Sumblog #10: Symbols

     This week in class we talked about some symbols we encounter and what meaning they might have. We mentioned cross/crucifix, flag, wedding ring, and some others I've already forgotten. I decided to focus some of my meager mental resources on finding additional common symbols we see/use everyday. The symbol that was most obvious, took me the longest to discover - money!
     Our money is simply a symbol of the good credit and faith of the United States government (the people of the USA). It is nothing more than that. Up until the 1970's money was backed by the gold standard. That is, America used to keep enough gold to support our currency. Nixon took us off the gold standard.
     Additionally, the dollar is the default currency for world markets. A person is able to trade in any market in the world with dollars. Recently Russia and China, amongst others, have been making suggestions and offering proposals to use/create an alternative default currency.
     Last month America came within 48 hours of defaulting on our debt.  Had this occured, the value of our money would have been in the toilet. Faith in our nations ability to pay our debts would cease to exist, and, people would be back on the barter system in short order.
     There is little doubt that America would survive and continue on, but this default scenario from last month illustrates keenly that money is only a symbol.
     The following link is one experts opinion on what a national debt default would be like.
     http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57607477/top-exec-warns-of-armageddon-if-u.s-defaults-on-debt/
     there many other opinions like it (ie Treasury Secretary Jack Lew: debt default is "playing with fire").
     In essence, our entire market economy hinges on the good faith and credit of the American people and their duly elected representatives, because the money itself has no value - it is a only a symbol.
   
   

Sumblog#9 Erving Goffman

     While reading our assignment Presentation of Self, I couldn't help but think of all the things in our society that accentuate presentation.
     I thought about smart phones and how they're used as status symbols. I thought about Facebook and how it is used to formulate a persona (real or not). And I thought about all kinds of other stuff in general that people don't need, but acquire simply to indentify themselves. These are the "props" Goffman was referring to. They set the stage for our performance.
     The performance is us trying to appear to live up to all the many social norms we are faced with. It is the motion of our daily lives, the choices and actions we make. It is why we act one way in front of our friends and a different way in front our parents. As Goffman says: "Because these standards [social] are so numerous and so pervasive, ...individuals are concerned not with the moral issue of realizing these standards, but with the amoral issue of engineering a convincing impression that these standards are being realized". So, generally speaking, we know what the social standards are, and we will try to meet them - if we can pull off the performance. (Some days the audience is unfriendly).  
      The character aspect of Goffman's theory is what the performance creates. Whether the character is indeed a correct reflection of self is questionable. Regardless, our performance manufactures our character in the eyes of the generalized other. We may be able to internally see (backstage) whether our public persona is accurate or not, but stage front, the show must go on. If the public persona we are crafting meets with our approval, the show is a success. If the generalized other is assigning traits to us that we don't like, then we usually change the script and scenery (props). Very seldom do we change the wizard behind the curtain, our true character.

             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBOvOatPqnY
       I've included this song by Queen because #1. Freddy Mercury was a musical god, and #2. it perfectly exemplifies life as theater. Everybody loves a good show.  
         

Sumblog#8 George Herbert Mead

     I really enjoyed reading our assigned excerpt from The Self, the I, and the Me by George Herbert Mead. I felt pretty connected to the things he wrote. For example: "Thinking becomes preparatory to social action" and "...there are parts of the self that did not get into what was said". (Lemert; 164) I can readily relate with these thoughts because I've had them before. (Thanks George Mead for succintly expressing my internal thoughts).
     Our class discussion further drove home the concepts of generalized other, self , I, and me. An overarching part of our classroom time focused on social filters. Social filters are what interested me the most from our text/class discussion.
     There is a large sub-group that is unable, without intense education/training, to incorporate social filters into their lives. This group of people are those with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism (ASD).
     People with this condition are without question missing the me portion of any internal dialogue. The following clip does a nice job of informing the public about some of the quirkiness associated with ASD.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku1lajn5EU0
Literalism, social disinterest/awkwardness, inability to interpet unwritten norms, and sensory overload are just some of the physically visible signs of ASD. The biggest obstacle for people with ASD is social interaction.  They are perceived as "odd" because they tend to lack good social filters.
     I know George Herbert Mead wasn't writing his essay with ASD in mind, but it is what occupied my thoughts as we discussed the text. I wonder that perhaps we do lose a good portion of who we are due to social filtering. Presumably, we implement these filters so society can function better.
     Lastly I would throw a plug in for alcohol. As a society, we've accepted alcohol use as being part of American culture. The following humorous clip takes a look at some the personality stages young adult males go through whilst on a drinking binge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ebrwegDr0 
The booze has a way of knocking down many of our social filters. Is the real I (you) the sober person, or the person you are after 1,2,3,etc drinks. Are we hiding too much of ourselves behind social filters?  Or, are you thankful we have social filters in society?
   

          
   

Sumblog #7 W.E.B. Dubois

      In some small way I found W.E.B. Dubois's essay Double-Consciousness and the Veil too flowery and long winded. I appreciated the message he was trying to convey, it was the writing itself I found unappealing.
     The concept of a veil has been used before theatrically in plays such as Oedipus, and Romeo and Juliet, amongst others. The veil  imposes a certain double-conciousness on characters in the play. It usually manifest on stage in a soliloquy, where we the audience become privy to the inner thoughts and feelings of the story's protaganist. W.E.B. Dubois simply transposed the concept of veil and double-conciousness to race in America. It is an apt application.
     Dubois concedes that this concept of veil/double-counciousness is not exclusive to the realm of  race. He applies it to those in poverty, the uneducated, and the racially unpure - "bastard[s]". (Lemert;129) The crux of course was that African Americans were suffering from all the above in addition to having different colored skin. W.E.B. Dubois asserts that "...to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships". (Lemert;129)
     Viewed from 1903 this essay undoubtedly rattled many cages. As it should have. Yet, viewed from today's perspective -my personal perspective- it feels...almost racist in an isolationist sort of way, a Louis Farrakhan way.  Dubois sets forth Race as a unifying ideal as opposed to humanity ; "...the ideal of human brotherhood, gained through the unifying ideal of Race". (Lemert;130) And he maintains that each Race possess certain traits which when combined, would conform "...to the greater ideals of the American Republic, in order that some day on American soil two world-races may give each to each those characteristics both so sadly lack". (Lemert;130)  Anytime somebody starts going on about ideal Races, or that certain racial characteristics are the sole property of one Race, I get a little leary. It distracts me from their better message.
      In fairness, Dubois's larger message was that unless given the opportunity, the Black Race will not be able to share their valuable gifts with America. And each person has valuable gifts to offer, but - in my opinion- simply as members of the human race. Race is a construct of no use to humanity.

An odd example of staking a racial claim is the word nigger. Everyone has an opinion about this particular word. The following link looks at the debate. http://articles.courant.com/2013-08-14/news/hc-op-frank-harris-the-n-word-is-still-unacceptabl-20130814_1_word-blacks-rachel-jeantel
I include it in this sumblog because it's what came to my mind (the debate, not the word) when thinking about Dubois's ideas on the veil/double-conciousness.  If a veil exists, resulting in a double-conciousness, then the Truth can not be shared between people until the veil is removed. Since language is our primary means of social communication, we must be clear what words mean. What do you think? Are some words the exclusive property of a particular race? Are some words so offensive they should be banned? - Peace human.  

Sumblog#6 Charlotte Perkins Gilman

     What struck me the most in our latest study of sociological theory, was the disparity between Charlotte Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper and her work Women and Economics. The chasm between them so clearly delineates into a left brain vs right brain topical approach, that it had me wondering why professor Barry assigned The Yellow Wallpaper.
      I thought "science" -sociological theory- was all facts, figures, numbers, surveys and test tubes. Where Women and Economics appealed to my logical Nature, The Yellow Wallpaper appealed to my humanity/emotion. I enjoyed reading The Yellow Wallpaper, but felt like a studious little bookworm reading Women and Economics. Oddly enough, the information contained in Women and Economics and The Yellow Wallpaper are very clearly the same message!
      In a nutshell, Charlotte Perkins Gilman contended/revealed  that women lacked a voice in modern society, marriages were either partnerships and/or business arrangements, and that sociolgical education can be had in either pure-science or fictional stories. Fictional stories based in factual circumstance and detail are valuable educational tools. Anyone reading the story could confirm the social accuracy, and in doing so, become aware of the social inequalities.
     For me personally, I prefer the stories. They are far more revealing and carry messages much further. Ironically,  I can easily see " Dr. John" from The Yellow Wallpaper finding value in Charlotte's clinical paper Women and Economics, but dismissing outright his role in her fictional work.
     Charlotte Perkins Gilman's fundamental assertions about gender roles may seem quaint or parochial from our vantage point, but they were revolutionary in her day.
     I've included this short video clip from My Big Fat Greek Wedding  because it is a fine example of how many women view their social position in a marriage of partnership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm1dYTv-mQ
     This bit of folksy wisdom seamlessly meshes old world tradition with modern marriage.
     This second video clip embraces the cold hard realities of treating marriage like a business arrangement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzdImxeN7E
     Both clips represent segments of the American general public.
     Which one appeals to you?

Sumblog#5: Harriet Martineau

     Our study of Harriet Martineau this week was remarkable not solely because of what she accomplished, but when she accomplished it.
     I'm no historical expert, but it seems to me that women of early Victorian England had about as many rights as a small goat. At least, that's the image in my head from watching all those quirky British soap operas. That Ms. Martineau outsold Charles Dickins, successfully published 25+ stories, and was an outspoken abolitionist boggles the mind. And she did a whole lot more than what I just mentioned! Add to this that she was deaf and I wonder that anyone can feel anything but admiration.
     Naturally, it is Ms. Martineau's overarching emphasis on "happiness" that both defines her work and its subsequent citicisms.
     To look at populations under study using the scientific approach, how does one define happiness? Is that even possible?  In some ways it appears she is blending sociology, psychiatry, and even some social work at a cultural level. I wonder how her research was handicapped because she was a woman. It seems very likely she met opposition at many levels. That she was deaf would only render her more of an establishment outsider. Was the direction of her study entirely her choice, or was she pushed in a certain direction by male publishers? Perhaps it was these very handicaps she faced that made her work much more empirically grounded (better) than her contemporaries (handout;298).
     In some ways I view Harriet Martineau as an ultimate outsider of her time. A person with all the necessary skills to play in the big leagues, which she did, but sidelined in many unseen ways by the system of her day.
     Lastly, I would say that Harriet Martineau's theory on manners supporting morals is logically sound, but like "happiness", it may be too grey of an area to find any useful information. I suppose that is why she included the possibility of "anomolies". Not anomoly as abberation or one-off, but anomaly as it relates to a sort of cultural cognitive dissonance.
http://calvinhobbesdaily.tumblr.com/image/63269902494 
 I've included this Calvin and Hobbes strip because it's funny and it succintly reveals the criticism of Martineau's work. We each measure happiness in a very personal way. Calvin finds happiness in tormenting Suzie at every opportunity. I suspect that as Calvin ages, the things that bring him happiness will change accordingly. Societies probably aren't much different.

     

Sumblog #4 Max Weber

     The class discussion of Max Weber this week was very interesting to me because it defines modern America so well. More amazing than that, Weber wrote all these things roughly 100 years ago.
     What stood out for me the most was the idea that bureaucracy is the natural progression of a rational society. "...the characteristic principle of bureaucracy: the abstract regularity of the execution of authority, which is a result of the demand for ["equality before the law"] in the personal and functional sense - hence, of the horror of ["privilege"] ..." (Lemert; 84).
     America is arguably a land of meritocracy governed by laws. There exists many social strata within her borders. More often than not, class is determined by wealth and fame. This wealth in turn creates a certain social privilege. Part of that privlege is that the laws and rules aren't applied evenly. The following link is one example of social privilege in America:
http://vtdigger.org/2013/10/02/newport-mayor-sentenced-community-service-fine-second-dui/

     In this case a public official receives community service and a small fine for his second DUI. I'm trying to imagine someone of lower class receiving similar mercy. He didn't even lose his license.

     So on the one hand we set up social structures, rules, and laws (bureaucracy) so that everyone gets a fair shake in our land - everyone gets treated equally before the law. But on the other hand, huge amounts anecdotal evidence exists that people of social privilege are treated differently. Lindsey Lohan, OJ Simpson, Marion Barry, Robert Downey Jr, Rush Limbaugh, are just a few high profile celebrities/politicians that reaped the benefits of social privlege. I'm sure you can think of many others.
      I can easily believe that bureaucracy is the natural offspring of a rational society. While America is bureaucratic on so many different levels, and claims to be a land of equal liberty and justice, I'd submit we are living in only a partially rational society.   
   

Sumblog#3 Our week with Emile Durkheim

      Emile Durkheim's writing was lost on me. Without Professor Barry's translation (lecture), the ideas of integration, regulation, animoe, collective representation et.al would've flew over my head like a champagne cork seeking freedom. I knew Mr Durkheim was trying to relay something valuable and important, but I couldn't decipher what it was. Based on the struggles of group and classroom discussion, I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone. After lecture however, re-reading the material became nothing short of damn good education (feel free to quote me on that).
     That being said, I've selected  a nugget from Emile Durkheim's idea of collective representation for this blog.

     Durkheim alludes to Plato's cave allegory in support of the idea that "...we all use the same words without giving them the same meaning." (Lemert; p75). This is so true at every age/stage of life. It is the reason birds of a feather flock together, it's why teenagers hate their parents, and it's why the very young and very old tend to get along so well. Like minded individuals seek like minded individuals. When we talk about love, sacrifice, desire, wisdom, or any other collectively considered  attribute/idea can we ever reach final consensus? According to Durkheim, only when we reach the sacred. Absolute Truth is unchanging and impersonal (Lemer; p75).
     When the meaning of a word changes between enough individuals, then the collective meaning of a word eventually changes. Considering that words are nothing more than "condensed knowledge" (class discussion), knowledge itself then becomes mutable - in a social context.  Whether or not knowledge actually changes, or simply our collective level of knowledge changes remains up for debate.

     Autistic individuals think in pictures more so than the rest of society. Autism is only beginning to be understood in the last 20-30 years. Historically, people with autism were considered retarded/dumb and relegated to institutions - this was TRAGIC and untrue!
      http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html 
     Temple Grandin is perhaps America's most famous person with autism. She wrote a book called Thinking in Pictures that conveys how many people with autism see words.
     People with autism are very frequently word literalists. Sarcasm, euphemisms and allegory do not work well with autistic individuals. A helpful cultural reference may be Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory. He is a popular tv character that displays many traits associated with Asperger's Syndrome (a type of autism).  
     Autism is a very concrete example of how "...we all use the same words without giving them the same meaning." (Lemert; p75). While autism is an easy example to see this concept, it applies at every level of life, for every moment of life, for every person alive. Durkheim went a step further and applied this at a social level. I think he nailed it.
     
         

Sumblog#2 Karl Marx

   
        In our class discussion we defined ideology as being a "belief system" that comes from "people". We further determined that it is the bourgeoisie of a given culture which determine the predominant ideology of a given age. Karl Marx pursued this point with his ideas on "Estranged Labour" (Social Theory, 29-33). 

     The whole concept of "estranged labour" (aka alienantion of labour) is what I found most interesting in reading Karl Marx. 

     Two parts of  Marx's definition of estranged labour are: "...that labour is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being;..." and " His labour is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it." (Social Theory, 31). 

     I tend to agree. 

     Generally speaking, we take jobs to satisfy other needs - ie: pay the rent, buy food, support loved ones, get money to acquire desirable things, etc. On occasion, our selected jobs may fulfill a portion of our personal needs, but I've yet to meet anyone that (honestly) declared they love everything about their job. So at some level Marx was correct in stating that "...labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification." (Social Theory, 31).

     It could be well argued that this is a good thing. Self-sacrifice is not inherently evil.  

     However, to my mind, too many people deny their essential selves in pursuit of money. They abandon too much of their humanity in pursuit of the material (Materialism). I see this in the Black Friday stampedes every year after Thanksgiving. I see it in co-workers "choosing" to work 60+ hour work weeks even though they have all they need. And I see it in the "for profit" medical industry - amongst others. 

     This ties in with my initial paragraph thusly:  if the bourgeoisie control the ideology - and the ideology is materialism = success,  then we are indeed being enslaved (at least partially) as Marx suggest.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhyL7yAs5R0

      

      I've included this song because it lryically conveys my personal feelings about the logical extension of  Marx's ideas in the physical world.  

#1. Wealth should not necessarily defined in terms of money.

#2. United labourers will have a greater voice.

#3. Live a life of purpose.

      One big happy lovefest right? 

Sumblog#1: The Sociological Imagination

     Greetings reader! This blog post briefly covers my thoughts regarding C.Wright Mills philosophy on the "sociological imagination".

       I don't recall covering much of this topic in class, but I found the concept intriguing. In brief, and condensed down to two sentences, the sociological imagination is  "...the capacity to shift from one perspective to another - from the political to the psychological; from examination of a single family to comparative assessment of the national budgets of the world; from the theological school to the military establishment; from considerations of an oil industry to studies of contemporary poetry. It is the capacity to range from the most impersonal and remote transformations to the most intimate features of the human self - and to see the relations between the two" (Lemer Charles; 267).

       Zoinks and wow! That's a pretty all-encompassing look at things.  ...I like it.

       I had to wonder who has the ability to do all that. A deeper read clarified that  Mr. Mills wasn't infering one person possesses all this insight (...or was he?).  Rather, if a "sociological imagination" can become more commonplace, then "... - human reason itself - will come to play a greater role in human affairs" (Lemer Charles; 268-269).

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

       The above clip from the final episode of Northern Exposure reveals characters and contains no dialogue. One can observe the people and make assumptions, observations and guesses. What you can not possibly know, (unless you viewed the previous 100 episodes), is what brought them together, who they are, and most importantly - the relevance of this moment. Because I was invested heavily in this program, my insights will probably be more accurate and useful. And whether we are talking about a tv show or the real world, honest personal investment usually provides a better understanding of things. 

       In your personal life there are situations, programs, and events where you  have vastly superior knowledge than anyone else. You are able see how the smallest thing can affect large events - or how large events can affect personal ones. 

       This the sociological imagination in a nut-shell. 

       Perhaps if we were to all use our sociological imagination in conjunction for the common good,  there would be more ...common good. I believe this is the rational behind C. Wright Mills "Sociological Imagination" theory, otherwise, of what use is it to anyone?