Looking back, another thought

In reviewing for the second exam, I went back and read through the Japanese American legacy project site. Looking at the causes of internment, a history of racism, wartime hysteria, failed leadership, and economic motives were all included. I find this somewhat eerie because I think there is a correlation in these issues resurfacing through the occurrence of 9/11. For example, a wartime hysteria, questionable leadership, economic motives, and history of racial conflict have all been present. For example, I think that after 9/11people of Middle-Eastern descent have faced heightened prejudices and discrimination. In fact, one of my friends told me whenever he travels on an airline, he is frequently questioned and patted down because of his racial appearance, which is a result of our nation's post-terrorist attack hysteria, suspicion, and security. One could also argue that there has been questionable leadership through the more-than-a-decade-long escapade into the Middle East. More significantly though, is the reoccurrence of economic motives. While the circumstances are certainly different between the Japanese internment and the United States' involvement in the Middle East, it is striking how economic motives play a role in the nation taking certain actions. Would the Japanese have been put in the intern camps if their prosperous success was not a threat to our own? Similarly, would the United States have entered the Middle East if we were not dependent on that area for oil? Also, how does the hysteria of an attack effect decision making, and can we count on our leaders to do the right thing?

In similar fashion, after the Holocaust, the world said, "Never again. Not another genocide." Yet, genocide has occurred again and again, and in a variety of places. Economic motives, prejudices, failed leadership, and hysteria from all of this also seem to be causal in reoccurrence, as well as determining factors in a nation's involvement or lack thereof. I do find it a little disturbing when history seems to repeat itself.

Secularization of Religion

This week we will take our second exam and read about religion, though with Hurricane Sandy, I am wondering if the schools will be closed again on Tuesday, so I've decided to use today to start reading about religion.

There is a sociological debate about secularization, or the process of decline in the influence of religion. Some argue that religion is a less prominent force in the world today, whereas others argue that it has remained a  prominent force.

I agree with bits and pieces of both sides of the argument because I think religion is still a very powerful force in society, although it may not be as centrally displayed in society.

For example, the church used to be at the center of society and determine the functioning of government and family structures. I think this is less popular nowadays as many people attend church as a supplement to their lives rather than the central force that governs their lives (especially in terms of their work, socialization, children, extracurricular activities etc.) In this manner, I do not think churches have such a dominating role in society as they used to. Furthermore, I think our society has become more religiously diverse, so people attempt to be conscious of this by not discussing religion. For example, when the holiday season rolls around, particularly in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, people are less likely to offer a, "Merry Christmas" than a, "Happy Holidays" out of social consciousness and the risk of offending someone since society has become so diverse. I have noticed, however, that when I visit my grandparents in Northeastern Ohio, that everyone says, "Merry Christmas" because there is hardly any diversity there. 

Does the decline in the role of the church and the modernization of society mean that people have become less religious? I do not think so. In fact, as the textbook states, there have been many religious movements, which have brought about more religions and practices, such as World-affirming movements, which focus on promoting an individual's spiritual well-being rather than performing strict religious rituals, and has initiated the founding of Scientology. Additionally, world-accommodating movements have occurred, which allow people to continue their lives with little disturbance while being reminded of religious meaning, such as in Christianity's Pentecostalism.
This wider and more flexible access to religion may in fact promote its importance to people. There is also evidence of religious importance increasing in poorer countries where hardship is prevalent, although it has declined in wealthier countries in Western Europe. Since people often turn to religion to find purpose, meaning, and guidance, I think it will always have a place in society, especially when times are tough. 

                                     

Gloria Steinem's writing

I went back and read this again, and I think I laughed more than the first time. The statement that stood out to me the most was when Steinem wrote,
"Whatever a "superior" group has will be used to justify its superiority, and whatever and "inferior" group has will be used to justify its plight."
I think that's very powerful and true. You could pick any characteristic or quality and if the superior or inferior group possesses it, then any trait can be viewed in a positive or negative manner. I think this is interesting to consider because it's not about certain traits being better than others, but rather how people react and perceive these traits, and how these reactions and perceptions structure our society.

Also not to go into deep political controversy, but the concept Steinem wrote about made me also wonder if and how people's and presidential candidate's beliefs and platforms about abortion would change if men were the ones to get pregnant. Just curious. 

This was definitely a clever and much appreciated laugh though. :-P

"Tale of Two Families"

To be completely honest, these stereotypical stories make me angry. Sadly racism and inequality exist in our society, but life is not comfortable, easy, and swell for all white people like this story depicts. I have known plenty of white people who have lost their jobs, had financial struggles, struggle to pay for college, own a home, sell their home, etc. Not all of us receive abundant checks from our relatives either because I'm not sure too many people have money to spare nowadays. I also do not appreciate the assumption that just because a person is white they live a comfortable life full of opportunity and never face adversity.I suppose these stories center around the 1950's when discrimination was widely and painfully present though, so the stereotypical depictions are accurate for this time period, but our society is so mixed, melded, and diverse now that these commonly held stereotypes need and should dissipate.


The two stories conclude by saying, "Until the wealth gap is addressed, whites will continue to have an advantage over nonwhites, generation after generation."
But wasn't it an African American man in "Chicago: The Streets of Heaven" who said that remaining in poverty, selling drugs, and living that lifestyle is a CHOICE? What if this "wealth gap" is a choice? What really needs to be addressed then?

I think there will always be gaps in wealth amongst people because there are different kinds of people in the world. Without regard to race and ethnicity, there are simply different kinds of people in the world who make different choices, seek out different education and careers, live different lifestyles, and obtain different levels of wealth. It might be more challenging for certain groups, such as African Americans or women, to obtain the same success as a white man, but people can still take the initiative to try to shorten these "wealth gaps."  Plus, according to the man previously mentioned in "Chicago: The Streets of Heaven", one can make $6,000 a day selling drugs, so there's no need for a pity party.

While it might have been accurate during the 1950's to assume that Whites lived comfortable lifestyles while Blacks struggled, I do not think that is an accurate or fair assumption to make nowadays, and I don't think discrimination or reversed discrimination are fair, although both exist.

Gender Inequality

It was interesting to question and investigate gender inequality since it is a part of social order that people thoughtlessly take for granted in many ways.

In terms of debating whether gender is a result of nature or nurture, I agree with both because one element is not solely responsible. Men and women definitely possess varying levels of hormones, and testosterone is key in male's tendency for aggression. Men and women also possess differences in genetics and brain psychology. These innate differences in body chemistry should not be ignored, but the role of culture and gender socialization, or the earning of male and female typed roles through social agents must also be considered. Sociologists argue that both gender and sex are socially constructed and they define "social construction of gender" as the learning of gender roles through socialization and interaction with others. This is demonstrated in adult's conversations and interactions with newborn babies, so the forces of culture are present from day one.

Further evidence of the power of socialization lies in Margaret Mead's study of different tribes in New Guinea, which I found fascinating. In one society, the Arapesh society, both males and females were passive, gentle, unaggressive, and emotionally receptive and responsive to the needs of others. In another society, the Mundugumor society, both males nad females were aggressive, suspicious, and cruel towards children. Last, in the Tchambuli society, gender roles were reversed from those we expect in the United States. Women held positions of dominance while men engaged in petty, catty, and competitive rivalries. I can't even imagine this reversal and I can't help but laugh thinking about it! I think this is very strong evidence of the power of gender socialization and norms.

Continuing, I am pleased to learn the pay gap is closing between men and women, but it should still be equalized. I am also please to learn that while gender typing still exists, it has declined and in fact, women outnumber men in law and medical school in 2010. Individuality and the freedom to pursue one's goals and interests in essential and should not be confined due to gender.

One area that is still lagging is housework. Strangely enough, this does not bother me too much, as long as the work is relatively equally distributed. For example, as a woman, I do not mind cleaning, but I expect the men in the house to take out the trash and cut the grass. Taking on a Functionalist point of view, I  think this gender order of a household serves as a function in a household operating smoothly and efficiently. However, in my future household, I would want to foster equality in terms of child-raising, cooking, and even cleaning responsibility, but especially child-raising and cooking because I think a child should have two present, involved, and interested parents, and everyone eats, so everyone should be capable of providing food for themselves, and not just a mother providing it for an entire family.

It is vital to continue to analyze why and how gender roles are constructed and how they affect society. I think this is especially important in promoting equality between two different, but equally worthy genders.


Couldn't resist posting this classic..women have come far. ;-)

Global Inequality: Why Should We Care?

Week 8's question is: Why we should care about global inequality?

Global inequality creates vastly different life experiences. While life may be comfortable and pleasant for many of us in the United States, this is not the case for others around the world. In fact, according to our textbook, one third of the world’s poor are undernourished, and almost all are illiterate, lacking even primary school education. In sub-Saharan Africa, “A child is more likely to die before the age of five than to enter secondary school” (Giddens; Duneier; Appelbaum; Carr, 2012).  Not only do these conditions of famine, disease, and malnourishment decrease the life expectancy rate in these countries, but they also decrease the quality of life.

Why does this matter? While the phrase, “Out of sight, out of mind” could come up in terms of wondering why other poor countries are relevant to our lives, it is important to understand that countries around the world are becoming increasingly intertwined, which affects our lives greatly and in ways we sometimes fail to realize.

Global inequality can affect the prices we pay to obtain goods and services, as well as the money our country makes in selling goods and services. Global inequality also affects the size and strength of our economy; the world environment in terms of competition, trade, alliances, peace, security, and more; and the advantages and disadvantages of stratification amongst different countries.

A prime example of involvement with other countries is the production of the “American” Barbie doll. Although Barbie is designed in the United States, the only physical part of her that is made here is her cardboard box. The rest of her is comprised in factories primarily in China, Indonesia, and Malaysia, illustrating the intertwined countries involvement in production.

We should care about global inequality because it affects our relationships with other countries, and our relationships with other countries affect our safety, economy, and overall well-being.

Social Class

http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/stories/index.html

Question:  How much do you think social class matters in the U.S. today?

I think social class is very important in the U.S. today. I cannot say that I agree with these divisions and the stereotypes at accompany them, but they exist and they determine and/or influence almost everything: who your friends are, how you dress, how you talk, the education you obtain, the money you make, the possessions you have, the opportunities you have, and how you are regarded by others.

Our book makes several references to stratification in high school, and I agree that it is highly stratified (though I cannot say I agree it's because teenagers crave power over their lives, I think it is more about trying to formulate one's identity and figure out where one fits into society. I see it more as testing the waters in who one is and where one belongs). Anyway, this stratification, which can be cruel, is infamously illustrated in the movie Mean Girls and the labels, associations, and reputations of each of the groups. These labels can largely determine one's experience.

I think life chances, a term coined by Max Weber signifying the opportunities a person may have for achieving prosperity, also largely determine one's life experience, and are initially created by one's background and their parents' social class.  Someone from a wealthy background will have opportunities to go to prestigious private schools, make friends with people who possess similar values, own nice cars, attend upscale colleges, obtain high degrees, make good money, make connections for more opportunities through the well-off people they know, and be regarded with prestige. However, someone from a more modest background might not have these opportunities, or associations for networking. Therefore, social class determines one's upbringing from the get-go. Though class is not thought to be determined at birth like castes in the caste system, R. Couri, a social columnist quoted on the People Like Us website captures the early determinants of class well by saying,
"There's actually a recipe I can tell you for you to become socially acceptable. You have to go to the right preschool. It starts that young."
While class can be achieved and altered through social mobility, it is largely determined by the family and environment one is born into.
As our textbook also describes, vertical mobility, or "the movement up or down a hierarchy of positions in a social stratification system" is determined by educational attainment, family social status, and family background, further illustrating the importance of social capital. The book even shows a picture of the Bush family, the two former presidents and governor, which is a prime example of one's background determining one's opportunities.
While I see value in the the industrialism hypothesis, which theorizes that societies become more open to movement between classes as they become more technologically advanced and people get jobs because of achievement rather than ascription, I still think ascription is a largely determining factor. Wealth, opportunities, connections, and abundance will only help someone continue to succeed, and lack of opportunities, money, and connections won't necessarily prevent one from succeeding, but they can make the path more challenging, or create the need for creative methods of obtainment, such as loans, working different jobs, applying for scholarships, or other creative ways to save money or make connections.

As the People Like Us website demonstrates, class determines interactions. The story of Roberta and Ben's different backgrounds proved to be a conflict in their relationship because their families could not accept, relate, or handle interacting with a person from a different class. Karen's story shows how she feels about associating with different classes and how she preferred the upper-class and the sense of belonging with the privileged and important in-crowd. Charles's story also shows conflict of interaction because his father was a surgeon and has never visited him since he dropped out of medical school and bought a shrimp boat in Louisiana. Val's story also shows strain in relationships since her family, especially her father, shows discomfort and resentment to her wealth.

I think a lot of the strain in interactions stems from people's pride. People care about how others view them and this view greatly depends on who and what a person associates with. People will not associate with someone or something of a different class because it goes against the social norms for their class, and breaking these norms creates discomfort and insecurity.

In summary, I think class greatly determines and influences opportunities and interactions, and therefore, a vast portion of life in the U.S.