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?