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!
The Secularization of Society
This is a difficult question to answer, because in many aspects, religion today is just as strong as it ever was. Even though less people go to church than they used to, I think the textbook says it right when the author states: "...religion remains a significant force, albeit often in new and unfamiliar formats" (Giddens et al. 523). Merriam-Webster dictionary defines religion as ": a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", the key words in this context are "Personal set" of practices. Fewer and fewer individuals classify themselves as "religious" or "belonging to a religion", however the belief in God and the fundamentals that go hand in hand with faith remain strong for many people.
But is this true for the majority? I am not so sure. I still consider myself spiritual, though not "religious". I hold beliefs and values that are common to several different denominations, so it would be difficult to classify myself as belonging to a specific religion. Even though I would like to find one, I do not have a church that I frequent or belong to. But I do hold my "personal set" of views of faith very close. Although I think its unfortunate, I believe that our society in general is becoming increasingly secularized as time goes on. The text book makes a good point, arguing that religious bodies have lost much of the "social influence, wealth, and prestige" as they used to hold. I think many people now are too busy, to "politically correct", and too caught up in their own consumer-driven lives to really allow themselves to be influenced by religion.
Hopefully, I am wrong. I do not feel that this path is necessarily the right path for society to take; in fact, I feel hopeful that most people continue to practice faith in their own way and have not abandoned it completely. Aside from the moral regulations and rules that religion enforces, there is much good to be had when one has faith in God. Fundamentally, most of the major religions ultimately revolve around the same core values of respect, love, and compassion towards mankind and the world we are a part of. Perhaps a state, or government, or bureaucratic entity can exist and function just fine without religion. But can a person?
But is this true for the majority? I am not so sure. I still consider myself spiritual, though not "religious". I hold beliefs and values that are common to several different denominations, so it would be difficult to classify myself as belonging to a specific religion. Even though I would like to find one, I do not have a church that I frequent or belong to. But I do hold my "personal set" of views of faith very close. Although I think its unfortunate, I believe that our society in general is becoming increasingly secularized as time goes on. The text book makes a good point, arguing that religious bodies have lost much of the "social influence, wealth, and prestige" as they used to hold. I think many people now are too busy, to "politically correct", and too caught up in their own consumer-driven lives to really allow themselves to be influenced by religion.
Hopefully, I am wrong. I do not feel that this path is necessarily the right path for society to take; in fact, I feel hopeful that most people continue to practice faith in their own way and have not abandoned it completely. Aside from the moral regulations and rules that religion enforces, there is much good to be had when one has faith in God. Fundamentally, most of the major religions ultimately revolve around the same core values of respect, love, and compassion towards mankind and the world we are a part of. Perhaps a state, or government, or bureaucratic entity can exist and function just fine without religion. But can a person?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Internment of Japanese Americans
Until reviewing the Densho website, I honestly had limited knowledge of the Japanese American incarcerations of World War II. I recall learning a bit about the situation at some point in the past, but I was never taught about it in school growing up or exposed to any kind of documentaries, movies, media, etc. that were common for educating about the Jewish Concentration Camps in Germany. I actually find that fact very strange. It seems that the writers of our history keep that part of America's past under wraps.
I learned from Densho that Americans were very racist towards the Japanese and these prejudices and stereotypes allowed for a major injustice towards Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is so interesting to see that the fear was not just rampant among the general public, but was actually encouraged by the media and politicians of the time, even the President of the United States fed into the hysteria. People accused the Japanese Americans of espionage and providing information to the Japanese. Japanese Americans often were not even recognized as citizens, instead terms like "non-aliens" were used. The fact that these families were torn apart and sent to concentration camps, here on U.S. soil is just mind boggling. America, a land created by emigration, has one of the worst racist track records in the world. Throughout our short history there has been segregation, stereotyping, racism, class discrimination, etc. This is really ironic considering over 99% of our country is based on nationality that is NOT Native American!
However, the treatment of the Japanese Americans at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor is not much different than the "racial profiling" common in our country today. After 9/11, many individuals that appeared to be of middle-eastern descent were automatically looked at with suspicion and caution. The Patriot Act, new airport security measures, and other governmental implementations that were dubbed "random" acts for screening for terrorists had obviously narrowed down their targets to individuals who looked a certain way. Because the hijackers and terrorist plotters that attacked our country that day were Muslims from abroad, many Muslims living in America were also looked at as the enemy. The only real difference, aside from the lack of prison camps today, is that America has a large liberal and unbiased population that has sort of kept the hysteria "in check" and pointed out injustices in the media and other propaganda as it happens, before it can become an epidemic. Although the treatment middle eastern Americans and Muslims is absolutely unfair, it is actually really brings the fear and discrimination of the WWII era Japanese Americans into perspective. We all are all guilty of the "not me" phenomenon, but can any one really say that they have never been on an airplane, since 9/11, and not noticed a person with whom they've looked at with some degree of suspicion? Even unjustly so?
I learned from Densho that Americans were very racist towards the Japanese and these prejudices and stereotypes allowed for a major injustice towards Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is so interesting to see that the fear was not just rampant among the general public, but was actually encouraged by the media and politicians of the time, even the President of the United States fed into the hysteria. People accused the Japanese Americans of espionage and providing information to the Japanese. Japanese Americans often were not even recognized as citizens, instead terms like "non-aliens" were used. The fact that these families were torn apart and sent to concentration camps, here on U.S. soil is just mind boggling. America, a land created by emigration, has one of the worst racist track records in the world. Throughout our short history there has been segregation, stereotyping, racism, class discrimination, etc. This is really ironic considering over 99% of our country is based on nationality that is NOT Native American!
However, the treatment of the Japanese Americans at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor is not much different than the "racial profiling" common in our country today. After 9/11, many individuals that appeared to be of middle-eastern descent were automatically looked at with suspicion and caution. The Patriot Act, new airport security measures, and other governmental implementations that were dubbed "random" acts for screening for terrorists had obviously narrowed down their targets to individuals who looked a certain way. Because the hijackers and terrorist plotters that attacked our country that day were Muslims from abroad, many Muslims living in America were also looked at as the enemy. The only real difference, aside from the lack of prison camps today, is that America has a large liberal and unbiased population that has sort of kept the hysteria "in check" and pointed out injustices in the media and other propaganda as it happens, before it can become an epidemic. Although the treatment middle eastern Americans and Muslims is absolutely unfair, it is actually really brings the fear and discrimination of the WWII era Japanese Americans into perspective. We all are all guilty of the "not me" phenomenon, but can any one really say that they have never been on an airplane, since 9/11, and not noticed a person with whom they've looked at with some degree of suspicion? Even unjustly so?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
My social DE-construction of gender!
I have several issues with this segment regarding sociological perspective of sex and gender roles of human beings. First off, I have an issue with the sociological belief that sex AND gender roles are socially constructed. Gender roles, I can agree, have evolved to be what they are based on influence from society. However, sex as a variable that can be altered and shaped by society is untrue. I am not talking about drag queens and other types of subcultures; these individuals seem to use the fact that their sexual assignment is fluid as entertainment and in fact flaunt their overlapping sexual identity. Rather, I am referring to the concept of "transgender"; that a human being can decide they should be a different sex and go on to have a surgical transformation to become the opposite sex. Physiologically, there are 2 sexes, male and female. These sexes exist from conception and carry with them certain biological traits that no surgeon can recreate; internal sexual features which carry the sole purpose of reproduction cannot be reassigned. To say that socialization can create a "sex" is rather ridiculous.
I think there are great evolutionary forces at work that have helped to shape what our current gender roles rather than simply social forces. One of the primary issues that the text addresses regards women's domesticated roles in many societies world wide. Sociologists argue that children are socialized from the beginning to adhere to roles of women caring for children, cooking, cleaning and nurturing, where as boys learn to explore, play sports, and intellectualize.
Now if we examine the roles of men and women as they relate to the science of human beings, we find many scientific and biological explanations for the current gender roles. For thousands of years, human babies were born to women. Due to the fact that infants remain inherently helpless for a relatively long period of time, woman have been designed to nurture these babies by breastfeeding. Until "recent" advances in technology and science which allow women to bottle feed, feed formula, pump and store breast milk, etc, there was no option for the nurturing of infants than to remain with them constantly to provide such nourishment. It was critical that the males were able to physically carry the weight of supporting the primitive family, including hunting, farming, and defending against predators. If we look at gender roles from this perspective, we can deduce that evolution has had much to do with the shaping of modern gender roles. Even though nowadays women have more options regarding care of their infants in the early years, the "subordinate" domestic roles that women have assumed since the dawn of mankind that were ESSENTIAL for the survival of the human race have not been so quick to adjust to the new technology. It like trying to change something that has always been a certain way; the change takes conditioning and practice. More and more women are working away from the home than ever before. This trend will continue to grow and the "traditional" roles of women will also adjust in time. Contrastingly, the role of the male human has remained static and has not been fundamentally tested or changed. Accordingly, women have encountered resistance from males regarding the change of gender roles.
This slow evolution of gender roles can also be used to explain why so many women work in the lowest paying, unskilled jobs as compared to men. Because of the slow evolution of women's rights, for example, the right to education, women had previously only been able to obtain such jobs that required little to no educational qualification. Even though this educational gap has lessened significantly in our country, many nations are slower to change and the women continue to seek out easily obtainable jobs that do not require as much preparation and separation from their families to secure.
That being said, I do not necessarily believe that the above explanation clearly explains gender roles in all human societies. Some, like the book mentions, have evolved in such a way that male and female roles are reversed in comparison to modern American society's. In contrast to the above theory, it is interesting that the societies that exhibit marked differences from our society are isolated tribes with few ties to the modern world.
I think there are great evolutionary forces at work that have helped to shape what our current gender roles rather than simply social forces. One of the primary issues that the text addresses regards women's domesticated roles in many societies world wide. Sociologists argue that children are socialized from the beginning to adhere to roles of women caring for children, cooking, cleaning and nurturing, where as boys learn to explore, play sports, and intellectualize.
Now if we examine the roles of men and women as they relate to the science of human beings, we find many scientific and biological explanations for the current gender roles. For thousands of years, human babies were born to women. Due to the fact that infants remain inherently helpless for a relatively long period of time, woman have been designed to nurture these babies by breastfeeding. Until "recent" advances in technology and science which allow women to bottle feed, feed formula, pump and store breast milk, etc, there was no option for the nurturing of infants than to remain with them constantly to provide such nourishment. It was critical that the males were able to physically carry the weight of supporting the primitive family, including hunting, farming, and defending against predators. If we look at gender roles from this perspective, we can deduce that evolution has had much to do with the shaping of modern gender roles. Even though nowadays women have more options regarding care of their infants in the early years, the "subordinate" domestic roles that women have assumed since the dawn of mankind that were ESSENTIAL for the survival of the human race have not been so quick to adjust to the new technology. It like trying to change something that has always been a certain way; the change takes conditioning and practice. More and more women are working away from the home than ever before. This trend will continue to grow and the "traditional" roles of women will also adjust in time. Contrastingly, the role of the male human has remained static and has not been fundamentally tested or changed. Accordingly, women have encountered resistance from males regarding the change of gender roles.
This slow evolution of gender roles can also be used to explain why so many women work in the lowest paying, unskilled jobs as compared to men. Because of the slow evolution of women's rights, for example, the right to education, women had previously only been able to obtain such jobs that required little to no educational qualification. Even though this educational gap has lessened significantly in our country, many nations are slower to change and the women continue to seek out easily obtainable jobs that do not require as much preparation and separation from their families to secure.
That being said, I do not necessarily believe that the above explanation clearly explains gender roles in all human societies. Some, like the book mentions, have evolved in such a way that male and female roles are reversed in comparison to modern American society's. In contrast to the above theory, it is interesting that the societies that exhibit marked differences from our society are isolated tribes with few ties to the modern world.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Global Inequality
Our world is stratified according to the countries who have, and those who have not. The interesting thing about this is that ALL countries, whether rich or poor, have a portion of their population living in poverty. The wealthiest nations, like the U.S., and the poorest nations, like Haiti and India, have people struggling and suffering (although the extent of the suffering, including malnutrition and starvation, may differ from country to country). So who's job is it to fix this problem? Certainly there is not enough money, aid, or compassion in the world to solve the issue of global poverty. Each nation should take responsibility upon itself to fix their own economic(and humanitarian) issues.
In the podcast, Ms. Lerner mentions that global inequality affects the cost of the products we buy. The United States, for instance, uses global inequality to "help" the population here to prosper financially. Take the Wal-Mart empire, for example. Wal-Mart (as well as similar superstores) purchase nearly all of the products they sell from manufacturers overseas, mainly China. They do this because in order to pass on low prices to the consumer, they must purchase the goods at low prices from the manufacturer. No where in America can these items be made at such low cost to the company, so in turn they take advantage of the poorer areas of China and hire laborers at extremely low wages in order to maintain the made-cheap-bought-cheap-sold-cheap system. Many Americans might feel sympathetic towards or even compassionate for the individuals who are forced to scrape out a living working for minuscule wages in uncomfortable conditions ,manufacturing toys and clothes for sale in the U.S.. However, these are the same Americans who want everything "cheap and fast!" and do the bulk of their spending at Wal-Mart and the like. If American manufacturers were to take over the production for Wal-Mart's products, it is true that many many people here would find employment, but the costs of the products would increase dramatically. And to address the question Ms. Lerner asks, "Who benefits?" from the system: Without global inequality, the economic situation in the United States would not be what it is today. Capitalist countries like our own use the global economy to their advantage to cater to the desires of the consumer, as well as help big businesses gain financial growth.
In the podcast, Ms. Lerner mentions that global inequality affects the cost of the products we buy. The United States, for instance, uses global inequality to "help" the population here to prosper financially. Take the Wal-Mart empire, for example. Wal-Mart (as well as similar superstores) purchase nearly all of the products they sell from manufacturers overseas, mainly China. They do this because in order to pass on low prices to the consumer, they must purchase the goods at low prices from the manufacturer. No where in America can these items be made at such low cost to the company, so in turn they take advantage of the poorer areas of China and hire laborers at extremely low wages in order to maintain the made-cheap-bought-cheap-sold-cheap system. Many Americans might feel sympathetic towards or even compassionate for the individuals who are forced to scrape out a living working for minuscule wages in uncomfortable conditions ,manufacturing toys and clothes for sale in the U.S.. However, these are the same Americans who want everything "cheap and fast!" and do the bulk of their spending at Wal-Mart and the like. If American manufacturers were to take over the production for Wal-Mart's products, it is true that many many people here would find employment, but the costs of the products would increase dramatically. And to address the question Ms. Lerner asks, "Who benefits?" from the system: Without global inequality, the economic situation in the United States would not be what it is today. Capitalist countries like our own use the global economy to their advantage to cater to the desires of the consumer, as well as help big businesses gain financial growth.
Any followers?
I would just like to point out that the fact that I am "following" the blogs of everyone in our class, and yet I only have 2 followers to mine....does any one even read this?? :)
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Does Class Matter?
Social class is, like the People Like Us website states, the 800-lb gorilla that we don't really like to discuss in realistic terms. We all would like to say that class does not matter, that we don't segregate or stereotype, that we treat everyone equally. Unfortunately that is usually not the case and America does place much emphasis on the class system in place.
Some professions, like the health care field, require that social class not be a deterrent to the patient receiving the best care. Nurses, for example, are trained to take care of each patient equally. They each deserve the same ultimate respect and compassion, regardless of where they fall on the social hierarchy. However, the mere system of class itself determines what kind of patients we may treat in a given hospital. Although the hospitals in our area will treat and care for everyone who requires it, certain people from the lower classes (for example) will not seek health care because they may be unable to afford it. Being uninsured and fearful of large medical bills, many lower class individuals avoid seeking care. On the other hand, many of our patients who are in the lower class who DO seek treatment are fall under state Medicaid provisions. While these patients may not realize it, their charts are stamped in large red letters "MEDICAID" so that the physicians are able to determine right away what kind of care would be least costly and still be covered by the state. In this way, class determines treatment options. Upper class Americans may have better insurance and personal funds to pay for treatment out of pocket, so for these individuals, their health care is rarely an issue.
Another interesting feature regarding social class discussion is how individuals in each class view themselves. Many perceive their OWN class as the in-group (or reference group), rather than be envious and striving towards what they do not have. There is a sense of ownership and pride when one talks about where they "came from" , whether it be regarding old money and silver spoons, or growing up in the projects and working hard to make money their own way. The out-group becomes the other social classes...we always seem to find something wrong with those who either have it better or worse than we do. The opening scene of "Chicago-The Streets of Heaven" video shows a youth doing just that- he announces with pride that he was "born and raised" in the projects.
People Like Us, under its "resources" tab, has a very interesting site that allows you to input your zip code and receive a detailed demographic describing the "types" of families and social situations common to your area. It even gives examples of commonalities to the class, like the types of cars they often drive and the leisure activities they partake in. The word "class" is never mentioned; however the website calls them "segments" and titles them with names like "White Picket Fences" and "Shot Guns and Pickups". This site is aimed (I believe) at advertisers and marketers in order to find the most lucrative areas with the proper demographic to market their products and services where they will have the highest probability of success. It would be interesting to use a site like this to investigate some of the American cities where there is a great deal of social class division in place; Specifically, to examine areas where (like the text book mentions) there are a great deal of people and the gap in the distribution of wealth and income is large.
So does class matter? When discussing human beings and the morality behind treating everyone equally and justly, no, class does not matter. But it is clear in our capitalist, consumer-based culture that social class division is everywhere and does indeed impact the way our citizens view themselves and treat each other.
Some professions, like the health care field, require that social class not be a deterrent to the patient receiving the best care. Nurses, for example, are trained to take care of each patient equally. They each deserve the same ultimate respect and compassion, regardless of where they fall on the social hierarchy. However, the mere system of class itself determines what kind of patients we may treat in a given hospital. Although the hospitals in our area will treat and care for everyone who requires it, certain people from the lower classes (for example) will not seek health care because they may be unable to afford it. Being uninsured and fearful of large medical bills, many lower class individuals avoid seeking care. On the other hand, many of our patients who are in the lower class who DO seek treatment are fall under state Medicaid provisions. While these patients may not realize it, their charts are stamped in large red letters "MEDICAID" so that the physicians are able to determine right away what kind of care would be least costly and still be covered by the state. In this way, class determines treatment options. Upper class Americans may have better insurance and personal funds to pay for treatment out of pocket, so for these individuals, their health care is rarely an issue.
Another interesting feature regarding social class discussion is how individuals in each class view themselves. Many perceive their OWN class as the in-group (or reference group), rather than be envious and striving towards what they do not have. There is a sense of ownership and pride when one talks about where they "came from" , whether it be regarding old money and silver spoons, or growing up in the projects and working hard to make money their own way. The out-group becomes the other social classes...we always seem to find something wrong with those who either have it better or worse than we do. The opening scene of "Chicago-The Streets of Heaven" video shows a youth doing just that- he announces with pride that he was "born and raised" in the projects.
People Like Us, under its "resources" tab, has a very interesting site that allows you to input your zip code and receive a detailed demographic describing the "types" of families and social situations common to your area. It even gives examples of commonalities to the class, like the types of cars they often drive and the leisure activities they partake in. The word "class" is never mentioned; however the website calls them "segments" and titles them with names like "White Picket Fences" and "Shot Guns and Pickups". This site is aimed (I believe) at advertisers and marketers in order to find the most lucrative areas with the proper demographic to market their products and services where they will have the highest probability of success. It would be interesting to use a site like this to investigate some of the American cities where there is a great deal of social class division in place; Specifically, to examine areas where (like the text book mentions) there are a great deal of people and the gap in the distribution of wealth and income is large.
So does class matter? When discussing human beings and the morality behind treating everyone equally and justly, no, class does not matter. But it is clear in our capitalist, consumer-based culture that social class division is everywhere and does indeed impact the way our citizens view themselves and treat each other.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Changing Social Connections?
Are Americans today more isolated due to technology?
In a word, yes. There is increased physical isolation associated with the today's technologically-advanced, internet/virtually-driven world.
Technology today has allowed for fewer and fewer face-to-face transactions of many types. Banking, reservations, directions, appointments, and shopping, among other things, are now done more often than not through automated systems via telephone or internet. Also, a large number of Americans have the luxury of working from home because of widespread access to internet and other technological systems. Employment by companies who allow work-from-home, or"Telecommuting", as the textbook calls it, as well as home-based businesses, blogs, direct sales, and other similar enterprises are on the rise. The people who do this kind of work may feel it benefits them, because they are able to skip the commute or stay at home with their children, for example. But in reality, they are becoming physically isolated from their communities, friends, and neighbors. How often did Americans 25 years ago leave their homes in order to shop, socialize, pay bills and other errands? Compared to nowadays, it was much more frequently. There were no other options back then. Now, its not uncommon for individuals who make their livelihood on the internet to say that they haven't left the house in days or even weeks at a time.
More and more people belong to "social" networking sites, like Facebook and Myspace, and refer to these virtual networks in terms that in the past were reserved for ACTUAL, face-to-face relationships (like the words "friend", "group", "event", etc). Many individuals chose to use the Internet to meet prospective mates, using popular dating sites. Activities like these all but eliminate the individual's need or desire to meet new people the old-fashioned way. The use of the a fore mentioned sites can be very appealing for some: without the need for true face-to-face interaction, otherwise shy, anxious, or anti-social type people can become involved with others without leaving the comforts of their own homes.
Which ultimately leads to my next point. Alternately, it can be argued that people that utilize the virtual world have networks and belong to social groups that span the globe and cultural boundaries; these memberships would not exist at all without the Internet and the accessibility it provides. While I agree that the benefits of globalization are vast and great, there is a definite impersonal feel to these relationships. In fact, the human touch cannot be attained without actual human contact.
I don't foresee any sort of revert back to the social foundations of years ago taking place in the future. Ultimately, more and more of our activities will be available to us virtually, and humans will become the products of more abstract socialization and social networks and groups (Ever see the movie "Wall-E"? It shows people living in close proximity to each other who never speak to each other without the aid of virtual messaging and video conferencing). Perhaps the word "social" will be redefined in the future. It will no longer have physical, in-person connotative tones that it does today. Instead, it will simply be defined by the interactions an individual participates in on a daily basis in the virtual world as well as the physical one.
In a word, yes. There is increased physical isolation associated with the today's technologically-advanced, internet/virtually-driven world.
Technology today has allowed for fewer and fewer face-to-face transactions of many types. Banking, reservations, directions, appointments, and shopping, among other things, are now done more often than not through automated systems via telephone or internet. Also, a large number of Americans have the luxury of working from home because of widespread access to internet and other technological systems. Employment by companies who allow work-from-home, or"Telecommuting", as the textbook calls it, as well as home-based businesses, blogs, direct sales, and other similar enterprises are on the rise. The people who do this kind of work may feel it benefits them, because they are able to skip the commute or stay at home with their children, for example. But in reality, they are becoming physically isolated from their communities, friends, and neighbors. How often did Americans 25 years ago leave their homes in order to shop, socialize, pay bills and other errands? Compared to nowadays, it was much more frequently. There were no other options back then. Now, its not uncommon for individuals who make their livelihood on the internet to say that they haven't left the house in days or even weeks at a time.
More and more people belong to "social" networking sites, like Facebook and Myspace, and refer to these virtual networks in terms that in the past were reserved for ACTUAL, face-to-face relationships (like the words "friend", "group", "event", etc). Many individuals chose to use the Internet to meet prospective mates, using popular dating sites. Activities like these all but eliminate the individual's need or desire to meet new people the old-fashioned way. The use of the a fore mentioned sites can be very appealing for some: without the need for true face-to-face interaction, otherwise shy, anxious, or anti-social type people can become involved with others without leaving the comforts of their own homes.
Which ultimately leads to my next point. Alternately, it can be argued that people that utilize the virtual world have networks and belong to social groups that span the globe and cultural boundaries; these memberships would not exist at all without the Internet and the accessibility it provides. While I agree that the benefits of globalization are vast and great, there is a definite impersonal feel to these relationships. In fact, the human touch cannot be attained without actual human contact.
I don't foresee any sort of revert back to the social foundations of years ago taking place in the future. Ultimately, more and more of our activities will be available to us virtually, and humans will become the products of more abstract socialization and social networks and groups (Ever see the movie "Wall-E"? It shows people living in close proximity to each other who never speak to each other without the aid of virtual messaging and video conferencing). Perhaps the word "social" will be redefined in the future. It will no longer have physical, in-person connotative tones that it does today. Instead, it will simply be defined by the interactions an individual participates in on a daily basis in the virtual world as well as the physical one.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Criminal Justice System
The "deviance" chapter in our textbook touches on the issue of crime reduction strategies, and asks the question "Are Prisons the Answer?" Before reading the section, I thought the answer to the crime-reduction debate was easy: toughen the laws, put more offenders behind bars, for longer amounts of time, and make it harder for them to get out early.
I did not realize that America's prison system was so overcrowded, with more than 2.2 million people behind bars; so overcrowded in fact "that the average convict serves only a third of his sentence" (194). And considering the large amount of money it costs to house a prisoner per year (over $25,000) its nearly impossible to put more people behind bars for longer. Then there is the fact that prison "hardens" criminals. By forcing them to live in such a brutal environment, they actually can become more dangerous to society. Another issue surfaces when repeat offenders come in and out of the prison system over and over again; they simply become "immune" to the effects the prison environment has on their behavior, and rehabilitation is not probable.
So what do we do about this? Unfortunately, I do not have a specific answer. I agree with Robert Gangi, quoted from our text: "building more prisons to address crime is is like building more graveyards to address a fatal disease" (195). One of the fundamental issues that needs attention is the subject of poverty in our country. The cycle of impoverishment and criminal activity must be interrupted somehow in order to decrease the amount of crime in our country. Following the Labeling Theory, when these people are labeled "poor" they seem to almost follow their own self-fulfilling prophecy. They aren't provided the same opportunities for advancement as middle and upper-class citizens, which in turn leads many to believe that there is no other way of life than hardship, struggle, and turning to otherwise "deviant" behaviors. It seems the best way to prevent these behaviors is to assist the impoverished population of this country and provide more opportunities, so that criminal activity never becomes an option.
Works Cited
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
I did not realize that America's prison system was so overcrowded, with more than 2.2 million people behind bars; so overcrowded in fact "that the average convict serves only a third of his sentence" (194). And considering the large amount of money it costs to house a prisoner per year (over $25,000) its nearly impossible to put more people behind bars for longer. Then there is the fact that prison "hardens" criminals. By forcing them to live in such a brutal environment, they actually can become more dangerous to society. Another issue surfaces when repeat offenders come in and out of the prison system over and over again; they simply become "immune" to the effects the prison environment has on their behavior, and rehabilitation is not probable.
So what do we do about this? Unfortunately, I do not have a specific answer. I agree with Robert Gangi, quoted from our text: "building more prisons to address crime is is like building more graveyards to address a fatal disease" (195). One of the fundamental issues that needs attention is the subject of poverty in our country. The cycle of impoverishment and criminal activity must be interrupted somehow in order to decrease the amount of crime in our country. Following the Labeling Theory, when these people are labeled "poor" they seem to almost follow their own self-fulfilling prophecy. They aren't provided the same opportunities for advancement as middle and upper-class citizens, which in turn leads many to believe that there is no other way of life than hardship, struggle, and turning to otherwise "deviant" behaviors. It seems the best way to prevent these behaviors is to assist the impoverished population of this country and provide more opportunities, so that criminal activity never becomes an option.
Works Cited
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Nature Vs. Nurture....
Nature vs. Nurture is a broad debate that stems from different theories for explaining human behavior. Some people believe that a person's genetics and primitive instincts shape the behaviors, preferences, illnesses, etc. of modern man. Others believe that human interaction is learned from early socialization and upbringing by certain types of people or cultures.
My view? I agree with some key points from both of these groups. Depending on the behavior in question, the dominating factor could be either/or. For example: the podcast, and our reading, referenced gender roles of human beings. This is a broad topic, however I believe that nature AND nurture both weigh a hefty influence on gender roles. Much of the segregation between gender roles IS based on biological factors, e.g. men generally are more physically powerful than women; however an equal amount of this segregation is created by society and upbringing. A great example is the experiment performed by June Statham on page 95 of our text book. She attempted to research whether it was possible to raise children with no sexist views on gender roles in society. The researcher as well as many of the parents involved found this difficult, as there is so much gender-biased pressure in the world that it was difficult to combat (such as toy stores full of "boy" war/fighting toys and "girl" domestic playthings). I feel that much of our gender defining behavior is learned. There is no where in our genetic code that programs women to be better at cooking and cleaning than men, or that men should be able to do complex math problems and perform manual labor.
Another example concerning Nature vs. Nurture debate involves anti-social behavior, such as crime. This is another topic where I feel both theories come into play. Some of the problems these people face may involve mental illness, chemical imbalance, etc.. However, some of it may also have to do with values and morals instilled upon them during early socialization of childhood. Similar to our class's "Sociological Imagination Forum" topic of School Performance, what exactly determines the poor grades of certain children from certain backgrounds? Certainly genetics lay the path for achievable intelligence, but the parenting and upbringing that these children experience determines what these children will value as important when they are adults.
Depending on the topic in question, there could be determining factors from both Nature and Nurture. I think it would be incorrect to say that any given topic of human behavior can be explained entirely by one influence alone. To sum up my thoughts, I quote from our textbook: "....because human beings can make conscious choices, neither biology nor culture wholly determines human behavior." (Giddens et al. 59)
Works Cited
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
My view? I agree with some key points from both of these groups. Depending on the behavior in question, the dominating factor could be either/or. For example: the podcast, and our reading, referenced gender roles of human beings. This is a broad topic, however I believe that nature AND nurture both weigh a hefty influence on gender roles. Much of the segregation between gender roles IS based on biological factors, e.g. men generally are more physically powerful than women; however an equal amount of this segregation is created by society and upbringing. A great example is the experiment performed by June Statham on page 95 of our text book. She attempted to research whether it was possible to raise children with no sexist views on gender roles in society. The researcher as well as many of the parents involved found this difficult, as there is so much gender-biased pressure in the world that it was difficult to combat (such as toy stores full of "boy" war/fighting toys and "girl" domestic playthings). I feel that much of our gender defining behavior is learned. There is no where in our genetic code that programs women to be better at cooking and cleaning than men, or that men should be able to do complex math problems and perform manual labor.
Another example concerning Nature vs. Nurture debate involves anti-social behavior, such as crime. This is another topic where I feel both theories come into play. Some of the problems these people face may involve mental illness, chemical imbalance, etc.. However, some of it may also have to do with values and morals instilled upon them during early socialization of childhood. Similar to our class's "Sociological Imagination Forum" topic of School Performance, what exactly determines the poor grades of certain children from certain backgrounds? Certainly genetics lay the path for achievable intelligence, but the parenting and upbringing that these children experience determines what these children will value as important when they are adults.
Depending on the topic in question, there could be determining factors from both Nature and Nurture. I think it would be incorrect to say that any given topic of human behavior can be explained entirely by one influence alone. To sum up my thoughts, I quote from our textbook: "....because human beings can make conscious choices, neither biology nor culture wholly determines human behavior." (Giddens et al. 59)
Works Cited
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
"Unsocialized" Children
After reading chapter 4 in the textbook, I could not stop thinking about Genie, the girl who had been kept in isolation in her own home from age 18 months until about13 years of age. Probably because I am a parent myself, I can not fathom how someone could be so cruel to a child, especially such a young one who is so innocent to the world and will know nothing else except for the horrific abuse enacted against her. This poor girl, who spent her days and nights completely alone, except for when a family member would throw some food in to her room or "bark" at her for making noise, lived an existence of fear, silence, loneliness. Its hard to say if she felt any despair, however, because she never knew life could be anything other than entrapment within four walls with nothing to occupy her mind.
How simply inhuman and unthinkable her situation was. I decided to look up more information; I found some info on wikipedia.com and also on this site http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie which also has other examples of socially deprived and isolated children. I just thought I would share my thoughts on the subject, as it is still disturbing to me.
How simply inhuman and unthinkable her situation was. I decided to look up more information; I found some info on wikipedia.com and also on this site http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie which also has other examples of socially deprived and isolated children. I just thought I would share my thoughts on the subject, as it is still disturbing to me.
Monday, February 15, 2010
How Our Culture Looks to Outsiders
We've all heard that other countries view America in a somewhat different light than we view ourselves. Under the Bush Administration, countries made fun of our president and burned pictures in effigy. Other countries, such France, view Americans as "culturally imperialistic" and go to great lengths to avoid our ways of life. (Giddens et al. 53)
It is funny to me, however, to see how the British view our culture. The sketch where Hugh Laurie sings "America" to his British audience captures their ideas of our culture and portrays them in a humorous way.
First of all, the shear appearance of Laurie in his character is a stereotypical "redneck" presentation. He has a greasy haircut, flannel shirt, and skinny hair bandanna. The backdrop of the stage is an American city skyline. The song is a drawn out ballad, much like an old Billy Joel song, with poor lyrics, specifically "America" and "the States" repeated over and over. The lyrics themselves signify that according to the Britons, America's songwriters only sing about our great country and although poorly, will gain recognition and fame in the United States. Then for the finale of the sketch, another British actor comes and punches Laurie off his piano bench, knocking him to the floor and the entire audience cheers and applauds. The audience's reaction is enough to prove that they symbolically (or even literally) feel they've been finally put "out of their misery" from enduring yet another horrible piece of American music.
Now from my standpoint, I don't find this sketch particularly offensive; due to the fact that it is generally light-hearted, harmless comedy poking simple fun at American music. However, from any standpoint, it is sort of difficult to be the brunt of any joke, especially one where the joker obviously feels they are superior to the subject. I do not feel this is an accurate representation of American music culture at all.
But could it be, perhaps, that the old saying "You can't see the forest through the trees" applies here? Maybe in many ways, Americans DO come off as ridiculous as other countries seem to think we do, but because of our pride in "the States", are we just blinded to this?
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
It is funny to me, however, to see how the British view our culture. The sketch where Hugh Laurie sings "America" to his British audience captures their ideas of our culture and portrays them in a humorous way.
First of all, the shear appearance of Laurie in his character is a stereotypical "redneck" presentation. He has a greasy haircut, flannel shirt, and skinny hair bandanna. The backdrop of the stage is an American city skyline. The song is a drawn out ballad, much like an old Billy Joel song, with poor lyrics, specifically "America" and "the States" repeated over and over. The lyrics themselves signify that according to the Britons, America's songwriters only sing about our great country and although poorly, will gain recognition and fame in the United States. Then for the finale of the sketch, another British actor comes and punches Laurie off his piano bench, knocking him to the floor and the entire audience cheers and applauds. The audience's reaction is enough to prove that they symbolically (or even literally) feel they've been finally put "out of their misery" from enduring yet another horrible piece of American music.
Now from my standpoint, I don't find this sketch particularly offensive; due to the fact that it is generally light-hearted, harmless comedy poking simple fun at American music. However, from any standpoint, it is sort of difficult to be the brunt of any joke, especially one where the joker obviously feels they are superior to the subject. I do not feel this is an accurate representation of American music culture at all.
But could it be, perhaps, that the old saying "You can't see the forest through the trees" applies here? Maybe in many ways, Americans DO come off as ridiculous as other countries seem to think we do, but because of our pride in "the States", are we just blinded to this?
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Stanford Prison Experiment: Ethical?
Before this assignment, I was unfamiliar with the Stanford Prison experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo in the 1970's. He selected a group of college student volunteers to participate for monetary compensation, who were assigned to either "guard" or "prisoner" roles to play, with the intent of the experiment to last two weeks.
Now, based on the "definition" of ethics (which I quote loosely because "ethics" is a difficult term to define), I feel that no, this experiment was not ethical. Firstly, the divide between guards and prisoners was not just one of title, but even for a role-playing type of experiment, the guards were able to distance themselves from the experiment daily. They were only "scheduled" eight-hour shifts per day, and were able to resume normal routines after the shift was over, resuming college classes, home life, jobs, etc.. Contrastingly, the prisoners were kept in confinement, much like an actual prison, 24-hours a day. They were treated like real prisoners, given identification numbers, rigorous schedules for food and activity, and so on. They had no outside contact and most admittedly lost touch with "reality" and were completely engulfed in the experiment. Granted, those variables were necessary to accurately recreate the prison environment. But is it not true that being incarcerated in the real world is a traumatizing experience? The make-believe guards, consciously or not, assumed their role as authoritative figures and liberally brandished forms of torment and humiliation upon the prisoners. The results of the experiment, which was cut short due to the ethical concerns, were conclusive that the "behavior in prisons is more influenced by the nature of the prison situation than by the individual characteristics of those involved." (Giddens et al. 40) Even though the experiment was a "success", it is difficult to say the real psychological trauma that many of the participants experienced was justified for the good of the experiment.
Be that as it may, I cannot think of any other way that this experiment could have been conducted that would have yielded the same conclusion. Perhaps following random newly-convicted criminals from sentencing to incarceration, and conducting fore-interviews to determine personality type, societal roles, etc, and then following them throughout their sentence to observe for change in behavior? Or similarly, investigating new-hires in prison guard positions for changes in authoritative behavior?
I found the interview with Zimbardo related to the situations at Abu Ghraib very enlightening, however. Until researching Abu Ghraib for this assignment, I had only a vague understanding of what kind of abuse took place at that prison. I found it very interesting that his experimental prison guards fundamentally mimicked the behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib, even in very primitive ways, that prove a causal relationship between authority figures "boredom" and increasing levels of abuse in such institutions. "Creative evil" results from this. Although I do NOT condone such behavior, it almost seems like such an obvious, logical answer to why those guards acted the way they did.
Source cited
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
Now, based on the "definition" of ethics (which I quote loosely because "ethics" is a difficult term to define), I feel that no, this experiment was not ethical. Firstly, the divide between guards and prisoners was not just one of title, but even for a role-playing type of experiment, the guards were able to distance themselves from the experiment daily. They were only "scheduled" eight-hour shifts per day, and were able to resume normal routines after the shift was over, resuming college classes, home life, jobs, etc.. Contrastingly, the prisoners were kept in confinement, much like an actual prison, 24-hours a day. They were treated like real prisoners, given identification numbers, rigorous schedules for food and activity, and so on. They had no outside contact and most admittedly lost touch with "reality" and were completely engulfed in the experiment. Granted, those variables were necessary to accurately recreate the prison environment. But is it not true that being incarcerated in the real world is a traumatizing experience? The make-believe guards, consciously or not, assumed their role as authoritative figures and liberally brandished forms of torment and humiliation upon the prisoners. The results of the experiment, which was cut short due to the ethical concerns, were conclusive that the "behavior in prisons is more influenced by the nature of the prison situation than by the individual characteristics of those involved." (Giddens et al. 40) Even though the experiment was a "success", it is difficult to say the real psychological trauma that many of the participants experienced was justified for the good of the experiment.
Be that as it may, I cannot think of any other way that this experiment could have been conducted that would have yielded the same conclusion. Perhaps following random newly-convicted criminals from sentencing to incarceration, and conducting fore-interviews to determine personality type, societal roles, etc, and then following them throughout their sentence to observe for change in behavior? Or similarly, investigating new-hires in prison guard positions for changes in authoritative behavior?
I found the interview with Zimbardo related to the situations at Abu Ghraib very enlightening, however. Until researching Abu Ghraib for this assignment, I had only a vague understanding of what kind of abuse took place at that prison. I found it very interesting that his experimental prison guards fundamentally mimicked the behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib, even in very primitive ways, that prove a causal relationship between authority figures "boredom" and increasing levels of abuse in such institutions. "Creative evil" results from this. Although I do NOT condone such behavior, it almost seems like such an obvious, logical answer to why those guards acted the way they did.
Source cited
Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Week One: Introductions
Hello Everyone!
My name is Lauren. I am a mommy in my twenties of 2 beautiful little girls, aged 5 months and 3 years. They are, of course, the light of my life! I am married to my best friend, who happens to be a Sergeant in the Marine Corps. We are originally from Connecticut; Virginia is our second duty station. We have an obnoxious (but sweet) Boxer named Tyson, and an insane feline named Gary (a-la Spongebob...thank my 3 year old!). I spend my days with my little ones, spend my mornings at the gym, afternoons cooking and cleaning, and my evenings catching up with my equally busy husband. I love to watch movies, hit the beach or play outside whenever I can, cook and bake, and am a self-proclaimed Facebook Addict (Bejeweled Blitz anyone??)
Last year, I graduated nursing school with a diploma in Practical Nursing, and am now an LPN. Although on an "extended maternity leave" as I like to call it, I will be pursuing employment sometime in the near future. For now, I am a student at NOVA, taking online classes in order to prepare for entrance into the LPN-RN transition program. Obviously, I am a glutton for punishment. I am taking this course not just because it is required of me for my associate's, but because I enjoy the study of human behavior and learning how and why people relate to eachother in the way that they do.
Before completing this first blog entry, I was really intimidated by blogging because I feel that I won't really know what to say to the "audience" or how to say it. But even since writing this, I feel a bit better about writing in this arena. So if anything seems inapproprate for this format, please don't hesitate to comment. And if anyone has any questions about who I am or what I am all about, please feel free to ask!
I look forward to writing more for this class, and reading my classmate's introductions as well.
Till next week,
Lauren
My name is Lauren. I am a mommy in my twenties of 2 beautiful little girls, aged 5 months and 3 years. They are, of course, the light of my life! I am married to my best friend, who happens to be a Sergeant in the Marine Corps. We are originally from Connecticut; Virginia is our second duty station. We have an obnoxious (but sweet) Boxer named Tyson, and an insane feline named Gary (a-la Spongebob...thank my 3 year old!). I spend my days with my little ones, spend my mornings at the gym, afternoons cooking and cleaning, and my evenings catching up with my equally busy husband. I love to watch movies, hit the beach or play outside whenever I can, cook and bake, and am a self-proclaimed Facebook Addict (Bejeweled Blitz anyone??)
Last year, I graduated nursing school with a diploma in Practical Nursing, and am now an LPN. Although on an "extended maternity leave" as I like to call it, I will be pursuing employment sometime in the near future. For now, I am a student at NOVA, taking online classes in order to prepare for entrance into the LPN-RN transition program. Obviously, I am a glutton for punishment. I am taking this course not just because it is required of me for my associate's, but because I enjoy the study of human behavior and learning how and why people relate to eachother in the way that they do.
Before completing this first blog entry, I was really intimidated by blogging because I feel that I won't really know what to say to the "audience" or how to say it. But even since writing this, I feel a bit better about writing in this arena. So if anything seems inapproprate for this format, please don't hesitate to comment. And if anyone has any questions about who I am or what I am all about, please feel free to ask!
I look forward to writing more for this class, and reading my classmate's introductions as well.
Till next week,
Lauren
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
