Giddens

Anthony Giddens is a sociologist that took a look at post modernization and globalization.  Using people would say that we are either in a modern society or we have moved pass this it a post-modernity society. Instead of looking at one or the other, Giddens was able to look at society as still being in modernization but a change identity he called radicalized modernity.  I personally always thought it to be one or the other, but when you looked into it more detailed there are still features of our society that haven’t changed and many that have.  Giddens had said that in a radical modern society that self-identity is possible, universal features of truth, and still a meaning in everyday life.   Though these examples maybe aren’t as easy for us to achieve in today’s society, it is still possible for one to do so. 

Giddens also notes, that he believes, that modernity is over simplistic.  There isn’t a detailed enough definition for such a complex society.  Giddens look at this for examples of estrangement vs. integration.  In a post-modernity society one would feel estrangement.  It is absurd to feel so isolated in today’s society for a multitude of reasons, a major one being social networking.  Take a look at the example of Facebook.  Though Facebook is an older social network, there are many more coming out, but it is still a huge network with millions upon millions of members.  Here we see that ability for a person to stay connected with friends or family anywhere in the world. Here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2JhpNbe2Io is a funny video that pokes at Facebook. Even if one moves to a big city, like Chicago for instance, one has the ability to stay in contact with family at the very least.  Giddens gives good examples and concepts on how we are in a radicalized modern society rather than a post-modern society.

Dorthy Smith

Dorthy Smith, like other women sociologists, talked about the inequality of women in their time (which is still apparent today).  This stretches to a variety of different realms, but Smith was also able to come up with the concept of ideology where she takes a “Marxist conception of ideology into Freudian categories of consciousness.” This first concept of the Marx’s ideology comes into play from the people in control or as Marx would say ‘The Bourgeoisie’.  From these people that are in control is where we get these ideas and concepts that a majority of the people think.   Also with this, you can see from Smith working off Marx’s ideas, without many women with this high power men’s thoughts over shadow women’s in a majority of social matters.  The people in power have the ability to give the public whatever information they choose, for instance you can take a local news company and how they always report on crime.  The top story always seems to be a plane crash or murder and at the end of the hour broadcast you will see a heartwarming story of an individual volunteering in your community.   It is apparent how a communities and all the way up to countries ideologies stem from the powerful.

Smith built off the Ideology concept into categories of consciousness relative to Freud.  She sums it up as these ideas get beat into our head time and time again until it becomes second nature.  It will be so far down into our consciousness that we don’t even know that we are doing it anymore.  An example in today’s society is the marketing that people will see within their lifetimes.  When shown pictures 5 year olds don’t know Abraham Lincoln but know Ronald McDonald.  Here: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/kids-mcdonalds-toyota-disney/story?id=10333145&page=2 is a small write up done by ABC news showing how kids identify Ronald McDonald so well.   We see that these people in power choose what they wish for the general public to consume and think.  It is much easier to control people that agree with you than free thinkers that are able to apply their own reason and view. 

Smith is able to tie these concepts to show how, for example, stereotypes can be formed.  It makes perfect sense that most of us don’t even recognize it because it is in our consciousness. 

Social Construct

Is everything around us social constructed?  In class we talked about sociologist Peter Berger and four concepts that help make up a society being social construct, externalization, habitualization, and institutionalization.   They work together in order, but from the reading and class it is an obscure concept to think that we live into today is socially constructed.  At first this thought seems so odd, but Berger is able to see that we have created everything that surrounds us.  The car, buildings, ect is all socially constructed by humans.  We just didn’t so up on this earth with all this here, rather we adapted, grew, and produced what we live in today.  When you break it down like this, you can take a look around your community and see how it is socially constructed. 

A good example is new subdivisions and how they are structured.  They are all made around the same time, newer, relatively nice, all have the same basic earth colors, and around the same price, usually on the more expensive side.  People can see this house as a nice property, in a nice area, and they are able to fit it.  It is almost crazy to see a house that is orange or yellow now a days.  Maybe its people don’t like those colors, or that people making the houses don’t make them that way.  A cool example of a song is little boxes by walk off the earth (which is a remake)                                                                                           (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA)  and used as the theme song of the show weeds.  We see here how we socially construct this idea of a community and see what is normal and acceptable.  For an example in the show weeds, this single mom becomes a drug dealer in a high end subdivision.  It is a good example how we people socially construct societies.  

Parson

One of the most interesting things to me was Talcott Parson’s idea of system tasks.  There are four tasks include adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency.  According to Parson the society must be able to perform these to function properly and survive.  It is a major feat to say that these are the four things you must do to survive as a society.  Personally I find that a big one is adaptation.  I think that you can relate this to Darwin and survival of the fittest.  If you are not able to adapt to your habitat then you will die and this is completely relate able to a society.  These adaptions can be physical or social.  Good example is people that live in the desert.  They have certain practices and routines that allow them to survive in that given environment, much different that a society that is based in the Rocky Mountains.  The ability to gather food and shelter goes down to the must primal instincts but can also be expanded socially as well.  If you have a government in place you need the ability to please the people that you serve.  Though dictatorships do work, if the people are living in a democratic country then the government needs to make changes/adaptions for the people.

Also the other interesting one is latency where Parson pretty much states that a society needs to set guidelines; norms and morals.  It is a reoccurring theme in a lot of different ideologies, but it is really essential for a society to function properly.  If there is no guidelines what would be right or wrong.  We could have a Dark Knight Rises situation where anything goes and if someone makes a mistake or we don’t like you they are banished.  Needless these example is extreme, there is no doubt boundaries need to be laid out for the functionality of a society. 

 

I and ME

George Herbert Mead came up with the ideas of the generalized other, self, and I & me.  What I find to be the most interesting out of the three is I and me. It really is a concept that a lot of people think about at least once in their lives, others can have occur very frequently.  Is how we see ourselves going to be the same as other peoples see ourselves? Would their input change your outlook?   Mead is able to talk a look at this overall concept of ‘I’ and me in two parts.  I can part of a person processes things subjectively while the ‘me ‘side will process things objectively.  To sum it up easily this is the bases of this concept but it is really an interesting when you think about it.  How many times have you found yourself biting your tongue because you want to say something pretty mean but know you shouldn’t?  Or what about that person that is just seems like an ass and says things that are just rude or idiotic. Mead’s idea of I and Me gives a great explanation.

For example when something is said to that is just out rightly dumb or just an opinion that you couldn’t agree less with.  At first when you hear this inside your head you think ‘Wow that was the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, this person is an idiot’, but you refrain yourself saying this because you’re me side is really evolved from society norms. Also you wouldn’t want to hear something mean like that so also you have a society norm of treating others how you would like to be treated.  Most of the time your objective me said will come in and say something nice that isn’t offensive. And maybe if your I part of you says that rude thing then your that guy! 

Overall Mead makes some great points showing us that really the me said is a socially constructed concept, because what if we just said exactly what came to mind all the time?  Probably wouldn’t have the best outcomes so as humans we overcome this and keep those thoughts in, for the most part.

Here is a funny example of how we use me but then said our I when the person is gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1xLb7DSLuc

WEB Du Bois

As a white male that has grown up in central Wisconsin my entire life it is someone what of a stretch to imagine what life in New York City.  Now to say what would it be like to be growing up in New York City as a young black male, female, or just a minority in general?  Would I be treated differently?  Well sadly I think I would but after seeing the stop and frisk law in NYC there is no doubt that this would be the case.  Du Bois, an African American, was able to give us the concepts/ ideals of double consciousness and the ‘veil’.

Double consciousness is able to look some ones identity through different perspectives and facets.   Imagine if you will the ability for people to have an identity, to say this is who I am and this is how society see’s me.  The double consciousness idea diminishes this and makes different identities of people.  Regarding the stop and frisk policy police may see minorities as individuals that are subject to crime just because of their appearance or race, while the young man they just frisked could be a nice young man that volunteers for his community and takes care of his sick grandma.  We really don’t know peoples stories, so for us to add these stereotypically identities is not far or ethical but yet we do.

The veil can be seen as a barrier between that person and society.  In todays day and age to not be able to walk down the street without you knowing the cops are going to stop you just because of your race is just is out of this world.  One should not feel that they are separated from society but as they are part of it.  

From WEB Du Bois writings we should attempt to break down these barriers so no one needs to feel as if they have a double consciousness or a veil.  A good start would be to remove the stop and frisk law in NYC. 

 

Perkins

For the longest time in America and across the world I believe that males have minimized the roles of women in society down to be a stay at home mom, but as society has grown and evolved we have seen that this isn’t the case.  Through the outstanding work that many have put out it has made it apparent that females can add to the ever growing realm of sociology.  Charolette Perkins Gilman had to overcome this in the 1800s where it was much more prevalent but with this she was still able to come out with pieces of work that are still recognized today.  The yellow paper wall is one of her best known pieces of work, but some people don’t really go inside and see what the writing was truly about.  Though it was a fiction sorry she is able to really dig into some core cultural values like the women agreeing she was wrong and other things of this nature.  Though we know today it is not true culture just set a lot of the guide lines on which he find normal.

I think that her work gave me a good out look on marriage.  I want to have something that my wife and I will be able to agree with, not just the morns of society and what they think the marriage should be like.  

Happiness in society

What is happiness? As defined by Merriam-Webster it is the state of being happy or an experience that makes your happy. This is really a broad definition so really there is no set definition for the word happiness.  I believe that this concept varies from country to country, races, religions, towns, families and to individuals themselves.  Though what makes us happy as individuals varies but it is apparent that, as humans, we have the capability to feel ‘happy’.  So what does make different people happy?

Harriet Martineau had the idea of looking at populations regarding their happiness. We talked in class about Bhutan and how they, for years, have based their government of one concept; gross national happiness.  If you broke this down to the simplest of terms, it seems like a great idea to try to develop your country around the happiness of your people.  You would think if your people are all happy then everything is running smoothly.  Well I have heard this in terms of politics or coaching that you only have to please fifty one percent of the people and really it is true.  When we vote for president there isn’t a rule stating that they need at least seventy percent of the votes, rather they just need to win by the majority i.e fifty one percent.  So with this there are arguments on Martineau’s ideas on happiness saying she was too broad, but no one really thought of the successfulness of society in the terms of people’s happiness.

Martineau was an abstract thinker in the sense of coming up with views not just from the male perspective but the female view.  There is no doubt what Martineau was able to achieve in the Victorian era is astonishing and the fact that she was a well-respected author in her time and today.  Needless of people saying that she wasn’t specific enough on her definition of happiness she had the ability to look at the scope of society through different facets that hadn’t been used before.  She really helped give society a better outlook on the undermining of women in society.  

Traditional vs Rational

When I was younger if I saw a person with unbelievable amount of physical strength I saw them as powerful.  When you’re older you may be working at your job and find you can only carry one bag of mulch while this other person exhibits power as they carry three.  Though physical power only goes so far because if someone is stronger than you doesn't mean you will listen to someone. With that we can see power as the likelihood that demands are obeyed by someone.  When I was younger there was no doubt that both my parents had power in our family.  It wasn't just my mother always saying wait till your father gets home, but rather I would have my nose in the corner moments after I finished the act of my disobedient actions or words.  Though this stems out more than just power, my parents have authority.  They had legitimate domination over us, legally till eighteen, but could ultimately influence both of us for the rest of our lives.  

Weber explained three forms of authority; rational, traditional, and charismatic.  When I was younger and still to this day there was been a great amount of traditional authority in my life.  My parents always taught about the law (rational authority) like don’t steal, don’t vandalize, and even when were younger do not kill people.  Even though that rational form of authority is always there, my parents’ traditional form had a much larger impact on me.  What they had taught me throughout my life allowed me to evolve morals that don’t even have me thinking about breaking the rational law, to an extent.  I am a twenty one year old so I do find myself speeding sometimes and getting a little rowdy on the weekends but needless my parents had a big influence on my outlook that I possess today.

Weber did see that in our society that rational authority is taking over traditional authority and I can see how we might see this.  Within the past 20 years or so we can see a big rise in teen pregnancy.  I do believe that people do start families early by choice, but I think that a majority of these families are not planned.  A great example is the show ‘Teen Mom’ on MTV.  You can get an insight on a lot of these females’ lives as they deal with having a child at ages under 18 years old.  You get glimpses of immature men constantly fighting and walking out on the family, in certain circumstances, while there are a few that try to stand behind the female carrying their child.  With this as an example it is obvious that these children will not have a strong influence with traditional authority.  I can see that in my life I have had a big influence traditionally but I can see how the rational authority is on an up rise.  It is convenient for adults to tell their children to go watch TV or play games on the tablet rather than interact with them.  Though this might be a short term solution, in the long term you are really missing out on a lot of ‘traditional family functions.’  In a society that is always based on going faster and faster it almost seems as if we don’t have time for our own family. 

I believe that Weber’s idea about the rise of rational authority in our society and the lowering influence of traditional authority is very applicable in today’s society.  Ultimately it is up to individual families themselves to choose which one of these factors will be more influential on their kids.

Durkheim's Outlook on Suicide

                Within the past few centuries we are able to see the staggering amount of change that has taken place in a variety of different ethnicities, regions, and individual societies themselves.  Emile Durkheim was one of the first sociologists to take a look a suicide with the idea that it just wasn’t an individual’s choice, but rather their environment and social influence that helped individuals solidify their choice in taking their lives.  Even though Durkheim was the first to say that it was a social influenced decision, there is still no doubt that ultimately the choice has to be up to the individual.  With this Durkheim came up with four types of suicide that, I believe, have the ability to possible depict the feelings of that individual comparable to their standing in society.  There are two main sections of Integration, that involve egoistic and altruistic, and regulation, that involves anomic and fatalistic.

                I had a previous idea of people that committed suicide as depressed people, but I believe this is just a stereotype and with a closer look we can see that this isn't true.  Durkheim’s category of integration was one’s ability to be a part of society.  This can go further in saying one’s way to feel as if they are part of something.  If a person felt alone and far from integration this is egoistic where as if someone was feeling over involved is altruistic.  The second category is regulation, the amount of and or lack of rules that society has one an individual.   The lack of regulation is anomic and too much regulation is fatalistic.  As I said before that I always thought of someone who committed suicide to be depressed and alone.  With Durkheim’s four types of suicides we are able to classify this person as egoistic.  They have low integration and do not have the solid connection of involvement and belonging.

                I think Durkheim did ground breaking work with this and one of the ideas that I never thought about were suicides like suicide bombers or the willingness of soldiers to push forward when they know that death is very probable.  Here is a clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc2cPuwpqTg)from the move Full Metal Jacket which is a great example of Fatalistic.  Private Pyle’s over regulation lead to him becoming insane and taking the Sargent’s and his own life.

                Overall I found it interesting and logical how Durkheim broke suicide in the four categories of egoistic, altruistic, anomic and fatalistic.  To have the perfect society we need to find the balance between integration and regulation.