As my vast sociological knowledge grows, I find that it's when one isn't looking that the crazy sociology stuff happens. Since we started covering the kinds of culture, for example, I've noticed that the mores and folkways we have established are inescapable.
This past Thursday afternoon, I was staying after school in the point waiting for a ride. Now I don't really like those chairs and the floor is too filthy to comprehend(or is it?)so I sat on the table. That was all good and comfy too. But then a security guard asked me to get down and sit on a chair. Now the nonconformist in me said make a HUGE fuss, but the other part of me said it wasn't worth it so I kept my dignity and just let it go. In retrospect, I wonder why people don't sit on tables or other pieces of furniture even when the table is really quite functional. It's not as if the table was in danger, it was built to hold weight about my level and I wasn't sitting in a bad place to distribute it. Maybe the table is a place of eating and not one of placing things other than the upper body? Or maybe it resembles a masoleum too much and everybody avoids bringing death to the table?(The many Asian cultures that use chopsticks generally avoid sticking them straight up in their dish as it resembles the incense placed at temples and funerals). I can't say for sure, but it does irritate me that I can't have a nice seat just because of some sociological perception of what a table is for. It really limits the potential of the table too, it's like saying a light bulb is just for light when it can also be used to generate a rather decent amount of heat! So while this non-material culture may be something we grow up with and are imprisoned by, I think if we try and break free of it we can find ourselves some more comfortable seats as just a minor effect. I also went to Mitsuwa, a Japanese market place, and a Korean grocery store this weekend(I went to a Chinese one last weekend, and don't know if a Vietnamese one is around to go to), so I might blog about that eventually. It was interesting and there was some culture shock, but not sure what to make of it sociologically yet.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Micro and Macro Dynamics of Racism in the Film
From a sociological standpoint, the racism did remind me alot of the abandon ship exercise where a leadership role was semi-appointed and semi-earned and this leader then decided what happened. In the movie, the perceived leadership roles amongst C's friends seem to be given to whoever is the most violent without being insane, which leads to the mob mentality that culminates in their deaths. Here the dynamic is again one of violence asserting masculinity and leadership, another sociological topic we touched on. I also think that the dynamics of being different play a major role as neither group really knew what the other was thinking or doing. This always leads to issues either in group or individual settings because ignorance creates an uneasiness that often results in fear and anger. In the movie, this ignorance is mutual and creates serious tension that brings alot of violence and death to the community. That's really all I can think of, any other thoughts?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
What is in a name?
With the recent change in blog identity, I have a few thoughts on what exactly a name is. In the raw, it is a pronoun for the you-ness that pervades the universe manifested in the form of "you" better known as "Carol". That's Aristotle. Shakespeare argued that -ness is less reflected by the actual pronoun of an object, so a rose, even if it was called a glip, would smell, look, and taste like a rose. The rose-ness becomes glip-ness, but is the same -ness.
Sociologically, a name is for identity. A name shows your ethnic group, the era you're living in, and even some of your parents taste. Unfortunately, a name can be unfair and spoiled if the name doesn't work with characteristics you like. Still names help us identify each other, but here if you dislike one Bob because he is rude, you will be biased about other Bobs, sacrificing sociological mindfulness in favor of a simple biological response. That can't be helped. Similarly, I personally know several Katies, so how do I know which is which and that they're not all the same Katie-ness? Well that's where a name may be flawed. I know each Katie as an individual instead of as a Katie. So here a name is only the threshold to getting to know someone, after that it gets phased out.
Let's try and look at it the other way around where the name gets phased in via some semi-anonymous technology e.g. a blog. Over the internet, one has the sociological security of "knowing" someone by a pronoun that characteristics can be attached to. There's a creepy aspect here where you could SERIOUSLY misidentify a person, putting sociological mindfulness on a backburner and forgetting that the internet is something of a mask. Positively, when two people are not on a birth-name basis, they can get to know each other better. In a safe situation like this class especially, people can recognize each others chosen nicknames, get a gauge for that personality, and when a real name slips out that name anchors itself in something real and not a sociologically imagined meaning(knowing a person for a personality and not for their type of name).
Thusly, I miss my moniker The Mad Hatter. I felt it fit the blog better and allowed me to express myself a bit more freely in a sociological context as a -ness and not a concrete person that can be thought of as a separate entity than his thoughts. I have been raised to reply to and take responsibility for my actions taken under my name, so if I could blog as a different pronoun, I could say things I usually wouldn't without as much fear of a social consequence or stigmatization. I feel that because we are all now clearly identified in the blog-group as our student names, our insight won't necessarily be the same. In short, I am entirely opposed to this move and while it may work to help us all know each others names in class, I feel that's a process that will happen naturally. This also steals some aspect of the blog in my opinion where it is something where we know everyone's personality IN the class and then eventually recognize them in person. I think that would come too and it would be an interesting sociological experiment to see if people act similarly enough in the blog to how they act in reality, allowing us to identify them.
As a final point, this makes the blog more worksheet-esque. More open-ended, admittedly, but still signed with the same name that is on my drivers license. That was probably a mildly incoherent rant, but nonetheless, there's an opinion I don't mind having attached to my name.
Sociologically, a name is for identity. A name shows your ethnic group, the era you're living in, and even some of your parents taste. Unfortunately, a name can be unfair and spoiled if the name doesn't work with characteristics you like. Still names help us identify each other, but here if you dislike one Bob because he is rude, you will be biased about other Bobs, sacrificing sociological mindfulness in favor of a simple biological response. That can't be helped. Similarly, I personally know several Katies, so how do I know which is which and that they're not all the same Katie-ness? Well that's where a name may be flawed. I know each Katie as an individual instead of as a Katie. So here a name is only the threshold to getting to know someone, after that it gets phased out.
Let's try and look at it the other way around where the name gets phased in via some semi-anonymous technology e.g. a blog. Over the internet, one has the sociological security of "knowing" someone by a pronoun that characteristics can be attached to. There's a creepy aspect here where you could SERIOUSLY misidentify a person, putting sociological mindfulness on a backburner and forgetting that the internet is something of a mask. Positively, when two people are not on a birth-name basis, they can get to know each other better. In a safe situation like this class especially, people can recognize each others chosen nicknames, get a gauge for that personality, and when a real name slips out that name anchors itself in something real and not a sociologically imagined meaning(knowing a person for a personality and not for their type of name).
Thusly, I miss my moniker The Mad Hatter. I felt it fit the blog better and allowed me to express myself a bit more freely in a sociological context as a -ness and not a concrete person that can be thought of as a separate entity than his thoughts. I have been raised to reply to and take responsibility for my actions taken under my name, so if I could blog as a different pronoun, I could say things I usually wouldn't without as much fear of a social consequence or stigmatization. I feel that because we are all now clearly identified in the blog-group as our student names, our insight won't necessarily be the same. In short, I am entirely opposed to this move and while it may work to help us all know each others names in class, I feel that's a process that will happen naturally. This also steals some aspect of the blog in my opinion where it is something where we know everyone's personality IN the class and then eventually recognize them in person. I think that would come too and it would be an interesting sociological experiment to see if people act similarly enough in the blog to how they act in reality, allowing us to identify them.
As a final point, this makes the blog more worksheet-esque. More open-ended, admittedly, but still signed with the same name that is on my drivers license. That was probably a mildly incoherent rant, but nonetheless, there's an opinion I don't mind having attached to my name.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Weather
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly against..."(the snow?) F. Scott Fitzgerald
The past few days with their lack of snow day has me rather pensive. The weather has been terrible and that is a point beyond dispute, so why would school still be in session? I think this seriously compromises the safety of students, staff, and faculty alike. Despite the expertise of the bus drivers, there are teenagers in their parents SUVs that could seriously injury a dozen kids or so in just a bad turn, not to mention the student in the SUV who could flip or go off the road. Teachers with long commutes on the highways are also at risk because those roads tend to be slick and even easier to get killed on. Maybe these are exagerrations. But then you need to factor in snow blower injuries too(So far one teacher has been maimed) and you get a recipe for disaster. So why would a school put the people it houses through that? Well Sal provided a few good reasons, but I'm wondering if there's also a few others. The first of these is that people crave order and routine. It's a pretty self-explanatory idea. But in the face of the weather I wonder if it's not a deeper subconscious thing or if the administration, thinking with our best interests in heart, gets some sort of leadership complex and the consequences are put on the back burner for the sake of order. Hopefully, the administration is a bit more rational than that and Stevenson arrogance is to blame. If we have a certain number of attendance days, it's either to meet state law(though I was under the impression we had more than we needed) or to win some ridiculous award. Sociologically the closest I can come to this is just viewing the situation with an open mind and considering society. I suppose society in our country has so programmed us to live our lives, our way, on our own, we just tune out the dangers nature throws at us. I don't approve, but I guess that's individualism at it's worst. If any one else has any suggestions I'd like to hear them.
The past few days with their lack of snow day has me rather pensive. The weather has been terrible and that is a point beyond dispute, so why would school still be in session? I think this seriously compromises the safety of students, staff, and faculty alike. Despite the expertise of the bus drivers, there are teenagers in their parents SUVs that could seriously injury a dozen kids or so in just a bad turn, not to mention the student in the SUV who could flip or go off the road. Teachers with long commutes on the highways are also at risk because those roads tend to be slick and even easier to get killed on. Maybe these are exagerrations. But then you need to factor in snow blower injuries too(So far one teacher has been maimed) and you get a recipe for disaster. So why would a school put the people it houses through that? Well Sal provided a few good reasons, but I'm wondering if there's also a few others. The first of these is that people crave order and routine. It's a pretty self-explanatory idea. But in the face of the weather I wonder if it's not a deeper subconscious thing or if the administration, thinking with our best interests in heart, gets some sort of leadership complex and the consequences are put on the back burner for the sake of order. Hopefully, the administration is a bit more rational than that and Stevenson arrogance is to blame. If we have a certain number of attendance days, it's either to meet state law(though I was under the impression we had more than we needed) or to win some ridiculous award. Sociologically the closest I can come to this is just viewing the situation with an open mind and considering society. I suppose society in our country has so programmed us to live our lives, our way, on our own, we just tune out the dangers nature throws at us. I don't approve, but I guess that's individualism at it's worst. If any one else has any suggestions I'd like to hear them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)