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!