Blog 10

"Society is a human product.  Society is an objective reality.  Man is a social product."

-Peter Berger

The Social Construction of Reality, Berger's best-known work, takes a deeper look into why a society functions in the way that it does.  Berger's concept explains that groups of people will create different concepts, or assign meanings and representations to things, over time.  These will then eventually become habitual; we won't have to think about them, we simply know.  After that is when institutionalization occurs. This is when people enter into these roles almost systematically.  Once these created thoughts and concepts become institutionalized, our reality becomes socially constructed.

This was an interesting topic to discuss, because it really makes you question the validity of the world around you.  I think one way in which I agree with this concept is that society is not the same all over the world.  If these "roles" that we play were the same all over the world, then maybe I would argue that somehow these societal roles were inbred in us.  But, you can see that there are roles that are seen as normal in our society, that when you travel to other societies you see that those are not even in existence. What is an acceptable role in society in the United States would be different than that of a societal role in a third world country. We socially construct these roles and ideas, and we, in a way construct the society around us.

Here is a video of Peter Berger talking about his sociological views, and his book The Social Construction of Reality

Blog 9

“And to the degree that the individual maintains a show before others that he himself does not believe, he can come to experience a special kind of alienation from self and a special kind of wariness of others.” 

-Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life was a really interesting topic of the week.  Goffman theorizes that each of us has this presentation of self, or in other words, ways that we know we are expected to perform in certain situations.  Within this presentation of self we see how we also balance these ideas of status and roles.  Our status is our social position, our roles are our expected behaviors of a particular status, and our self-label is our power to present ourselves how we want to.  

I really saw how prevalent this is in anyones life.  We care what people think, or at the very least are aware of what they think.  And this does have some sort of an effect on how we conduct ourselves in certain situations.  Sometimes we act in ways that are not ourselves, or maybe feel unnatural, because we feel that is how we are expected to act.

This video is from What Would You Do, which used to (or maybe still does) air on ABC.  I remember being in a situation like this at a restaurant, and witnessing the same things.  At the time, I was too caught up in what my "role" was, and how I was expected to act, that I did not act at all. That is something I really regret.  Sometimes ignoring how you are expected to act in a situation, and simply doing the right thing, is more worth it in the end.  

Blog 8

This week we learned about Georg Simmel and his concept of "The Stranger".  The idea that someone "...who is remote is near."  I honestly thought this idea was kind of humorous, just because of how he words this.  It sounds quite ominous, like some elusive person.  But it really does make sense, the concept that someone is physically near you and yet you do not really notice them or know much about them. They are near and far at the same time. It is a strange thing, indeed. But it makes perfect sense.

I liked the example we used in class when we said that this is kind of like when you meet the friend of a friend.  You know their name, what they look like, and funny stories about them.  And yet they are still a mystery because this is all second-hand information you've collected over time.  You've never actually heard their voice say their name, or seen the color of their eyes because they are staring back at you, and you've never actually witnessed them doing some of those goofy, endearing things your friend has talked about before.  I think another example that I have experienced would be when you have foreign exchange students in your class. You usually can tell by an accent, or a strange looking choice of clothing... or even a simple complexion difference can be an indicator that this person is different than you.  You do not know much about them, but you notice them. They are remote and yet near.

It is easy to look at the "stranger" and just see someone different than you.  You choose to always remain as strangers, and you move on with your life.  I feel like all my blogs end with me talking about giving people a chance, but it's something I've learned a lot in my short 20 years of life.  Even in class talking about Muslim Americans...seeing how amazing those people are, and then seeing how mistreated they are made me so sad.  We're missing out on people who have great ideas and life experiences to share.  You grow when you get to know someone who is different than you.  Maybe it's a good idea to make that "stranger" in your life anything but that.

Check out this sweet video!

"Fear makes strangers of people who should be friends."

-Shirley MacLaine

Blog 7

I think we all have felt this sense of 'Double- Consciousness' or 'Twoness' that W.E.B. Du Bois first spoke of.  This sense of looking at yourself through the eyes of others. Sometimes constructive and other times destructive, this way of looking at yourself can have lasting effects.  Du Bois describes this feeling when he says, "One ever feels his twoness,--an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings..." He was describing how as an African American, he felt as though he was an American, and yet other Americans made him feel as though he were separate, or cut off from them. The result was a man, and a race, that were never quite sure where they belonged.

This feeling of being torn between two worlds is a feeling that has been felt in the depths of human souls since the beginning of time. A sense of belonging is one of the core human feelings that connect us together.  Although Du Bois was mainly speaking of race when he wrote this chapter, I myself can feel connected to his writings.  This leads me to draw the conclusion that this 'Double- Consciousness' wears many different masks in our society.  This could be seen in how older adults feel living in a world filled with young, fast-paced, entrepreneurs...not really feeling very needed anymore. This could be seen in how women in some cases, even in modern day society, do not receive as fair of wages as men.  This could be seen in how the gay community may feel oppressed by those who disagree with the way they live.  This could be seen in how people with different religious beliefs feel they live in a culture that rebels against what they believe in.  I feel that there are many facets to double consciousness- being part of the whole, and yet are somehow set apart.

One obscure line from this reading caught my attention and made me take a different route of thought. Du Bois says, "The double-aimed struggle of the black artisan...could only result in making him a poor craftsman, for he had but half a heart in either cause."  I passed over this and then thought about it a little deeper.  If we are being torn in two different directions, and do not know exactly where we belong, our whole hearts aren't invested in...anything.  By dismissing others by race, age, gender, etc. we are, at times, helping draw them away from putting their whole hearts into something.  We are forgetting that there is a soul beneath that freckled skin, those sunken eyes, or weathered clothes.  There is someone who has a lot to offer, and if we overlook them, shut them down, and make them feel as though they don't belong...we could be missing out on something great. We could be missing out on someone who could change the world.

Blog 6

Every society has a set of social ethics.  In other words, there are rules, values, and standards by which people live their lives, regardless of different cultures.  There are four key elements that make up democratic social ethics according to Addams.
1) No one group of people are more important than another
2) All people are active agents
3) People seek opportunity for kindliness
4) Personal safety of all members of a social democracy is tied to the personal safety of each

We have seen all throughout human history how these elements have been violated in a multitude of ways.  The example of bride kidnapping in class was a perfect example of how flagrantly these elements can be violated.  Maybe it's ethnocentric of me to think like this, but I'm confused at how all of that couldn't have just felt....wrong.  I feel like it probably does to them, but they ignore it due to cultural factors.  Or maybe they do not feel it is wrong because they have never grown up thinking that it is wrong.  I guess that would be hard for me to judge that then.

I think it is really easy to find examples of ways that these elements are broken, but I think there is a reason for this.  I feel like because we are imperfect humans, it is nearly impossible to be completely compliant with all of these elements.  Because then, ideally, the United States would fall into that category.  We live in a land where we believe that all men are created equal, we all have have a right to our freedom of speech and the right to vote, most people are kind by nature (this is debatable but one could argue that Addams does include that culture is what makes people not so kind), and we are all threatened by the violated safety of other citizens.  Although I feel this is mostly true, it is not completely true.  Maybe by law all of us are equal, but we see discrimination against races, genders, and age groups all the time, even in America.  Of course these are ideal, and many societies come close to having all these elements in harmony, but I do think it is somewhat unrealistic.


Here is one example of inequality in America. Check out this article from The Huffington Post here!

Blog 5

What is human happiness?  We seem to come across this question throughout every season of our life. Harriet Martineau looked at human happiness as the most important law of social life.  Martineau's style of studying Sociology was much different than any other social thinker up until that point. She was a trailblazer of sorts.  She tried to look at how societies were organized through human relationships and activities.  Martineau uses her loosely defined idea of human happiness as a way to judge the fairness of society.   Human happiness can only be achievable with the existence of morals and manners.  Morals are the collective idea or standards of how people should behave.  Manners are the pattern of action or association- so how the morals manifest themselves in people's behaviors (or how they are put into action).

I really wish she would have given us a better idea of what human happiness was.  I feel like putting so much emphasis on that concept, but not clarifying her ideas of it, kind of lessened the value of the argument she was trying to make.  We all have our own personal ideas of what are the basic things that make humans happy, but I'm curious to know what she was thinking. That was something I wish I could have understood better from this reading.

If I were to write about what I thought one facet of human happiness was, I would probably say...relationships. In my life, I have seen how relationships have given me the most happiness. My relationship with God, my friends, and my family remind me that life is worth it, even when life gets hard.  I remember my freshman year of college, my parents hid a card in my suitcase, and I didn't find it until after they left. I taped it to my wall up on my loft so every night before I went to bed I could read it, and remember how much they loved me. It was moments like that when I felt so undeserving of being able to experience happiness and love like that.  Of course there are many different things that make people happy, but relationships are what stand out to me the most.

It seems like I'm not the only one...check out this video! 

Blog 4

Max Weber's "The Bureaucratic Machine" was an interesting topic to discuss.  It's crazy when you read ideas like Weber's and see how accurate it is in society today.  Weber talks about how we live in this sort of "Bureaucratic Machine" where there is a sort of hierarchy where power flows down. When looking at this perspective in a workplace environment example, you can see how this hierarchy takes place.  Another big point he makes is that there is "specialization" within the workforce. So I thought of it as when you call customer service and you usually won't talk to just one person...you will continually get transferred until the person with the correct "specialization" to your question can be reached. There also is the same set of procedures that everyone follows, that way there is a sense of uniformity.  

In class we talked about how Weber uses the rationalization process to explain how living in a bureaucracy affects our human potential and basically limits us.  I can see both sides, I guess. I think living in a bureaucratic state gives us a sense of security.  Things usually go as planned. You're given a specific job. Everyone follows the same rules.  There's a sense of continuity that we find comfort in.  

But  also on the other hand, I do feel like it limits us. For example, in our world today, you are expected to go to college, and it you want even more job security (as if that's a thing), you should go to grad school.  I truly believe that college is not for everyone, academics are not what everyone is gifted in, and yet they have no choice because no employer will take them seriously without a diploma.  I think you can even look at it as how we have gotten so lost in this machine that we are essentially machines ourselves.  We see this when we see everyone walking with heads hung low and headphones turned up.  We see this when we catch the glow of iPhones in movie theatres, and the buzz of a new text message in restaurants.  It's sickening.

I feel like we are put through this sort of system that is supposed to make everything run more smoothly for us, but all it really does is smooth the lines that define us.  

This is a spoken word poem by Marshall Davis Jones entitled "Touchscreen".  This video is so powerful to me. He expresses so creatively how lost we get in this "machine", and really, how much this machine limits what we are as humans.

Blog 3

This week, I found Durkheim's theories to be quite interesting.  What I enjoyed most were his thoughts on religion. Durkheim believes that all great social institutions have been born in religion.  In fact, he believes in this so much, that he goes on to say later that the idea of society is even the soul of religion. Humanity has reaped the benefits of religion, because religion directly affects the "moral life" of society.  He even goes on later to talk of an ideal world.  He explains that society creates a sort of "ideal world" in which it only exists within the realm of thought, but we attribute a higher sort of dignity to it. Durkheim thinks that, "A society can neither create itself nor recreate itself without at the same time creating an ideal... The ideal society is not outside of the real society, it is a part of it" (Lemert, 2013).  

Durkheim expresses this idea that religion is "sacred". There is "sacred" and there is "profane". Sacred is what is considered something added to and above the real.  When he was talking about his in our reading, there was a quote that really caught my attention.  He says that when man reaches a state of high effervescence (or enthusiasm) he "...does not recognize himself; he feels himself transformed and consequently he transforms the environment which surrounds him" (Lemert, 2013).  I found this statement to be very profound, because isn't that why many people find religion so intriguing?

To me, religion was always very intriguing because my friends who had a solid foundation of faith in their lives were just different to me. The way they acted, the way they treated others, their demeanor...it was so different from what I was used to.  I saw that contrast, and I wanted what they had. So, I sought after it.  If your faith is authentic, others take notice. Whether that was what Durkheim meant by that quote, I guess I'm not really sure, but that's how I interpreted it.  When you are transforming the world around you by just simply being a part of it, you are living, breathing proof of something that changes us from the inside out.  And in my opinion, that's not a transformation that can come on one's own accord.

 

Blog 2

I found Karl Marx's idea on "Estranged Labor" rather interesting. Now, I'm not the biggest Karl Marx fan, but I do think he makes some valid points.  He shows the great strain between property owners & the property-less workers.  He talks of four different types of estrangements that a worker can feel. 

For one, they can feel an estrangement of worker from the product of his work.  A property-less worker receives no fruits for their labor.  Everything they make contributes to the world outside them.  Second, they feel an estrangement from activity of production.  Their work is their survival, and exists beyond oneself.  Third, they experience an estrangement from "species-being" or human identity. Work becomes their life purpose, and they are not gaining anything from the work they are slaving over, so their life purpose feels empty.  And fourth, there is an estrangement from man to man.  Because the workers product is owned by someone else, the worker regards that person as alien and hostile.  

I think what made this idea so interesting to me is that Marx is essentially raising the question, "What does it mean to be human?" There are core parts of our being that make us, well, human.  We crave a sense of belonging, we desire fulfilling a "life purpose", we seek creative expression and independent thought.   We get bored with monotonous droning of everyday life. We desire the pains and triumphs of progression.  We dream of leaving our mark on the world. These are the things that separate us and make us human.

These are also the things that cause us the most misery when left unfulfilled.  Marx gets this point across when speaking of the property owners and the property-less workers.  There is a great unrest in the property-less workers.  They become mere brutes in the process of bringing products to the consumers. Workers who experience this today feel that sense of dissatisfaction. 

I tried to make this connection with what keeps workers morale up in modern society.  I found an article called  "11 Things That Make Workers Happy", which you can check out here! This article talks about things like offering room for growth. If we feel like we can't make improvements, or work towards a higher goal, we lose that drive.  Workers like those exampled in Marx's theory do not have an opportunity to work their way up, or experience progress in any way, which causes unrest.  There are tons of other great tips in this article that were interesting to read as well. Overall, I may not agree with everything Marx has to say, but I do feel that estranged labor is something that can occur throughout any time in history.

Blog 1

This week, one of the most fascinating sociological thinkers that we discussed (in my opinion) was Alexis de Tocqueville.  His ideas on different social topics, I feel, still hold true today.  It's intriguing when you find a thinker from as long ago as the 19th century, that can still be considered "relevant" in modern day America.  

One topic of his that I found thought provoking were his thoughts on social change.  When I initially read this, it was the topic that I got the least out of.  I did not quite understand what he was getting at, and I struggled with connecting his ideas.  After further delving into the topic in a group setting, I was able to connect the dots.  

When Tocqueville discusses social change, he gives his views of the French Revolution.  He does not think that this brought about as much change as many had hoped.  He did not think that there were enough advantages in result of the French Revolution- one of those being a change for social classes. Although peasants could now become landowners, they were..."prevented from bettering themselves mentally and materially... strikes us today as so inhuman...they were left in a state of ignorance and often destitution worse than that of the serfs, their forefathers" (Tocqueville).  This further illustrated his notion that increasing wealth leads to greater unrest.

I feel like we see this on our society today. We live in a culture where what you have is never enough. Our society does not praise character, but rather success. Just when you think you've reached a point of being satisfied, there is still the aching that maybe something else will fill that hunger inside us.  We feel that if we can only be making a little more money, buy that bigger house, get that new car...THEN we will finally find rest. But, we never do.

I feel that I connected to his ideas quite well.  His final idea, that increasing wealth can have an outcome of greater unrest, is quite accurate both in the 19th century as well as today.  Social class has always been an issue, and it does not matter how much wealth is accumulating, because that will not abolish social hierarchies.  Humans are self-serving by nature, therefore accumulating more wealth will not be accompanied by equally distributed wealth. There will always be the discontented feeling that we want what someone else has.  In my opinion, that will never be something we can achieve. Even Tocqueville recognized this early on. 

This is a quote that I have to remind myself of often.  Tocqueville was right when he thought that having more of something does not always lead to contentment.  Sometimes it's good to remind ourselves that we don't have to have what our neighbor has- sometimes what we have is enough.