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?
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, October 21, 2013
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?
Sunday, October 13, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)