People are still people

I thought the Shift Happens video managed to acheive its goal of raising awareness about global change and the fantastic rate at which innovation and information technology are advancing. Still, I think that the increase in information is not necesarrily the most important aspect that we need to focus on. Yes, more information is being transmitted, but that doesn't mean its all essential information. MySpace is not essential information. It's a method of entertainment and social networking that happens to use a tool called the internet, that didn't exist a few decades ago. What I am trying to say is that while more information is going around the world, I think that for the most part, people are still people.

What educators need to do it focus on teaching kids how to think and learn, as well as how to work effectively with others towards a goal. It would be good to use up-to-date technology as a way of building skills in this, but on the other hand if you teach someone how to learn, they can learn anything they need to after that. Regardless of how much information technology takes off, nothing is going to ever replace a kind word, a hug, a friendly gesture. The most influential people will not be those with the most information or the most technological skill, but those who can inspire and motivate others to acheive a goal. Educators should be preparing students to be leaders, and to seek goals that are worthy of acheiving and that will benefit our world.

Mills is basically right!

Unlike pluralists, C Wright Mills argues that the government has become increasingly cetralized. While states used to have more autonomy and participated in a true federation of states, power is now highly centralized and federalized. I think this is evident in the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act. This was a federal legislation regarding education, a task traditionally left for the States to manage. In this case, mandates were placed regarding education. The federal government will withdraw their financial support from school systems that do not implement the changes required by NCLB. This is exacerbated by the fact that the high rate of federal income tax means that state governments do not have a high enough tax base that they can use to fund large initiatives without the help of the federal government. The net effect is a type of coersion that aptly illustrates Mills' point.
Mills also argues for a power elite that runs our country. I think that this power elite consists of the elected government officials as well as the large corporations and business men who support them and on whom officials rely for financial support for thie re-election campaigns. Campaign finance reform including greater accountability for funding sources, better methods of disemminating real campaign information at a low cost (i.e. subsidized, unbiased TV stations), and other reforms could help move our country from oligarchy to democracy!

Walmart

Walmart does not pay fair prices for the goods that it buys. This was obvious from the Frontline video's description of Rubbermaid's attempt to increase their prices, and Walmart's refusal. Walmart also doesn't provide fair wages or benefits to its employees, and has outsourced much of its manufacturing to foreign markets. Both low wages and outsourcing have undoubtedly hurt the US economy. Walmart, with its brilliant supply-chain management and ability to provide a great variety of goods at rock bottom prices, has successfully managed to shut down small town, local competitors in many areas where Walmart opens stores. These closings of community stores decrease community connections and make local economies go stagnant.

As I view Walmart so negatively, it is only self-contradiction that allows me to go there to make purchases from time to time. Recently, when I was moving to a new state and needed a mish-mash of different products, I went to Walmart so that I could buy all of these items in one place. In the hurried lives of working families, graduate students and young professionals, Walmart provides a quick and cheap way to get the things we need. I try to avoid Walamart as much as possible, but sometimes its just too tempting. I wish Walmart paid more respect to local economies and did not use foreign labor so much.

Division of House Chores

My chart showed a general trend indicating that my mother both did more chores around the house, and completed those tasks that were less flexible and required greater sacrifices of work hours. This result is in line with the findings discussed in the textbook.
Discussions of this topic have been heavily focused on the existance of inequalities and differences in the roles of men and women in the family. True, many women still express frustration that their spouses do not take on as many chores as they would like them to. On the other hand, anecdotally I have had many women tell me that they indeed enjoy caring for their families, and cooking dinner provides a way of connecting with their spouse and children. While inequality in this area does exist, I don't think complete "equality" is required in the sense that chores must be split in type and frequency exactly evenly. Perhaps the man and woman could split chores based on what one or the other prefers, and based on the hours worked outside the home and demands placed by the employer.

Religion and Society

Question: Is modern society secularizing? Why or why not?
My thoughts: Many people report, as described in our text, that they attended church as children but now no longer do so. This may lead one to conclude that modern society is secularizing. I do not think that modern society is secularizing. Rather, I would emphasize that membership in religious organizations has increased since the founding of the U.S. Religious affiliation has increased, though attendance at tradiational church services has decreased. This shows not greater secularism but greater individualism and perhaps greater pluralism in the practice of religion. People still seek religious experiences and fulfillment beyond the material world, but the tendency is now to look toward non-traditional and highly personalized methods of obtaining such experiences.

Question: What do you think is the appropriate role of religion in government?
My thoughts: I think that we should always respect the freedom of religion that is preserved in the Bill of Rights. This freedom of religion, however, is not challenged by simple expressions of theism, such as that found in the pledge of allegiance, that are part of our nation's historical context. In fact, freedom of religion does not mean that religion must be eliminated from public life and discussion. It only means that the individual is free to practice the religion of his or her choice!

A Tale of Two Families

As I reviewed the storyline presented in Tale of Two Families, I easily saw that my experience has been most like Max's rather than Byron's. My parents have enough net worth that they can afford to help me if I eve needed it, and were able to pay for my college education without any loans.

I think that these stories don't directly attest to the effect of race, but to the effect of wealth. Insomuch as there is a wealth gap between the races, however, my opportunities have been shaped by my racial/ethnic identity.

Why do sociologists separate sex and gender?

One of the most important requirement of science is that it is unbiased. Our textbook has described the need to look objectively at society and at sociological phenomena rather than being biased. Unfortunately, the sociological study of gender (or at least the study of gender as described in our textbook) seems to be biased even in the basic definitions on which the study is built.

According to our book, sociologists define sex as the physical differences of the body and gender as the cultural, social and psychological differences between men and women. It states that these definitions of sex and gender as separate entities are "fundamental" because "many differences betwen men and women are not biological."

This separation of sex and gender is not justified for several reasons. First, sex and gender are interrelated, a fact which I find indisputable for anyone who has a basic understanding of the biology of hormones. Hormones are biochemicals that affect our behavior, and serve to link the biology of men and women with how men and women behave. It is fact that higher testorterone levels, which are vastly more common in men, lead to more aggressive and dominant behavior. It's also a fact that hormones effect emotional wellbeing, and women's hormone levels vary over the course of a month while men's remain much more stable. I do not offer the discussion of hormones as "proof" of gender roles, but only as concrete examples of the link between biology and behavior.

Secondly, I think the definitive separation of sex and gender is inconsistent with our understanding of other concepts that also have biological influences. The fact of being human, for instance, entails biological, social, cultural and psychological differences between human and animals, but we do not separate the life of a human into "biology" and "everything else." In fact, sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists acknowledge that biology, society, culture and psychology interact and together can describe what it really means to be human.

If "human" can in one word describe biological, sociological, cultural, and phsychological differences between humans and animals, why can't one word describe biological, sociological, cultural and psychological differnces between men and women? To me it seems that by the very act of adopting these definitieons of sex and gender as absolutely distinct, sociologists are biasing their field toward the theory of the social construction of gender. Only within the context of this theory are gender and sex completely separated and gender seen solely as a product of societal and cultural influences.

This chapter was very disconcerting to read. I think that sociologists needs to seriously consider whether they are adopting these definitions because they are necessary or simply in order to facilitate arguments that support one theory over another without scientific basis.

Why we should care about global inequality?

If knowing that you sit comfortable in an air conditioned room reading this blog when over 1 billion people in the world are malnourished and hungry isn't enough of a reason to care about global inequality, it will be difficult to engage you further on this subject. But if the simple fact of knowing that many many human beings just like yourself live on a dollar or less a day and don't have running water or a place to take care of their necessities is not enough, I think you should at least consider that investing in developing countries will help our economy as well. If the current populations in developing countries had better nutrition, better education, and higher income, we'd have a whole new market of consumers who would want to buy our products, thus contributing to our economic success.

Social Class Matters

High schools are notorious for demonstrating stratification, describes in out text as inequalities among groups, relating not just to property but to attributes such as gender, age, religious affiliation or other. Milner argues that teenagers are cruel to each other because they lack power in many aspects of their lives and seek to create social structures where they can get power. THis theory helps explain why cliques and social exclusion are so common among teenagers.

Most of us think that the pettiness of highschool cliques passes with time and would like to believe that social status begins to play a less dominant role as we mature into adulthood. But I think that class matters for people of all ages. Class matters first because it affects the opportunities that are available to you. Members of the working and underclasses have much less access to good education and other benefits than their upper middle class counterparts. But class also defines how we view ourselves and others. There were many examples of this in the stories section of the People Like Us website. Individuals who had either experienced upward or downward mobility tended to also experience alienation from family and/or friends. Even if all social classes experienced equal opportunities, class would still matter.

Extra Blog: The strength of democracy and women in the workplace

Our textbook emphasizes gender inequalities and established power structure in many of its discussion of sociological principles. Feminists such as Kathy Ferguson that seem to seek the formation of alternate organization and societal power structure that disparage "male values" and uphold "feminine values" may not realize that their efforts may eventually hurt our democracy.

I have no problem with women entering the workforce. This is essential for many families in our current economic situation and with the cost of living being what it is. Still, I think that there is a tendency among radical feminists to view women who would like to stay at home, support their husbands and take care of the children as unenlightened and oppressed. I think that the discussion in chapter 6 on social capital provided insight into how women dedicating themselves to homemaking and childcare actually help strengthen democracy.

Our text states that strong social capital is essential to democracy. Some sociologists argue that civic engagement and membership in social organizations has declined in the past quarter century. While membership in some organization like the AARP have grown, an increasing percentage of members simply pay dues without really participating in the organization. The book cites one reason for this as the entrance of many women into the workplace whereas before women were traditionally free of career responsibilities and were motivated to participate in volunteer and community organizations. The decrease in civic engagement has been accompanied by a decrease in voter turnout and faith in government. The weakening of social capital has decreased the effectiveness of our democracy.

Every woman should make her own decision about whether to work, stay at home with her kids or devote herself to volunteer work. Still, I think that the failure of radical feminist to recognize homemaking and child rearing as a sphere in which women bring unique feminine gifts and talents and can find real fulfillment may discourage women who are so inclined to devote themselves to the occupation. This could have the long term effect of weakening the fabric of our democracy.

Internet: less isolation, but also less real intimacy

I think that the internet has had both positive and negative effects on our American society. There is no doubt that the internet has allowed more effective networking among people, as well as allowed friends and family to stay in touch even when separated by long distances. As our textbook mentioned, the internet has allowed many people who do not have the benefit of frequent face to face contact with others, such as shut ins, to interact with others in chat rooms and form meaningful relationships.

On the other hand, I think that the internet has had a negative effect on the development of real intimacy in relationships. We have already seen in our text that there is a human tendency to communicate with our faces. In general, in person interactions allow easier communication when discussing emotional conflicts or making major decisions. An example of this is the tendency for businessmen or businesswomen to fly across the country or the world for meetings, when in this age of technology he or she could simply call in. As the internet has flourished, people have begun to rely more heavily on email and chat communications which I believe has the potential to decrease the level of intimacy that is possible between the two who are interacting. Some people, and particularly teenagers, spend a significant amount of time chatting with friends over the internet. If this time were spent having meaningful conversation in person, more emotional intimacy with parents, siblings and friends would develop. While the internet has decreased isolation, it may have also decreased the intensity of our interactions. We have a greater quantity of interaction now, but not greater quality of interactions.

Crime and Community

I enjoyed reading the short section in our Introduction to Sociology textbook on Crime and Community. The authors propose that preventing violent and serious crime has been the main focus, but that recently there has been an increasing realization of the need to maintain proper order and civility. I think it is very true that the small crimes of vandalism, graffiti or rowdy youth gangs can have a cumulative effect on a community. In communities where these crimes occur frequently, citizens feel discomfort, avoid public places and withdraw from community. This creates a societal vacuum, devoid of the normal societal controls that would be in place on potential criminals just by the mere presence of others and the need to practice basic civility. In this way, it seems that overlooking small crimes in a community can in fact lead to the occurence more serious crimes. I think this is a good argument for the broken windows theory in its approach to crime prevention.

Nature through nurture

An age-old debate about the primary and fundamental influence on human development and behavior is called the nature versus nurture debate. As our textbook states, however, “neither biology nor culture wholly determines human behavior" (Giddens et al. 59). In my opinion, the answer to this question is not nature or nurture, but nature through nurture as the primary influence on human behavior and development. I believe that a person's nature influences how they respond in certain situations. The child’s experience and interpretation of the nurturing he or she receives is dependent on the child's nature. In other worlds, our nature mediates our reaction to the nurturing we receive.

As an example, let's take the subjects of gender identity and gender socialization. It's obvious that men and women are objectively different. We can see this is true with only elementary knowledge of biology and anatomy. Men and women have different organs used for different purposes. Our biology also affects our behavior in many ways. One example is that higher testosterone levels in men linked to higher aggression levels. Another example is provided by sociobiologists who argue that women who, because of their biology, must invest more bodily capital in order to reproduce naturally seek nurturing, stable partners. Both our anatomy and certain tendencies in our behavior are defined by nature.

Given one’s biology and nature, how does gender socialization occur? Our textbook presents the theories of Sigmund Freud, Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan on this topic. While the three theories present different viewpoints, all acknowledge the role of nature in defining gender. The fact that a child is a boy or a girl affects the way that he or she experiences the nurturing of mother and father. For example, Freud argues that a boy understands his father’s presence as a threat and thus reacts to his presence with fear and suppresses his natural desire for his mother. A girl would not react to the presence of her father in this way. In a similar way, Chodorow argues that the boy, because is different (by nature) from his mother experiences the need to “break” from her and thus becomes more independent than a girl, who experiences greater continuity with her mother when acquiring her sense of self. In both cases, the nature/biology of the child as boy or girl is fundamental to their experience of the environment around them and the nurturing they receive.

Our culture may be empty, but it gives others hope

I laughed outloud when I viewed this comedy clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE

The clip entails a singer of an "American song" which begins with a piano melody with a mellow tone reminiscent of Billy Joel. After a short interlude, the singer begins this "American" song.

"America, America, America, America," He repeats himself over and over again as the audience laughs. To their delight, he switched to "States. States. States. States." He ends shortly thereafter with the refrain, "America, America, America, America." To end the clip, a man in a suit enters and punches the singer in the face.

At first viewing, this BBC clip is clearly a criticism of American culture. The point is that America is so very proud of itself and its culture that it will chant its mantra over and over again. The claim is that American culture is enchanting, just as people have been enchanted by timeless artists like Elton John and Billy Joel but that this culture has almost no content beyond its identity as "American." Simply put, "american" is the one and only word that can describe american culture.

On one hand I agree with this assessment when I consider the thesis of George Ritzer and other sociologists who describe the "McDonaldization" of American culture. Our cultural treatment of food is based not on quality and taste but on efficiency, standardization and control. Where food provides an opportunity for social connections, leisure and family bonding, american culture has reduced meals to the acquiring of specific nutrients required for our functioning. Productivity and efficiency have replaced leisure and true enjoyment of life's pleasures and beauty.

On the other hand, I see much evidence that American culture is rich and full. One example is jazz which is a distinctly American form of music. Jazz led to the development of blues, and now rap holds modern musical ties to jazz and blues artists. In addition, while some countries may criticize American culture for its apparent emptiness, many others, especially in the developing world, see America and its values as a beacon of hope for their countries' future success.

The clip's conclusion with a punch in the face may be a suggestion that those who blindly accept American culture (including Americans themselves) take a second look at what it really is. The implication may be that some people have become so infatuated with American culture that only a radical wake-up call will make them come to their senses.

Stanford Prison: An unethical experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was unethical according to the criteria for ethical research accepted by the APA and the British Psychology Society. These criteria are summarized in David Myer's text Psychology as follows:

1. The informed consent of potential participants must be obtained
2. Subjects must be protected from harm or discomfort
3. Information about each individual participant must be handled confidentially
4. The research must be fully explained afterwards.

Dr Zimbardo, in conducting the Stanford Prison Experiment, failed to protect experiment participants from harm/discomfort. The prisoners experienced discomfort and some even experienced sever emotional distress. Also, the guards may have experienced a great amount of discomfort upon realizing their own "hidden tendencies" toward evil and misuse of power. Even if comprehensive and extensive debreifing and counseling sessions were provided to the students, the experience was undoubtedly a life-altering experience for all. I have no doubt that some may still be pained by their memories of the 6-day experiment.

One argument that has been put forth is that the experiment involved very little deception (the exception being the surprise arrests at the beginning of the experiment), obtained informed consent, adhered to the signed contract terms. In addition, some may argue for its acceptance because of what it was able to reveal about group and power dynamics. In my opinion, this is a classic example of an age-old question: Do the ends justify the means? Even to the end of advancing our sociological knowledge, the answer is no.

Introducing: me!

Hello. I'm Samantha Kepler. I'm 25 and I currently work for Chemonics, an international development firm in Washington DC where I do quality management. In the past I've worked as a computer teacher, a fifth grade teacher, a missionary in the Dominican Republic and an IT consultant doing government contracts.

I grew up in Reston and graduated from the University of Virginia in 2006. In August, I will begin graduate studies in Public Health Nutrition at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. I am interested in the causes and effects of poverty, societal influences on nutrition, school nutrition, and educational, governmental, commercial and societal interventions to end world hunger. I want to practice clinical dietetics but I would also like to help build food security and start nutrition intervention programs in developing countries. I think the MPH Nutrition degree is perfect for me!

I love to cuddle up with a good book and enjoy cooking and baking. I am currently reading Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food, but I love almost any novel. The last movie I watched was "We Are Marshall" and some of my favorites are Pride and Prejudice and Anne of Green Gables.