Sumblog 11 : Standpoint theory

This week we discussed the standpoint theory. The standpoint theory says that if you really want to understand something you have to emmerse yourself within your studies. The study cannot be completely objective because they you are just observing and only getting “thin” research. As sociologist, we are people studying people. We are always someone connected to our studies, so we must be involved in order to fully understand the subject. Instead of viewing, we must be experiencing. Dorothy Smith says that we need to make a transition from an objective and unattached observer approach and really start to be apart of studies.

I feel like this is almost so obvious that it’s complicated. All the standpoint theory is really saying is: take a closer look. Maybe we are judging our studies by what it looks like from the outside. Or, better yet, judging a book by its cover? When we really need to immerse ourselves into the book to understand and appreciate its full contents.

http://teacherdavid.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/subjectivity.gif 

This picture that I include really expresses this idea of objectivity. This painter is just sitting back and observing this city scene and painting it for what it is at face value. But if you take a closer look the painter’s canvas does not match he is actually observing. I used to be an art major here at point and this is a common mistake I made. Sometimes I would draw what I think I saw instead of what was actually right infront of me. Without having a connection to the city the man cannot express how it actually appears. The city is unique, beautiful, and crazy, but the man does not get to appreciate and understand this and so his findings end up being bleak. I would predict that if the man was sitting in the middle of the city while painting, his artwork would come alive.

sumblog 10 symbols

We talked about the importance of symbols in our culture. Symbols are objects that stand for, represent, or suggest an idea or belief. Symbols are very common in any culture and everyday we encounter symbols that we don’t even realize. For example, a wedding ring is a symbol. When people get married, each person wears a symbolic ring on their left ring finger. In one situation a ring could just be an ordinary, mundane piece of jewelry with no significant value, but if you’re married then a ring on your left ring finger is very sacred. A wedding ring is a symbol of marriage. People do not wear rings on their left ring finger unless they are married, and most often men do not wear rings unless they are married. The ring does only symbolize a marriage, but it is also a symbol of love, faith, commitment, security, partnership, and loyalty. That is a lot of dept to one little ring. The fact is though, that these little symbols are everywhere giving depth and meaning to our lives. Symbols can display cultural differences by distinguishing particular cultural traditions and values.

The benefit of having symbols is that it unifies a culture and creates social order. People usually hold the same sort of meaning to certain symbols within a society, so they can keep us together and functioning as one. The ring on someone’s finger can tell an outsider he or she is taken. In the same way, however, there can be risks of the ring. People can become so fixated on symbols that it starts to loose the original meaning. Some people want the ring to be labeled as married, to be secure and have a family like society tells us to, but then forget the true value behind the ring. Many people rush into marriage and then it fails and it could be because people are too worried about profane meanings and forget the sacred meaning of symbols.

sumblog 9- Dramaturgy

This week we talked about Erving Goffman’s concept of dramaturgy. His whole idea of dramaturgy is a metaphor comparing social relationships to a performance. Yourself as the actor, the stage as the setting, and your audience as whomever you are presenting yourself to. There are three major parts to dramaturgy. The first is recognizing that there are many different plays or dramas. In other words, there are many types of roles we take on with different kinds of audiences. Second, there are many types of stages and props. For example, one man could be a father at home, a teacher in the classroom, and a husband on a date with his wife. All of these dramas happen in different settings along with unique props to fit each play. A brief case, grading rubrics, and teaching degree are all props for the teacher role, while flowers and wine might be props used while in the role of a husband. The third part of Goffman’s concept of dramaturgy deals with the issue of role distance. There needs to be a compatible distance between the role and self-label.  The role consists of behaviors that the audience expects from you given your status. Self-label, on the other hand, is the identity that is presented to your audience. These need to be compatible because if there is too big of a gap the audience will not buy your performance. It will be fake and unbelievable.

            My favorite part of Goffman’s concept is that it gives a lot of power to the performer. Every individual has the power to control how an audience views him or her. As actors, we are allowed to switch our roles from one stage to the next, which is what I find completely fascinating to think about. I enjoy figuring out who people really are. I like to think I have a good sense of reading people, but there is always that unknowingness of exactly what another person is thinking.

I chose the following song called Who Are You When I’m Not Looking by Blake Shelton to further explain my thoughts. You may thing you know someone very well, but how do they act when your not around, when they are performing on a different stage, in a different role? An audience may never know one’s true identity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa_-ZCT614

Sumblog 8- socialization

This picture is a prime example of how we start socializing from the day we are born. We say words like "big" and "strong" to young boys and we say words like "little" and "cute" to baby girls. From birth we have words influencing who we are, what we act like, what we wear, and what we play with. Little boys are given trucks, blocks, and clothes with sports on them and they are all wrapped up in something blue. While girls, on the other hand, are given dolls, easy-bake ovens, and cute holiday dresses with pink everywhere. Children learn quickly what their role is how they should act according to their gender.

            From little on more things start to contribute to the socialization process. Things like culture, family, religion, school, and friends are agents of socialization and they teach us how to act, how to speak, how to dress, and how to think. But what would we be with out all of these filters? George Herbert Mead would describe this as the I. The I is our most raw, purest, unfiltered self. It is what our mind is without the influence of anything else. Mead would argue that this is who you truly are. The Me, on the other hand, is who  you are after you’ve adjusted to the world around you. After all of those filters influenced your thoughts and behaviors.

            For example, I remember when my brother Cory and I were very young he would play Barbies with me. There are a few things that happened. When we played, he always got the Ken doll, the Jeep, and the dog. Even though he was playing with “girlie” toys, he chose to use only the most masculine ones, while I played with Barbie and her pink convertible.  Another thing that happened was when my other more older brother Eric would come around, Cory would deny ever playing Barbies with me. Cory’s I told him, “ya, let’s play Barbies. I can be the Ken doll!” Cory was allowed to play because I was so young and what did I know? My opinion didn’t matter to him so he could act in his most pure form. But, when anyone else came into the picture, Cory’s Me said, “Boys don’t play Barbies!” At this age he was conflicted between his I and his Me. What I find interesting is that now at age 24 Cory probably would never have the urge to play Barbies because the Me has become so strong that it surpressed the his I.  It is crazy how socialization changes who we would otherwise be.

Sumblog 7- Assimilation vs. Pluralism

First, I want to start out by defining both assimilation and pluralism. Assimilation means the process of conforming to a majority group. Assimilating is fitting in. Pluralism, on the other hand, is the distinction of cultures accepted into a society. Instead of fitting in, each culture is valued for different beliefs and traditions and is accepted even though there are differences. 

Here is a dorky video describing assimilation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDG0-Z8ruuk

America has been known as the “melting pot” for as long as it has been in existence. Immigrants from all over the world have come to America in search for a better life, a new beginning, and new freedoms. I think American’s today do not appreciate or value the diversity we hold with the different cultures and practices. Some can argue we have cultural pluralism in America because we have a multicultural society. But, I have rarely seen the acceptance of unique cultural traditions. Because of this, in America we are losing the distinction between different cultures. Immigrants who come to the United States are forced to assimilate into “Americanized” practices by learning English, listening to pop music, watching American films, celebrating American holidays, and eating American cuisine. If we really did have cultural pluralism we would celebrate each culture and embrace the differences. The United States of America is definitely a “melting pot”. Society blends and mixes different cultures together so much that we loose the distinction between different cultures. People can grow up without even knowing their cultural background and traditions, which is why I think that assimilation is a negative thing to society. I wish American society was more like a big pot luck dinner rather than a melting pot. Everyone can bring something completely different to the table, but it still ends up being a delicious feast because you can taste a little of everything.

Sumblog 6- Ethnocentrism

Jane Adams went about her research by diving into people’s lives and really getting to know them. Instead of observing or studying a subject, she developed a relationship with the subject in order to gather real, sufficient data. I really like her approach because I think it’s a great way to get genuine responses. I don’t think surveys or questionnaires give can give you too much insight into an individual’s personal life. By forming a relationship with the subject, you will gain a sense of their true emotions, personality, and perceptions.

I think her approach was very successful because Jane Adams worked a lot with minority groups and her approach helps avoid ethnocentrism, which we talked a little about in class. Ethnocentrism is the idea of judging another culture based on your own standard. Jane Adams had to set aside her cultural beliefs and values to look at different cultures as unbiased as possible. It is impossible to be completely pure when it comes to research because everyone is slightly biased, but in order to study people from these minorities she had to understand their culture and not compare it to her own.

We all think like this at some point, especially Americans. America often has this vision that we are the most powerful, “top-dog” country that it tends to lead to the belief that our culture is the dominant culture. Many Americans have bad attitudes towards minorities because they believe that American culture is superior and everyone should conform to that culture. I know that a small amount of ethnocentrism is inevitable, but after a certain point it is ethically wrong to make a judgment of other cultures based on your own. When you think about it, it doesn’t even make sense to form judgments of other cultures because each culture holds a different set of standards.

Below is a link to a site I found kind of interesting. I think that American’s strong sense of individualism might also be forming ethnocentrism.

http://www.drabruzzi.com/ethnocentrism_in_american_news.htm

Sumblog 4- Bureaucracy and rationality today

In class we discussed Max Weber and his thoughts on the bureaucratic system. I’ll be honest, I didn’t really know what a bureaucracy was until we discussed the ideal-type of bureaucracy. Here is another video clip to help understand what a bureaucracy is. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCAlZPF0D0

I think the in class example of a university is a great way to think about it and you can relate it to the six major characteristics of the ideal bureaucracy. Looking at our education system we can see that teachers are professional and well qualified to educate the students. These individuals received prior training before they were hired because they wouldn’t be hired unless the met specific credentials. These teachers and staff are also a part of a structured hierarchy within the system. Professors listen to the chair, the chair listens to the Dean and the Dean listens to the Chancellor. All of these people work together to keep everything on file for every student such as grade reports, GPA’s, and degree progress reports. With in the school system there are rules and regulations for all of the workers to follow in order for the system to run smooth and efficient.  Our university may not be the most cutthroat efficient bureaucracy but I’d say it runs pretty smoothly.

What I find most relatable to today is Weber’s thoughts on rationalization. He describes this as the process of how a society gets to a bureaucracy. Weber argues that individuals are living their lives based on rational and logical choices. He does not say this is necessarily a good or bad thing, but it limits our choices and goals in life. People are only making choices on rationalization. Some basic characteristics of rationality are efficiency, predictability, and control. I can see this theory of rationality happening today. My brother graduated college at the age of 23. He wasn’t entirely certain what he’d like to pursue for a career so he bounced around for a while. Today, he is 25 and pursing something he is really passionate about: hunting. He writes blogs and takes amazing photography of all of his adventures. He started writing for the local newspaper and even had some of his writings in a big time hunting magazine. On the side, my brother does some freelance family photography. He lives comfortably on the money he makes from his photography and writing for the newspaper, which he considers a hobby. He is so happy because he is living life and doing what he loves, but my parents and other close friends are hard critics. He is not living the ideal rational life. He doesn’t have a solid career with a solid, steady paycheck. Now, my brother loves his life and finds the uncertainty just a part of the adventure of life, but the general public is shaken by the unpredictability and uncertainties of his lifestyle. I can see how rationality holds people back from achieving higher dreams. It holds us back from our human potential, and I’m proud that my brother doesn’t conform to societies beliefs because he is happy.

sumblog 3 - Structural Functionalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Psl0nFEzw

The video clip demonstrates how the clan of crabs works together to protect themselves from the seagull. I think it is safe to say that some crabs were smaller than others, maybe even weaker. Some crabs might have had smaller pincers or slower reflexes, but they still all worked together to take down the seagull. Imagine if one or two crabs weren’t helping the rest. It is probable that without all of the crabs working together they would not have been able to take down the seagull. Each crab did his or her part in keeping everyone safe.

Emile Durkheim would explain society, and the group of crabs, from a structural functionalist perspective. This means that he views everything with in society as serving a purpose. Everybody, every institution, deviance, norms, they all serve a proper function to keep society running smoothly. It is much like looking at society like a body. Without the smallest most minor part, such as hair, your body would not function to the best of its ability. It would not be as productive.

In my criminology class, we are also taking a look at Emile Durkheim’s view of crime. Durkheim sticks to his structural functionalist perspective claiming that even crime serves a proper function. Although crime causes conflict, according to Durkheim, crime helps us affirm cultural values because what is considered crime in one culture may not be criminal in another. Crime also clarifies moral boundaries and encourages social change. Durkheim also says that crime creates social unity by bringing non-deviants away from crime and standing up to crime.

By viewing even a bad part of society such as crime, as a functional component is an optimistic way of viewing society. I’m a believer of all things happen for a reason and that goes along with the belief that everyone has something to offer. I believe that right now, the way our society exists, every component brings something else to the table. Without the lower class, middle class, high class, deviance, law, economy, different religion, politics, our society would not function the way it does. Looking at society from this view could help us overcome obstacles such as the crabs fighting the seagull.

Sumblog 2 - Ideologies

An ideology is an idea, belief, or value that come from the people. According to Karl Marx ideologies are created by the top class and enforced to maintain and control the less dominate class. Ideologies such as religion, culture, gender, and politics are created by society, but in turn end up created a structure for society. They constrict people to these ideas by creating a path of what is socially acceptable. Ideologies create social norms and deviance because if you go against the belief system you will be considered deviant, possibly even criminal. It sounds that ideologies would be helpful to keep order with in a society, but Karl Marx’s believes that ideologies are a problem in a capitalist economy because they create obscure realities.

            A good example, today, of an ideology creating an obscure reality is societies view on education. Today, it is hard to find employment opportunities in a field without at least having an associates or bachelor’s degree for a job that 10 or 15 years ago only required a high school diploma. In reality, the job did not get any harder. The level of difficulty probably stayed the same, but society now sees more of an importance on education before launching into work. It many fields, today, a bachelor’s degree isn’t even enough. We now tend to believe that a person is not qualified for a job without an associates or bachelor’s degree when that could actually just be our obscure reality.

            Karl Marx’s view of ideologies is still very relevant today. Although our class system is divided into more than two classes ideologies are still used to create social control over the less dominate class. This ends up creating an even larder divide. Here is a song by Billy Bragg that demonstrates the social organization in a capitalist economy and how it is an obscured reality of equality and freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG_filOc5rk

Sumblog 1 - Herbert Spencer

When reading the supplementary reading about Herbert Spencer I found it very interesting how at first he thought religion and science would be able to go together when explaining evolution. Although he later realized the two categories clashed, today we would consider them polar opposite. In fact, science has come such a far way that today we do not even need religion as a source to explain the world. The following video clip is cosmologist Lawrence Krauss explaining his book called A Universe from Nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIDmzLfk0K0

Throughout the segment, Krauss explains how science has made it possible to have a universe without a God. Although many of us do and will believe in a God, we as humans no longer need to have faith in order to explain and understand the universe. When science was first developing during the Enlightenment and even until early in the 21st century there have always been questions about what started it all. How did it all begin? There must have been some sort of God to create the first bit of energy. Well, according to Krauss science can now explain how something can come from nothing. We no longer need one bit of religion to help explain it. This is a huge advancement from the Enlightenment era when Herbert Spencer believed science and religion could go together. This advancement also backs up Spencer's theory about definiteness. He believes that diversity in society must exist but as time goes on each segment in society will become more and more defined and the boundaries between groups will become more clear. At one point in time it was thought that religion and science could possible go together to explain the universe, but here we are today and it seems as if you must pick a side. The boundaries between the two have become extremely clear.