Blog 12

The topic that I found most interesting when we talked about Anthony Giddens was his idea of where we are as a society. There was the term used called post-modernity to describe how our society operates, but Giddens strongly disagreed with this term. The term that he chose to use to describe how we live and how we understand our identity was radicalized modernity. He described this term as the way that people in today’s society live and how they ascribe to things. There are 3 ideas/examples that Giddens highlighted to differentiate between a post-modern society and a radicalized modernity.

Post-Modernity:                                                          Radicalized Modernity

~The self as dissolved                                                 ~Self-identity is made possible

~”Emptying” of everyday life to                                ~Everyday life is complicated combination

    abstract systems                                                         of gains and losses

~truth is rooted in circumstance                                 ~Universal features of truth claims

All of these differences point to Giddens’ idea that a radicalized modernity is better for society as a whole to live in. There is more room to be integrated with your peers, but at the same time, you are allowed to be displaced at times if you feel that is appropriate.

The comic that I found applies to this idea of postmodernity in a comical way. The guy that is stepping on the other man’s neck brings up a good point that since, in the post-modern view there is not one ultimate truth, he can make up many stories or truths as to what he is doing to the mad on the ground. I believe that this is why Giddens really did not like the post-modernity view. There are so many blurred lines that are created, and things are not very concrete in this view of society. That being said, I agree with Giddens and believe that a radicalized modernity approach to looking at society is much more logical. The reason is because it looks at society as more of a whole and gives individuals more options in terms of choosing how they want to exist within society. 

Blog 11

Dorothy Smith was one of the first sociologists to really bring about the idea of standpoint theory. To her, this meant observing a specific culture or group of people by actually interacting with them. She cautioned to not get too involved with the people that you are observing, however, because this could lead to your observations being biased, as you become one of them. Smith said that this was the best way to observe people because it allowed the sociologist to get a better picture of what these people do, but more importantly why they do it, as the observer is able to talk to his/her subject.

To go along with her standpoint theory, Smith also talked about a bifurcation of consciousness. (Smith’s bifurcation of consciousness is closely relations to W.E.B. DuBois’ idea of double consciousness.) This was brought about because at the time that she was doing her work, most of the theories that existed were created by men. To her that meant that the theories were only 100% true through a man’s eyes. Smith used an example of this bifurcated consciousness. Her identity as a woman versus her identity as a sociologist is two different consciousnesses that she experienced. The reason is that sociology, at that time, was dominated by males, so she knew that in order for herself to understand sociological perspectives; she would have to look at everything through a man’s lens.

I picked a picture that is a tree made up of words that have to do what a double consciousness is. I thought that this was an interesting picture, and even though it more closely relates to DuBois, I believe that these words all also describe Smith’s ideas of a bifurcation of consciousness. The reason for that is because, as stated earlier in the blog, she mentioned that she looked at society through a man’s lens, and in this picture there are words such as, “fragmented,” “dual,” and “covering,” which all help to describe what a bifurcation and a double consciousness is. 

Blog 10

Clifford Geertz’s ideas about symbols as well as culture and how they are defined in our society is something that I found fascinating in last week’s discussion. Geertz defines culture as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about attitudes towards life.” Here I think that Geertz is just saying that culture is expressed through the symbols that people ascribe to and identify with. He also said that culture comes to an agreement on a symbol and all agree with the meaning that is given to that particular symbol. Finally Geertz said that our reality is made up of a bunch of different symbols; physical symbols like the American Flag or the bald eagle as well as non-physical symbols such as a hand shake or a smile.

A very basic example that I hold close to me is the symbol of the cross. I have a tattoo of one, so for me it means a lot more than just two lines of ink that are stuck on my body forever. The symbol of the cross, for most people, means church, religion, faith, God or something along those lines and that is why the cross is viewed as sacred (the value of religion), not profane (just two lines of ink).

The two pictures that I have found for this blog are pictures of the cross and the bald eagle. I found these pictures interesting and very representative of our country. I thought that it was neat that someone tied these two images into one to both represent our freedom (from the bald eagle) and the faith that someone holds (from the cross). Both pictures are very powerful and, for me at least, represent two of the most important things that I believe and trust in.

Blog 9

I found Erving Goffman’s theory about status, roles and self-label to be very interesting. He describes status to be your position that you hold within society. Goffman said that your roles are the behaviors that go along with your particular status and your self-label is how you present yourself to others, given your said status and roles within society. I found these three concepts and how they interact, something that I still see in today’s society. An example that I can think of is if someone is a pastor for a church, his status would be a pastor. His specific roles could be things like preaching on Sundays to his congregation, offering guidance to members of his church and doing baptisms and weddings. The self-label that he might put forward will vary from pastor to pastor, but most pastors will present themselves professionally, and in an unbiased and welcoming way. I believe that these three ideas that Goffman has put forth can apply to every single person in our society, except each person will have varying ideas and aspects that go into their status, roles and self-label.

Branching off of Goffman’s idea of the self-label, he says that stigmas are something that can come based on the self-label that you show to other people. Goffman described a stigma as something that society places on a person based on their presentation of their self-label that could prevent the person from achieving a goal that they may have. An example used in class was the fact that out of all of the CEOs, only 4.4% of them are females. Given the fact that someone is a woman sometimes places a stigma on her that would prevent her from reaching her goal of becoming a CEO. Obviously this phenomenon is not fair, but I do think that it is something that happens all of the time in many different situations.

The video that I picked is a funny (yet true) rap that people made up about Goffman’s theory, to go along with the theme song from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. I thought that it was a short and concise representation of Goffman’s ideas about the presentation of the self, so I felt that it was appropriate to share it with all of you. 

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvuWLuAW8gw

Blog 8

George Herbert Mead talked about the idea of the self which he splits into two different categories, the “I” and the “Me”. The “I” part of the self includes all of the thoughts that are going on inside one’s head and/or the initial reaction to a social situation. Some could think of this part of the self as the raw and unfiltered you. In contrast, the “Me” part of the self is the you that is presented after your thoughts are filtered through. One could look at the “Me” side as the side that you present to your professors or bosses at work.

I believe that we all show both sides of our Me’s and I’s but I agree with Mean in that it is definitely a situational thing. For example, I am not the type of person to confront a roommate if something minute that they are doing is bothering me. I tend to hold those feelings in, and only present the “Me” side of me to the particular roommate that is bothering me. But on the other hand, the “I” side of me will come out when I vent to my boyfriend or another roommate about the issue. My thoughts are not filtered when I complain about something that is bothering me, but I am notorious for showing the happy and nice “Me” side to the person that is creating the problem (which, I will admit, is a terrible character trait that I possess.)

I think that this idea still exists today in a large way, and everyone shows both of their sides, but only certain people can see their sides. I think it is just an interesting concept because it is all actually kind of obvious, but it doesn’t become obvious until you sit down and just think about the idea. I know that I for sure filter my true and raw thoughts before I say something to someone, even if that thing that I am saying isn’t something mean or rude.

The picture that I picked to go along with this blog could be taken as a funny representation of the “I” and the “Me” having to interact. I dissected the picture by seeing that the women is telling her husband that she doesn’t care if he acts crazy and wild with his own friends (showing that he would be displaying his “I” side) but around her friends she wants him to act nothing like his true self (showing the “Me” side of himself). Even though it does not line up perfectly, I think that this is a great and funny example of how one person can and certainly does possess both sides of the self that Mead talked about.

Blog 7

Anna Julia Cooper was an important African American social thinker back in her time. She studied race, sex and power and how they all played out in society. The aspect of her studies that stood out to me the most was her idea of pluralism. Cooper believed that pluralism was the act of understanding and accepting every culture in a society so that everyone is treated equally. An example that is often used to describe pluralism is a melting pot. In class, however, Dr. Barry told us to think of it as a stew, since every culture still stands alone (by possessing their own characteristics, beliefs and traditions) but they also mix well and see each other as equals.

It would be nice to think that pluralism exists fully in the United States, but I am not sure if that could ever be possible. There are a lot of cultures within the U.S. and some people cannot come to accept other cultures. There will always be people that are racist, or people that just do not care to learn about any other cultures because they are content with their own. I think it is great to learn about other cultures, however. It opens your eyes to the fact that not everyone is the same as you and traditions, beliefs and characteristics vary so much from culture to culture. Pluralism is something that Cooper saw in her studies and I do think that it is around today to some extent, but there will always be people who will not allow pluralism to exist fully.

Although Cooper did not specifically talk about religious pluralism, it is the same concept as regular pluralism, except it looks at different religions instead of cultures. The picture and website link (located below) that I chose for this blog are examples of what religious pluralism is all about. Coexist is an organization that works to help people understand and see the differences between 7 religions. Feel free to explore the website, I found some of the information very interesting.

http://coexistfoundation.org/

Blog 6

When talking about Charlotte Perkins Gilman in class, the idea that stood out to me the most was the origins of gender stratification. I found it very true of our culture today, that we live in an androcentric culture. I was not surprised that Gilman found that to be true back when she did her studies, but I thought that it would have changed from then to now. I never realized that our culture really is dominated by men until I actually thought about it. Politics are hugely run by men; professional men’s sports teams are given way more air time than women’s sports teams and so on. It is interesting to me that, largely, society is okay with men dominating many things. Certainty not everyone is on board with this idea of an androcentric culture, but not many things have been done to change or “fix” this fact.

Gilman also discusses private and public spheres in her writings. She says that males dominate the public sphere mostly because it is a man’s job to go out of the house to work and bring home the money. Females are seen to dominate the private sphere, in Gilman’s eyes, because their job is to stay home and do house work type jobs all day. These typical types of roles for men and women are starting to change now and I think that is something that is notable. I personally think it is so cool if a dad stays at home and raises the kids while the mom goes out in the world to work. It is a “new” and unique trend in our culture/society and I think that it’s something that could be looked at as honorable for the father to take on the role of raising the children.

I found it different that one part of Gilman’s origins of gender stratification still holds true today (androcentric culture) and the other part is tending to evolve and change (role of genders in public and private spheres). For most of the other social thinkers that we have analyzed in class, either their theory still exists in our society or does not exist so it was nice to see this idea that Gilman’s is (in some ways) only half “true”.

The video that I selected for this blog is one that I think fits perfectly for dads staying at home and moms going to work. It’s a music video that someone put together to go along with scenes from the movie Despicable Me while a song called Mr. Mom by Lonestar plays along in the background. I hope you enjoy it!

Blog 5

This last week we talked about an important women social thinker for the first time and her name was Harriet Martineau. I was excited about getting the chance to read some theories from a woman, since we have focused on men thus far in the semester.

One of the aspects that I find most interesting with Martineau’s thoughts and concepts is her idea of happiness and how it should operate in a society. She said, “the most important law of social life is that “the great ends of human association” aim above all “to the grand one, - the only general one, - … human happiness” (Classical Sociological Theory 296). This to me means that Martineau was very focused on the fact that if people were happy, their lives would be “good.” One thing that she failed to define, however, is her definition of happiness. As people brought up many great points in class, happiness is totally different from person to person and country to country. What makes me happy could make another person depressed and vice versa. If Martineau defined what she thought happiness is, I think that her theory on the social law of people being happy would become a lot clearer but I think that her overall message is valid. If one is happy, it is typical that they will lead a good life and some would say that leading a good life may lead to living out the American dream.

The video that I picked for this blog sheds very positive light onto what the American Dream is. I like the fact that the video gave examples in the beginning that the American Dream is different for every single person in America. The speaker says that “for some, the American dream is to achieve prosperity” and for others, “it is to provide for their children.” He goes on to say that no matter what your American dream is the very core of every dream is the belief in freedom. I agree with this statement because without freedom, many opportunities would be taken away from people. Things like education, freedom of speech, and the practice of religion would be compromised without our freedom.

I believe that Martineau’s views on human happiness apply in today’s world because I would say that living a happy life is a lot more enjoyable than living a life that is unhappy. The American dream ties into many people’s definition of happiness and I think that with one’s own definition of their dream, being happy and achieving that dream is very possible.  

Blog 4

Weber talked about three different types of authority including rational, traditional and charismatic. Rational authority is authority that is ruled by laws that people must obey; they are written that dictate how we behave. Traditional authority is something that is rules that we have grown up with. Something such as religion, gender roles and marriage are things that traditional authority is. An example is following something that your mom does, because her mom did it and her mom did it and so on. The last type of authority that Weber defines is charismatic authority. This is something that is common with figures in society such as President Obama or even the Beatles; generally this type of authority is able to gain a large following.

I think that these types of authorities still exist in today’s society. Weber developed these theories because he felt that society generally followed one type of authority then changed to another type. I think that to some extent that is true today also. For me personally, all three types of authority are prevalent in my life. Rational authority runs my life in the way that I must obey laws that the government has in place. Tradition authority shines through in my life by the gender roles that have been displayed in my family throughout the years. My dad cooked and cleaned while also going to work and my mom did the laundry and went to work. I think when I get married, those rules will apply to my relationship, since it is what I have grown up with. Finally, charismatic authority is in my life because of my advisor. I was sent to her because I was in transition of majors and she helped me more than I could have ever asked for. She inspired me, guided me and helped me with any and every question that I had.

I chose a short video of John F. Kennedy’s speech given on September 12, 1962. It is a very inspirational speech about America’s dream of going to the moon. My favorite quote from this short video is when he says, “We do things not because they’re easy, but because they are hard…” He inspires the people of NASA to not give up on something just because it is hard; he encourages them that the rewards will be well worth it. I think he is a great example of someone who holds a great amount of charismatic authority simply because he had a huge following and he was a very inspirational and charismatic public figure.

Blog 3

Durkheim’s views on religion were very interesting to say the least. I believe that some of his ideas hold true today, but others have fallen through the cracks. He defined religion as the belief in one God. While this is true for some religions such as Christianity and Islam, it is not true for a lot of other like Hinduism or Greek mythology. Today, there are so many different religions that are practiced around the world and they are all so different that it would be impossible for anyone to put just 1 basic definition to what religion is. This is where I think Durkheim could have gone wrong, since he left out so many religions in the definition, he was only thinking of religions that were the most predominant at the time.

Durkheim also puts out this idea of sacred versus profane. He says that something sacred, “is something added to and above the real (73).” Profane, on the contrary, is something that doesn’t have any special or spiritual magical power to it. He says that something becomes sacred through interactions between individuals within a church or other place of worship. We can attach meaning to anything to make it sacred. An example given in class was the cross. Someone could look at it as just two pieces of wood put together while others may see it as something that stands for the taking away of our sins. In the picture that I chose for this blog, there is a bunch of crosses that all look different. I thought that this stood for how, even though, they are all crosses, they look very different, and each person interprets the meaning of a cross in a different way.

I believe that Durkheim had some good ideas about what religion is and why people practice the way that they do. He did leave some religions out but I think this is mainly because of the time period that he was in. The world was not as diverse back then, so the majority of people did practice religions in which the belief in one God was common. 

Blog 2

Karl Marx developed many theories concerning humans and their behaviors. As we studied Marx’s ideas last week, the theory that stood out to me the most was his theory of the fetishism of commodities. He points out that humans as a whole used to make every single thing that they needed or desired. If they needed clothes, they sewed them, food, they grew it. The world was just starting to become more and more industrialized and things like this became less necessary because of factories starting to make anything from chairs to cars to food. He points out an exchange value and a use value. An exchange value is how much money can one get for a product and a use value is how useful it is to the person who is purchasing it. If there is a surplus of something, such as winter jackets, the exchange value will be low because it is not in high demand. However, if there is only one winter jacket in the whole town, everyone will want it, causing the exchange value to be very high. He says that humans are wanting more and more without knowing why they want more and more. Marx wraps up with saying that now-a-days, people have no idea what goes into making the things that they buy, causing them to lose the connection with the items.

I believe that this theory very much still holds true today, and it is actually a lot like materialism. If I had to make everything that I need or want, I would have barely anything. While this is a sad statement from how things used to be, I think that many people (myself included) don’t appreciate how much work, time and effort goes into making the things that we own.

The short video that I chose to go with this blog is just a bunch of pictures of stores and how many items there are for sale. It also shows tons of people shopping and in the middle it shows workers in factories making all of these products. I picked this video because I think it gives a good idea of really how many options are out there for us in terms of things to buy. I like how in the middle of the video it shows a little bit of how these things are made, also showing that the working conditions do not look enjoyable. I think that was put in the video to remind all of us what others have to go through just so we can have something as simple as a shirt, or as complex as a smart phone. 

Blog 1

Materialism. What do you think of when you hear this word? Do you consider yourself to be materialistic? These are questions that every American should be able to answer quite easily. I would answer by saying that materialism is when someone thinks that they need to have the newest and best things anywhere from the latest iPhone to a luxury sports car. As for the latter question, I would say that to some degree I am materialistic, as I believe everyone is to some extent. At the same time, however, all of the material things that I do own, I have worked hard for and saved up to get them. As we learned in class last week, Tocqueville believed that materialism was a real issue in the U.S. When he came to America he basically blamed our problem with materialism on the fact that we were (and still are) a democratic society. I’m not sure if I agree that materialism is only a problem in democratic societies, however, I do think that it is a huge problem in the United States. An example of this would be the shopper’s favorite day of the year: Black Friday. Although I do participate in Black Friday every year, I think some of the things that people go through to get some deals are ridiculous. Our country has become so wrapped up in the need for “stuff” that stores have played into that and they have great deals for only a couple of hours in the middle of the night. Sadly, many people actually wait outside in line for hours to try and get their hands on the newest laptop or designer hand bag. This video (link is provided below) that I stumbled upon while on YouTube describes perfectly how crazy our society has gotten in the last couple of years over simply buying material things that aren’t necessarily needed. The worst part about all of this is that many people think that these material things can make you happy, but I think that that is something that cannot come from a material good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW4d8_LLYp8