ways working well for the micro level, and the new industrial ways of the macro future. We can look at these conflicts the same way we look at the world with the west being the Macro level trying to spread our way of life. And the east is the micro level, smaller weaker, be set in the ways of the past, and will fight for there way of living. When we can combine these ways of living, then we can heal and live together in unity.

Sumblog 11

When we look at what we know and who taught us, should it be constant threw out our lives? Do our ideals change overtime with the experiences that we face and go through every day? Dorothy Smith a 70s love generation sociologist would say that the bifurcation of consciousness is a dangerous separation between characteristic of experiences and her own observations.

She spoke on how our knowledge of the world is more of an individualistic view; we see the worlds organized for us. We just know so then we discard the essential focus, of different application on how we extort knowledge. These problems of how objects and things come about on how forgotten individual history and the struggles that we have put people threw in hard socioeconomics times. We examine them and sociologists have little to say on how these daily practices get forgotten. Some things are just seen as habituations. We need to look at the relations that are apparent every day, the situations that we do not see or otherwise notice that someone did something even if not out of the ordinary. Smith gives an example of a room. Everything was put here for a reason, and we can use it accordingly. This is the yours and mine of our social culture. These human characteristics that are not shown and highlighted each day are still the human activates; and interactions that mandate the social organization of our appearance.

 

Smith saw that the world was changing and she knew that women’s situation was not stagnant. The world is not to shape us but we are to shape the world. She does not want these inequalities and she is trying to show women that these everyday struggles are not normal however look for an alternative sociology and explore the relations beyond the experiences and always strive for better equality.  

This is an image objectifying a person, however the role of male and female is reversed, do you see the difference and normalcy of the gender role.

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/HT_motorcycle_ad_men_2_nt_131031_16x9_608.jpg&imgrefurl=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/11/men-mimic-female-models-in-sexy-photo-shoot-spoof/&h=342&w=608&sz=36&tbnid=x1Jq6D_wAPOTuM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=160&zoom=1&usg=__0UNn5WvOISusK6Bv9rScKfj2LFY=&docid=Idawy4yVart2MM&sa=X&ei=ae6UUo-9Io_zoATitIHgCg&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ9QEwBA

Sumblog 10

Peter Berger is a part of a select few sociologies that look at society as current and constantly evolving entity. He wanted to know why some parts of society are just seen as a normal part of life, and how they became normal. I see him and a common 4 year old getting into an awesome “why” competition. Berger himself was wondering why? He looked at these social norms as four step processes to understanding and creates society, these norms we create are in terms of organization or the social construction of reality. Here, Berger expressed that everything that is created is only created because we created it. In other words everything that has been made had to be thought by man, created by man, named by man, and the way we use objects is created by man, it is simply everything we have created this world. In a drastic sense we can change blue into green just by getting enough people to agree and no one challenging the new names given. The next aspect is externalization, or how we create ideas and then persuade other people into believing and endorsing your ideas. You alone can come up with some radical ideas; however the idea is only your own crazy thought until you externalize your ideas onto another. They then are convinced and share your original idea and will express it onto others. How do we know that green is green, because some person said so and everyone else agreed. In the agreement process Berger was curious on how objects and perceptions become and stay how they are. We habituate to them, and see them as normal, knowing that they have been repetitively used in a particular way or another without breaking any social norm. The last concept is the fact that we become institutionalized to these normally habituated activates. We become comfortable in our lives and we are content without changes. This is a normal way of looking at life, an organized set of goals and ideas that a larger group put in order to control crisis. We see all the luxuries that are around us and we see it as normal. We no longer know how to live outside our normal institutionalized world.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQqVQol7wcQ

This is a simple example of someone breaking social norms and not really knowing what to do, The stress of not following norms just make her do irrational actions, there is no organized thinking.

Sumblog 9

Talcott Parsons did much of his work on the structure of kinship in different relationship actions at the turn of the feminist movement. He had an emphasis on the upbringing of children and the formation of the family unit as a whole. At this time in American history we are just finishing up with WWII and there was a major change in woman’s roles in the work force. With the large amount of men being away, serving there country, women had to take the roles of both family life and work life. This had a skewed relationship with the housing structure and even on the structure of marriage. To be the “breadwinner” of the family was on the man side of responsibility, however women were fighting for a more utilitarian division of labor. They too could become independent from a man and make a living wage for her. These lead women to seeking a job and not just settling for the housekeeping position. This Parsons argues is a good thing for the labor force. With the stress on sex roles it was essential for the institution to scope out the valuations of personal achievement. These status giving occupational roles were not only achieved through hard work, they were the relevance of family revelation. With both husband and wife working outside the home and trying to provide a responsible marriage and teamwork structure has to be in it-self work. The individual personalities need to take full responsibility as a partnership of these life choices. We live in a time where there needs to be a proper balance of the sexes. Men and women are now responsible for both values of culture both domestically and outside of the home. Talcott emphasized the value of kinship and the family structure and explained the change that we were experiencing was an emphasis to embrace women in work, and have a partnership in the relationship of the family.

Funny video to show how roles are changing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBT1iW2hgF4

Sumblog 8

George Herbert Mead had a mildly complex idea of how and why we act and say the things that we do in our society. His complex of the self, the I, and the me are all different ways in how we act so we can follow suit with social norms. Meads idea of the I is the first unconscious thought that slips into a person’s head. An example of this would be when your boss gives you a senseless job; you may at first think of some choice words for him/her but deicide not to vocalize  these first thoughts because this could hurt your chances of being liked and possibly a promotion just like the example of “Liar Liar” in class. The concept of the Me is what stops a person from just blurting out that earlier thought. This is the filter that people have so then they can follow social norms and not be singled out because of saying something that would be embarrassing, inappropriate or hurtful. This concept is very similar to that of Freudian theory with his concept of the Ego and the Super ego. Here the ego is the same as the I. It is the first thought or the first action that comes into a person’s head. Normally this is more of an excitement reaction or more of an impulsive action. Many people with ADHD have been said to have a separation between the me and the I which leads them to do impulsive acts. The Me is like a person’s super ego, this gives a person the ability to step back from the unconscious initial thought and put it into more logical understanding. Mead also talked about the generalized other. This concept brings to light the idea that we are consciously aware of another person’s awareness of us. Here we think about how other people perceive us from an emphasis of the “me” being our filter to make sure others perceive us positively. Unfortunately the fact that we all have a “Me” is the same aspect that we get low self-esteem or self-confidence. When we say something without the me the generalized other kicks in and we automatically know we did/said something outside the social norm and now anxiety kicks in.    

This is an example of how the Me and I take over in different social situations.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0kzH2asYg

sumblog 7

William Edward Burghardt or W.E.B Dubois was an American social theorist on the subject of race. He has struck a fair amount of criticism from his ideals which in a way are opposite to that of Booker T. Washington, another social theorist who had a different more positive outlook on the African American community as in he pushed for education amongst all black citizens. W.E.B Du Bois wanted young African American men to be educated however he did not believe that the system would allow for the tools of education would be provided for these young men.  In Du Bois writing he expresses two key concepts of why he believes that the Black man has and will be kept as a secondary class citizen. One of these concepts is that a figurative Veil that is placed over the eyes of young eager black men willing to work hard to achieve success. “Through history, the powers of single black men flash here and there like falling stars, and die sometimes before the world has rightly gauged their brightness” (Du Bois 127). This veil dims the light of intelligent young eager men and society will not let them shine bright enough that the world can see their greatness. However, when a black man makes a discovery or is needed to assist in a fight alongside a white man, here, in this situation, we are equals and are willing to help our fellow man. This goes along with the second key concept of a double consciousness. To have double consciousness you need to be able to see a situation from either perspectives, or see how both parties think about the situation. Du Bois stats that we must not lead a conscience mind of a never ending severed and servant ideal, however take both the job of the servant and of the one being served. The one being served needs to look and see that even in the disorganization of the social structure we live in we all feel and have stressors and even when a person is labeled as a free man or woman it may not be just that easy.

This clip shows how people do not have a double consciousness, how white privileged individuals do not see a problem with this violation of rights, because they are not affected by it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVjExRhSJQ

Sumblog 6

Jane Addams is one social thinker that we should all take an extensive notice on. She is at first a powerful female, which at this time in our history a women has almost no rights and it is unheard of a women being in a power position. In a changing time in American history she opened her home to many different people not just women, which is commonly advertised, she also brought in immigrants from all regions of the world, men and children included. Here she taught useful skills to these unskilled and unfamiliar people to help them succeed in society at this time. She followed a Democratic Social Ethics policy which consisted of four key elements. First, no one group is more important than any other. This applied to both men and immigrants, not just the obvious situation of oppressed women. At this time if you were white you may not actually be “white”. Groups of Irish and Italian people were discriminated because they did not look as “white” as the others from different areas such as England. They may talk differently, such as a thick Irish accent. Even though it may bring girls to their knees now-a-days, it was a sign of shame and a tell tail sign for an employer to not hire a person. Secondly, all people should be active agents in the production on society. This means that we all need to work together to reach a common goal. We all would like to live a happy and rewarding life, we all need to work to achieve that goal, why don’t we all work together and smoothly reach that common goal. Next we all, as humans, seek an opportunity for kindness. Sociologists argue that we are all naturally good, there are a few bad eggs which can influence many people, but humans are all in all nice. This element is just that, we are all naturally good and we would like to be treated with kindness and respect eg: the golden rule. Finally the fourth element of Adams social thinking is we all need personal safety of each person. The people Jane Adams was dealing with were at a very stressful time in their lives, she needed to make sure this would be a positive institution to lead to further opportunities’ of equality for all. Jane Addams wanted to show people that threw experience we can learn acceptance for our fellow human being, no matter gender, race or age.  

This is a small town clean-up project, giving people the opportunities to learn skills and to make the world a better place.

http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/5655

Sumblog 3

Emilie Durkheim is one of the most interesting sociologists to read about, because he tackles such a taboo subject of suicide. Suicide has always been a human related subject that is looked down upon in society. However, it has always been around and is not slowing down at any rate. That is what Emilie saw a relation to socioeconomics, whether it was in times of hardship or if it was in times of prosperity. This then fell into relation of how much control the people had or how little control was being held in everyday society. If there was not enough regulation then society would fall into an atomic state. Here more people where known to commit suicide. On the other hand when there was too much regulation then people fell into what is called a fatalistic state, or a helpless feeling where the only way out is to take your own life.

When looking at levels of regulation that society possesses there is also integration or how much people co-exist with one another. When you have regulations that people go threw in their own day to day, even if the norms are not spoken, and a person comes into a new place that has different cultural norms. They will not integrate as easily with others, which could cause stress which could lead to the inevitable suicide, which is what Durkheim was studying. These regulations fall into four categories, Egoistic which is like the earlier statement when a person does not fit into an area or group. Altruistic: meaning that you are so involved with your organization that you will do anything for the cause.   Anomic, here a person may not know there place in society and feel like an outsider and lost. With the last one being fatalistic, here a person is in prisoned or enslaved and they do not know any other way out of there hell then to end it all by their own hand. Durkheim took a step to study something taboo, something that is not looked highly on by society. However, with doing so we now understand a little better of why people may do what they do.

Sumblog 2

Karl Marx is one of my favorite Philosophers, his ideas of  community and working together to achieve a common goal is very similar to my own. Marx was ahead of his time on the subject of equality. When reading this past section, he wrote this in 1856, a year where women had basically no rights and African Americans were still in slaved. However, when reading his work it does not sound like a person who is from such an unequal time. Karl Marx saw the diverging of power going to the few and the rich, similar to what is happening now in our time with the exposure of the 99%. Where only 1% of the population has the majority of the wealth while the one percent are the majority of the middle and lower class or working class citizens. When this happens it turns away from democracy because the "people" are no long running how this country works. The few and rich people are running the show how they feel is best, which is more on what is good for big investment business and not the small town market. He also gets passionate about the way religion is looked at in this time. Modern science is not quite around yet and people still turn to religion for answers. This is normally a good thing but the church is exploiting people for there money and other resources. He states that religion is just a way for man to explain something that man doesn't understand and knows that some of the ideas are not being said in the good of the people but the good of the few. Marx talks  about the camera obscura, how film comes into the camera to show an upside down picture even when in reality it is right side up. To me this shows that the ideas to have a good clear positive picture are there but the way we do things are upside down and even though the ideas are there they may not be presented in the way for the best outcome.

SumBlog 1

Social Change

In the late 1700s the world was becoming more globalized and countries were forming and dying. Time moves forward no matter how hard we would like it to slow down or stop. As time moves there is a replacement of control, social order, and a change to the commonplace every day norms. These social changes were brought to light by Alexis De Tocqueville, an aristocratic writer in the dim light of democracy. He writes about the centralization of people during this time, and about how democracy posed as a starting point for something new. Being endorsed by various successful governments of his time, his ideas were considered very reputable. Centralization is the act of consolidating power under a central control, or of the modern day France, as Tocqueville describes it.  These ideas were implemented before the French Revolution and neglected aristocratic forms of government. Centralization stood firm throughout the region. After the revolution there was a dramatic change in how people saw others. The spread of knowledge and wealth did not bring people together but rather brought out the greed people had, and yielded a desire for more which did not help the economic problems of the time. The benefits proved small when being free and having the ability to buy land only widened the social gap between the haves and the have-nots. The biggest social change reflected by my generation is the movement towards internet relationships. The mass of people getting together through match.com and through random interactions on Facebook, has grown exponentially forming a new and expanding phenomena completely foreign to previous generations. We are completely changing how people date and interact with the speed of technology. This can also lead to heartache and disappointment. A semi-new show on MTV, “Catfish”, tells the stories of people engaged with internet relationships that remain strictly on the internet. Having never met before in person, the host brings the two together for their first encounter proving sometimes good and other times not so good. With the internet’s advantages and the utilization of these advantages, a new social norm has been adopted further allowing the widening of dating, friendships, and possibilities for meeting entirely new people.  

Citations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtzMP3QNSA0