Just Kidding.....Here's the one I missed (Plus, I'll raise you a PDF)

The article I was required to read this week was a quaint little article on language and how it affects the way that we think about and perceive our environments. One of the main things that I found very interesting was coincidentally one of the main focuses of the article. The article dismantled the idea of the Whorfian Hypothesis or the idea that we are unable to comprehend ideas not encompassed by our linguistic understandings. This is just false, but what the article didn’t dismantle that our language affects our sub-conscious perceptions of our ideas. This is especially true for languages that are gender specific. The article brought up one example that was really attention-grabbing. It spoke of how certain languages like English have the ability to hide a persons gender in conversation, while someone speaking a gender specific language like French for example is inclined or obligated to make the gender of that person known by either saying viosin (female) or viosine (male).

The other thing that I found almost unbelievable was the section on cardinal directions. Some languages and cultures don’t think of directionality in terms of their spatial location, but cardinally instead. It takes me a second or so to gather my cardinal directions even when I have access to the sun, and to think that some languages have such a sub-conscious influence from birth that would allow them to maintain their cardinal orientations in a room with no sun after having been disorientated and spun around is almost incomprehensible. I almost wish that I had been born into one of those cultures, think of what good navigators they would make.

Here's a PDF! ;)

During the week I didn’t blog about we watched part of a documentary entitled "Do You Speak American". They only interesting idea I pulled from the narrators dull rhetoric, was the opposition between the prescriptivism and descriptivism. The way in which I understand it is that the prescriptivism believes that we should have a strong language foundation, a base that is universally understood by all Anglo/American speakers. Descriptivism advocates the idea that as the national culture and values change the language should with it.

I take an eclectic stand. As the nation, culture, and the world grow, expand, and evolve we will find it increasingly difficult to accommodate new ideas into preexisting words and phrases, therefore new terms are inevitable. What I don't agree with is the formation of novel terms to represent preexisting ideas and denotations: slang. Different dialects breeds disharmony, superior-ism, and discrimination. Have you ever heard someone make fun of a southern drawl, or a New York accent? I know that I have. I have seen and heard Chinese persons exhibit a disconnected sense of shared culture because one spoke Mandarin, while the other spoke Cantonese. The slang that originates from hip-hop and rap music has come to embody something almost criminal by the preceding generation (the employing generation) while it is a integral part of most of my generations daily lives (the future work force).

The Last One?

This week in class we covered the new and exciting topic of race. The main idea stressed in throughout the material is that race is not a biological phenomenon, it’s a sociological one. The definition of a biological race is that of a subspecies of human being that has certain specific biological characteristics or traits that separate it from others among itself. The sociological definition of race is primarily based on geographically determined traits that are typically recent, superficial variations.

We also did an apparently famous activity known as the IAT test. This test had you classify words into the categories good or bad, and classify faces into the categories black or white. The test eventually had one sort the two subsets together, having you organize both faces and the words simultaneously. Your amount of correct answers and response times were recorded and checked for differences to assess your color preferences (aka how racist you are). When I took this test it informed me that I had little to no skin tone preference. I was kind of surprised, because I know I’m racist and have skin color preferences, so as far as my results go, this test was not very accurate. It probably had to do with the fact that I spend too much of my time on video games, and my thumb to brain to eye sorting abilities are on the list to be made a world wonder, or that I knew what the test was measuring before I even started the assessment. I think it’s accurate for most people, but I definitely did not deserve the “unprejudiced” label.

We also read myths about the ‘differences’ between black and white athletes. I believed and still believe that blacks tend to make better athletes, but not for any biological reason. It’s a known fact that poverty tends to dominate two things: sports and the military. The reason being that blacks resided in greater and more accumulated poverty than whites do, and interestingly enough, someone who has the money to go to college and pursue an MD doesn’t rely as intensely on sports or extracurricular activities to help them get there. Who knew, right? After reading the myths and truths though I generally found my beliefs to be supported, and I was surprised that there was some data, however inconclusive, that showed minor differences between white and black athletes. The part about finding more developed fast twitch muscle fibers in black professional sprinters than in white professional sprinters was pretty incredible.

In my first addition to this blog I labeled myself a sociologist from the cradle to the grave. I have always had somewhat of a “sociological imagination”, known to some as the combination or critical thought and common sense, and have used it to look into a lot of issues, whether sociological or not, and have ultimately formed opinions and ideas that I’ve copied from intelligent people all over the world. Opinions and ideas that set me apart from the rest of my peers, and left me thinking to myself alone instead of establishing social relationships. There are no topics that I specifically enjoyed and none that I would have like to spend less time on. I had a basic understanding of just about everything we did in class this year from previous independent thought that I assumed everyone shared and experienced. The one thing I learned from participating in this class that stood out above all else is that there are still individuals not capable of abstract or critical thought at my age or even older, and through this I learned that I am a condescending asshole.

Stained Class

           
This week in sociology we watched a video that covered a plethora of social class related topics. I’m not going to cover the entire video. Instead I’ll touch on the parts I found to be most interesting, and the general idea.           

            The part of the video that I found to be most enjoyable was the part about WASP lessons. The WASP character that they kept interviewing was the easily one of the most ironic, funny, and dissonant characters that the video featured. The part in which he made the claims about the WASP community was what I can only describe as obnoxiously truthful. I didn’t know if it was meant to be a satire of WASPs or if he believed what was coming out of his mouth. The part that I found funny was that it didn’t matter. After watching the WASPs I genuinely believed that they were a purer, more proper people. Their class is depicted in film and other media as a sort of old fashioned, very prim and proper, anti-typical American way of life. The part that I found very enlightening is the fact that the lifestyle is alive and well in the American community. Old money apparently refused to die.

            The more general idea that ties into this section and all of the other is the idea that a class is more than the money you make, it’s who you are. It is something that you are programmed to accept and do from the day you are born to the day you die. It’s your behavior as well as your financial status. Support for this even lies in the way we classify the rich. There is the working class wealth (doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc.), there are the celebrities, athletes, politicians, wasps (old money), and none of these groups belong to a singular “Wealthy” class.

            The article that we read this week talked about food and the different ways that we eat as Americans. The rich eat well, the middle class eat, and the poor eat junk. It talked about how the ability to eat healthy may actually increases with financial status. It’s kind of an odd statistic considering that most of our stereotypes of obese children look something like a fat, spoiled white child stuffing his face with Swedish chocolates, while the real stereotype is the fat minority kid stuffing his face with cheap candy and Ho-Ho’s. There was even a parallel in the video, when the two black kids said that the uptown stores where cleaner and the fruits and vegetable were fresher. The hailed localism foodie ideal is something that is only achievable for middle to high income families, not the ones on well fair and food stamps.

            The general idea that I agree with presented in the video is the idea that changing your class in America is possible but we underestimate the difficulty that accompanies the process. Most people are not in socially mobile positions like we think they are. It is much less a question of motivation as it is of possibility. Social mobility takes motivation, literacy, and connections. Look at Tammy’s case. Can anyone really look at her and have faith in her dream of becoming a teacher, or her son’s dream of climbing the social ranks? No. The majority of people can only express their feelings for Tammy’s situation in pity and disgust. Whether or not they are willing to admit that they feel that way is a different story. For every American that ascends the social ladder, there are another ten that fall off.

 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/climbing-social-ladder-starts-childhood/story?id=7768775

          This week in class we learned about social stratification, which is the systematic way into which our society is divided according to social classes. India's caste system did not really surprise me considering that it was not a new topic for myself. Being familiar with India's class system, I was not surprised that you must remain in your class for your entire life. In India's system your social class determined by the family you are born into. It isn't really anything new when one delves deeper into the matter. In America, we are under the impression that our perseverence and hardwork determines the social class of which we are a part of. This is merely an impression. The hole ideal is upheld by the confirmation bias. We here of the success stories because they are what they are, and we neglect the stories that represent the other side even though they represent the vast majority. For every impoverished individual that makes a stride to the upper class, there is an innumerable amount of people that don't, or actually make the stride in the opposite direction. America's highly regarded jobs (ie. doctors, lawyers, business owners, nuerosurgeons,etc.) are typically not held by those born into extreme poverty. They are held primarily by those who were born into moderate and high income families. They are the children of parents that could afford to live in great school districts, good neighborhoods, and enroll their posterity in athletics and ACT Prep. Capitalism is set up to gradually make the rich richer and the poor poorer, regardless of how it may seem. India just isn't presenting the illusion of social justice and equality that America projects, because they aren't fooling their children into having internal loci of control.
          Another element of this week's class was the video Appalachia. The thing I really enjoyed about the program was that it didn't sugar coat anything. It didn't instill any ideas of social equality and justice. Even the football player who had a way out of his impoverished upbringing dropped out of college and rejoined his family. Nothing seemed to work out for the persons depicted in the video. Something I really enjoyed was definately the section on 'Mountain Dew Mouth'. These childrens teeth were absolutely hideous. One can't help but wonder if those children had ever seen a toothbrush in their lives. The most riveting part was when Pepsi released a statement declaring that their product was never meant to be consumed in such a manner. It almost sounded like Pepsi was digusted or concerned, but I sincerely doubt they cared about the condition of these childrens teeth.
          This week's article looked as though it was going to be a promising one, but after reading it I was mildly disappointed. Entitled "In Praise of Marx" it was simply an advocation of Marxist ideas. I felt as though it failed to offer any intelligent commentary, not that the article was poorly written or boring. The most interesting thing that I learned from the article that I had not known about Marx was that he was a realist. I guess The Communist Manifesto has become like some kind of political bible, free to be interpretted however one sees fit. I personally have read The Communist Manifesto and have always found it to be extremely idealistic, considering that it preaches of an anarchaeic society in which global equality reigns and the fuel for production is not capital, but the greater good and the survival of one's fellow man, but who knows, maybe I have been misinterpretting it. There might have been more to Marx than met my eye.
On a somewhat loosely related note, I wanted to present this article about global stratification in contrast to social stratification, because I feel that it still ties into the idea of hierarchyism, and even to Marx, so I hope you enjoy.

The Rise of the Rest

            It has come to my attention that there are a couple in class topics that I failed to address in the last entry. One of them being agents of socialization: media, gender, peers, family, school, total institutions, workplace, and sports. The only one that I had not considered a major factor in our socialization was the total institution. After thinking about it, I determined the fact that it's not a major factor in our socialization because it is so prevalent, but because of its immense ability to completely reconstruct our social image. Those who are part of the US military and other total institutions are socialized very different than the average American. From what I've seen portrayed in films, and a hint of personal experience, the idea is to hold authority, its aquisition, and the well being of fellow people and soldiers at the highest ideal. In comparison to mainstream America, this is practically counterculture. The strength of total institutions to influence our socialization is immense, and although they may not be as common a factor as the rest, they still deserve mention.
            The other thing I failed to mention in my last entry was the new emerging stage in social development known as transitional adulthood, or emerging adulthood. I was always curious as to why my working generation is perceived to be so lazy. I think about my future all the time, and whether or not I myself am going to move back in with my parents after college. I'd prefer not to, but I might not have a choice if I cannot be financially independent. I liked the explanation given for the new stage of social development, because it argued that the emerging workforce is not lazy, they are in fact working their asses off at jobs that just don't put out. The job market is not is the same position that it was 30 years ago. In order to get a job that pays well enough to comfortably support a family, one must attend college, and most starting salaries can't comfortably support a family no matter what you're doing for a living. The reality is that there are no well paying manufacturing jobs to pay the bills any more, and anything and everything else requires a degree. Not to mention the fact that getting a degree in America has become extremely difficult to acheive financially. The interest rates on student loans have become so rediculous that they are becoming responsible for life long debts. Getting a Masters in college is no longer a worth while option if one doesn't have a dream job lying in wait upon the completion of their master's program, because of the enormous debt that accompanies it.
Higher Education. Is it Worth it?

Short Week

I decided to read the article entitled “The Conquest of Cool” thinking that it would be more applicable to my social understanding. I’ve read countless things on the ways in which fashion influences women’s perceptions and values, but have not yet had the exquisite pleasure of reading a piece that discusses the effects on the other gender. My initial assessment of the article (counting the pages), told me that I had already chosen the wrong article. “The Conquest of Cool” was a whopping sixteen pages of small print in comparison “Fresh Lipstick”, fourteen pages of large print. In spite of my initial hesitation, I continued on. The article touched on the Peacock Revolution of the 1960’s, although it never clarified as to what the peacock revolution actually was. I assumed it had to do with the change in men’s clothing during the period of revolutionary change in the 60s.

The article was very unclear as a whole and seemed to lack some major point or idea in conclusion. I was very confused the entire time as to whether the author thought that the media generally influenced the public, vice versa, or a little of both. What I did find interesting in the article though was the idea of gradual change that the fashion industry made throughout the decade. In the very beginning they advertised clothes that were hardly radical at all merely by maintaining that they were. They were selling change and ideas, not clothes. What they were doing was trying to manipulate the opinions and views of buyers slowly but surely, until eventually their marketing campaigns included the typical hippie image as a fashion norm. I think that it had a lot to do with transitioning to a new market without losing the interest of the previous generation. This is particularly true in regards to the higher end clothing lines, because the nations youth could not yet afford them. The companies were preparing for the arrival of the next generation, and shaping (whether intentionally or unintentionally) their fashion trends. When I hear these kinds of brilliant and intentional marketing campaigns I can’t help but think that the big wigs in marketing are some of the smartest, albeit most manipulative people in the country, if not the world.

            The article makes me think of the marketing campaigns being subliminally implemented today. Why has today’s society developed and upheld the idea that long shorts, sagging pants, name brand sweatshirts, and logoed t-shirts are fashionable? The fashion industry plays on our society and manipulates are ideas of desirability, that’s why. Take a look at the trends they’re putting down our throats already.

Spring Fashions!

Too Many Things for One Title

       I finally read the article and I'd like to address it while it's still fresh in my mind. I was extremely unmotivated to continue it after reading the first couple of pages, but as I pressed on I found what I read to be more interesting than expected. I thought the entire idea of the justification hypothesis to be spectacular. It was one of the most subtly elegant theories that I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I have always thought about the way in which I make my own personal decisions, and why I make them the way I do. After reading about the JH I felt enlightened to the reasons that I do what I do and say the things I say. I typically always have some kind of excuse or justification to any comment that I find myself making. Not only do I tend to justify my actions, comments, and ideas, but I do feel the micro-emotions that the article references. When I personally make a comment, or share an idea that was unjustifiable or awkward, I do tend to feel almost subconsciously shameful, and that low level shame does become a feeling of self-consciousness or incompetence. When I say something stupid or off, the next thought in line is typically, "Why did I say that?" or maybe "God, I'm such a moron!". The thing that I found interesting about this idea is the fact that it almost works as our intrisic operant conditioning. The other thing that I find mind boggling is the idea that our need to justify our actions, and our intrisic operant conditioning could eventually form the intricate web or ideas, norms, and values that make up our specific cultures.
       Unfortunately I can't remember Monday's video very well, but the idea of smiling lessons is both funny and insightful at the same time. I remember thinking that me and my social ideology would be better suited for the Japanese way of life than our own. I don't know how correct I am in making that assumption, but I've always had the idea that it's best to keep one's emotions and feelings to him or herself to avoid conflicts and disputes. I've tended to do so for the vast majority of my life because I was a 'troubled youth' back in my elementary school years, and had been told that I needed to keep my emotions in check from a very young age. I think it played a major part in my development over the years, and now that I'm emerging as an individual in a society that is partial impulsively and emotionally driven, my old ideology is coming back to bite me. I seem to have a hard time expressing my feelings, and reading the feelings of others as a result. It's hasn't become a large problem, but I sometimes feel emotionally incompetent among my peers. If I relocated to a society that made a norm of repressing one's outward feelings like the Japanese, I might be on an even playing field with my peer group. I'll never pursue it though considering that I would then have trouble adapting to a community based society, since American culture has made me a very self-focused individual.
       On the subject of the advertisements, I did find them to be very amusing, but I didn't find them to be very informative. I felt as though I already understood the way in which the media influences gender identity and our expectations of each other. It is sad in a sense. The media portrays images of perfection and (I think) consciously sets the bar for people who are exposed to it. I can't argue with the fact that it is a great marketing strategy in a highly capitalistic society, but that isn't to say that I completely support it. I feel as though movies, television, magazines, and other media have greatly distorted my image of reality, and even the way that people are expected to interact with each other. Movies specifically have upset my understanding of romaticism and human interaction. What I don't understand is why it matters. If everyone has a distorted view of reality from the all powerful media image, than shouldn't reality itself change? Reality in my opinion is solely comprised of the perceptions of the individuals that inhabit it, so why hasn't our distorted version of reality become our reality? I think that it has to do with the fact that the media doesn't have the same effect, influence, or level on everyone. I may watch a female directed advertisement and ignore it, while a peer may watch it and decide something about the way that women or men should act or look. If our society is distorting reality in a universal degree, then why aren't all women anorexic, and all men ripped? This has led me to determine that the different media has different levels of impact on different people.
       In contrast to the advertisements, the video about the the third gender was very surprising. I thought it was hilarious obviously, but I think it was primarily due to culture shock. I was so taken aback by the idea that people considered in American society to be cross-dressers, something with a very negative connotation, was so common place in Somoan society, and even carried more or less, a nuetral connotation.
       In more of a current event note, I wanted to address the treatment of women by many Middle Eastern and African societies. Many cultures from those regions tend to give women a much more submissive role than the United States. Not to say that the United States is perfect. With the majority of women still making less per hour than the majority of men, we are far from it. The question that I pose is this: What makes our societies so radically different? I don't have nearly enough information for my usual baseless speculation, but it has alway puzzled me, so I ask my readers for opinions. I think the submissiveness of the female sex has been shaped by evolution for centuries. Women have customarily been the more fragile of the two sexes, thus causing them to rely on men for their survival and the survival of their offspring with men conjointly relying on women to protect and ensure the survival of their offspring. Now that our society has virtually taken survival out of the equation with the American SOL being one of the best in the world, women have had the opportunity to pursue an assortment of various other goals and purposes, thus changing their societal roles. Other countries have not completely broken this cornerstone the way the the US has. Thus leading them to require the submissive role of women to remain intact. The other part of this is the idea that men try to ensure the survival of their offspring and theirs alone by monopolizing the sex lives of women, but that is a debate for another blog.
Gender Roles