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