sumblog 10

For this week's topic of discussion we were required to first explore the theorist on our own, and then we discussed that theorist more in depth in the class period. Talcott Parsons was the theorist that we took the time better understand. After exploring the theorist on my own I felt like I had a pretty good grasp and understanding on his concepts, but after discussing him more depth in class I was able to identify more of his theories in todays society.
One of the theories that I was most able to apply in todays society was Parsons theories on the tasks that must be performed for a system or subsystem to survive. These tasks consist of four portions which are, adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency. Adaptation means how well a system or subsystem as able to adapt to its environment. The second portion is goal attainment. This is literally what it sounds like. Parsons is saying for a system to be successful, they must be able to identify goals and achieve them. The third part of his theory is called integration. When Parsons identified integration as a part that a system must have to be successful, he was meaning to have a hierarchy, or different levels inside of the system. The fourth and final portion that a society needs to be successful is latency. latency meaning, clear norms and values of the institution. Parsons felt that inorder for a system to be successful  in general they must be successful in these four categories. 
An example of system that I see these theories applying to in today's society is an organization called, Compassion International, you can check out this organization here, http://www.compassion.com/. 
Compassions main goal is "Christian child sponsorship organization dedicated to the long-term development of children living in poverty around the world." Compassion International fights daily to reach this goal. This organization by having a goal alone meets Parsons standard of being successful by his findings. I feel Parson was correct when setting these four keys to reaching success inside of a system. However, I do feel that there are other important aspects of being a successful system and I think if a system were to only focus on the four portion that Parsons identified, it may fail. I think each system on an individual basis has different standards that it needs to set and attain on its own. 

sumblog number 9

This week in lecture the theorist that we discussed that I most connected to was Erving Goffman. Goffman discuses the theory of the way we present ourselves in society, all revolving around a theatrical theme. I personally feel Goffman's theories are completely applicable, and can even be seen in my own current life. Goffman discuses the idea of self labels, status, and roles. He defines status as "a particular  social position". A doctor or dentist would be a good example of a status that a person may have. With each particular status comes props that each person withholds; which is another concept Goffman explains. A doctor would be expected to have, doctor tools, not the tools of a police officer or lawyer. The idea of the self label that Goffman discuses is defined as, "you having the power to present yourself the way you want to."I find this concept of "self label" extremely interesting.

Goffman's theory of self label is easily seen in todays society, and is a pressure even I feel. Every morning we wake up and get ready for class. What we decide to wear, how we do our hair, our backpacks, everything, is the power we have to present ourselves in anyway we want. Me wearing hikers and a columbia jacket, may give off the impression that I am an outdoorsy person, by no means am I attempting to look "outdoorsy" but occurs subconsciously. Although we all have the ultimate decision in how present ourselves, i think our audience, or society also has a huge impact on the way we present ourselves. For example, If I were to wear a forest green button up shirt (something that is not unusual in my own wardrobe), but on my way to class I get told by more then two people that the shirt made me look very masculine, I would probably not wear it again. I hate to admit that my audience or society has this much of an influence on me but i think it has that affect on everyone. Maybe i would not necessarily never wear that shirt again, but i would think twice about it. I think Goffman discuses this concept when he goes into discussing the power of the audience. I think Society and our audience has a lot more of an impact on our "self label" then we would really like to admit. I encourage you all to throw the audiences power out the door and wear that forest green button down, or knit, wear those broken in shoes, because YOU want to, because it makes you YOU.

sumblog 8

This week in class we discussed George Herbert Mead's theories on "self, "I" and "me". He goes on to discus the concept of the "I" as the response to an attitude, an initial reaction, thoughts on a subject that are completely raw, or the unfiltered you. It is rare to see the a-typical persons "I" version of themselves. This part of a persons self usually comes out once one has established a deep trust with another, but never comes out after a first meeting. The other part of ourselves that Mead describes is the "me", this is the part of you that comes out after it goes through a filter. The "I" part of yourself is unfiltered and very rarely comes out while, the "me" part of your self is very filtered and acceptable to society.

At first, after reading Mead's theories, I was  unable to fully grasp his concepts on "me" and "I". After coming to class and listening to some of the in class examples, I was able to gain a better understanding on Mead's theories. I think they continue to be completely applicable in today's society. For example, going on first dates, we are attempting to put on our best selves when on a first date. Most likely we would not allow the opposite person to view much of the "I" part of us. We would only allow them to see the filtered, clean version of ourselves, wanting to give off the absolute best impression  After dating this person for a year or so that "filter" that Mead discuses may start to fall alway, and the opposite person would begin to see more of our "I" self. We would no longer need to filter everything because we trust that person and can be our true selves.

I really enjoyed this picture because i felt it really grasped the concept of us having almost two identities, the "me"and "I".

slumblog 7

This weeks lecture we looked at W.E.B Du Bois's theories on double consciousness or "twoness". Going in to this weeks lecture I took a look at the syllabus to see who we would be discussing. When I saw Du Bois's name on the list, I had absolutely no idea who he was, so, I was excited to dive into his theories and apply them into today's culture. 

Something that Du Bois discuses in the text that really stood out to me was when he stated, "One ever feels his twoness,--an American, A Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings..." This quote in particular stood out to me. The reasoning of it standing out so much to me is the fact that it is so true. After looking at the video clip example given as an assignment I can completely apply what Du Bois theories have to say to today's society. We are all living with this "Twoness" or double consciousness  we see ourselves as our own self, and through the lens of other people. By viewing ourselves this way we have a tendency to constantly re-analyze ourselves and readjust to how society views us. Meaning our own self consciousness starts to take on the views of how society views you, whether they be good or bad. Like the video clip for example, the police are stereotyping all African American, and Mexican people as trouble makers, it only takes time before those opinions and actions actually mold some of that population into trouble makers. Or for another example, Amish people. You run into this population of people at a grocery store and always give them a double take (even I am guilty of this), isn't it only a matter of time before the Amish population children start to view themselves as weird or different? Society has this ideal human vision, and if you do not meet that vision, you better fix yourself to fit that vision. I think this is really what Du Bois was touching on when he discussed the concept of double consciousness or "twoness". The bad news being is that if we all start to view ourselves as society views us, and attempt to change the way we are and fit the "mold" of society  then we would all be them same; no longer having an individuality. 

I really enjoy this quote that I found the other day, and I think it fits perfectly with what I am discussing. 

Sumblog 6

 This week in class we continued discussing the memorable women theorists in today's society. One of the theorists that we discussed that really stuck out to me was Charolette Perkins Gilman, who focused more so on micro sociology. Gilman discussed the organization of society and how economic independence are relative. Gilman states in the reading, "All living things are economically dependent  on others- the animals upon the vegetables, and man upon both." So goes on to discus whether or not women are truly independent. She describes a marriage as the man being the employer and the women being the employee. She discusses how a man provides for the family and with out the man the women would not survive, therefore, calling a women dependent on her husband.  Gilman identifies two origins of gender stratification as the following, we are living in an misogynistic culture, this making the man seem more supreme, the males also dominate the public of society. Gilman recognizes that men control women, but that women must follow because the man provides.

I would say that these theories were very applicable in Gilmans time and age, but no longer applicable today. In today's generation, women very much so have their independence. They are pushed to go out get a college degree, be a part of the public society, and provide for the household as well. I will by no means argue that women gaining their rights back and independence back as a bad thing; but I feel we are running into some of the same issues that Gilman was discussing, only on the opposite spectrum. I feel as though women are pushed out of the household, and told to go out and get a college degree work, or their life is a waste. As a women who wants to stay home with her children for the developmental stages of their lives, this is upsetting to me. When I mention I want to be a stay at home mom, I often times receive looks of judgement and the comment of " you do realize you are wasting your life, and slapping women's rights in the face, right". No, I do not feel that I am. I feel as an independent women I should be able to make any decision for my future that I want, I should never be pushed by society to make a certain decision, to fit a mold that society has created. I simply feel society is pushing us out of traditional values, and attempting to make us into individual people, with no self value (Durkheim's idea's). This terrifies me.

We must all find the greatness in ourselves, not in what society tells us.

Sumblog 5

Harriet Martineau, one of the most noteworthy women theorist in sociology. Martineau was a theorists that overcame many obstacles in her life, and turned out to be a very famous writer and theories in the time of the 1900's. Society very rarely recognizes famous women as theorists, we generally study more men, but Martineau proves over and over that her theories are more than worthy of studying. Martineau mostly studied sociology, and made it her social duty to inform the general public of the study of sociology. She theoriezes about a 'law' of social life, which is a general law that dictates all of society. This 'law' of social life is human happiness. As a society we all strive for happiness, and our society somewhat runs on that according to Martineau. The difficulty in this being identifying exactly what happiness is, and if that is even something we can measure in society; or if it goes by a case by case basis.
Something that I personally found very interesting was Martineau's thoughts on morals & manners. Martineau defines morals as shared norms ( culture) and defines manners as actions based on norms. So, as I sit in Starbucks  sipping my pumpkin spice lattee, I think about how applicable this concept is in today's society. As an American, we all have this concept of personal space and awareness of that fact. I walked into Starbucks and there were many tables open, and two tables with one person at each. Now, If i would have gone and sat at one of the tables with a single person, this would have been a personal violation of space. It simply would not be acceptable. My action of choosing to sit at a table that was empty was a manner based on a moral that we have as American's. Kind of interesting isn't it. A good friend of mine a summer awhile back over sea's and I remember her mentioning how normal it was for people in a coffee shop to sit down next to be that they did not know at all, and even start a conversation with that person. It is really disappointing to me that America is not more like that. On the other hand though, I would not be the first person to volunteer to sit down next to a stranger in a nearly empty Starbucks and start a conversation.

Here is a photo of people on a plane, yes somewhat irrelevant to the coffe shop example I gave. This situation is the nearly the same though. On a plane we are at times, forced to sit next to a complete stranger, and instead of having great conversations with that person we have maybe some small talk, pop in our headphones and ignore the person, which is a complete moral, manner situation in America.

Slumblog 4

This week we discussed Max Weber, who is a theorist that discuses bureaucratization and the rationalization of modern society. Weber discuses power, authority and its forms. He defines power as domination and the likelihood that demands are going to be obeyed. He then defines authority as legitimate domination. Weber then breaks authority into three different forms, rational, traditional, and charismatic. Rational is a from of authority referring to written documents, such as laws. Traditional is a from of authority referring to  gender roles, marriage, family religion; rules set inside of these traditions. Charismatic authority refers to society being swept up by rules set by charismatic people. Examples of people that rule with a  charismatic authority approach would be Hitler, Obama, Ghandi, etc.

I found it really interesting how Weber was able to break down the authority concept into three different categories. All three of these categories can easily be found in today's society. However, Weber goes on to make a point that the rational form of authority is overtaking the traditional authority. I find this to be completely true in today's society. There are endless examples of how society is steering further and further away from traditional authority. As a society, we are no longer living our lives according to rules set by our religion or gender roles, and are switching over to following the written laws of our government. For example, a while back there was controversy on whether or not "under God" should be in our pledge of allegiance or not anymore. Some people are saying this is a rule that was set by our traditional religious side. Whether or not we should take "under God" out of our pledge is irrelevant here, but this example alone shows how society is starting to question our traditional means of rule following and starting to lean more toward a rational one.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20327848-pledge-of-allegiance-challenged-in-massachusetts-supreme-court?lite Here is the article that talks more in detail about the pledge of allegiance debate.