TGIF

Well I meant to end the year talking about how we are all going into the world eyes open. But then I got in a car crash with my girlfriend and decided that I should try and find sociology in that because it's fresh. That also why this post is late.

I want to talk about the crowd dynamics at a crash and maybe point at what sociologically imaginations they are? The main thing I noticed, although I was TERRIBLY dazed, was that the main reaction was annoyance. And that was disappointing because someone could've been hurt. So I guess not everyone presumes all crashes are bad crashes, but all crashes are just more stuff in my way. It's atrociously selfish and I kinda wish more sociologically mindful people had been present instead of the one man who called 911 for us. So yeah, that's my little rant. Next time you drive by a crash I don't even care if you're looking out of morbid curiosity, but don't get annoyed that the potential loss of human life kept you in traffic for an extra 15 minutes. Who knows, that 15 minutes could save YOUR life. Enjoy your weekend.

Genetics and Sports, eh?

I think the argument is entirely false because it refuses to acknowledge the important factor of genes: the population. To call this nurture is a mistake because it is really the environment that dictated the genetic mutation(if there is one). Genes exist for sex. The better the genes, the more likely they are to spread and what not, so if a population finds sports a desireable characteristic, eventually yes, genes will change to accomodate that. To say sports are too new for this is a mistake because sports, in some form or another, for a VERY long time(The Greeks and Chinese were playing in the B.C., that's long enough for evolution to take an itty bitty tinsy winsy step).

Nonetheless, I dislike that argument because it makes it appear as though physical strength or speed is only applicable to the sport and thus is was evolved into us. Speed and strength are good for hunting, which is closer on the timeline of some races then of others because it still exists in some areas. Thus, I think sports are a misplaced observation. They are a way to socialize and exhibit strength and such, but not the direct and implied application and I think the more desireable athleticism becomes in a population, the more risk for degeneration the genes face because one can't evolve to kick a ball better, but if people start kicking balls instead of killing elephants for hundreds and thousands of years, the homo sapien becomes the most worthless creature out there because it can't hunt! It's just very good at kicking balls! This is an exaggeration and I'm no Darwin, but I still think sports and weight-training are killing humanity in that they serve to create a human on paper. So you can bench 300 lbs, if a tree falls on you can you lift that? Your mile is 5 minutes, can you chase down a rabbit? That sort of thing has generated my disdain for athletics: it's all in theory and it's insulting to humans as animals. I guess I need to accept we fell off the evolutionary curve a while ago with the introduction of money being important for survival... But I refuse to do so! Any comments are welcome, but my logic is flawed and I am too exasperated to defend it so poke holes knowing you will be met with no resistance. Have a delicious afternoon!

La nostra Renata!

Class strikes again! B&N is having a classical music/opera CD sale until June 2nd, buy two get the third free. It's a good deal, there's a nice recording of Carmen and two Anna Netrebko CDs that are brilliant. So get in there and expand your boundaries! In any case, opera and classical music go with tea, don't they? And as you can expect from my last rant, I am no opera poseur, though I don't want to call myself an expert. So I bought seven complete operas by one of the greatest sopranos who ever lived(and she was Italian), Renata Tebaldi. Her Violetta is incredible, and that's all I've listened to so far, but the price of the set was the remarkable thing. $28 for seven complete operas, the recordings are decent, and there is a small biography of la nostra Renata inside as well. I call her that out of respect... So $28, I wondered why opera is always considered some sort of weird upper-class affair when it was so affordable. My co-worker who helped me make the purchase seemed to be surprised I was buying opera(undoubtedly because I don't ooze gajillionaire), but when I pointed out the price they came back to reason. In any case, I want to point out that maybe not every class-exclusive thing is so class-exclusive and that the sociological mindset is still so firmly made about things like opera that even when it costs less than a pair of jeans at Abercrombie and Bitc... Fitch rather, no one is really changing their opinion. So here's to slaying a sociological mindset. Let's all buy affordable opera and listen to it on our four year old CD players! That'll teach em. Comments welcome, have a good night!

Tea

Watching the movie on classism, I'm not entirely sure how to feel. I don't hate whatever Mr. My Name is WASP the 31st for starters. I like the plumber and I think Tammy is just at a loss, though. For this I want to say classism effects the extreme ends of the spectrum more than those in the middle. For example Tammy always feels her son is betraying her and the class they belong to and Mr. WASP blondie the 19th thinks anything vulgar is blue-collar, beneath him, and horrible. However, despite the occasional outliar like the guy in the bar. People who are in between poverty and riches don't seem to be so against each other. A suburbanite officeman and a well-off electrician for example, kind of like that neighborhood the fireman is in, get along. Again I think this is our culture of extremes coming through where everyone puts too much value on certain things or exagerrates in their thought processes, but that can't be changed.

So Ohio.The state in which my grandmother grew up on a farm. There is also a town called Batavia in Ohio which I would call a working class town. I stopped off there and just felt like I didn't belong, I happened to be in a suit(we were vising colleges), but the people tended to be distant and indifferent to me. At the Steak and Shake I bought food at, there was a certain alienation I felt(or perhaps thought I did?)and it was awkward. Other people of the same area were nearby and having a lovely meal and chatting up the waitress and everything, but when I politely called her over for a glass of water, she became a zombie. It was eerie. And I think that even though I wasn't raised classist, the people in Batavia put a certain sense of class in me that wasn't there before. Then for the other end, I visited Duke University. Now I hate to black-list a school, but if it was built in the 1920's to look like a gothic castle, there is a pretention issue. The people there were new money. And I can't guarantee that, but new money is a class for me. It's people who don't know what to do with their wealth so they flaunt it and make complete idiots out of themselves. They would make Rockefeller cry, basically, because they use money as an excuse to be materialistic and insincere. So I don't doubt that some "working class" people come off as more genuine, because the class a little above them is filled with idiots. However, I think if you jump that gap there would be some level-headed old money people who would be genuine, live well, and not have a toilet lined with gold. So Duke was fake like that and I didn't feel right there either. I didn't feel poor, and since I was looking at the school that wasn't the assumption anyone made, but I did feel above the pettiness. And that was awkward too. I suppose a frat-boy tour guide jaded me a bit though... I am rather prejudice to that social group and he did nothing to allay my pre-existing opinion of him(When a worried mother asked about the alcohol situation, his answer was "This is college, you know?"). Duke and Batavia... I almost think Tammy and Mr. Winston Fairgates Leopold the 4th would be more pleasant to spend a day with than the people stuck in the "middle" And that's a complete contradiction to what I already said! Intriguig.

I would also like to touch on tea- my vice. Apparently, that's a classist thing. And I won't deny it evokes imagery of the British aristocracy or something, but I want to ask why. If anyting, tea has made me less classist. I have studied pretty much every variety, the culture around it in Europe and Asia, and feel it has taken me around the world. For example I was able to talk to a Chinese immigrant a month or so ago about the white tea they grow in Fujian and all about Eastern medicine. I know how to make my own chai, courtesy of my girlfriend's Indian roots, and I've got a taste for the sweet tea of the south as well. I think it's narrow minded to call tea classist and only think of it with crumpets then. Even green tea is becoming a suburban phenomenon because it's so much healthier than coffee(which is complete BLASPHEMY, because I love coffee from a culinary standpoint as well and can't stand when people make misconceptions about it). But green tea is an Asian product for the most part and while everyone can say they enjoy Snapple green tea with artificial sweetners, I would be hard-pressed to find a fellow Gen-mai cha lover in Stevenson or anyone who even knows the difference between a Sencha and a Bancha! It's ridiculous and I'm not pointing fingers at all, but tea is close to my heart and I think it is a good example of classism. I found some funny stuff on youtube. The first is more explicitly languaged and makes some of those generalizations I loathe, but the second makes less of those generalizations, is less vulgar, and is just funny(especially if you know your black teas!).

First(did I mention it has typical hip-hop mysogny?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNMdUAyHxuU&feature=related
Second: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eELH0ivexKA&NR=1

So enjoy the videos, feel free to comment. I'm off for a mug of darjeeling with lemon and if anyone wants any tea-advice, I am your guru. Have a good night!

Violence(again)

Well of all the norms we have covered in class, violence seems to be the most persistent. I won't go philosophy and ask if men are inherently beastly(though in my opinion such is the case to some degree), but I do wonder why it is so entertaining and I present various options.

Firstly, is the factor of watching someone else suffer and knowing it's not you. So you can go fulfill that biological obligation to procreate and all is well. Now this explains why the news portrays horror stories in the light they do, the sensationalization of it all, albeit ghastly, helps people feel good about themselves in some warped and base dimension. This is a pending theory and doesn't explain the glamour in our culture. This glamour I refuse to pin to masculinity or something of that sort as, my apologies to Freud, I do not believe all human beings feel the need to justify themselves with the phallus.

Continuing right along, maybe it's just something new and fresh at the moment. Whereas the electric bulb was once a spectacle, the fantastical imaginary weapons men create are rather interesting. Here we have a power struggle and man tries to become his own god, per usual, by governing life and death. Menacing, eh? However this line of thought says violence will one day diminish as a cultural flame and we moths will gravitate to something else. Hopeful, yes. Realistic? Again, pending.

A final reason is nationalism, that OTHER sociological imagination that says "You're from this country be proud of it... and kill anyone that would stand to try and make you feel small for that pride." Now this route explains why comic book villains, when put against American heroes, are inevitably our rivals or enemies. Boris and Natasha? Today it would be something middle-eastern most likely, to rouse national sentiment. Now this explains why conflict is always cropping up and why the conflicts of our heroes are our own. But here the flaw is does life copy art or does art copy life? In any case, when you step back, the entire thing becomes utterly ridiculous.

So I apologize for the late post again, but nothing this week in class struck me as amazing. Locking oneself in prison seemed ridiculous and the distribution of wealth in this country is really no news to me. Nonetheless, seeing Iron Man at the request of my girlfriend(gender roles? I never read comic books, she did, we're both outliars in a sample set I guess), did inspire a few thoughts. It's a predictable movie of course, but not bad and very interesting to view sociologically if you feel you can muster it. Otherwise watch it for what it is and it IS entertaining as a light show with plenty of explosions and such, but no blood. And so I touch upon my final point: the redemption of man! Intense. The lack of blood shows we are not so desensitized that realistic violence is amusing, it is still the stuff of horror and while there may be sadists walking among us, gratuitous gore is not what one looks forward to seeing. With this I ask us all to maybe even turn away from bruises, bombs, guns, grenades, and all other indirect signs of violence, but not tonight. I need some more tea. Comments are welcome as always, enjoy your weekend!

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!

A rose by any other name is a waste of money, right?

Well this morning my sociological mind got ticking early, courtesy of Mr. Mazzuca. He mentioned the societal norm for a gentleman to give flowers to a lady in his attempts to suit her(or take her to a dance in high school)and how strange that seems to him. Thinking through it, it's not that strange to me. Sure a plastic bag of severed, botanical sex organs isn't attractive under those terms, but the flower has it's merits, in the industrial world of today especially.
Not many of us can trapze around like Wordsworth and write poems about fields of daffodils. Most of us are lucky to even see one naturally growing daffodil let alone a field of them, and for this I think the flower is a way for us to integrate nature back into our lives. Why we do this is probably dependent on society in part, as a new trend is telling us to return to natural beauty and slow down our lives, but I think part of it is the individual aspiration for beauty as well. There are few flowers considered "ugly" and people value that and hope that by surrounding themselves with beautiful things, they too might adapt some of those characteristics from something so shallow as the pleasant smell of a flower, to the determination to live of the orchid or the intensity of the hydrangea. These characteristics are ideal to people and the flowers help them find those characteristics in themselves.
Another possibility is that the flower is just wired in our genetic makeup as a symbol for affection. Ancient man was known to use flowers at his primal burials and today flowers still adorn funerals as well as weddings and myriad religious ceremonies. Perhaps, then, the beauty of the flower transcends mankind and that silly bag of dead plant parts is something far beyond our comprehension? Or it's dead plants in a bag. All about perspective here too I suppose. I welcome any and all thoughts!

Death

With regards to "Tuesdays with Morrie", I've decided to blog about death. In America, death really seems a taboo and as Sal mentioned, that might have alot to do with the materialism. A grave is a grave, one can't exactly take what they've amassed in life with them into or past it, and that's a frightening idea for people who work hard to get things because they don't want to think they're working in vain. I think the culture of individuality is another factor because death shows how silly it is. In death, from my view, we are alone. That seems to fit with being an individual, but we don't have a choice in it and we also just fit a mold. People die, there's nothing unique there and the individual can't identify with that. It also can't identify with not having a say in it's own fate. I know death is also a bit taboo in other countries though where throughout Asia they follow strict rituals to respect the passed-over. I'm also familiar with the idea that some countries(Or maybe just China?)over there don't EVER put their chopsticks straight up in their meal because it looks like the incense they use to honor the dead in temples. My take is that this is all rather ridiculous and I agree with Morrie: "If you know how to live, you know how to die". I've also read his holiness the Dalai Lama's book on how to die and found his take pretty interesting. I find death intriguing that way because it's so mysterious and no one can leave us something about it. So what are your thoughts on death? I'd love to hear em.

Doing Nothing

Unfortunately, this assignment was lacking in a difficulty or a shock factor for me because I occasionally "do nothing" anyway. What was nice though, was that this familiarity meant I could focus more on what was going on and less on keeping myself in that state of detachment. I chose to do nothing for this assignment in a church and picked a portion of the liturgy with very little movement. I rarely attend church, but I noticed nothing particularly strange, only some sociological things that work to create the general atmosphere. For example the leadership role of the clergy was notable to me, but it wasn't the kind of authority where if he asked someone to eltrocute a stranger, they would. It was more of a personal leadership role which may be a microsociological factor, but was still noticeable. The other thing was that half the people seemed unenthused while the other half was happy to be there, but neither side seemed upset. Both halves felt at ease and I suppose the cultural status of a church as a place of safety and forgiveness helped each person feel safe and comfortable with themselves. With all the hub-bub, I wasn't able to do nothing for long though, but I feel these observations are proof that I actually am learning something in class that I can apply to the outside world which was refreshing. So yeah, that was that.

Tables are for glasses, not for...

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.

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?

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.

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 Awkwardness of Silence

"Silence is a true friend who never betrays"- Confucius

Silence can be weird. Occasionally it can be terrifying. I personally find silence pleasant, it gives the mind time to be heard over the roar of everyday chitter chatter. I don't find that people speak too much really, I will be the first to admit I occasionally start arguments for no other reason than to hear my own voice, tone, and fluidity. I also listen a lot, though, when I get bored of myself and think that people could learn to do that a little more instead of rambling on when they themselves are sick of it. I don't think society yearns for peace and quiet, just something a little less overwhelming, but that isn't a true silence if it doesn't make your ears roar with the sound of your own blood rushing through you. I have climbed several mountains and hills in my lifetime(Including Mt. Vesuvius of Italy and the lesser known Bell Rock of Sedona, AZ), and I like to be alone or at least silent at the top. There is something powerful there that words would ruin and the same can be said for situations not on mountains. There are a few people I can be silent with, probably because they know me well enough not to try and make me talk when I'm not in the mood too(or because they know I talk too much anyway?), but that eventually turns into a conversation. I guess I could call that a comfort thing. A silence near new people can be awkward or scary, maybe stemming from the same reasons people fear death. It's dark and looming and people want to chase it away. Still, I think silence is necessary for deep thinking, which is why I shall do my readers the service of NOT putting up music that will distract them or annoy them because it's not to their taste. That's another thing, silence is universal and no matter what language you speak, not speaking can be understood. So I'm going to side with Confucius on this one. Stay warm, stay cozy, and, if it suits your fancy, stay quiet!

Me on Blogging

I have not had a blog before nor am I particularly thrilled to have one now. I find blogging to be, for the most part, the epitome of narcissism. People posting their favorite Starbuck's drink, why they hate their boss, what happened to their favorite actor, and otherwise sharing things with the world that no one really cares about. I do not mean to say that blogging can't be a good insight to someone's personal life, but there is a line there. Blogging can also become something very cold and technical, more like a news reel of uselessness than something put up by living people. Again, the line. But if a blog is a nice mix of personality and of substance, then I find they can be enjoyable to read. There are my thoughts about the business, hopefully I don't bore other people half to death. That's why this is the tea party(the other reason is I really like tea...), a page out of Lewis Caroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland where nothing has to make sense and observations put forth often challenge common sense. Enjoy your stay!

P.S. I get a caramel macchiato usually, but am fond of the Godiva hot cocoa as well.