Technology and Relations

Question: Do you think Americans today are more isolated due to technology?  Explain why or why not, and whether you think this issue is something we should be concerned about now or in the future.

The advancement of technology has brought about both increased connection and isolation.
 Nowadays, businesses allow employees to telecommute or work from home. This saves businesses money and saves employees time, allowing them more time and freedom to work and balance their lives. On the downside, employees must be disciplined to separate their home lives and responsibilities while working. They also do not participate in face-to-face work collaboration, which can feel isolating to some, “much like house arrest” as our textbook says. Despite employees' lack of face-to-face communication, they can still connect with co-workers and leaders all across the country and world. Their freedom to be at home may also enable them to visit with family or friends during lunch, run a quick errand, balance work and vacation better, and lead to overall increased life satisfaction.
Likewise in social networking, people can connect with others from various locations, interests, and backgrounds.
Social networking can produce more relationships because people have the ability to connect with others in vast locations and from different periods in their life. For example, if someone moves across the country, they can still keep in touch with their friends with relatively little effort or time through Facebook. People can connect with childhood friends, colleagues, teachers, group members, as well as send messages, share picture, plan events, share instant updates, and more. With social technology, people are able to connect with their past and present, as well as make potential connections for their future.  
These connections can be superficial due to lack of physical contact, and they can create a false sense of connectivity or intimacy. For example, some people may “talk” over the computer, but fail to interact in person. Others may wonder how a friend is doing and consider calling them, but after looking at their Facebook, they have gathered enough current information that they no longer feel the need to reach out and talk about their life updates. However, the lack of face-to-face communication also opens the door for people to communicate thoughts and feelings they might not have the courage to in person, which can create deeper relationships. It can be easier to admit thoughts and feelings when one does not have to anticipate facial reactions or physical repercussions. Also, the invention of Skype, or video chatting has enabled greater connection with people from different areas, allowing people able to see and talk to one another.

There have also been studies about Facebook and social networking increasing depression because some people tend to highlight the good points of their lives through updates and pictures, making their life seem picturesque from the outside. When viewing this, others may discouraged or upset that their life does not appear to be as perfect. Also, if someone views pictures of friends or ex-girlfriends or boyfriends with new friends, this can feel isolating or upsetting. Additionally, instant updates allow people to post who they are with, where, and when, which can further contribute to feelings of exclusion.
While telecommuting and instant connection can be beneficial in terms of saving money, time, and making wide-spread connections, they can also be isolating and dangerous. It is important to not become too wrapped up in technology and make sure one participates and interacts with others in person. The advancement of technology enables our society to operate quickly and productively. It is essential to value in person interaction and the peace of the present moment without being constantly connected to technology and updates though. Technology advancement is not something to be concerned about as long as people can stay grounded.

Thoughts about Crime

It was interesting to learn that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration among several countries. While this graph provides numbers, I wish it provided the percentage of the population that these numbers signify. For example, it is not surprising if a less-populated country has lower numbers incarceration because there are less people inhabiting the country to begin with. The more important question is what percentage of the population is imprisoned.

The book also mentions some impressive numbers: the American imprisonment system requires $200 billion to annually maintain, and it costs $25, 327 to keep a prisoner in jail for one year, but prisoners typically serve several years.

I can’t help wonder if prisons truly benefit our society. It was evident in the film, What I Want My Words to do to You that prisoners can grow, develop, and evolve into better people in prison, but I also think this situation was special. I have a hard time believing that male prisons gather around, write, and talk about their pasts and their feelings, but perhaps that is part of the answer. People cannot grow, improve, and move forward unless they peel back the layers of hurt, anger, and sorrow that drove them to where they are. Some people might think that inmates don’t deserve this chance, but I think it would be worth developing therapeutic writing and discussion groups to allow inmates a chance to be understood and heard. One reason why people commit crimes in the first place is because they are misunderstood and/or want to be seen, heard, and recognized. Also, the brutality of prison could only serve to harden the inmates further, making them more hateful and closed off towards society. Is that really productive and worthwhile? Should our nation spend so much money just to make bad people worse? (Note after watching What I Want My Words to do to You, I have a hard time saying all inmates are truly bad people anyway. I’m not denying that what they did was awful, but they definitely showed deep remorse and courage to improve and contribute to society).

I think the labeling theory is an accurate belief in why people commit crimes.  When someone is labeled, this label becomes a part of their social and self-identities. When someone knows what others think of them, they are more likely to act accordingly. I know this from experience too. For example, if my mother asks me why I am acting impatient, I am more likely to feel her belief in my impatience, and resultantly act even more impatient. When people know others think poorly of them, they are more likely to act upon their insecurities and lash out as a means of indifference and not letting poor beliefs get under their skin. Therefore, perhaps if prisons included therapy and a chance for prisoners to re-label themselves, not as convicts and outcasts of society, but as people who made mistakes and are on the road to recovery, that could influence how they change.

Additionally, our textbook mentions shaming as a way to prevent crime. I cannot say I agree with this either. Stigmatizing shame is when a criminal is labeled as a threat to society and treated as an outcast. I believe this is simply stoking the fire of hatred within a criminal, so I don’t agree with it. Reintegrative shaming is when a criminal is reintegrated back into their community with the help of people close to them. While this method is effective in Japan, I also think Japanese people tend to live with clear cut expectations and a high level of pride since their culture is collectivistic in nature. I question the effectiveness of reintegrative shaming in the US because I think it would be challenging for family and friends to control a truly rambunctious or angry person, but maybe their second chance to integrate back into their community would be helpful. However, if they live in a troubled community, that could be more fuel for their actions anyway. I think police presence can be helpful because simply seeing a policeman in uniform is a good reminder of society’s rules, but at the same time, some people believe rules are meant to be broken anyway.

I don’t know what the answer is to preventing and treating crime, but especially after watching What I Want My Words to do to You, I cannot help but feel like inmates need to work through their pasts, their feelings, and their labels.

What I Want My Words to Do to You

Wow. This film was incredible. It was so compelling and eye-opening I even cried. The women's pain was so raw and so deep that it made my heart break. Their stories made me think about the fragility of life and how everything can change in one instant. It is encouraging and inspiring that they have the courage to grow and change after all they have been through though. This was not what I expected at all and it truly touched my heart.

Nature versus Nurture

I do not side strongly with one particular viewpoint on the Nature vs. Nurture debate as I think both viewpoints provide relevant and important information since there is a biological and social interplay involved in shaping a person. One aspect of the debate, just nature or just nature, is not solely responsible in shaping a person because both aspects are involved. However, I do designate significant value to the nurture side of the debate as their are numerous environmental influences that can affect a person, though a person's biological nature determines many characteristics as well.

How people develop depends greatly on socialization, or the developing awareness of self in society. There are numerous agents of socialization, or groups or contexts that shape our developing awareness, including family, school, work, peers, and the media, each of which has instrumental power in molding a person (Giddens, Duneier, Appelbaum, Carr, 2012).

Personally, I attribute part of my personality and success to the influences of my family and school. My mother, grandfather, and aunt foster my interest in education and learning, encouraging me to earn good grades, study, and develop a sound and confident, yet humble voice. They particularly emphasize my inherent right to be strong and intelligent, and that as a woman, I should own this power rather than back down from it, thereby admonishing the fading yet traditional gender stereotype of women being "less". Their encouragement has served to strengthen my self-confidence and motivation to continue excelling. When I knew what characteristics and attainments they valued to be important, I adopted the same principles, partially to please them and satisfy my human need for attention and affection, but mostly because I came to believe the principles myself. If I had been born into a different family, my personality might have developed differently, thus illustrating the influence of nurture.

Another instance of the importance of nurture is feral children. Our book touched on this subject with the Wild Boy from Aveyron and Genie. There is also another known instance of Oxana Malaya who was raised by dogs. See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PyUfG9u-P4
It is interesting, but quite sad. This further illustrates the importance of socialization, particularly at a young age. If one is not exposed to socialization in the early years of life, one is unlikely to develop properly in terms of expected human behavior, especially in terms of language.

I also want to note that biology also plays a part in a person though. For example, a boy is born color-blind, which is determined by his genes. He does not develop color-blindness due to his socialization (at least not that I know of).
There is also fascinating evidence on the power of genetics in studies of how identical twins reared apart still developed the same. In fact, in a study on a pair of twins, the men grew up in different homes in different parts of the country and did not know of each others existence. Upon a reunion as adults, it was discovered that their wives, sons, and dogs all had the same names and the men shared the same interests and similar occupations (Myers, 2010). While not related to gender, this still lends power to strength of nature.

In terms of gender, both nature and nurture are involved. There are many natural, scientific differences between genders. Besides the obvious physical differences, males and females also possess differences in hormones and brain structure thereby affecting actions, interests, and personalities. It was fascinating to learn in Psychology that men and women cannot think the same as our brains our different (Ohhh that explains a lot, right?!).

However, in relating nurture and gender, I learned of the social influence theory in Psychology, which states that we learn the appropriate gender roles through imitation and observation and by being rewarded or reprimanded for adopting the appropriate behavior (Myers, 2010). This goes hand in hand with gender socialization in Sociology in that we learn our appropriate gender roles through society: girls are taught to play with dolls, like the color pink, be sweet, play house, and eventually be a mother and raise a family. Boys are taught to be tough and strong, play sports, and eventually work and provide for a family. These traditional stereotypes are indeed traditional and they run deeply through our society, shaping our social roles and self- and social identities.

In the podcast, Ms. Lerner brought up equalizing genders and that we cannot do this unless we raise children differently. Children are the foundation to the future, so I agree. It would be difficult to completely go against the grain of society and completely break the standards of gender, so I think it is mostly important to raise people who develop a strong sense of self, empowerment with knowledge, and confidence and security within themselves to respect others and the differences among them. This may be a good starting strategy for developing greater gender equalization.

In summary, I believe in both nature and nurture. People are born with natural biological distinctions. Their composition greatly determines who they are and how they develop. Environmental influences or agents of socialization also greatly affect people and development too. Both sides of the debate mold a person, so I believe in the power of both.


Giddens, Anthony; Duneier, Mitchell; Appelbaum, Richard P.; Carr, Deborah (2012). Introduction to Sociology (8th ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.  
Myers, D. G. (2010). Psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishing.

Just as Americans enjoy sketch comedy on Saturday Night Live and other shows, our friends around the world have their own comedy shows as well.  Here is a short (2 minutes) clip of a BBC (that's a British network) comedy sketch featuring Hugh Laurie (the star of the American medical show House). 
As you watch the clip, notice how the American singer and the content of an American song are portrayed.  Also notice the laughter coming from the audience, as well as how the sketch ends.  What do each of these things tell you about how American culture looks from the point of view of a British audience?
 After you've watched the clip, please write an entry to your blog discussing your interpretation of the clip and response to it, using the questions above as guidance for what you might discuss.

-------

I'll admit this video is humorous. The television show is essentially mocking Americans and American culture and highlighting perceived stereotypes. The singer is wearing a plaid shirt and a tied string(?) around his head, creating an image of woodsy, outdoorsy, free-spirited, and uncultured person. The singer also sings in what I presume to is a mocking of an American accent with exaggerated "r"s probably because British tend to round their "r"s with a softer "ah" sound rather than an American "ar" sound. The singer does not sing much of a song either as he simply repeats, "America" and "states." This does not make the singer sound intelligent. While he sounds proud of his country, he does not provide any concrete evidence for his feelings or exaggerated, emotional faces, which shows a blind, following-the-crowd, kind of a pride.

Based upon this clip, it seems British might find Americans to be crude, uncultured, and unintelligent. Since Americans tend to view British as more proper people, I think both cultures are making judgments based on ethnocentrism, rather than cultural relativism. Each culture is different from one another, so it is not fair to judge another culture and proclaim it to be "this way" or "that way" before considering how one's own culture might appear first.