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.

SumBlog number 3

Emile Durkheim, a theorist I had become quite familiar with in past courses. I knew  a lot about Durkheims thoughts on religion prior to the reading, but something I was not made aware of was his thoughts on suicide. Durkheim takes this grey area in society and puts it right in the open for discussion.

Durkheim discusses suicide happening for two reasons regulation and integration. When Durheim discusses regulation he is referring to rules inside of society. A set standard that all people have to meet. Integration is whether or not a person feels connected to society and that level of connection. If a persons connection with society is low (egoistic), or they are unable to meet a societies rules (Fatalistic society, high regulations) their quality of life may go down. In the reading Durkheim says.,

"Above all, since this race for an unattainable goal can give no other pleasure but that of the race itself, if it is one, once  it is interrupted the participants are left empty-handed. At the same time the struggle grows more violent and painful, both from being less controlled and because competition is greater."

I feel as though this quote really sums up this portion that Durkheim discuses. Durkheim also discusses the influence that suicide has on society. In high school, one of my teachers committed suicide. I remember coming to school the following day and people some people saying awful things about him. I think our society does not know what to think of suicide. We all attempt to push it in the back of our heads and when it does happen, we call the person weak, or selfish. This is not right. Suicide can be prevented, a way to prevent it is by talking about it! Suicide does not need to be some taboo topic that everyone only talks about behind closed doors. I think Durkheim was attempting to open up societies eyes to a topic that many people attempt to avoid.
 http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2013/01/12/suicide-and-society-where-does-responsibility-for-preventing-suicide-lie/ here is another blog that I really enjoyed reading that talks about how we view suicide in our society.

Sumblog 2

After another week of discussions it is once again time for a sumblog. Before the week began I decided to check on the syllabus to see whom we were going to be discussing for the week. Once I saw Karl Marx's name, I was very pleased. Karl Marx is a person I know quite a lot about due to past courses I had taken. His writings proved to still be difficult to comprehend, but after class discussion (and rereading the readings), I was able to grasp a better understanding of Marx than I ever have before. Most of his concepts I do not fully agree with, but one of the concepts that I could really connect with was his idea's on the fetishism of commodities.

Inorder to fully grasp Marx's concept I first had to understand the terms that he was using. Commodities are basically any resource, some examples being, labor, water, corn, oil  and so on.  Fetish defined by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish , is, "a strong and unusual need or desire for something." So when Marx was explaining fetishism of commodities he was simply meaning the obsession with a certain resource. Marx was seeing that society was slowly becoming more and more infatuated with goods. Instead of people depending on relationships, Marx's was seeing that inside of a captialistic society, people were becoming more concernced with who made what, and what the value of thier commoditiy, was over the person themselves. Human relationships were being completely replaced by the value of commodities.

Although Marx was indentifying that the value of people was being surpassed by goods in the late 1800's, I still find it completely relevant in today's society. Take technology for example. Even more specifically, cell phones. Phone company's are constantly renewing thier softwares, bringing out the next new phone, putting everything and anything at a persons finger tips. This results in society constantly wanting the next best thing. Companies are improving technology constantly because people are buying whatever is  new, whenever it is new. It is literally as if society is obssesed with making sure they have the next new iphone or google phone. Trust me even I am guilty of it, but it is time we recognize that goods are really not as important as they seem. This website provides a slide show of the growth of the cell phone from 1972 to 2013  http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gallery/2013/apr/03/mobile-phones-40-years-handsets#/?picture=406610543&index=17 . Now clearly there are plenty missing, but this site shows the improvements year after year. I  by no means am saying that technology improvement is bad, I just think we need to be careful on the value we put on having the next phone each month. Instead of putting our value as a society on goods, and who has the "best" good, we need to switch our value onto having relationships with people.

SumBlog 1

Alexis De Tocqueville, what an interesting guy. After reading just a short article about him and contemplating his theories, it is amazing on how the things he has to say are completely relevant to today's society and I pretty much agree with everything he has to say. Inside of the article Tocqueville discusses a theory on civil associations. When he is talking about civil associations, he is referring to a group or club of people with similar interest in a certain subject that one can feel very linked to. People in society use civil associations to feel like they belong somewhere. The reading states "The great advantage of these civil associations is that people are able to interact with one another, and it is out of such interaction that "feelings and ideas are renewed, the heart enlarged, and the understanding developed (Tocqueville, 1835-40/1969:515)" Unfortunately, todays society is leaning more and more toward not being as involved in civil associations because of the busyness and independence of the people of America.
 People are becoming  more and more wrapped up in themselves then they use to be and more worried about providing for themselves and their families; with no time for group involvement. With that being said, I have chosen this picture as my  multimedia option. This may look like a typical climbing photo but, I do feel this really connects to Tocqueville ideas on civil associations and how it relates to today's society.  I feel what Tocqueville had to say was completely relevant to his time and age but not at all today. In the photo that I provided, the person is striving up a rock and there is no know end to this rock, and he is doing it alone. This person much rather go through life alone and constantly strive for excellence, to reach the top. I feel like that is why civil associations are no longer appealing to people today. People much rather worry about themselves and become successful on their own, then gain their acceptance and success through a group of people. This is one of the many reason as to  why the idea of civil associations that Tocqueville discuses is really no longer relevant.