My first reaction to the "Shift Happens" video was a resounding "WOW!". The numerous interesting facts and information presented seemed almost surreal- even though they are statistics, they really put in perspective the complete transformation that the human race is experiencing. I feel a strange sense of bleakness and apprehension about our future because of the predictions, specifically those regarding technology. If the premonitions are correct, than mankind is at the threshold of developing a technology that can actually replace the human brain, and in essence will be surrendering all of our humanity to a machine. It sounds very sci-fi, but it is truly a scary thought. I do not believe that many people, aware that we are in the post-industrial, "information age", truly understand how rapidly our technology is expanding and in such a short time. The text book really portrays how short of a time human beings have occupied this earth when, in the first paragraph of chapter 20, it refers to the timeline of the history of Earth as a clock. In the 24 hours that represents the existence of our planet, human-like apes have only occupied it for the last 2 minutes, and modern man for only the last 4 seconds (Gidden et al. 655). This is a really scary perspective; it is very humbling to think of ourselves as relatively small and insignificant in the history of Earth. At the same token, it is quite frightening to think of what the human race is capable of doing, and has done in such a short time.
Even the tone of which this video presents this information reinforces the fact that our future is frightening. Simply playing that creepy music in the background sets the mood, and the viewer can not help but wonder if all this mega-super-fast-crazy technology we are all enjoying now will cease to be beneficial, and will we become slaves to it in the future (figuratively or literally)? If it is true that during a student's four-year college career, the technological information learned in the first year will be obsolete by the third, then how can our students truly prepare for anything? The textbook goes into detail about the changes that have taken place in the service sector of industry over recent years, that blue-collar jobs that used to be the most prevalent are now taking a back-seat to the technological service jobs that did not even exist 10 or so years ago.
The technological advances we have made are fascinating: they add a new dimension of accessibility, speed, and convenience that mankind has never experienced before. Globalization is taking on an entire different meaning than it ever has, and the world is interconnected in direct ways that truly tie most of the world together. It seems that soon there will no longer be a need for face-to-face interaction, people meet online, work online, shop online, etc. The human race, being an evolutionary species, will grow and change to adapt to this new civilization, and there is no telling what parts of us will cease to exist in the future. We are at a serious crossroads, sociologically AND scientifically speaking, and it is very interesting to think about how sociologists will have to alter their perspective of human interaction to accommodate the emerging "new" human race.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Urbanization
I grew up in a mid-sized town in Connecticut, a shoreline town located between several larger towns and just 2 hours from both New York City and Boston. This town prided itself on its shoreline beauty, picturesque downtown, and homes that were conveniently located near a major highway but far enough away from the hustle and bustle of the larger cities. Over the years I have noticed changes in my hometown, where I no longer live, and honestly could not afford to live there even if I wanted to!
Several large companies, including Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, experienced rapid growth during the late 1990s. In turn, large amounts of high-salary scientists and engineers relocated to my town in order to be close to the plant yet still enjoy suburban life. Because Connecticut itself is an expensive state, my town was no exception; however, since a large amount of people were moving there at once, property values skyrocketed, many many new subdivisions were created with the richer clientele in mind, and now the mean home value (well, this was before the recession) is around $450,000. Insane! As I had said before, I really love my hometown, but if I wanted to move back there, i would be hard pressed to find a decent home that I could actually afford.
Other changes have occurred to my hometown not necessarily referenced in the text book. An odd amount of housing subdivisions have recently been constructed that cater to the elderly. There are now four new (within the last 7-8 years) "assisted living" communities in my town that are exclusive to the elderly. These also come with a big price tag. It is interesting that, although the book mentions the large amount of aging Americans, it does not mention the financial situation of many of these seniors. Many of them have money enough to retire to a town that the young, working population cannot afford to live in!
An interesting point I noticed in the textbook refers to the suburbs being primarily "white". Especially in recent years, I have not found this to be true. In my hometown there is an increasing number of African Americans, Asians, and Indians, mainly those who are employed as scientists in the a fore mentioned pharmaceutical company. Now that I live in the DC metro area, I can say that these suburbs have a very large ethnic population. There is a huge variety of people living here, and I would hardly call this a "white" area. I find it interesting that the book refers to the suburbs as such, especially since in at least one large metropolitan area, this is not the case.
Several large companies, including Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, experienced rapid growth during the late 1990s. In turn, large amounts of high-salary scientists and engineers relocated to my town in order to be close to the plant yet still enjoy suburban life. Because Connecticut itself is an expensive state, my town was no exception; however, since a large amount of people were moving there at once, property values skyrocketed, many many new subdivisions were created with the richer clientele in mind, and now the mean home value (well, this was before the recession) is around $450,000. Insane! As I had said before, I really love my hometown, but if I wanted to move back there, i would be hard pressed to find a decent home that I could actually afford.
Other changes have occurred to my hometown not necessarily referenced in the text book. An odd amount of housing subdivisions have recently been constructed that cater to the elderly. There are now four new (within the last 7-8 years) "assisted living" communities in my town that are exclusive to the elderly. These also come with a big price tag. It is interesting that, although the book mentions the large amount of aging Americans, it does not mention the financial situation of many of these seniors. Many of them have money enough to retire to a town that the young, working population cannot afford to live in!
An interesting point I noticed in the textbook refers to the suburbs being primarily "white". Especially in recent years, I have not found this to be true. In my hometown there is an increasing number of African Americans, Asians, and Indians, mainly those who are employed as scientists in the a fore mentioned pharmaceutical company. Now that I live in the DC metro area, I can say that these suburbs have a very large ethnic population. There is a huge variety of people living here, and I would hardly call this a "white" area. I find it interesting that the book refers to the suburbs as such, especially since in at least one large metropolitan area, this is not the case.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Who Has the Power?
The governmental power held in the United States today is best summed up by a combination of Weber's democratic elitism and the pluralist theory of democracy. Weber made a good point when he said that a large society (such as the U.S.) is incapable of being a "true" democracy. I think many Americans would agree with this, especially considering that most feel that political decisions are not made for the people or by the people. Our country is clearly bureaucratic, and also follows Weber's guidelines for a multi-party system. The Democratic and Republican parties, by definition, both represent completely different outlooks on America and there is constant conflict between these parties in our government.
The pluralist theory suggests that "individual citizens can have little or no direct influence on political decision making" (400). Again, this is a point that most Americans would agree with. For example, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for one person to rally the capitol for a change in a law or policy. When large numbers of people rally for the law, or write to their congressman, or protest, these social movements do influence governmental decision making. Politicians seek to win over the votes and support of these large groups who themselves influence the rest of America.
Mill's Power Elite theory, in some aspects, applies to our society today: the power elite do comprise most of our government and its decision making. However, the theory's "levels of power" , specifically the bottom level, is where the inaccuracies lie. It is true that the top level holds most of the power, but without the public's needs and support of the masses then there would be no need for any decision making at all. The "lowest" level of power is the support that keeps the pyramid from toppling; in other words, they keep the government in check to prevent the power elite from becoming corrupt.
The pluralist theory suggests that "individual citizens can have little or no direct influence on political decision making" (400). Again, this is a point that most Americans would agree with. For example, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for one person to rally the capitol for a change in a law or policy. When large numbers of people rally for the law, or write to their congressman, or protest, these social movements do influence governmental decision making. Politicians seek to win over the votes and support of these large groups who themselves influence the rest of America.
Mill's Power Elite theory, in some aspects, applies to our society today: the power elite do comprise most of our government and its decision making. However, the theory's "levels of power" , specifically the bottom level, is where the inaccuracies lie. It is true that the top level holds most of the power, but without the public's needs and support of the masses then there would be no need for any decision making at all. The "lowest" level of power is the support that keeps the pyramid from toppling; in other words, they keep the government in check to prevent the power elite from becoming corrupt.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Is Walmart Good For America?
Walmart began as the realization of a dream, achieved by a hard-working American man who grew his local 5 and Dime shop into a successful, globalized mega-retailer. But before Walmart became the atrocity it is today, it was an American company with American ideals: according to the Frontline program, Sam Walton pledged at one point to only sell American made products. It wasn't until the 1990's that Walmart truly expressed its enormous economic power by turning its head to China, which in turn became the worlds largest producer of cheap goods. My, how the (made-in-Guangdong) tables have turned.
To answer the question: is Walmart good for America? I have to say a whole-hearted NO. I hold no personal grudge or bias against Walmart; in fact I applaud the efforts to assist the American consumer in achieving the ability to buy goods at the "lowest prices", which in turn helps the everyday person save money. Or, is it all just a facade? From the Frontline program we learn about Walmart's lowest price point program which lures the consumer in, and leads them to probably purchase items which are NOT the lowest price. We have also learned that Walmart gains a massive profit from purchasing Chinese made goods. Walmart is probably the largest importer of Chinese-made goods and materials in the entire world. One thing I find the most disturbing about Walmart as an enterprise is its relationship with China. I did not realize the true enormity of the interdependence of the two, and especially that China has economically boomed 100fold over the past 20 years because of Walmart and its purchasing power.
Another problem here is how Walmart and its competitive quest for purchasing and selling the cheapest priced goods possible has negatively effected America's economy. Sure, as I said before, Americans are able to buy a variety of products at low prices. But what about the hundreds of suppliers that, in order to compete with their peers who outsource labor, were forced to close American plants, lay off thousands of American workers, in order to cut costs? These suppliers to Walmart are so critically dependent on the Walmart consumer that in order to keep their businesses afloat were forced to themselves open factories in China's poorest provinces, where they could produce their products at the lowest cost.
I think the real question should be, is Walmart good for China? The answer to that would be an overwhelming Yes. The American trade agreement with China was designed to benefit the United States economy, but in fact has achieved the polar opposite. According to Frontline, the Port of Long Beach receives an overwhelming $38 billion dollars worth of Chinese goods yearly; and at the same time, only exports approximately $3 billion worth of American raw materials to China. China uses these materials to make the goods that companies like Walmart buy from them. Its almost like the "World Systems Theory" of global economy we learned about in the text book. In this situation, its almost like America is the periphery, and the newly industrialized, factory-laden Chinese provinces are the core. We are now dependent on China to keep our economy afloat. I see something seriously wrong with that.
The Chinese economy is expanding at an unprecedented pace. Poor peasants who would ordinarily be living in rural villages are now flocking to cities, expanding them, and working for wages that are extensive enough to support the worker's poor families back home. Its not to say that the worker's situations are ideal, in fact, many work long hours and the conditions may be inadequate.
Again, I am not totally opposed to Walmart. I know that it allows many Americans to be able to feed and clothe their families when they otherwise may not be able to afford to do so. However, I do feel that most Americans do not understand the magnitude of power that Walmart has over the economy, of the consumer. I think that if consumers were more educated as to where and how they were getting these "always low prices", they may think twice about where they shop. Perhaps its time the real economic power was taken back from capitalist mega-giants and back into the hands of the people where it belongs.
(My other thoughts about Walmart appear in my "global inequality" post from last month.)
To answer the question: is Walmart good for America? I have to say a whole-hearted NO. I hold no personal grudge or bias against Walmart; in fact I applaud the efforts to assist the American consumer in achieving the ability to buy goods at the "lowest prices", which in turn helps the everyday person save money. Or, is it all just a facade? From the Frontline program we learn about Walmart's lowest price point program which lures the consumer in, and leads them to probably purchase items which are NOT the lowest price. We have also learned that Walmart gains a massive profit from purchasing Chinese made goods. Walmart is probably the largest importer of Chinese-made goods and materials in the entire world. One thing I find the most disturbing about Walmart as an enterprise is its relationship with China. I did not realize the true enormity of the interdependence of the two, and especially that China has economically boomed 100fold over the past 20 years because of Walmart and its purchasing power.
Another problem here is how Walmart and its competitive quest for purchasing and selling the cheapest priced goods possible has negatively effected America's economy. Sure, as I said before, Americans are able to buy a variety of products at low prices. But what about the hundreds of suppliers that, in order to compete with their peers who outsource labor, were forced to close American plants, lay off thousands of American workers, in order to cut costs? These suppliers to Walmart are so critically dependent on the Walmart consumer that in order to keep their businesses afloat were forced to themselves open factories in China's poorest provinces, where they could produce their products at the lowest cost.
I think the real question should be, is Walmart good for China? The answer to that would be an overwhelming Yes. The American trade agreement with China was designed to benefit the United States economy, but in fact has achieved the polar opposite. According to Frontline, the Port of Long Beach receives an overwhelming $38 billion dollars worth of Chinese goods yearly; and at the same time, only exports approximately $3 billion worth of American raw materials to China. China uses these materials to make the goods that companies like Walmart buy from them. Its almost like the "World Systems Theory" of global economy we learned about in the text book. In this situation, its almost like America is the periphery, and the newly industrialized, factory-laden Chinese provinces are the core. We are now dependent on China to keep our economy afloat. I see something seriously wrong with that.
The Chinese economy is expanding at an unprecedented pace. Poor peasants who would ordinarily be living in rural villages are now flocking to cities, expanding them, and working for wages that are extensive enough to support the worker's poor families back home. Its not to say that the worker's situations are ideal, in fact, many work long hours and the conditions may be inadequate.
Again, I am not totally opposed to Walmart. I know that it allows many Americans to be able to feed and clothe their families when they otherwise may not be able to afford to do so. However, I do feel that most Americans do not understand the magnitude of power that Walmart has over the economy, of the consumer. I think that if consumers were more educated as to where and how they were getting these "always low prices", they may think twice about where they shop. Perhaps its time the real economic power was taken back from capitalist mega-giants and back into the hands of the people where it belongs.
(My other thoughts about Walmart appear in my "global inequality" post from last month.)
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
my 3 year -old gender-stereotypes!
So my daughter Ava is 3, and very smart and articulate for her age, I may add. She was in the bath the other day, playing with her 3 rubber duckies; one yellow, one blue, and one pink. She was dividing her similarly-colored foam alphabet letters into piles, color-coding them among the ducks (the blue duck had a blue pile, the pink duck had a pink pile, etc.). Ava was talking to herself and setting up the ducks' "families" when I decided to ask her who each duck was (e.g. names, etc). She without pause, pointed to the pink duck and said "This is the mommy duck." Pointed to the blue duck, "This is the daddy." And to the yellow duck, she said "This is the kid." Hmm. So in order to investigate a bit, I asked her why she chose to assign them in this way. Very matter-of-factly, she said that the pink duck was the mommy "because she's the lady cuz she's pink." And the daddy? "because 'mans' are blue." I found it very interesting that at such and early age, and without any specific teaching or instruction from me or my husband regarding society's perception of gender based on these two colors, my child assigned them the same way as the majority of American children would. And she's only 3!
Just thought I'd share my little "experiment"!
Just thought I'd share my little "experiment"!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Family Duties
I completed the Family Duties chart while referencing my own familial experience ( I am married with 2 small kiddos). And all I can say is, "Wow. I DO work really hard!"
I have spent the last year or so of my life, and more so recently, really thinking that perhaps I was unjustly feeling overwhelmed with all the mundane tasks that I must complete daily. Pretty much all the "childcare" falls on my shoulders, as well as housework, laundry, meals, appointments and errands, plus my own schooling on top of everything. However, I try not complain about these things because a) my husband works long hours himself, albeit outside the home, b) I myself do not have a job outside the home, so therefore since I am here, I should be the one responsible for getting these things done, and c) it was my choice to stay at home with my kids instead of working, so therefore that choice goes hand in hand with the assuming of these responsibilities.
For some reason, though, looking at the results of the chart really puts my "job" into perspective. I do a lot of work!! and much like we have learned in the textbook, most of the work my husband does in our household involves chores that grant him lots of freedom as to when they need to be completed. He does most of the "man's work" (when he's home and not deployed, in which case the whole chart would need to be re-written with me as the sole contestant), and I take care of the domestic duties. I was also surprised to see such "chores" like birthday shopping and vacation planning on the list (as Ms. Lerner mentioned in the podcast). I never really considered them to be "duties", but now looking back it is obvious that if they were things that needed attention, it was probably me who had to make the time to attend to them!
I am not complaining about the work I have to do, but admittedly it does get difficult and overwhelming at times to have such a large responsibility on my shoulders. The situation does work well for us though, and even though on paper perhaps the division seems unfair, it is the way our family has chosen to handle these duties. And I also realize that in time, these roles will shift again once I return to the workforce, or when the kids are old enough to go to school, or when my husband retires...
I have spent the last year or so of my life, and more so recently, really thinking that perhaps I was unjustly feeling overwhelmed with all the mundane tasks that I must complete daily. Pretty much all the "childcare" falls on my shoulders, as well as housework, laundry, meals, appointments and errands, plus my own schooling on top of everything. However, I try not complain about these things because a) my husband works long hours himself, albeit outside the home, b) I myself do not have a job outside the home, so therefore since I am here, I should be the one responsible for getting these things done, and c) it was my choice to stay at home with my kids instead of working, so therefore that choice goes hand in hand with the assuming of these responsibilities.
For some reason, though, looking at the results of the chart really puts my "job" into perspective. I do a lot of work!! and much like we have learned in the textbook, most of the work my husband does in our household involves chores that grant him lots of freedom as to when they need to be completed. He does most of the "man's work" (when he's home and not deployed, in which case the whole chart would need to be re-written with me as the sole contestant), and I take care of the domestic duties. I was also surprised to see such "chores" like birthday shopping and vacation planning on the list (as Ms. Lerner mentioned in the podcast). I never really considered them to be "duties", but now looking back it is obvious that if they were things that needed attention, it was probably me who had to make the time to attend to them!
I am not complaining about the work I have to do, but admittedly it does get difficult and overwhelming at times to have such a large responsibility on my shoulders. The situation does work well for us though, and even though on paper perhaps the division seems unfair, it is the way our family has chosen to handle these duties. And I also realize that in time, these roles will shift again once I return to the workforce, or when the kids are old enough to go to school, or when my husband retires...
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Religions of the world!
I viewed the Adherents.com website, per our assignment, and studied the pie charts and demographics on the world's religions. I can say that I was very suprised by some of the information!! First of all, I knew that Christianity was large, but I really did not realize that it made up over 30% of the world's religions. Secondly, I honestly expected Judaism to be right up there in the top 2 , or at least top 5 world religions. I was so shocked to see that less than 1% of the population is Jewish! Especially since the two largest religions are based upon fundamental teachings and scripture from Judaism. Really amazing.
Another shocker to me was how small Scientology is. For a religion that is in the media constantly, embodied by celebrities and basically one of those religions that you hear being debated over and over, it is practiced by a suprisingly few amount of people. Scientology was at the bottom of the list, even being out-numbered by "zoroastrianism" and "Juche"....What??? (two religions that I have never even heard of!).
I really found these statistics interesting. In fact, I passed this info along to my brother-in-law this morning and we reviewed the site again at breakfast this morning! Just thought I'd share my thoughts with you all!
Another shocker to me was how small Scientology is. For a religion that is in the media constantly, embodied by celebrities and basically one of those religions that you hear being debated over and over, it is practiced by a suprisingly few amount of people. Scientology was at the bottom of the list, even being out-numbered by "zoroastrianism" and "Juche"....What??? (two religions that I have never even heard of!).
I really found these statistics interesting. In fact, I passed this info along to my brother-in-law this morning and we reviewed the site again at breakfast this morning! Just thought I'd share my thoughts with you all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
