Sociology and the Squirrel

Ah college. I won't begin on the cultural norm we've formed that has turned college into HS the sequel(as it irks me too much to keep focus), but I would like to highlight some sociological experiences I had on my college visits over sprin break! Which are just now coming to mind to blog about!

In any case, I studied two things at every college I visited: The quads and the squirrels. On the quadrangles, I payed attention to how many students, what they were up to, etc., while trying to stay sociologically mindful, and I noticed essentially what I notice in a Stevenson common: Like goes with like except sometimes. Now this was interesting because it left other factors up to imagination about why who was with who. Clearly athletes are with athletes, but the dork and the blonde don't seem like a pre-made combination. Nor do the punk rocker and the prep. And then the stereotypes lift! I thought that was interesting at least, to see that personality does play more of a factor than even defining roles at times because while you may carry yourself as a prep, that might not be your master status; and that master status is what brings you your friends. I also kinda did a classroom map of the quad and found that people looking for quiet places to read tended to sit under tree or near buildings, away from all the hub bub that was frisby. These people smiled and all, but seemed less gregarious than the frisbiers who greeted me at every tour and seemed excited to just be playing frisby. Here again the crowd dynamic and the master status bit played a role and I could carry my chin a little higher knowing that was part of the explanation. Now for the squirrels, it was more of a search into the atmosphere of the college, biological and otherwise. Since I don't know the sociology of squirrels, I only watched one at a time, but I looked at things like a healthy coat, healthy weight, no hyper-sensitivty to humans, shiny eyes, etc. Shocking, some schools had no squirrels. These were schools I couldn't imagine attending because CLEARLY something somewhere was off if they could chase squirrels away. Other schools had really fat squirrels with bad fur which hints at maybe dangerous pesticides or unhealthy food/food refuse. The squirrels that seemed healthiest to me were digging up acorns in the gardens, running around trees to play(with me or other squirrels), and seemed happier. Inevitably, squirrels equalled students. Students at schools sans squirrels seemed fake and unnatural, students with unhealthy squirrels seemed cramped or bored and restless, and healthy squirrels meant smiles all around and a happy bounce in the students step from class to class. Long live empiricism!

As a sidenote and partial reply to the UnTV and the undisputed culture of movement we always cover in class, I have returned to my walking meditation now that the weather is more climate. Any of you are welcome to join me one afternoon if you find my neighborhood, it's a very relaxing activity. One doesn't really do it to pay attention to things, in my practice, or to center ones thoughts, but just to breath. And breathing is alot of what gets harder in our world with all the stress we put on ourselves. The basic practice is this: walk at a comfortable pace and inhale deeply, counting how many steps you take as you inhale and take the same number as you exhale. Then slow down your steps, but maintain your breathing and the count. Between 3 and 5 steps is a good number as it is a veeery slooow stroooll and one can really feel a disconnection from the culture of intense motion. Losing this pace is easy, but it's not too hard to keep it either. The trick is to pay attention to things transiently. Look at a rose and keep walking and when the rose is gone you just focus on breathing again. No more rose. It's really a "see what you can see" thing I suppose. So just slow down, and breath. And watch what happens. If at first you're bored that's fine, but eventually it should be a very refreshing experience. So there's squirrels and something to do this spring. Happy walking, comments welcome, and I bid you good night!

Ah MTV

Well just as we leave the unit on gender and masculinity I come across the show "Made" on MTV. Brilliant, no? In any case, the show is rather disgusting. It has people ostracized from their school society trying desperately to conform in the hopes they will be happier. Now the episode I watched the fellow literally had no friends, which was sad enough, and he was bullied, so his desire to change was understandable. But if the situation was less clear? If someone was just a nobody and they felt they NEEDED to fit in to be a somebody? Isn't that everything people(halfheartedly mostly...)say is wrong? This in mind, I have decided to hypothesize his masculinity felt threatened and thusly, to affirm it to himself, he decided to leave his own niche in search of a more "normal" one. I didn't watch the episode all the way through, but it was rather tragic "My life is boring" blah blah "no one loves me" blah blah "I'LL BE A ROCK STAR!" blah blah "guitar is hard" the end.

I also was speaking with some Europhiles recently and the armpits of European women of course became a topic of discussion. In American culture, somehow, that's just wrong. Maybe the Puritan values of cleaniness in the extreme or something weird, I don't know. To us it's a very feminine/beatnik/lesbian thing to do and of course, women who make it known they abide by similar hygeine, are ostracized for it. So feminism, woot sorta, not where I care to go with this, but fun sociological imagination again.

Teens versus parents? That sort of thing bores me, especially since my workplace I AM with people doing it for a career, I DO have the opportunity to go up the ranks, and I AM surrounded by all sorts of really interesting adult figures. My parents and I don't get along all the time, but it tends to be ideological and it's rarely "Oh don't drink" or "You're so irresponsible" etc. So while maybe teens are in a tighter spot today than yesteryear? Good for them, I take the liberty to speak for my peers when I say there's no use comparing us to the past when you have no intention and no ability to turn back time. Accept the situation today, remedy that, and stop looking for solutions in a past that was also inherently flawed. In short, here's approval to the dork, the teen, and the strong woman(as much as America may hate her...). Carry on, make mistakes, get over em, and if you make it to adulthood you did SOMETHING right regardless of whether you played sports or played the tuba. Not much openendedness here for which I apologize, but thoughts are welcome as always. Good night!

Language and Self-esteem Masochism

And the title of the post is actually what the post is about... shocking I know. I apologize for the tardiness of the post, but my computer has been rather hateful the past few days. In any case, I post this returning from work at lovely Barnes and Noble.
Let's start with language and the five or so floating around in my head. I am enrolled in Spanish, speak English, am teaching myself French and Japonese(with a dabbling in Romanian- I can carry pleasantries), and learning Russian from a CD and some friends. That's a mouthful, eh? I'd like to note the similarities though and if I can't relate them to sociology, at least to psychology. It seems many ideas are communicated similarly around Europe. For example milk tends to sound like something else soft or smooth on the tongue like leche or creme. Across the pacific, I don't even know how to say milk, but I imagine it must be the same as the way the human brain accepts things tends to be based on characteristics of said object that don't change. Daniel Tammet, an autistic man, suggest a similar phenomena in his book Born on a Blue Day, so everyone run out and read that. Seriously, it's worth it. So that's language.
Now for the fun part that DOES fit directly into what we are covering in class. First I would like to state I feel more and more priveleged to attend Stevenson as I take this class. Especially this unit about gender and societal roles, I can finally step back and note what an INCREDIBLY tolerant and diverse culture our school has. However, I have also noticed something like subliminal bullying, where it's amongst friends. I've never seen anything like the gay-baiting the article explains from some bullies, but I have seen it in groups of friends and I believe that makes it almost worse. In this setting, it's not initially thought of as damaging and it takes some sub-conscious effect that is more lasting. So I don't mean to preach never toss an insult or always watch your tongue so carefully you don't have anything left to say, but I do think we should all think. Even if we know the person won't be offended, we don't know what chemicals they have enough or too little of in their heads and we could be digging our own graves. Of course that's too morbid. Let's talk gender in the context of society as a whole. I did not see a single magazine at my place of employment with anyone "normal" on the cover. Always rich people, famous people, or animals/computers. I don't think that bodes well for society when we lose interest in what is and just dream about what other people have. Sure riches and glory are worth trying to get(I mean who doesn't want to be the next Alexander the Great, Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, or Brad Pitt?), but they're not obtained by the current mindset our society fosters: one of looking at others before oneself. Honestly people, let's look at me for an example. I have a strong jaw, several facial blemishes, an anarchonistic hair style, and some preppy things in my wardrobe. I get A's, B's, C's, have a girlfriend, hang out with some unique folks, and don't drive a car even though I've had my license for about four months. I also make $30ish every time I'm employed and I watch opera. Now the fact I could go on should prove we, normal people, are more interesting than our preconceived ideas about Demi Moore or Orlando Bloom. Orlando Bloom has a beard, was in Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean, and... And Demi Moore was in Charlie's Angels and married Ashton Kutcher... and? At least know everything about them to a creepy level before you make them things to live up to. Oh but they're successful! Right... so random strangers who know nothing about them drool at the chance to shake their hands and they have enough money they could cure AIDS, fix the national debt in a few years, and keep themselves warm with a fire made of 20's. That is indeed success. But why we keep slamming these impossibilities down upon ourselves is the curious part. Is human nature so against itself at every turn that we just love being thwarted? Are we "Only Happy When it Rains"?(I'm listening to Garbage as I post this, see? More "normal" details). Insight welcome, I think I'm losing my track here. Good night!

A rock by any other name!

Well, it's been decided. Out on my luck and with no work hours in sight as well as a nagging feeling that flowers are TERRIBLY overdone(at least in the wrong way: as a sort of bribery), I shall ask my girlfriend to prom with a rock. Those of you who complain, feel free to take it up in comment, but don't expect me not to defend myself.
In any case, today's real post is about feral children. I find them fascinating. After reading Kipling's "The Jungle Book" I've wondered just what the dynamics of the animal world are. It's unlikely they are as "human" as Kipling portrays, but I don't doubt they are more intricate then we initially think. Which might be due to a sociological imagination that animals are inferior because they can't open Snapple bottles as they have no thumbs? Or the supreme individuality they express? I'd argue we envy the latter, but society says it's wrong in the name of compassion either religious or just ethical. Proving religion and ethics are for the human being to strive for something which is good and bad. The good is that it works. The bad is that it works. People think something is selfish just by looking out for itself first because they have taught themselves on a superficial level that it is(nurture). Meanwhile your nature won't have you running into burning buildings to save babies, so it's a bit of a stretch to argue that's human nature: selfLESSness. Now all this gets to the point when I wonder if feral children are just human NATURE run rampant, released by a truly NATURAL NURTURE rather than human nature not fully met. This is kinda Sal's dog and human starting line bit. I'd argue that humans are unique in that they don't have that starting line at all! That human nature is one of adaptation above all else, not of reasoning or logic, which would support how this children live. So if humans have no starting line, then they can set the bar however high or low the situation demands. If in a pack of wolves where that sense of logic isn't so key and atrophies, the bar is different than in a human environment where reasoning is a requisite. So I shall call this "The Mowgli Thesis", a theory of my own device whereby feral children are proof of the Tabula Rasa, but also that the human nature is inherently adaptive and for this reason is so infinitely impressionable(the nature is there, but in being there it is NOT there). I know that's confusing, but I managed to wrap my head around it so if anyone's curious don't hesitate to ask in a comment. I can try to explain in spoken word too. Mhmm, enjoy the Mowgli Thesis, good night!