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

I'm Back: People in a Nut Shell and the Internet

          The looking glass self. I can see it at work everyday. When I walk through the halls at school, and receive an unusual amount of passing greetings I feel better. It would attribute to the fact that I feel much better while in agreement with someone, rather than dispute. In my personal opinion, I whole heartedly believe in the idea of a looking glass self that defines our social self, and an inner self that defines our antisocial self. By antisocial I don't mean a self that avoids social contact, but rather a self that is relatively uninfluenced by present circumstances and is more closely centered around past experiences, personal values, and genetic tendencies/temperaments.. It is what a lot of people who are not me, would call the soul, but I try not to use words that carry spiritual conotations when discerning items of secular origin. I believe that this antisocial self is primarily determined by biological dispositions, but is subject to minor change based on past experience, knowledge, and beliefs/values of the individual. It is the psychological or inner self and is the self we present to ourselves as us. While the social self is the is effectively the external self and is how we view ourselves and present ourself to others. The external or social self, is subject to nearly instantaneous change due to the immediate circumstances that we find ourselves in. It is the reason that people present themselves differently to different people. An adolescent does not present himself to his employer in the same way that he or she presents themself to a friendly aquaintance. The reason for this is that our sense of immediate self changes based on how we think others think about us, and how we want others to think about us. If one believes that, based on inference, others don't like them, then they will begin to view themselves in the same manner, presenting themselves to others in a reflective demeanor as a result, and vice versa. On an interesting side note, the two selves, social and antisocial, enter into conflicts with each other. When the way someone's antisocial self presents itself, and the way someones social self presents itself begin to differ by a large enough margin, social anxiety is created. It is the difference between the way in which we naturally act or want to act in a purely tensionless environment, and the way in which we act in a reality based environment.
          Growing up online was pretty interesting, but it was only everything I've heard before. I felt like I was watching an NBC coverage of new drug craze. My outlook? The internet is the most powerful tool that currently exists in the entire world of technology, and maybe even the world in general. The ability to have information at ones finger tips in a relative instant is the most incredible accomplishment of modern day society. Its invention has revolutionized everything. This isn't to advocate it as solely a good thing. Everything and anything can be subject to abuse, and every benefit has its detriment. Of course there will be people that use the internet to learn how to build bombs, or molest children, or any sort of unamed evil, but there are downsides to everything. There are countless morphine and heroin addicts around the world, but that doesn't mean that morphine and heroin are bad or have no practical purposes. When things are used properly, they can be use to accomplish any number of previous unthinkable feats, and when used improperly, they can be used to achieve any number of unknown indecencies. I love the internet. It's my greatest tool. If I am curious about anything, and I almost always am, the internet is there to provide me with all the information I could ever ask for. There's no trip to the library or a book store, there's no need to seek out some kind of expert, or struggle for countless hours trying to derive information for yourself. The internet has increase the pace of life by at least three fold since its invetion, and has given people the opportunity to become more knowledgeable in less time than was ever possible before. As a result of the internet, as well as the television and radio, information has become so widely available it's rediculous. When people use to say, "look it up" they were refering to a book, namely a dictionary. When people today tell someone to look something up, they are refering to the largest encyclopedia ever invented. One that encompases almost every peice of desirable information imaginable. That encyclopedia is the internet.
          (Considering that I did not get through much of the article, I plan to talk about it next week).
Funny Internet Cartoon (I don't necessarily agree, but found it funny nonetheless)

Disproportionate amounts of Psychology, and Do U Speak American?

No lengthy introduction this time. I am going to get right to the points of interest. This week in class we talked about euthanasia. I have no idea why we did this. I initially tried to contemplate the purpose of the activity, but ultimately failed and gave up. My first thoughts were that the class was discerning the ways in which different cultures debate of deliberate over issues, but we were only given one set of libertarian and democratic ideals to abide to, so there was no comparison between two cultures or views. Were we studying the way in which normative Americans are encouraged to deliberate ideas and opinions? I don't know for sure, but I think that may have played some kind of part.
    The next thought I had was better founded. It was that we enacted the debate in order to attain a sense of how different we all are from one another, by observing the way in which we individually and cooperatively expressed our contrary beliefs. Thus giving us insight into the lives, views, and beliefs that arise from experience and individual differences.
    This would have made more sense had this been done in my psychology class rather than my sociology one. I may never know or understand the answer but it was interesting to say the least. I obviously took a stand advocating the institution, because I believe that no matter who you are or what your situation, be it terminal or not, you should have the right to end your own life. If we are denied the right to end our own lives should we choose to do so, then it is a life to which we are enslaved.
    After the debate, 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 final thing that I am required to blog about in order to receive full credit is an passage we read that pertained to food. Just like the euthanasia debate, I found the article to be much more psychological than sociological. It was even written by a psychologist, and talked about particular psychological perspectives on the topic. It basically spoke of human food habits, how they originate and develop, and the use of etiquette and food preference to discern ourselves socially, stating that people eat specific foods to appear expensive, cultured, tasteful, and to demonstrate their social class. The one thing that I thought appealing was the idea of ethnocentric cuisine. It spoke our our natural tendency to attach inferior connotations to unfamiliar foods. At first I thought of my own tendency to partake in the enjoyment of any and all cuisine, but when the passage began to talk about racial jokes and slurs that originate from food differences, I had an "ah ha" moment. I thought about the reference to blacks and fried chicken, I read the part about "beaners" and "krauts", and I even remembered SWIM saying I smell curry as an Indian individual entered the room. I find it funny, as I always do, that we attempt to avoid ethnocentrism at any given opportunity. It plays such an important part in our lives and who we are that it even extends to our cuisine. If it has existed in nature, untouched for thousands of years, who is mankind to dismantle it?
Ethnic cuisine in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Values, and Boys Who are Lost...and from Sudan

        Values are funny things. I don't know if we will ever know for sure why they vary from culture to culture, but as of now I am all in favor of the environment plus needs theory. Either way I thoroughly enjoyed going over the different American values in class. Two off of Robin Williams list startled me when I read them.         The first one is external conformity. At first I thought that I had misread something, then I thought that I misinterpreted something, then I laughed at the irony. For a long time I genuinely thought that uniquity was an American value. We place a strong emphasis on being one's own person, and taking personal responsibility, but typically we do discriminate against anything which is not mainstream. I've heard the phrase "be a leader, not a follower" so many times that I truly began to believe in it. It was almost my dogma at one point, but reflecting on society I realize that questioning and going against behavior is not something that we value at all. How pathetic.
       The second one did not necessarily surprise me, I just found it hilarious. Racism and group-superiority is much a lesser know yet extremely important value in our culture today. It creates things like violence, debate, and even change in many instances. I went through a day one time counting the amount of times that my peers, friends, and aquaintances used derrogatory racial slurs, and found that the number was to large to count without writing it down. This value is especially amusing because of the other value that it seemingly negates: equality. When one really thinks about it, it's actually not that surprising. It's not that we are naturally discriminatory creatures and think we are superior, it's just a burden to live under the opposite assumption. Darwinism one, society zero.
        The final thing that I would like to make a note of was the Sudan Lost Boys. I nearly died laughing at certain parts in the video. One of those parts was when the boys talked about American food, another was when Santino was fined for driving without a license, a third was when Peter didn't make the basketball team, and the last was after the video ended and I was on my way to eighth hour. When I thought back to the video and sort of ran through it in my head I had a realization that I found hilarious. I thought about who did better in the new society: Peter, or Satino. Now obviously one would have to be an imbecile not to say tha Peter did. He made friends, graduated high school, and had little difficulty supporting himself. Santino on the other hand, almost lost his house for not paying rent, almost lost it again because of the court fines he had to pay, and repeatedly stated that he was very lonely. Now the part that I found funny, was that they came from a village in which everyone was connected. Everyone had their place in the community, and aided each other in their struggles. Once Peter got to America all of that changed. His communal philanthropy became personal responsibility, his unscheduled life became a tight regime, and the funniest of all his ideas about remembering and aiding his culture back at his homeland became assimilation and greed. When his sister revealed that he hadn't sent any money home in a long time you really realized how self-centered and American that Peter had become.
        Moral of the story....Conformity is key
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/can_we_please_define_racism.html

Waking up, The Yanomamo, & Humanity's Practical Joke

            I was dumbfounded. No excuses. After doing the Nacirema and Rac activities I had remembered doing them before. They are excellent wake up tools. I didn't necessarily feel stupid after blatantly insulting my own culture, but embarrassed. I was a little annoyed that I failed to catch on to the point of the articles until after we were told, but looking back, there was no way that I would have. The thing that threw me off was the idea that there was seemingly no rhyme or reason to many of the "practices" as they were portrayed. This was primarily because the articles were written from the perspective of someone completely unfamiliar with American culture, and modern science for that matter. It did have an impact on how I perceive culture though. The articles forced me to realize that I need to view culture objectively and determine the function of all its parts before bringing my judgments into the mix. 

            The interesting thing is that viewing a culture objectively is impossible. No matter what culture that you are a part of, you interpret things with biases that can’t be overridden. In America there is a huge focus on rationality and logical reasoning. When Americans analyze other cultures they ultimately employ those biases as tools without even realizing it. When a scientist observes a shaman or a witch doctor performing a ritual in order to save someone from terminal illness, he may not view the ritual as stupid, because he understands that the people do not understand that their behavior is irrational, but he certainly does not believe that the ritual is the right way in which handle the situation.

            The article about the Yanomamo was appealing as well. The contrast between our two cultures that I found most interesting was the idea that beating one’s wife demonstrates one’s courage and ferocity, while in American society beating one’s wife is more of a demonstration of cowardice than ferocity. There are things in every culture, including our own that seem to puzzle me sometimes, and the wife beating was definitely that thing for the Yanomamo’s culture. They respect one another for their ferociousness and masculinity, yet they do so not solely by picking fights not with each other in a display of dominance (which is very common in nature), but also by picking fights with the sex that is least likely to fight back. I just wonder how nature and evolution ever allowed that to take place. I also wonder what the wives’ think about the idea of being beaten, because the article never really talked about the feminist perspective of the beatings. Do the wives view the beatings as a necessary evil? Do they resent this part of their culture? Or do they not care either way? Maybe it has been all that they have ever known, so they are completely desensitized to the behavior. I don’t know, but it reminded me of pre-modern American culture.

Although we did not acknowledge wife beating as a socially acceptable behavior, we did acknowledge they disparagement of women to be. Less than a century ago, women did not have the right to vote, before that they were unable to own land, or work. Their primary objective was to make babies, maintain the household, and nurture children. That was before our society uncannily adopted the idea that all people are created equal.

Going back to what I had stated earlier, I believe that viewing culture and societies objectively is overrated anyway. I believe the reason that we view cultures other than our own with reluctance, caution, and even animosity is because that historically, differences between cultures have been the main causes of wars and conflict. So our ethnocentrism is actually a survival mechanism.

            Take terrorism for example. Should we view cultures like Al-Queda and the
Taliban as misunderstood? Should we have let the Nazis and Hitler continue their mass genocide of the Jewish peoples of Europe? Of course we shouldn’t. The problem with cultural relativism is that it also implies moral relativism. A conflict of morals can be small and insignificant, such as the wife beating of the Yanomamo, or it can be vast and have global consequences, such as the genocides and terrorist efforts that consume areas of the modern world. Cultural relativism is just a mutiny of evolution, the one thing that has ensured the survival of humanity since the dawn of time, and we defeat it everyday.   

Perspectives, an Awkward Epiphany, and a Brilliant Show

   I've always favored the interactionist perspective without even realizing it. It only became clearer to me as we went over it in class; it was given a name. I've never taken things for face value. When you examine anything we as people do, it will all filter down to what we understand to be acceptable to society. When a man kisses his wife it is acceptable because they are married, but if he were to kiss a person at random the behavior would be percieved as foul and unacceptable because of the symbols we understand as a society. These symbols or connotations are the building blocks of social normalities.
   The conflict perspective doesn't make as much sense as interactionism or functionalism, because the meaning and importance of power is vague, and differs throughout different societies. It makes more sense in western cultures, and political society than it does in eastern, and individual societies and cultures.
   The functionalist standpoint makes sense in many aspects of society, but not all. Some peices of society are irrational, and serve no clear manifest functions. Social classes make little functional contributions to society other than to keep the low low, and the high higher.
   As I read the article "Eating Your Friends is the Hardest" I could help not but think about the progression of society over the last century or so. The Andes Mountains survivors changed their social perceptions of what was acceptable and what was not very quickly do to the adversity of the situation. It reminded me of the way in which society changes and adapts throughout history. Every generation is afraid of the next. The previous generation thoughts on things like drinking, premarital sex, and pop culture, differ immensely from that of the current generation. The survivors altered their social construct to stay alive, which is ultimately the strongest motive in all of human nature, and allowed the alteration to take place fairly rapidly. I believe that macro-society adapts in conjunction with the resources available to that society and the way in which the political structure allocates them. It would also explain why society has changed so rapidly in the past century or so. Our manufacturing and production booms along with our innovative drives and political systems has allowed us to catch up to other much older societies in nearly the blink of the historical eye. It would also explain why social norms are considerably different in third world nations, as well as nations in other hemispheres of the world.
   On a side note I enjoyed "Freaks and Geeks" so much that I began to watch other episodes. In an awkward and almost saddening way, "Freaks and Geeks" truly embodies the difficulties that high school students face ad the society that they clumsily become a part of. Four out of five stars easily, in account of the fact that some of the dialogue is absolutely terrible. (Thought the picture embodied the highschool mentality pretty well)

Introduction to Sociology Articles, and a Discouragingly Uninsightful Class Period

Upon reading these articles I made a very important and near life changing conclusion. I was born a sociologist. I have wondered about the factors that influence and affect human behavior ever since elementary school, when I pondered the reasons that my peers seemed to dislike me. I was confused by the idea that my behavior made them uncomfortable, so I constantly contemplated the reasons that my behaviors did not coincide with that of the majority of my peers. The sociological imagination has always been a part of my persona whether I had willed it to be or not.
    One of the articles spoke of this very imagination, and of how it played unimaginable, and sometimes unseen roles in all of our lives. This was sociology. Human behavior at it's core. What we do and what causes us to do so.
    The second article talked about the differences between the social sciences in order to explain them. One thing that I did not find exemplary about this particular article entitled "What is Sociology? Comparing Sociology and the Other Social Sciences" was the fact that it separated the different areas of social sciences into distinguishable parts in which they were not all contributing to the one inherent goal: to understand human behavior. Just as psychology has many perspectives, so does the study of human behaviors, but just like psychology, the egelectic approach is the best model. Looking at one aspect of human behaviors is flawed from the start, and bound to give one a flawed understanding. Only by viewing humanity through every aspect possible can one really develop a fully functional understanding of ourselves, and we can only apply this knowledge for our true benefit if we have a full and completed understanding. In my opinion, psychology and sociology go hand in hand.
    The author seems to hint that anthropology and sociology more closely related than sociology and psychology, but I would disagree. Anthropology seems to take more of a material and unapplicable approach toward human behavior. Anthropology seems to stress what behaviors are present more than their actual cause.
    Psychology and Sociology are more closely related in my opinion, because they are both more focused on what contributes and causes human behavior than the actual behavior itself. They are two halfs of the same puzzle in a respect. Sociology focusing on the external stimuli, while psychology focuses in depth on the internal stimuli that cause behavior. The main commonality that they share is that they both try to appy the data they gather formulating models and ideas that are applicable in predicting behavior.    
    The last thing that I would like to shed light on is the seemingly shallow insight of my classmates. During the Ted and Zelda activity they reached for the lesser, and more obvious sociological stimuli that contributed to the couples predicament, and those that sought out something less typical, ended up with forced ideas of terrible construction. No one in that class period really demonstrated strong insight, and that severely worries me...

Me

 Who am I? I honestly don't know enough to tell you. I'm a product of my chemistry, my upbringing, and the backwater society that we accept as normal. I hate norms that don't make sense. I don't blame others for my faults, because then I'd have to share the credit for my successes. I'm introspective, self-serving. I would like to believe I question myself, society, and existence in ways most would never dream of doing. I hate naivete, as well as faith and organized religion.  I'm a huge admirer of music, and a terrible songwriter. Some find me to be compelling and insightful, while others despise everything that I embody, and stand for. I am a cynicist, realist, and a skeptic. I question everything and everyone, take nothing for granted, and often alienate people with this mindset. This speaks toward their character not mine, so it doesn't bother me. If one wishes not to question things, they wish for stabilty and arrogance.
 The biggest influence in my life is the need to be right, my desire to be creative, and music. If there is anything else, it's beyond me.
 I want to buy happiness, leave a mark, know myself, and develop a functional understanding of how and why people are the way the are.
 I believe that people have no inate spiritual purpose. There is no right and wrong when faced with how to live ones life. There is only how and why. You and you alone should be the determining factor of your life and behavior. Experience everything, keep what contents you. Make your own purpose, and live up to it...or don't, you're in charge.
 Human nature is by default hedonistic. Everything that we do can be broken down into two categories: Species survival and happiness. So my philosophy is be smart, survive, raise children under the same doctrine, and be happy.