SumBlog11

           Dorothy Smith was an important social thinker who came up with the ideas of Standpoint theory and "Bifuricated Consciousness." Both of these have helped the field in understanding sociology itself and how we collect and interpret data. Standpoint theory says that we can better understand a situation, group or culture by immersing ourselves in it. Instead of researchers looking outwardly, they can get better insight when part of the culture over an extended time. Nuances are seen; deeper meaning derived. Smith says that even gender is a culture on its own which can be misunderstood in an androcentric world. Woman's standpoint theory posits that it can be advantageous for women to give insight since women are a minority and see things as they really are (as opposed to a man in an androcentric culture.)
          This kind of ethnographic approach could be applied when we look at women in power positions in the workforce. There seems to be a double-standard for how women and man should act in their top position. 98% of CEOs are men - in this domination, it would be useful to use women's standpoint theory to better understand the culture 1) from a woman's perspective and 2) when the CEO is a woman.  One powerful woman comes to mind - Anna Wintour.
         Anna Wintour is the Editor-in-Chief at American Vogue; however, she is more than that. She is so influential that people have said all trends in fashion originate with her. She dictates every seasons' fabrics, colors, hemlines and accessories. Top designers at fashion houses have said that a simple purse of her lips at your fashion show means you're out of business. She is THE authority on fashion. There is even a mainstream movie supposedly based on her: The Devil Wears Prada. That being said, she has a reputation for being an "ice queen." She doesn't often offer hints to her personal life or do in-depth personal interviews. This makes me think that a proper ethnographic study of her would provide a better understanding of the culture she's in. I think we could grasp more about her identity. Here is more about her and trying to understand her as powerful CEO and as a woman in the fashion industry:

SumBlog10

          A symbol that I encounter on a daily basis is the handicapped symbol. It is a stick figure of a person in his/her wheelchair. Often it is white on a dark background (usually a blue.) Of course, this a profane sign in that it show a person in a wheelchair; but it's also sacred. It represents someone who is disabled and indicates that special considerations have been made to accommodate them in that space. It means that a person with a disability can use that space or facility often more easily than a non-handicapped marked space. It also means that those who are not disabled should not use that space but leave it reserved for someone with a disability.

          People continue to maintain the stick figure as "sacred" I think for a few reasons. I think one of the big reasons is that in many countries, it is government enforced on the street. For example, a person can be fined for using a handicapped parking stall without the visible documentation. But what about bathrooms and other spaces marked with the symbol? I think the other reasons people obey these symbols is out of respect and conditioning. I think non-disabled individuals over time are conditioned to reserve this space for others. Even when those who don't need the special accommodations, use a handicapped space I think usually feel guilty or feel the need to justify their decision.

          Sociologist Berger would agree with the notion that people get used to this sign and simply obey it. There isn't really a need to keep repeating the process step-by-step. While young children might question an adult why we can't park there or use that particular space, the children will begin to recognize this symbol throughout their daily lives and continue to live with them over time.

          I think this symbol is great for showing our respect and inclusion of disabled people. An advantage is that without words, nearly every culture can understand the picture. The meaning of "accessibility" or "reserved" may need to be learned/taught; but thereafter the symbol is easily applied to all spaces intended. Someone seeing the sign over a parking space in Canada and someone seeing it on a seat in the metro in Japan both know the intended meaning. On the other hand, although it's an attempt at inclusion and helpfulness, by nature it's also one of segregation. 

       On a side note -- recently there has been a movement to change the sign to a more active disabled stick figure. New York city has already embraced it, and it's replacing the old sign. To me, the figure is more athletic and able. What do you think?

SumBlog9

Erving Goffman's ideas of the "presentation of self" are very intriguing to me. Goffman likens our lives to the theater; we are the performers on a stage. There can be multiple performers, performances and stages as well as props. He says that we give ourselves a "self label" which is an identity that we represent. This gives power to the individual, rather than solely to society. In our theater, there is also the audience (or others) and they have expectations of each of the performers and their roles. We can try to understand culture better by studying individual's performances, roles and the stage. Goffman's theatrical metaphor was important to the fields of sociology and communication because it made identity more tangible through an idea almost everyone knows (the theater) and it gave power to individual roles without losing sight of the culture as a whole or the "audience". Despite this, the performance metaphor is also weak because of its simplicity.
         A few examples of performance as culture come to mind for me. For example, I think law enforcement officers are a good example. They assume a role of authority and have a huge audience critiquing them. Even if his or her backstage or off-stage self is quite different, the officer role must be performed while on duty and in the public eye.
      I just watched an episode of the TV series Frasier that I think also applies to the presentation of self idea of Goffman. In this clip, Frasier and his brother, both sophisticated psychiatrists, find themselves on the wrong stage. They are refined men who dress well, have an eye for taste and would choose to go to an antiques store or wine tasting instead of a sporting event. Put them on the "wrong" stage and they could seem (stereo-typically) homosexual. In a case of mixed identities... see the clip below (skip ahead to about the 2:00 min mark):

SumBlog7

       I find that I do some of my best studying in busy, cozy environments. For me, in Central Wisconsin, they means a coffee shop. I often go to Starbucks to work on research and write up papers. I choose a place where I have a bit of space since I usually have many articles to reference, my big laptop and a big bag full of just-in-case items along with textbooks and writing utensils. I probably take up more room than I should and feel guilty about it sometimes; however, when it gets busy, I move over as to take up only one or two spaces. People seem to get a bit more protective of their space when it gets busy.

by Lori Johnson http://www.collegebound.net/blog/college-behind-the-scenes-finals-week/

       I usually focus on my work with occasional snack breaks and coffee refills. I really like being in the warm, relaxing environment especially as the days get shorter and the weather colder. Sometimes I notice other students working diligently and
      With a standpoint approach, looking at this experience subjectively, I can imagine that some might not like that I bring so much work to Starbucks and stay so long. Perhaps some might think that I don't have the internet, or a car (I am clearly visible hopping on and off my bike.) In fact, I have lightning fast wireless internet and two cars. Also, the baristas might think I'm a bit odd inquiring about calorie counts and nutrition facts on drinks (which I can't always get on the site), when in reality, I'm an athlete deep in training and need to track everything that I put in my body. Other students that I observe I'm sure have their own stories that are misinterpreted.
       The standpoint approach allows for many views to be taken to a single event or situation. In my Starbucks case I realized that the reasons that I do things and the choices I make are not always clear and not straightforward to outside. I'm sure that others encounter the same things.  We tend to make generalizations and assumptions based on people's behavior and outward appearance. This could be a disadvantage of standpoint theory. Unless we investigate further, we aren't sure about the assumptions we're making about everyone in the situation.

SumBlog6

Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote one of my favorite short stories that has stayed with me since I first read it in high school. "The Yellow Wallpaper" differs from her other writings - for example "Women and Economics" not only in content but mostly in style. The Yellow Wallpaper although quite short always seemed much longer to me; its story and main character have depth. Vivid images are painted in this story such as a woman sitting, watching the outside world ....

and the imprisoned shadows on the wall....I always get an empathetic, eerie feeling as the story progresses. We're not really sure what to think. I feel as though I'm on her side, fighting as to why she's been put there and also against her own demons in the room. I began to wonder whats real and what's in her head. 

I think this story was important for the time because not only is it a multi-layered intriguing story, but it tells us about women at the time. It makes us think about women's roles and rights. Was this woman crazy? Was she driven crazy by people or society? Who has the right to put her away in this type of "prison"? I think perhaps many women in this time suffered from what was called "nerves." She knows she's been put on medication for her condition, but obviously isn't fully aware of what's she's doing - if indeed she is wearing down the wallpaper. I'm left to wonder if it was real or not. This story of a woman put in an attic for her nervous condition makes me think of old ads from America which also play on this notion. Is telling a woman, (or man) that there a nervous condition that should be dealt with before normal introduction in society a type of opposition? I would argue yes to some degree. This was a time when people were given medicines and remedies for all kinds of problems, real or maybe not real!

SumBlog5

Harriet Martineau was an important social thinker and felt that sociology should be shared with the public. One the things she wanted to share is the thought that the law of social life is to be happy. Human happiness is most important. Despite her stress on this point, her definition is quite vague. Perhaps creating happiness to her means avoiding anomalies. An anomaly is when there is a disruption between morals and manners. Morals are society's collective ideas and shared norms, such as personal space or waiting in turn for something. Manners are those actions based on morals - like a lot of personal space in the United States and forming a line. 

For example I can think of an anomaly that occurred in my life. An Israeli friend of mine had an Israeli friend visit us (in the United States). Here, we value those things like waiting in a line at a store; whereas in Israel they don't. When the friend walked past all the people waiting in line in front of us and starting shouting to be next at a store I was appalled and embarrassed. On the other hand, it was not only completely normal for them, but she thought we were the odd, regimented ones doing this arbitrary line-forming. Our mutual friend ending up explaining the difference to us. I was enlightened and intrigued.

In the United States, sociologists have found we need a lot of personal space and are okay with telling others about our space. When morals (personal space given) and manners collide we have problems. Here's a video not only of a social experiment about personal space but etiquette of how to tell people they are too close! Very interesting on two different levels!

SumBlog4

Max Weber made important contributions to our study of sociology - namely his thoughts on bureaucratization and rationalization. Also his concept that ideal types to do not actually exist was an important one. A subset of the rationalization concept includes Weber's three forms of authority: rational, traditional, and charismatic. Rational includes written documents and law, traditional includes gender roles, marriage (things we do simply because we've always done them) and finally charismatic authority describes those groups or people who are charismatic and good speakers/leaders.

Weber sees rational authority  replacing the traditional type of authority. I tend to agree with this, at least looking at the United States. Some people in fact, seem to be worried about to much control by law and documents and refer to the country as a "police state." In comparison, a country that is considered at the top, if not the top of the list of progressive and free states is Sweden. For details on Sweden and the rest of the world visit: http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/.

Although Sweden does have written laws and police who protect the people, it is much less controlling and allows people more freedoms and access to care and opportunities which are not available in many other countries. It's not to say that Sweden is really better than other countries, but it's definitely run differently. Who knows what it will look like in 100 years? But for now, it has low employment, high standard of living and some of the happiest people on the planet. Below is a positive and critical view of Sweden and comparing it to the United States.

The video also discusses something paramount to Weber's thoughts: bureaucracy. Even though there is bureaucracy and paperwork and institutions in Sweden, people seem to trust it more than Americans trust theirs. It makes me wonder how closely trust and a country's bureaucratic system is related!

SumBlog3

French sociologist Emile Durkheim had two big contributions in the field: ideas about integration and regulation and (2) religion. Durkheim's thoughts on religion were really unique and ground-breaking at the time.  For the first time we realized that we can look at religion as a way of understanding ourselves, our culture. This idea that the belief of God exists because many individuals believe in God was something I've never thought about before. He states that religion exists outside of us and as a group we share ideals. Religious groups also have assigned meaning to everyday objects and symbols - for example the cross. A cross is really just a cross, but to Christians it symbolizes more - crucifixion, protection, Jesus and more.
Here are some designs which become more if you are a member of the religious group:

 

Durkheim refers to these objects or symbols as "the sacred." These designs and other objects have something more powerful to them than what meets the eye. An interesting example not in religion is the swastika. Before Hitler used it as a symbol for the Nazis the design meant good luck! I think this is a good example of a symbol that has not lost it's scared meaning in Western culture. However; this swastika sign is a favorable one in Hindu culture. It's a case were the "sacred" part depends where and how you grew up! Below is a very interesting video about the history and describes the meanings of the symbol throughout the world's history.  Before Nazi Germany - it was a peaceful sign.

 



Before WWII, even in the United States the symbol was a very positive one as seen in these old photo and postcard. Just a few decades ago in America and throughout the world, this simple design carried a different meaning than it does today for many people in Western culture.

 

SumBlog2

As Lemert (2013) states, "In the 1860s, Marx was the dominat intellectual and politial force behind the working people's movement..." (p. 28).  Marx really gave us (his) clear view on working people and their relationship to others in society.  He divided society into this working class and the property owners - other names such as haves (property owners) and have-nots (laborers) are interchangable. Marx felt the have-nots/workers were not treated well and through their production of commodities, actually became a commodity themselves.

These quotes from Marx's "Estranged Labor" (1844) help illustrate his thoughts (and I can't say them any better):

"The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object."
 
"...the worker becomes a slave of his object, first, in that he receives work; and secondly, in that he receives means of subistence."

He goes on to say that the labor is external to the worker, and it is not voluntary but forced labor. Marx believes that these workers who are on the production line lose themselves. They are creating a product because they have to earn a living, but essentially, it's taking over their lives; they have no outside life. It seems that the workers' lives are the work. This immediately made me think of one company in particular: Apple.

There have been many reports by the media that Apple's suppliers, namely Foxconn, are overworking their employees and submitting them to unsafe conditions. Investigations into the company show that employees work excessive overtime, sometimes seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand for such long periods of time that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Additionally, under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products.

I think this is a good example of the laborers' work becoming the commodity. The employees are living and breathing their work, seem to have no personal time to develop themselves and are in some kind of slave-like situation. I think Marx must be rolling in his grave regarding the labor force assembling and producing Apple products. Check out this video and think about it:

Lemert, C. (2013). Social Theory: The multicultural, global and classic readings. (5th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

SumBlog1

The Parisian Henri de Saint-Simon saw France in a time when the people were rising up and questioning religion and the monarchy. Saint-Simon thought science was a way to help us understand social phenomena and human interaction and relationships. This, itself, was a pretty new concept since before this time people didn't really believe we had the power or authority to study ourselves. Although he understood its importance, Saint-Simon was critical of the status quo and the monarchy. In his hierarchy he put "new thinkers", scientists and entrepreneurs at the top.

This idea of giving merit to those who achieve is very interesting to me. If we were all on the same playing field in our level of the hierarchy - what determines achievement? We almost force people to move to the next level up by celebrating their successes. We are happy for them, that they have created something amazing or had an insightful idea; however, these triumphs push those above us and have some sort of control over the lower levels. Additionally, it makes me question: how do we choose to reward these people who've we decided to give merit? Perhaps, we show them more respect and seek them out for ideas and advice.

In this painting by Giovanni Pannini The French Ambassador to the Holy See Leaving St. Peter's Square (1757), we see people sharing thoughts and ideas and listening to one another. Even though there may be an intellectual hierarchy, it doesn't appear to dramatically affect the everyday encounters during this time.  I could look at this forever!

Now, we give athletes trophies and huge amounts of money, a diploma (paper) and a ceremonial cap and gown show academic achievement, but in France during the late 1700s and 1800s we weren't giving such physical prizes. These new thinkers were creating advancements in medicine and technology which were bettering people's lives. It appears mere acknowledgement and employment of these ideas was enough to separate the classes. By allowing them some extra freedom to expand their knowledge, we could, in turn, propel our lives forward with technology and enrich our daily conversations.

Here is a a painting done by Joseph Wright An Experiment on a Bird (1768). The image itself is powerful, but the idea behind the painting is just as provoking. The body language and expressions give way to the feelings: interest, disgust, thoughtfulness and curiosity. I'm still left with some questions to consider. Why are we giving so much more powerful to these "new thinkers"? Are there repercussions, or only advancements? How does this change the hierarchy for the common people at the time?