Blog 12

I find it interesting how time can change so drastically and how much modernity has come to dominate our society. I read that the beginning of this idea of modernity started when Capitalism was becoming more common in our society. Individuals in pre-modern society were more concerned for the well being and the state of the family. Now in modern society the concern is more focused on the economic state between individuals and businesses. I fear the state of our society in my future and how much more capitalism and modernity will affect my life.

On page 368 I found a powerful yet interesting quote that says, "Modernity is not an engine made up of integrated machinery, but one in which there is a tensionful, contradictory, push-and-pull of different influences." I agree with his statement, modernity is unpredictable and we can never expect this idea to stay constant like a machine or system. There are many factors that will make modernity different each day. For example the idea of capitalism. Each day businesses are trying to gain a profit and there is no consistent profit. Each year is different or even each day.

Giddens' then goes to explain the four frameworks of experience in modernity:
1. Displacement and reembedding- the intersection of estrangement and familiarity.
2. Intimacy and impersonality-the intersection of personal trust and impersonal ties.
3. Expertise and reappropration- the intersection of abstract systems and day-to-day knowledge ability
4. Privatism and engagement- the intersection of pragmatic acceptance and activism.

This to me explains Giddens phenomenology of his experience with modernity. He is describing that in order to have this modernity there needs to be familiarity between the two to understand how it works. In a sense there also needs to be an equilibrium of the two to modernity can work.

I thought this was a good example of our modern life. We cannot get away from technology and work.

Blog 11

"The only way of knowing a socially constructed world is knowing it from within. We can never stand outside it. A relation in which sociological phenomena are objectified and presented as external to and independent of the observer is itself a special social practice also known from within. the relation of the observer and object of observation, of sociologist to subject, is a specialized social relationship. even to be a stranger is to enter a world constituted from within as strange. The strangeness itself is the mode in which it is experienced." This quote by Dorothy Smith reminded me to the concepts discussed by George Simmel and his views on society. His theory suggests that we are strangers to an environment but depends on his distance or involvement in that area. We are far but close to our surroundings. Similar to what  Dorothy states our social relationships depends on our social situation. These situations are determined by our objective knowledge. We are either separated or close to the world by our knowledge. 

To put this in my own perspective, my internship requires me to be close to all surroundings and be familiar with the issues. My task for my internship is to be a sports intern for grades ranging 3-5. I am to host students to participate in volleyball and basketball games where they can compete and learn about the spot. In a theoretical approach I am far from knowing my surroundings yet  I am familiar with the aspect of the sports. I an new to the environment and the children so adapting to this new concept of people and places is difficult however the sports come natural to me and I will be able to educate the students on this fact. This is not the only case of my strangeness to society, I am sure I will encounter more experiences feeling as if I am foreign to others around me but that is the beauty of habitualization and how our society functions.

I think this is a powerful quote that we can all relate to at some point in our lifetime.

Blog 10

A symbol I experience daily would be a watch or time and the idea of how I manage my time. I tried to think of something out of the ordinary and time was the best idea I could relate to myself. I believe time would still be considered  a symbol. Personally I value my time and I am very time constricted. I have to know what I am doing at a certain time and if my time is disorganized I get very frustrated. Like many other United states citizens we value our time or are a time oriented country. We must have deadlines and expectations around time or numbers. In a sense we as citizens keep our time sacred because we are very keen on making sure we are abiding by a timeline. Time is a symbol because we use it everyday, it has meaning and many people value their work on it. This is a shared idea because as you see in other cultures they do not have strict time procedures. For example, my teacher who is Native American warned us in the beginning of the year that in his culture being on time is not the life or death of me. He said, "relax and just live life on your time" I thought this was an interesting concept coming from an outside perspective. His words were strong and it opened my eyes a little more on how strict we are on time. Especially in institutions are we fixed on time. An example would be in class when it is time to leave students will pack up their belongings and will not give respect to the professor even if he is still teaching. This in other cultures is seen as very rude. I agree and I am one of these victims that are packing their bags but it is just how our culture is. Peter Berger states, "It is important to keep in mind that the objectivity of the institutional world, however massive it may appear to the individual, is a humanly produced constructed objectivity." This is true when it comes to time and relation to United States culture. We put a great emphasis on time and was constructed by us to be time constraint. So it is important to consider other cultures when dealing with time because other cultures may not have the same views as we do.

Blog 9

The United States has the most difficult language/culture to interpret or understand. Many researches would argue the same, especially Clifford Geetz. He was known for his studies on ethnography, which is the scientific study of the customs or individual peoples and cultures.

Within our reading Geetz gave an example of how we as U.S citizens express non verbal communication. For example, winking. Winking can be considered a form of nonverbal communication. Geetz explains, "contracting your eyelids on purpose where there exists a public code in which doing so counts as a conspiratorial signal." Winking is also considered a communicative gesture or as Geetz believes a "voila." We have numerous gestures in the United States. It is important to note that to the foreign eye a wink could be seen as a simple blink of the eye. This is Geetz's main focus, is the different cultural communication styles.

On page 289 Geetz gives a great example of the usage of ethnography concerning facial expressions. He explains, "Ethnography: a stratified hierarchy of meaningful structures in terms of which twitches, winks, fake winks, parodies, rehearsals of parodies are produced, perceived, and interpreted, and without which they would not (not even the zero-form twitches, which, as a cultural category, are as much non-winks as winks are non-twitches) in fact exist, no matter what anyone did or didn't do with his eyelids." This explains how cultural gestures could be interpreted in many different ways and how confusing they could be. A wink is seen in a different cultural perspective to be an eye twitch, even though there was a purposeful meaning behind it. On the other hand, even U.S individuals could interpret non verbal communication incorrectly. This is the structure of sociology in Clifford's eye. To understand cultures and different norms we must understand and study the broad communication styles.

This clip is a funny yet applicable example of how different communication styles are in play. Even individuals in the same culture interpret non verbal cues differently. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWedkk3K2Q4

Blog 8

I believe every individual experiences distance at some point in their lifetime. Whether this distance is from your work, home, or self. Georg Simmel focuses on the distance from self and individualism. He mainly emphases how immigrants feel as if they are remote but near in their environments. This concept seemed strange to me at first because it sounds contradicting. however, after discussing the concepts in class i grew a better understanding of what Simmel is trying to portray. I then thought of a personal experience that could relate to the concepts described.

This past summer I applied at a new job back in my home town because I wanted to be closer with my family and I knew I would make great money. As an experienced waitress I knew I could handle applying at a new serving job. The problem was the anxiety I grew from meeting new people and working at a place that was foreign to me. Being a shy person that I am I was afraid to open up and show my true self. I also was comfortable with my serving style and thought I would have no problem serving. After training and meeting other people in the beginning I new that I would have to have an objective attitude. I was stubborn to change however, I knew that if I didn't apply their rules and procedures I would have been scolded. The idea of objectivity comes from Simmel where he states, "Because he is not bound by roots to the particular constituents and partisan dispositions of the group, he confronts all of these with a distinctly "objective" attitude, and attitude that does not signify mere detachments and non participation, but is a distinct structure composed of remoteness and nearness, indifference and involvement." I had to have an objective attitude to knew ideas and concepts or else consequences would arise and affect me as an individual. There are different degrees to which individuals need to be objective. My situation was a minor case of Simmel's argument but I think that everyone in their lifetime experiences objectivity and conformity.

I Google searched objectivity and this is one of the images I found that was funny and relative to objectivity. displaying what are we created for and what is our purpose.

Blog 6

Writers such as William Shakespeare and Emily Dickinson have always caught my attention. I enjoy reading their riddles and how they write has one or more meanings. Gilian's reading on "The Yellow Wallpaper," is quite similar to Shakespeare and Dickinson's. her excerpt is like a riddle that could be interpreted in many ways. This reading or riddle was easier than your average literature. Gilman made it clear that she was trapped in her own house and because of this she was depressed. The wallpaper acted like a barrier or a disease in a sense because she could not relieve herself from the conditions she had to face. In her readings she had wrote, "It is dull enough to confuse the eye in following. pronounced enough constantly to irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard-of contradictions." Here she is obviously in distress. To have these opinions of a wallpaper one must have a mental disability. She even compares the wallpaper to suicide. Comparing a wall to suicide is unheard of. It is clear that she is lost in her own house and depressed because she has no freedom. Her husband John amd brother does not believe she has a mental condition to which drives her even more insane. This reading has another meaning which we described more in class. This is the idea of women inequality. It is clear in this reading a display of androcentric culture. Men are the workers and women are under appreciated in the workforce or in society in general. they stay at home and take care of children and home duties. As we described in class women have their public and private spheres. Men I believe at this time had a majority of these spheres that they would call their own or dominate. Women could not even call their home a place of theirs because the male would determine what the home would consist of. This reading was a great interpretation of how women can get lost in their own home and lose their sense of self. Below is another riddle that I believe deals with unappreciated women. See what you can interpret.

Selected Poems by Emily Dickinson


She rose to his requirement, dropped
The playthings of her life
To take the honorable work
Of woman and of wife.

If aught she missed in her new day
Of amplitude, or awe,
Or first prospective, or the gold
In using wore away,

It lay unmentioned, as the sea
Develops pearl and weed,
But only to himself is known
The fathoms they abide.

Blog 5

Harriet Martineau is an inspiring female. Since this is the first female sociologist we discussed I enjoyed reading about what she had accomplished and her insight on sociology. This sounds feminist but to know that women were under appreciated in the past gives me more of a reason to be. One of the concepts I enjoyed Martineau discussing was her view on human happiness. She states in the article that the most important law of social life is, "the great ends to human association, the grand one, the only general one is human happiness." Even though her thoughts on how to achieve happiness is quite vague I had my own personal explanation of how we could achieve happiness. this too sounds opinionated  but I think this could be a simple step to achieving greater happiness. Martineau also described this in her article and this is the idea that our society is losing our morals and manners. Morals she explains is "society's collective proscribed and prescribed behaviors." and manners is described as, "its patters of action and association." Our society has lost or weakened how to be proper in a sense. I am not singling out every individual but men are less manly and women are less womanly than what they were back then. There are many examples that I could describe here and the word I can think of to describe both sexes is sloppy. Men are not opening doors for women, pulling out chairs for women, or dressing appropriately for women. As for women, we too are not dressing appropriately, acting lady like, or taking care of the home as much as we used to. These are just some that came to mind. Notice even in the picture given in the article. Harriet's hair is nicely pulled back, her dress is not showing any cleavage, her make-up is not drastic, and her legs are covered. Women now and even men are not respecting their bodies like they used to. I believe this could be a start to societal happiness is to better our morals and values by simply acting like we have them. Below is a picture of dressing apparel in the 1800's compared to clothing in modern day society. Notice the difference in the amount of skin shown!

Blog3

I intend to reference off of Durkheim's view on religion, however what I wish to discuss is not a great idea or issue that comes from his theories. I just found a certain aspect discussed in class that would be interesting to go into more detail. This is the idea of religion and if will continually exist in the future, or will it still have a significant importance in years to come. I would see many question this idea, like Durkheim says on page 72 of our textbook, "Religious forces are therefore human forces, moral forces." I see this as a way of him explaining that there is no truth behind where religion comes from or where it is originated. Durkheim views life in more of a scientific and objective way, so he believes there needs to be an explanation for everything and religion cannot provide that. So this is where I wonder, could others start questioning religion and could they have an impact on how our society believes in the certain things we do. Also, Durkheim adds how we see many items or objects to be sacred. For example, the bible is a sacred artifact, however it could be seen as just a book with scriptures that humans have wrote at a time and place we cannot recall or make proof of. Then I wonder what would our world be like with no religion or beliefs. Would we have a whole new way of living, or a whole new perspective on society. Personally, I believe our world is coming to an undesirable place due to that fact that we are losing our sense of self and what we believe is true. There are numerous examples taken place here, bombing, shootings, terrorists attacks and many more. I am not saying the sole case is because of religious purposes but I know that it could somehow be tied into place. Oddly, I do worry what our world will look like in my future and what other horrifying acts people will do, call me a  global hypochondriac ha ha but the future scares me. I found a song that I think ties quite well into what I talked about and a great artist actually has the same views as me so I must not be losing my mind. "Imagine" is is John Lennon's best selling single of his solo career and its purpose or lyrics are intended to have listeners imagine a world of peace and barrier free of nationalities and religion. Also, Lennon wants listeners to imagine the possibility of a world materialistic free and focus on the greater good. This song is a bit slow but the words are powerful, I am sure you have heard it before but just to refresh your memory here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8

Blog2

Commodities are everywhere. Why do they exist and why do many individuals draw to commodities? As Marx describes, commodity fetishism is a growing issue in our society. This fetishism specifically is the perception of the social relationships involved in production and the exchange value in the market place. Marx also goes to explain how there are two values in our commodities. The use-value and exchange value. The use-value of a product mostly satisfies human needs and wants. The exchange value of a product is determined by when traded how much use or value does it have to the beholder, this doesn't necessarily always concern money as Marx explains. As I mentioned, commodities are everywhere and many people base their living on this brain-washing idea. Personally, I also fall into this trap of commodities. I am not saying that they are a bad thing that individuals fall into. I believe competition is important in our society because it gives us a reason to work harder and achieve more. I think competition goes hand and hand with commodities. The market is a great example that displays competition and they strive to have their products be useful and exchangeable for high prices. I too fall in the idea of commodities and I try to find products that are high in value. I also am a competitive person. With these two traits I am looking for the "hot commodities," like many other individuals. I buy expensive things just to better my view to others and show them that I have these nice things so I could potentially look valuable. One product that I splurge on would be purses. A purse has one use, to hold belongings easily so you can travel with it everywhere you go. So I then question, why is a Coach purse more valuable than a non name brand purse. The quality could be more valuable but a non name brand purse could still hold same amount of quality. Below are two leather purses. Hardly do these look different. Both seem to hold the same amount of items and have the same durability, the only thing that distinguishes these items is price. Can you tell which one holds greater value? The purse on the left is Coach and on the right is a purse found on Ebay for $15. I am not sure of the price of the Coach purse but I would assume it is easily over $100. I felt this was a good representation of how the market can trick and abuse buyers to fall into the idea of valuable goods. We will always have this constant battle between producers and buyers and a relationship that will forever be unstable.

Blog1

The theorist I am going to debate is Auguste Comte's theory on Positivism. Positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. I agree with Comte's ideas to a certain extent. I do believe that many theories and issues can be explained through science. For example the idea of gravity. Gravity is used to explain many issues that scientists in many fields question in their experiments and methods. However, some scientists could question many controversial issues that gravity cannot explain. Coming from a religious back round I believe in faith and the power of will. An example that came to mind where power of will was in great effect in this case. This is the controversial issue of Stonehenge. I find the placement and organization of these rocks to be very interesting. I believe these were placed not by the help from gravity or any scientific experiment, but placed religiously. As you read the article it is still unknown to how these ginormous boulders came to where they lay and I love this aspect about these stones for the fact that many scientists have not explained or looked into these rocks very much. I chose this example because these boulders were placed years ago and many people wonder how any person would have the strength to lift these with the materials they had at that time. Even though scientists could have a logical explanation to how they got there I still believe that faith had a major effect on the placement of these rocks.
Surprising Stonehenge