SUM BLOG #12: Anthony Giddens : Radicalized modern society

Anthony Giddens uses the approach of understanding modern society as being thought as radicalized because it is just so much different than the way that people in society have thought about their surroundings and circumstances. To alot of people, change does not come easy to them and they choose to resist it rather than embrace it. Giddens speaks about several dimensions associated with modernity including: displacement , re-embedding, enhancing your expertise and reappropriation. Examples of each of these concepts are: isolation, connection, developed skills and the empowerment. To speak more on these subjects, I mean by this displacement is that feeling of isolation that humans adopt when their environment changes or is upset by some force out of their control where they choose to not participate in the on goings arounds them that others seem to be a part of. By re-embedding I mean that humans experience change however their ability to overcome adversity and integrate themselves into the change and regain their feelings of connection. Specialization means that even though humans possess countless talents and skills , those which we choose to develop further will cause us to be reverred as an expert on said subject. Lastly, the meaning of re-appropriation is the process by which humans are empowered with the knowledge, experience and recognition of being the "go to guy/gal" in the event of a question or concern regarding a specific topic.  Change is inevitable, sometimes necessary ...be open to the idea but stay true to yourself!!!  I chose the image below to illustrate Giddens concepts regarding his thoughts on Modernity because I feel like it helps me to understand each of the four dimensions that Giddens was concern with involving the human's experience with : displacement , re-embedding, enhancing your expertise and reappropriation. Be the change you want to see in the world....~Mahatma Gandhi

SumBlog #10: Society as Human Product by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann

In reading the passage titled Society as Human Product by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, I read that "man's self-production is always, and of necessity, a social enterprise". Meaning that it is men together, create a human environment including all of its facets involving social and psychological factors. Even human productivity can be viewed as being sociallyb constructed releams not natural found in man alone. "Just as it is impossible for for man to develop in isolation, so it is impossible for for a man insolation to produce hman environment". (Berger).  Berger viewed people that lived their lives in solidarity as being on the same level of animals. People lacked the biologic ability to means to provide stability for human conduct or human order , meaning that they needed a guide to determine from where their human order derived, in other words how does social order itself arise? Amidst the reading I learned that simply put, social order is a product created by humans that continues to go through changes as life for humans change. Berger mentions that social order is produced by people as their life goes on and pulled from the events that he externalizes through their individual experiences. One aspect that is crucial to each human being is that he is able to find a place or create an environment where he is able to carry out his lfe in. The author clearly states that social order has nothing to do with the natural law of things in nature, but rather once again it is something that is socially created not something that is simply just known to man, however social order does correlate with a person's naturally given "equiptment". Humans are creatures of habit, for people , habits are formed by reapeatly performing certain "routines". This is true whether people are placed in the social sphere or the private sphere, habits can be formed in very personal ways that need not even be known to others. I think of driving in this aspect. A person may appear to be driving a vehicle with no or little effort or thought but because of the number of times that they performed the actions of driving, it becomes or appears to become "second nature". Due to the enormous amount of experiences in our lives, humans are able to skip the need for step by step directions that are generally required when executing a new taks. Habitualization is credited for the short cut because it actually takes precedence over any institutionalization that occurs. Sometimes people can perform a certain task without even necessarily appearing to be aware of it. However institutionalization, "occurs when there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors". I undertstood this to mean that when like minded people convene together in commonality. The reading says that "institutions further imply that historicity and control", I translated that to mean that institutions such as schools for example were formed out of necessity, so there was an obvious need to gather likeminded individuals together in effort to further their commonality. Fun Fact... even human sexuality is socially controlled! Lastly discussed by Berger was the topic of socialization and how it arises.  Children are not able to distinguish between the natural world and the world that has been socially constructed around them because they have had no former relationship with how things are in nature versus what they have been exposed to for their entire lives, they have yet to become enlightened. In short, I learned that there are three factors that include: habitutualization, institutionalization and socialization when considering the key elements of society.  I chose the image below because I felt that it was an interesting example of how man creates society, not the other way around.

SumBlog #8: The Stranger......

Upon reading Georg Simmel's short essay titled "The Stranger", Simmel gave me a new meaning of the word "stranger". He did not mean it to be thought of in the literal meaning as we use it in today's context such as a completely "unknown" person, but rather a person that while may be unknown to some, is a person that is very much integrated into their lives; yet does not originate from the same 'place' as the other members of a group. The "stranger" is seen as an outsider that perhaps does not subscribe to the specific beliefs of that particular group , yet still respects them and has the ability, because they are objective; to be valuable by providing additional insight regarding certain subjects that are not thought of by the other members. Simmel provides an example in the reading by describing the relationship between people in a given community and a trader. Although the trader is not necessarily a member of that community, he definitely has an impact on the lives of the townspeople by bringing new and unusual resources to them. Simmel's concept pertaining to the "stranger" emphasizes individual contributions regarding influence. Once again , even though the "stranger" or in this case the trader, has the ability to come and go as he pleases; his very existence within a community brings a certain unique perspective to the group. He has the power to perhaps open people's minds to ideas that they may never have been exposed to. Simmel's sociology involves different levels of concern in terms of the psychological aspects of social life; as in what is going on in our own brains; Interpersonal Relationships, meaning how we experience society by sharing it with others and lastly the concept coined "The Spirit of the Times" that deals with what is popular in a given time frame that coinsides with the creation of cultural norms and values. My personal version of the concept of "the Stranger" is my periodic involvement of pulling random bar tending shifts at my best friend's bar that is located about two and a half hours away. While I am not necessarily an employee, I do act the part when I am there. I bring with me my own high level of standards to the job which in the beginning bothered the current employees because they viewed my presence there as "threatening" due to their substandard practices prior to my arrival. I believe because I am not a regularly scheduled employee, my outlook on my temporary position is seen as more "fun" and "novel", whereas the other group members of employees get lost in the routine of being there on more of a full-time basis so they had grown used to their mediocre performance. My intention of course is never to "outshine" them, but rather I see it as assuring that my best friend's business is successful versus having unhappy patrons displeased by the lack of enthusiasm given to them by the regular employees. I view my "strangeness" as an attempt to provide a refreshing rejuvenation to the bar's atmosphere, therefore making people want to come spend their money there and the for the establishment  itself to gain a positive review by the patrons; which of course is a recipe for a successful business. In short, although I am not usually a member of that community, my presence breaks up the monotony of day in , day out workmanship; that attempts to "raise the bar" regarding other's performance. In the beginning, I was seen as a threat, however now the regular employees view me as reminder to themselves to not get caught up in their own personal interests but rather treat every patron as an honored guest. Of course seeing their tips increase after following my lead helped change their minds fairly quickly. Ha!  I chose the picture below to illustrate my view of the bar's employees before my arrival, they all just sit around useless until I come and set the example of a hard worker with responsibilities. :)

SumBlog#7: Veil and Double Consciousness

This week in class I read about an African American named W.E.B. Du Bois, a Harvard graduate and co- founder of the National Organization for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Du Bois was a great advocate for equal rights not only for African Americans but for all members of minority groups , including a huge push for women's rights. He believed that he lived in a land were all people ought to be treated equally despite the ongoings on the past. He believed that education was the single most important factor in the ability to reach his goal of overall equality. He was not seemingly critical of white people in general but much like fellow African American sociologist Anna Julia Cooper, he believed that the "system" was to be blamed for the continuation of discrimination of blacks. He saw that although slavery had ended, African Americans were still not viewed as equal citizens.  “The bright ideals of the past, physical freedom, political power, the training of brains and the training of hands, all these in turn have waxed and waned” (Du Bois). Essentially as one problem was fixed another problem arose in its place, forever looming over the minds and hearts of black people everywhere. It reminds me of the idea about stepping up one rung of the ladder only to be knocked down two. Even though blacks acquired the same rights as whites, they were not able to exercise those rights to their full potential. Upon reading a short passage by DuBois in class,
I learned about two concepts that were his major key elements discussed in his sociology, those being the terms veil and double consciousness. The term veil is meant to describe how blacks can live among whites yet see the world much differently than whites due to their double consciousness meaning that although they are  Black Americans, they see themselves as being black and American a in two separate entities. They see themselves as being first black and secondly American. DuBois depiction of the term veil, illustrates how white people have developed certain stereotypes regarding blacks as a result of their generalized interactions with them which unfortunately seemed to viewed in a negative light (due to the old world way of thinking, thank you Southern states). This sometimes in turn created a self-fulfilling prophecy in which blacks started to actually believe that they were inferior to whites, allowing such believes to thrive. A theory that in many cases still holds true today, when a person ( no matter their race) is constantly fed information and treated in a certain manner, they soon start to believe that it just must be true and they then act accordingly. They do this because they think, "what is the use of trying to better myself when I will just be heavily criticized by others. They are always thinking about how others view them versus how they view themselves. Once again this brings about that Double Consciousness in which they develop a public persona and a private person, a very confusing state if you ask me. I found it very interesting that DuBois was such an advocate for all minority groups, as well as for women, instead of just focusing on his particular race, for me he embodied the essence of equality for all. The picture I chose depicts DuBois vision of equality for all.

SumBlog#6 Jane Addams

Last week my class read about a woman named Jane Addams that took action against what she personally viewed as a form of inequality, that being the lack of literary and art education for people that were less fortunate than herself. Her focus was derived from her interest in the area of public sociology and cultural relativism stemming from the influx of immigrants that were arriving in her city. In the year 1889, along with another woman named Ellen Gates Starr, Addams opened Chicago's first settlement house named the Hull-House, where people of all statuses could gather and learn about topics that were literally "foreign" to them. What was so interesting about the Hull-House was that it was Jane Addams' actual home and she allowed people to assemble there and learn about subjects ranging from debating political theories in America's government to providing the residents of Hull-House with the necessary skills that their new surroundings required of them such as cooking, sewing and most importantly learning the English language. It was very much like an exchange program, where the residents that she invited into Hull-House would pay back her generosity by contributing in helpful ways toward the efforts of her neighborly engagements in different areas of Hull-House such as the nursery, the kitchen and kindergarten school for the children. The entire goal of Hull-House was to provide help to those people , mostly immigrants with no other place to turn, become more integrated into their newly found American society. This was quite typical of Addams' methodology as she believed in getting down to her subject's level and learning first hand from them. She was not one that was satisfied with simply observing them from afar as many other male sociologists, that we have covered in class, common practices were at that time. Instead her founding core principle was that of social ethics, or better explained as "morality" towards fellow people in society. She was concerned that there had become a disconnect between people within society and realized that they only way to really understand this would be to literally live with them and view the world through their eyes. Addams believed in four key elements that complimented her foundation those elements included: No one group of people were more important than any other, all people were active agents( meaning , everyone counted regardless of status), she believed that people seek opportunity for kindliness towards their fellow man and lastly that personal safety of all members of a social democracy is tied to the personal safety of each. Where did she learn this approach? She learned the concept of social ethics by once again , "getting her hands dirty" and witnessing first hand that through education that respects an individual's own experience that much can be learned about people that are different from herself. She delved into and experienced diverse social interactions by joining them side by side and abolishing the concept of inequality within the walls of Hull-House. She found that by sharing stories with others, that somehow that helped preserve the memories of where the people had come from , yet all the while still striving to find their place in their "new land" because she recognized that the majority culture had more power and she wanted them to stand a chance in life. Jane Addams gained insight from her subjects by personally interacting with them in a "neighborly" fashion so as to cultivate genuine relationships with them, therefore granting her a better understanding of their ways of life. She was able to to this through a methodology that she referred to as "Personal Experience over Theory". Addams even earned the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts in the field of social work in the year 1931. I think if I was a sociologist, I would very much like to use Addams' approach because it seems very effective in the learning process as well as invoking a feeling of helpful well-being and good citizenship. I believe that I would personally enjoy working along side of people that I was interested in studying because I would be able to determine the actualities of their lives, versus using a theoretical approach that illustrates what could happen. I much prefer hearing it "straight from the horse's mouth" rather than interpreting my findings. I chose the multimedia image featured below because I feel as though it was representative to what Addams' plight of social ethics by helping others was all about. These were her blood related grandchildren, but you would never know it because she was so giving of herself for the greater good of society, she wanted everyone to have a chance to have a good life.

Sum Blog #4: Harriet Martineau

For class this week , we finally learned about a female sociologist by the name of Harriet Martineau. She was an education woman from England whose family was from "comfortable means" during the 1800's. I say that we finally heard about a woman in the field of Sociology because although women have done a lot to contribute to the realm of Sociology, there have only been the rare or occasional mention of them in any book related to the foundations of Sociology. Obviously, women did not have the same rights that women of today possess so any work that Harriet contributed was viewed as not that compelling in the eyes of the founding men of Sociology.  Harriet is only mentioned in a few brief pages among the entire chapters written about the men of Sociology which seems unfair considering that she was a pioneer in writing the first text book on sociological research methods titled How to Observe Morals and Manners in the year 1838. By "morals", she meant the collective ideas and/or the prescribed behaviors of people within a society and by "manners" she was referring to the patterns of actions and associations that people engage themselves within. Martineau deemed that the most important law of Social Law was that of "Human Happiness", essentially how you judge the fairness of society. She studied this because she reserved the subject matter of her study to be that of social life within a society and that it ought to be studied and developed in a disciplined and systematic manner. The role that she took on for herself in regards to her being a sociologist was that of public educator. She wanted everyone to possess the knowledge of her findings, not just the rich and prestigious , which was the typical audience for research findings in the fields of Sociology.  She of course was not the only woman whose work went unaccredited, this was the norm for a lot of women that "played with the big boys", although their work was important it was usually dismissed by men in the field because it was a common belief that women should essentially be seen and not heard much like children. As a woman myself it was refreshing to read about Harriet Martineau and her struggles of hearing loss and poverty caused by a failed business venture and yet she was still able to overcome those hurdles to have her work and research being recognized as her role as the founding "Mother of Sociology". She is a true inspiration for women still today.
The image that I chose definitely sums up the mentality that men possessed back then and unfortunately sometimes still today.... ridiculous I know!

Human Potential stunted by Alienation

This week I learned all about Karl Marx, the German philosopher and economist who was concerned about the fact that people valued "primacy of matter over idea", meaning that humans valued possessions over other people, as revealed in our historical patterns of inequality of which materialism was the driving force. Marx was highly critical of Capitalism as a form of economy, because he viewed society as people belonging to either one of two classes; the rich ("the haves"), also known as the "bourgeoisie" and the poor ("the have nots") also referred to as "the proletarians. The problem was that the rich landowners just kept getting richer and the poor workers remained poor. He believed that only a complete overhaul of change in the Capitalistic economic system could bring about actual change regarding this inequality. He studied history and society scientifically by being the first great user of the critical method in social sciences. I also learned the concepts of commodity, use value and exchange value regarding the Capitalistic economy. Marx was concerned that people's ideas regarding use value, meaning "how useful is it" and exchange value or "how much can be fetched for it", became too far apart, he noted that people focused more on the exchange value of a commodity or valuable resource while losing sight of it's actual usefulness. This parlayed into the concept known as "the fetishism of commodities"where people are only concerned with obtaining the item while not concerning themselves about its method of acquisition. I immediately recalled a movie that I had watched entitled "Blood Diamond" starring Leonardo DiCaprio. The movie depicted the horrendous ways that the diamond mine workers were treated while unearthing the treasures that people adorn themselves with and how those same people turned a blind eye to that fact because their personal desire of obtaining the flawless stones were all they cared about, I thought that this was a great example of what Marx was worried about. The most interesting part of our week's lecture was the topic of Human Potential and whether or not we as a people are living up to our full potential. I automatically thought about how the role of labor being prevalent in this regard because our job is often regarded as something that we "have " to do, versus something that we "want" to do. Therefore, we are unable to partake in the activities that do harbor our full potential, because we are too preoccupied by our job that earns the income that we need. The discussion was all brought together by the underlying theme of alienation on the job. I could easily see the correlation between the weak relationship that many people have with their jobs, because one rarely gets to witness the fruits of their labor by the time the job is completed by someone else, so it is hard to develop a strong sense of connection to one's job. This is a prime example of what alienation in the labor market does to a person. People become disconnected or "alienated" from their projects because their level of creativity is non-existent, they feel distance from fellow co-workers, although their actual proximity is relatively close together because interaction is prohibited by their employers for fear of interrupting productivity. Collectively this creates a state of being alienated from their personal human potential, being all that they can be! If people were able to do a job that fulfilled their full potential perhaps they would not feel so alienated and therefore lead more satisfying lives.