Radical (SumBlog12)

Typically, there have been three defined stages for societies to go through. First, there is pre-modernity. Pre-modernity is an agrarian society, one that is close knit and dependent on one another. Second is modernity, where tasks are specialized. Finally,post-moderninty is a society completely dependent on technology and not on other people. Anthony Giddens was the first sociologist to look at our society and decide we were neither in modernity, or post-modernity, as was the belief at the time. Instead, he made his own category: radical modernity. Giddens studied society and saw characteristics that were symbolic of both modernity and post-modernity. He defined radical modernity as a middle ground between the two. He felt that modern society could not cleanly be placed in either category, so he made his own. Giddens thought that our society today displays both displacement, or isolation, but also people have the ability to form close relationships. Along with that, there is intimacy and closeness, but also impersonality, or distance between people. Some people have expertise in certain skills, but there is re-appropriation, or division of labor, as well. Finally, there is a sense of privatism and individuality. This is balanced by communal engagement. These concepts are the difference between modernity and post-modernity. Giddens saw glimpses of both and categorized it as radical modernity. Since there was no way for Giddens to clearly see society as modern or post-modern, he placed it in the middle. He criticized modernity as too simple and post-modernity as being too far advanced as to where we currently are as a society.

Photo by Elena Markova

This picture by Elena Markova reminded me of the transition between modernity and post-modernity. The connections between people are slipping away and being lost. The hands are neither completely together or completely apart, which is symbolic of our society being neither completely in modernity or post-modernity. It is still in transition, much like the hands in the picture.

Going Native (SumBlog11)

The only way to truly understand a culture is to get immersed in it. It is easy to make outside judgements on a group based off of what we simply observe, but that's not necessarily fair. To truly understand what is happening in a group, we need to get on the inside and get involved. Dorothy Smith stood behind this idea completely. Through her standpoint theory, she argued that it is impossible for a person to be completely objective and think that they are not connected in any way to the people they're studying. We will always have an innate human bond with people, and it's important that we recognize that and take advantage of that. We are able to discover society from within, and rediscover it from within time and again. This type of sociology is in-depth and intensive. However, it is possible that someone gets too involved in their research, to the point where they become part of the group. This is called "going native". 

For six years, Patti Adler immersed herself into a community of Southern California wholesale illicit drug dealers. She got into the community and got to know several of the dealers on a personal level. Through her work, she was able to get a better understanding of the drug world and how it worked. She then wrote the book "Wheeling and Dealing" about her experiences and the people that she met. It can be a hard kind of research to do, because falling into "going native"  is easier than one would think. But Patti Adler was able to do this research and report on it, and not get lost in the community.It's a fascinating look into a world unknown to most of us. Without getting immersed into that community, her research wouldn't have been as in depth or complete.

Symbols (SumBlog10)

The New Pointer Mascot

Signs and symbols surround us. Each person identifies with certain groups in society. People outside of that group might not necessarily understand the meaning behind it, but for the people in the group, the symbol can be unifying and bring pride to the community. For example, the UW-Stevens Point Campus shares pride in the Pointer Dog mascot. Seeing the Pointer all over campus unites the buildings and the students, as we all identify with what it means to the campus. Though he has gone through an image change within the past few years, Stevie Pointer still represents the community of the student body at UWSP. 

The Old Stevie Pointer Mascot

A student who has graduated from Stevens Point, even many years ago, will still identify the image of Stevie Pointer with his or her time in college. It is a unifying concept, combining the college education experience and outside social activities. There have been Facebook pages created from various schools, of memes (a picture with a funny caption). Though these are funny and relatable to students who go to UWSP, students from other schools may not find them as comical because they don't understand the community or campus. The same is true with mascots. Students from other schools don't have the same strong feelings (either positive or negative) upon seeing the Pointer as UWSP students do. The same is true of the opposite. These symbols are unifying for each specific group and bring about certain emotions.

It's interesting to consider how a symbol unites a group, because some, like the image of a Pointer are not necessarily tangible. It's the idea of a group, time, or place that is uniting, and a single picture can bring back so much meaning for a person. The UWSP culture is shared among thousands of people, and seeing that picture in itself is unifying.

All the World's a Stage (SumBlog9)

William Shakespeare penned the famous phrase "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players..." Sociologist Erving Goffman would agree with to an extent, but he would expand it. We're always performing. Each new situation brings on a new performance. Goffman believed that everyone has numerous statuses that they fulfill, or different positions in society. Each status has an accompanying role, or expected set of behavior. These statuses and roles are socially constructed, meaning that people are creating them and imposing them on one another. We all have a self-label, or an identity that we wish to present to others around us. We desire others to see the way that we present ourselves as positive, and not the negatives. However, sometimes what we present and what is reality are not the same. Statuses and roles do not necessarily always match up. Since we all have so many, sometimes they conflict and we're not sure how to act.

 If a status and a role do not match up, we often feel conflicted about it. It feels uncomfortable, awkward, or strange. We expect certain things from people, and when they step outside of that, something feels amiss. Often, when we see someone in a context that we don't expect them to be, you might not even recognize them. I remember when I was a kid, I thought that my teachers lived at school. I could only visualize them as a teacher, and not in any other role. It was a bizarre experience to see a teacher in another role besides teacher. 

This video clip from Mean Girls displays this. The three kids in the video aren't sure how to react when they see their teacher outside of school. The role that they see her in as teacher is breached and they're not sure how to react. They are visibly uncomfortable and aren't sure what to say to her. It is easy to see Goffman's work in everyday life, even to something as simple as Mean Girls. 

Strangers (SumBlog8)

Humans love to categorize, organize, and make sense of chaos. This plays out into our interactions with other people. Georg Simmel constructed the idea of "the stranger". This concept is fascinating, and is based off of two different variables: the distance and origin of the person. This stranger is close to a group in proximity, as a part of the group. However, they are not close in a relational sense with the rest of the group. Secondly, the origin describes where the person is from. The stranger is not originally a part of the group they are currently a part of. Since the stranger can be considered an outsider, they are able to be objective and free, not biased or tied-down.
In his work, Simmel is assuming that the stranger is accepted into the new group. Though they are different and not close to everyone in the group, they are accepted as a unique facet in an already established group. This isn't necessarily always the case. What happens when the stranger is not accepted? A case I thought of during this discussion were Chinese immigrants to America.  Immigrants from China were forced and exploited into doing hard labor. They were close in proximity to other American workers, but not relationally. Their origin was obviously different, as they had just entered the United States. However, unlike Simmel's theory of the stranger, these Chinese immigrants were not accepted into the group. In the 1800s, several Chinese Exclusion Acts were passed, ceasing Chinese immigration into the States and placing limitations on Chinese immigrants who were already working in the country. These immigrants were prejudiced against and were worked to the bone. Though they could possibly be objective to others in the US, they certainly were not free.

Several Chinese Immigrant students.

Simmel had a fascinating idea when he theorized the stranger. However, I feel like he did not look at all sides of the situation when he assumed that all strangers would be accepted into the group, despite their differences. 

Self and Identity (SumBlog7)

Dan Mountford

There comes a time in everyone's life when they need to decide who they are, and who they want to become. W.E.B. DuBois's concepts of double consciousness and the veil were fascinating to me. Looking at someone, you can't always tell what cultures influence them, or what thoughts they're experiencing. I think this picture by Dan Mountford exemplifies that. You can look at the girl in the picture, and see her silhouette, but if you take a closer look, you can see that she isn't exactly what she seems to be. We can't tell what people are experiencing unless we take a closer look, or decide to get close enough to look through their eyes.  


People are a product of their culture. The experiences that everyone has are heavily influenced by the culture in which they were raised. It becomes necessary for us to remove ourselves from the situation, and try to conceptualize what the other person is feeling. W.E.B. DuBois felt this double consciousness when he was just a boy, playing with his classmates. He was raised in the same culture as them, yet he felt different. He was torn between between being African American and American. He felt these two identities deep within, because he grew up with both cultures. Couldn't the two coexist? The judgement we feel from others because of our differences can sometimes be explained by the culture in which a person was raised. Sometimes, people really just don't know any better. Ethnocentrism can creep in and cause prejudice and hate. 

Like the picture by Dan Mountford, each of us has many different levels and layers. Everyone has multiple different cultures that they've grown up in based off of family, race, school, or even friendships. It is unfair to judge someone off of first impressions or assumptions, because we really never know what is lying in the layers underneath the surface unless we dig in and get to know them.

Inequalities (SumBlog6)

My child,
We were walking, as we like to do sometimes. You were taking in the world, eyes wide and full of wonder. As we walked, we passed a busy street, filled with kids playing. As we drew nearer, we saw a group of kids making fun of another boy. They were yelling mean things, racial slurs, making fun of him because of the color of his skin. They pushed him down, and he fell to the earth, crying. You knew this was not right. You let go of my hand and ran to the boy. You picked up his glasses from the dust and wiped the boy's tear stained cheeks. My heart swelled with pride as you squeezed his hand reassuringly and told the boy that you would be his friend, no matter what. The smile on his face was too beautiful for words, radiating hope and joy. I saw a glimpse of your heart that day, and your love for others. And when we walked away that afternoon, I could tell you were thinking, your little brow furrowed in concentration. You looked up at me with those eyes and asked why some people are so mean to others.

How can one answer a question like that? Racial prejudice runs deep but I also believe it is taught. Your young mind hasn't experienced the hatred that can cripple someone's soul. Your innocent heart can't imagine hating someone simply for the color of their skin. Your small hands can't help but rush to those who need help. That is you. Untouched by hate and the inequality that causes us to ask: why? Why do people hate simply because of skin, or gender, or differences? 

My wish for you, my child, is that your kindness remains the same. I know that the world can be a cold place and you will encounter people that may hate you.  I pray that hate never becomes a value in your heart. Through the years, people may leave cruel marks on your beautiful heart with their remarks, looks, and laughs. But I hope you remember that you have value. Not because of who you are, or who you will become, simply because you are. You exist. You are you. You have a heart and a soul and a spirit. This is important for you to remember. But, it is equally important to remember this of others as well.You, that little boy, every single person in the world, all have value because you are human beings with thoughts, feelings, and dreams. I can't fully explain to you why people hate others based simply off what the eye can see, or labels they've created. But I can tell you that hearts like yours will change the world.
Love,
Mom

Religion and Capitalism (SumBlog5)

Santiago de Compostela Cathedral in Spain

Max Weber conducted a fascinating study on the relationship between capitalism and religion. He thought that religion lead to capitalism. This especially depended on the type of asceticism with which people were living. Innerworldly asceticism placed focus on living to succeed in one's lifetime. This would be measured by the amount of money one made and it was determined where one would spend the afterlife based off success. The second type of asceticism is outerwordly, where focus is placed on the afterlife, not on materialistic success. Weber saw the changes between innerworldly and outerworldly asceticism. He saw Protestants as more focused on innerworldly asceticism, as they tend to be more individualistic. Protestants believe in predestination, so they figured the way they could figure out if they were chosen or not to go to heaven would be if they were successful in a monetary sense on earth. Comparing Protestants and Catholics, Catholics tend to be more outerworldly. Therefore, a decrease in capitalism is found in predominantly Catholic countries, because they are more community focused and less individualistic. 

Though Weber theorized this difference years ago, it is still applicable today. We looked at a lot of different countries in class that perfectly supported his views. However, my group was focusing on Spain, and it was a split. Spain is a majority Catholic. Cathedrals are everywhere and most people will tell you they're Catholic. Half of the results supported Weber's theory, but the other half did not. Spain is still pretty individualistic. Why is this? The topic of religion as part of culture was brought up. Most of the people in Spain identify with the Catholic religion, but how many of them truly follow it? Being Catholic is just part of being a Spaniard. I think it's that way with religions in pretty much any country. Everyone identifies with a religion or belief system, but a lot of the time, you can't tell what someone believes because they don't act on it. I think it's important for people to ask themselves if their focus is innerworldly or outerworldly and base their actions accordingly. 

Ideals (SumBlog4)

Ideals. How often do we take a situation, daydream about it, make a perfect outcome in our heads and wait for that outcome that will never happen? I know I’m guilty of that. It's easy to get caught up in thinking how something should go or how it should have ended. Unfortunately, situations rarely ever turn out the way we imagine them, whether the result is better than what we expected, or worse. Most ideas in our society turn out that way or are born because of these ideals, as Max Weber claims. We idealize a concept and try to apply it, but it never quite works out the way we plan. A common example of this would be democracy. Democracy isn’t a tangible concept, but off it many countries have based their whole government. However, everything in reality doesn’t work out as smoothly as the idea of democracy does on paper. No perfect version of democracy can be found in real life, but it’s a model to which we can strive and try to implement. Each that has a democracy implements it in a different way. Democracy in America does not look the same as democracies in other parts of the world, but they are based off the same fundamental ideals. Ideals are just a concept. No two things can be exactly the same, and ideals just prove that.

We often have high expectations for ideals, what something is, and what something should be.  Is this harmful? Maybe. It is good to set goals and to strive for them, however, it can be hard to face reality if these goals are not met.

   

Most of the time, I tend to idealize situations with a more favorable outcome than should be expected. This can lead to disappointment. Most of the time, when something doesn’t live up to what we’re expecting, disappointment follows. While this isn't exactly the same as what Weber wrote about, it still applies in a sense. The subject of ideals and high expectations brought one particular picture to mind:

And if we did, we might just all be a little happier.

Durkheim and Suicide (SumBlog3)

Emilie Durkheim took steps to study something sociologically that no one ever had before: suicide. What most people saw as a sad decision that others chose to make, he saw as a social issue that needed to be uncovered. 

Through his studies, Durkheim was able to pinpoint what he thought we reasons behind suicides: the levels of integration and regulation. Integration is how connected someone feels to society. Low integration is egoistic; a person doesn't feel connected and they don't know where they belong. This leads to loneliness, a lack of drive, and in some cases, suicide. On the opposite end,   integration becomes altruistic when one feels so integrated. Some examples of this would be suicide bombers, and even member of the army, who go forward in battle even though they know death is imminent. Regulation refers to the rules in a society. In an anomic society, there are little rules, thus bringing about a high feeling of insecurity. Fatalistic societies are completely the opposite. They have too much regulation. Some examples of this would be the military, dictatorships, prisons, and slavery. If a society veers too far to either extreme in integration or regulation, people are more likely to commit suicide than in a society that is nearer to the middle. This chart shows the different lines a society can fall upon.

The one of the saddest parts of a suicide is the outpouring of love and support from others in the community. There was a girl from a high school in my hometown who committed suicide several years ago. I've seen endless posts on Facebook about how many people loved her, wished they would have known her better, and had wanted to be her friend. While I don't doubt that some of these are genuine, I can't help but feel others are just trying to appease their guilt for ignoring this girl or even making fun of her. Why is all this love for others only expressed after they die? If this girl had known the love of all these people, if she had felt integrated into the high school scene, if she had felt the support of a close-knit community, maybe she wouldn't have chosen to end her life before it really began. If our families, schools, communities, and nation had a balance between egoistic and altruistic integration, as well as a balance between anomic and fatalistic regulation, the number of tragic deaths by suicide would decrease.

Obviously creating a society in which there is a perfect balance is impossible, but striving for it is something to consider. Suicide is a serious sociological issue. Thanks to Durkheim, we can be aware of reasons why suicide happens, and what we can do to prevent it.

Brothers (SumBlog2)

"Don't turn away, don't tell me that we're not the same
We face the fire together, brothers 'til the end
Don't run away, our time will come but not today

I stand beside you, brother, with you 'til the end" 

Lord Huron, "Brother"

What unites us as humans? With what do we identify? Karl Marx believed in the unification of the working class. He thought that human potential was being restricted by capitalism. The alienation that comes with capitalism shows itself through several facets:

1.  The Alienation from "productive activity"-there is no room for creativity in capitalism.
2. Alienation from the product-you don't see the final product, just a small part.
3. Alienation from fellow workers-no work relationships formed due to the competition. 
4. Alienation from "human potential"-potential is stuffed by capitalism.

Marx thought we experience the world through ideologies, but they hurt our human potential as well. Man makes up these ideologies to keep an order, and to keep things the way that they are, creating class inequality. The bourgeoisie were the elite upper class, and everyone else was working class.  Marx was critical of these class inequalities, and thought that our human potential would be unhindered with its removal. Along those lines, Marx thought capitalism needed to be eliminated as well.

The song "Brother", by Lord Huron reminds me of the unification of the classes that was desired by Marx. The competition that comes with capitalism was not considered unifying. The freedom and equality that make up the capitalistic market are also what bind people into the classes. He wanted equality for everyone, and an elimination of the hierarchy. The only differences in between the two classes is wealth. People are all people; they experience the same emotions, have the same fears, hopes, and dreams. The line in the song, "don't turn away, don't tell me that we're not the same" I think Marx would identify with. There is a humanity that unites us all, that cannot be overlooked.

Hierarchies (SumBlog1)

Our world would be significantly changed if hundreds of workers disappeared overnight. Henri de Saint-Simon proposed such a scenario; one where important workers of France were no longer there. He predicted that the country would take decades to recover from such a loss. Seems like a correct prediction to anyone who would take the time to consider it.

Then, Saint-Simon followed this idea with something I hadn't even considered. If the same number of nobility disappeared, the people of France would mourn, yes. However, they would mourn from social obligation, not from a true loss for society. Those considered the most important in the hierarchy would not have a huge impact on the political infrastructure of the society. What does this say about our society and our priorities?

Though written in 1819, it still rings true of our society today. As a culture, we place so much value on celebrities: musicians, athletes, the rich and famous. Some have little or no concrete contribution to society besides entertainment. Yet, when they pass away, the country goes into shock and mourning. The world continues to spin on the same as it always did, though for some, the obsession remains. While there is nothing wrong with being famous and wealthy, I think that the level of adoration they receive is too much. There are many people who have died as unsung heroes, who deserve the fame and respect some people have simply because they were born wealthy. The people that truly shape our society at the foundational level, such as teachers, policemen, engineers, doctors, and construction workers go through life without much recognition. 
 



This brings me to Irena Sendler, a woman most people have never heard of. She was a Polish civilian social worker during World War II, who ended up saving 3000 Jews from the Nazis. She did not want credit for her accomplishments, but simply said, "Every child saved with my help is the justification of my existence on this Earth, and not a title to glory." Read more about her awesome story here. People like Irena deserve recognition and appreciation. Countless lives were saved and altered because of her devotion to her calling. 

Saint-Simon advocated for a restructuring of the social hierarchy, with the new thinkers on the top. Everyone else would fall into line by talent and help to mankind. He was critical of hierarchies and monarchies, due to the way they were set up. Similar to our society today, the wealthy were on the top, with everyone else falling underneath them. Though it may not be plausible due to how our culture is oriented, I do think we should focus on educating ourselves about people who have altered the world through selfless and unrecognized tasks. They should be considered at the top of the hierarchy, having influence on the world, with each passion and act of courage.