I am feeling an unbelievable amount of stress. I feel like my chest is wound up and I'm just seconds away from blowing up. I am so full of tension, angry, confusion, stress, and I don't have any place to put it. I try to just tell myself not to "stress" but the more I tell myself not to "stress" the more angry and stressed I get. I just want to scream really loudly, hit a wall, do something to just make it go away - even if it is for just a little bit. There are just so many things that are stressing me out. I don't have any money. Lauren and I need an apartment and the apartment "we" (or I) wanted we need a co-signer for and her mom was supposed to co-sign and now I don't know if she will. Lauren doesn't have a job. I still have to finish school and my CA job. I have to pay off my car and I don't have the money yet. My Sallie Mae loan hasn't been certified by the school and they said it could take 4 to 6 weeks to certify it. I need to be out of my room by the 20th and I don't have an apartment set up yet.
It just feels like I'm all alone to deal with everything. If I try to talk to Lauren about it, I'm "stressing too much and when I stress it makes her stress" and then she gets mad and pissy towards me. So I can't really vent to her about it or really look at her for any support. I feel like I do so much during the week the least I could do is get some kind of "I appreciate what you're doing for me/us" or, "babe, let me give you a massage since you're doing so much." I feel like if I don't do things they won't get done. She wants me to "trust" that things will get done but the be perfectly honest I don't trust that things will get done because she just doesn't "stress".
I guess she thinks that everything will just fall into place and fate will have its way but I don't believe that. I feel like you have to persistently go after what you want to get it. I feel like she isn't looking hard enough for a job. I print things off for her at work, I try to encourage her to look in the job sections, get on the computer. I would have thought that now that we have a car that she would be out applying at places and she hasn't gone to one place to apply around here. It's like it's not that big of a deal if we don't have money. I feel like I carry the weight of everything on my shoulders and sometimes I just wish I could count on her to come through and help us out. Yes, her mom does give us money and it definitely helps considering I barely make $200 every 2 weeks, but still it's just like "if we're about to move in together, why aren't you agressively looking for a job? She says she wants to go to school, but it's like, what are you doing to make sure you get in and you get your grant accepted? I just feel like she has such lazy attitude towards things and it pisses me off. It makes me feel like when I get stressed about our situation, that I don't have her to support me. I feel like she just says "don't worry about it" when in fact we need to worry. I'm pissed because I really wanted to live in the two-bedroom apartment and I had my mind set on it because Lauren said her mom would co-sign but now here we are almost two weeks from when we need to move and we don't have an apartment. I just want some freakin support. She asks me why I always want to drink but I'm so stressed and I feel so tense and wound up that I really feel like I need to drink. The stress I'm feeling doesn't feel healthy. I just wish she'd be more supportive and help us out instead of me feeling like I can't trust her ability to come through. I'm just tired and stressed and I desperately need to be drunk right about now.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Situations that make me rage at Lauren -
1. Drugs
2. feeling disrespected by her exes regardless if there's any merit
3. not having my feelings respected or considered
When I rage, I know the logical solution is to wait until I'm calm to talk, but I get so furious that I need to scream and I need to talk it out just this second. However, the problem with this is when I get angry I have a tendency to say the first thing that comes to my mind and i tend to be extreme in my thinking and become incredibly illogical and disrespectful and then later regret it. I don't know what sets me off to the point where I get enraged. No situation should enrage me the way they do. I need to remind myself when I get angry that it is not always the best idea to talk it out right this second. I need to come up with more productive strategies to handle my anger. I need to learn to walk away from situations with Lauren and breathe and gather my thoughts as opposed to just saying them as they come to my head. I hate who I become when I get that angry but I can't justify to myself that I don't want to see that person again. I don't know why things Lauren does has a tendency to make me so angry. In retrospect, some of the things she does aren't that bad, but I think when I feel like any of the three things mentioned above happen, I feel insecure and then I feel like I don't matter and I am somewhat worthless or unappreciated and in turn, because my love for her is more intense than any love I've ever experienced, I develop an all or nothing mentality to where self-harm seems to be the only solution to numb the pain/make her feel bad for "hurting" me. But in reality, my self harm does nothing to keep her around; in fact it pushes her away. But in my mind - when I'm angry - "if she loved me she'd stop doing things so I wouldn't want to hurt myself". But if I learn to control my anger, self-harm will no longer be an issue. I need to calm down to truly assess the situation and learn to communicate more effectively with her and others. I need to become more secure and trusting so I don't feel threatened and accept that I can't control anything but myself. I need to allow myself to be more vulnerable/less crazy. I need to do things and learn to not hang them over people's heads as my father used to do to me. I need to become a more loving and understanding partner who can communicate effectively and be more understanding of our differences and embrace our similarities. I need to learn to just breathe...
1. Drugs
2. feeling disrespected by her exes regardless if there's any merit
3. not having my feelings respected or considered
When I rage, I know the logical solution is to wait until I'm calm to talk, but I get so furious that I need to scream and I need to talk it out just this second. However, the problem with this is when I get angry I have a tendency to say the first thing that comes to my mind and i tend to be extreme in my thinking and become incredibly illogical and disrespectful and then later regret it. I don't know what sets me off to the point where I get enraged. No situation should enrage me the way they do. I need to remind myself when I get angry that it is not always the best idea to talk it out right this second. I need to come up with more productive strategies to handle my anger. I need to learn to walk away from situations with Lauren and breathe and gather my thoughts as opposed to just saying them as they come to my head. I hate who I become when I get that angry but I can't justify to myself that I don't want to see that person again. I don't know why things Lauren does has a tendency to make me so angry. In retrospect, some of the things she does aren't that bad, but I think when I feel like any of the three things mentioned above happen, I feel insecure and then I feel like I don't matter and I am somewhat worthless or unappreciated and in turn, because my love for her is more intense than any love I've ever experienced, I develop an all or nothing mentality to where self-harm seems to be the only solution to numb the pain/make her feel bad for "hurting" me. But in reality, my self harm does nothing to keep her around; in fact it pushes her away. But in my mind - when I'm angry - "if she loved me she'd stop doing things so I wouldn't want to hurt myself". But if I learn to control my anger, self-harm will no longer be an issue. I need to calm down to truly assess the situation and learn to communicate more effectively with her and others. I need to become more secure and trusting so I don't feel threatened and accept that I can't control anything but myself. I need to allow myself to be more vulnerable/less crazy. I need to do things and learn to not hang them over people's heads as my father used to do to me. I need to become a more loving and understanding partner who can communicate effectively and be more understanding of our differences and embrace our similarities. I need to learn to just breathe...
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
SOC 320 Writing Assignment
Several Factors lead to an environment that is conducive to rape on college campuses. Many of the factors that affect a fraternity's behavior deals with their emphasis on machismo and portraying a strong, powerful image to outsiders. Many fraternities stray away from recruiting members who studying the arts or have traditionally-feminine majors. Additionally, men who do not physically exude masculinity and strength are often overlooked. Fraternities who have members who are physically appealing tend to be more popular amongst the student body as well as among females. However, in order to convince women to have sex with them, they often use alcohol as a weapon to coerce them. One way in which gang rapes occur is when women are intoxicated to the point that they can no longer give consent to sexual activities and several members of the fraternity take advantage of her intoxication.
Additionally, fraternities have a high level of loyalty where members keep their business within the fraternity. Moreover, if issues appear within the fraternity, they are encouraged to solve them within the fraternity as opposed to involving school officials and police authorities, which can diminish the level of secrecy within the organization. Moreover, in cases of rape, regardless of an individual's stance and opposition, because of his loyalty to the fraternity he will go along with their actions as opposed to ouright defying them.
In order to improve the environment so that it is no longer conducive to rape, fraternities will need to change their goals and their recruiting to ensure that they are recruiting men not because of their exemplification of masculinity, but because of their portrayal of fraternity standards and true masculine standards.
------------------------
Because individuals in the medical profession are held to such high prestige and are instilled with such a high level of trust, those under their care are less likely to assume any wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the medical professional. However, unfortunately, a large number of people are victims of medical negligence andwrongdoing each year. Prescribing unnecessary medicines, misdiagnosing a patient, and recommending unnecessary procedures are all examples of unethical practices. As a result of the heavy influences of insurance companies and those who are involved in the health care industry, many people are paying billions of dollars for medicines and procedures that are not needed.
Medical professionals are under a "protective cloak" - where because they are held to such a high level of esteem and are instilled such high levels of trust, people are reluctant to question the doctor's decisions and in turn, feel take their word as bond. Similar to members of a fraternity, doctors have a high level of loyalty to insurance companies in that - while the health of the patient is important - sometimes the financial benefits of a misdiagnosis can deter a doctor from making an ethical decision and to make one based on personal gain. Moreover, the prestige offered to physicians gives them more social capital to make decisions without question from those outside of their circle.
Additionally, fraternities have a high level of loyalty where members keep their business within the fraternity. Moreover, if issues appear within the fraternity, they are encouraged to solve them within the fraternity as opposed to involving school officials and police authorities, which can diminish the level of secrecy within the organization. Moreover, in cases of rape, regardless of an individual's stance and opposition, because of his loyalty to the fraternity he will go along with their actions as opposed to ouright defying them.
In order to improve the environment so that it is no longer conducive to rape, fraternities will need to change their goals and their recruiting to ensure that they are recruiting men not because of their exemplification of masculinity, but because of their portrayal of fraternity standards and true masculine standards.
------------------------
Because individuals in the medical profession are held to such high prestige and are instilled with such a high level of trust, those under their care are less likely to assume any wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the medical professional. However, unfortunately, a large number of people are victims of medical negligence andwrongdoing each year. Prescribing unnecessary medicines, misdiagnosing a patient, and recommending unnecessary procedures are all examples of unethical practices. As a result of the heavy influences of insurance companies and those who are involved in the health care industry, many people are paying billions of dollars for medicines and procedures that are not needed.
Medical professionals are under a "protective cloak" - where because they are held to such a high level of esteem and are instilled such high levels of trust, people are reluctant to question the doctor's decisions and in turn, feel take their word as bond. Similar to members of a fraternity, doctors have a high level of loyalty to insurance companies in that - while the health of the patient is important - sometimes the financial benefits of a misdiagnosis can deter a doctor from making an ethical decision and to make one based on personal gain. Moreover, the prestige offered to physicians gives them more social capital to make decisions without question from those outside of their circle.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Hooks Paper
The book Where We Stand by bell hooks discusses the importance of class has on one's place in society. Further, by examining how class has directly impacted her life from adolescence up into adulthood, she was able to assess the importance of class as it affected her and others around her. As a child, hooks was raised to believe that race was an important factor that would affect her ability to succeed and grow within a society. Additionally, through her religious teachings, she was taught to believe that, rather than feel sympathy for the poor, she should instead look up to the poor and see them as our leaders. However. being a child of the Civil Rights movement, race was a pivotal issue that was a concern for both Black and White Americans. As a result, class was often ignored although it often had a larger influence than race.
In hooks's college years, she was met with the unpleasant reality of what classism was; moreover, she came to realize that her working class background would affect her college experience in ways that aggressively transcend the boundaries of race. Hooks discusses several incidents where her class background was often misunderstood and, in turn, ridiculed. As a result, her class often alienated her from her affluent classmates and at times made her feel shame for her family's economic background. As she furthered her education, she began to embrace her economic upbringing and re-examine the importance of class and how other people who are from lower and working classes -regardless of race -cope with how their economic positions affect thier quality of life and their views of themselves.
Hooks believed that as a result of classism, individuals of all races have had to overcompensate for their financial shortcomings by excelling in areas which produced both material and non-material wealth. Although one may be classified as being working or lower class, they could always use their ownership of items intended for those of higher economic classes to deceive others of their true class status. Furthermore, obtaining these upper-class possessions can allow one to feel a decreased amount of class shame.
Yet while individuals - especially African Americans - tried to soothe their economic woes by indulging in items to appease their wilted self-esteem, poorer whites loathed African Americans. Regardless of a black man or woman's economic status, poor whites saw their racial dominance as a way to continue their oppression of African Americans. Although whites were rejected by their own race, they still had the power of their skin color to degrade blacks and make them inferior regardless of their skin tone.
Furthermore, hooks realized that money could never determine an individual's character or their dignity. She went on to appreciate her upbringing and the lessons she learned from it. Despite the negative experiences she encountered as a result of it, she found a way to transcend the boundaries she would come to face and accept herself and others around her regardless of their status or position in society.
Where We Stand discusses the issues that a society is presented with when one of the determinants of one's status and quality of life is his/her economic status. Throughout hooks's childhood, she was taught to have solidarity for the poor and to learn from the experiences of the poor as a means to improve one's own character and appreciation of life. However, having grown up in a capitalist society where the emphasis is less community-centered and almost entirely self-centered, the poor have been left feeling class shame and - instead of being looked as leaders to help all people - have been looked at as individuals in need of charity who lack the defining characteristics that the higher class supposedly hold. Furthermore, by looking at how society's view of the poor along with how the poor view themselves within the context of sociological theory, one can further understand how society has created their views of the poor and, in turn, point the blame. By examing the role of Functionalism, Conflict Theory, & Symbolic Interactionism, one can get a better understanding of the poor and their roles in society.
Functionalism believes that the values that are instilled in us as children determine our roles in society. Furthermore, these roles that are prescribed to us are intended to help the greater cause of society. Per this theory, our society is made up of several interdependent functions that come together for the greater good of the rest of the society. However, it can be determined, per hooks, that for those who grow up in working or lower class households, these roles are less defined and, as a result have little function within society. The functions they do have, however, are intended to keep them in their current economic status and to assist those who are in higher classes in maintaining their status as well. In the chapter "Coming to Class Consciousness", hooks describes how, in her college years she began to realize that her education was not meant to uphold the beliefs and values of the working class; in fact, most conversations regarding the lower and working class were quite negative and left these individuals with little regard.
Through her college experience, she would come to see that at "the various colleges [I] attended [the classroom] was the place where social order was kept in place. Throughout my gradaute student years, I was told again and again that I lackd the proper decorum of a graduate student...Slowly I began to understand fully that there was no place in academe for folks from working class backgrounds who did not wish to leave their past behind...Poor students would be woelcome at the best institutions of higher learning only if they were willing to surrender memory" (36). Hooks's college experience exemplified the much larger picture society saw for those who were poor: in order to have a higher function within society, in exchange, one must leave behind their previously lower-held status. This degradation of the lower class usually led to class shame, where individuals would chose to stray from their family's economic background in order to bring increased self-esteem to oneself. By choosing to remain poor, one would never be regarded with esteem within their community, and would inevitably feel shame and pity as a result of their lack of success. The only way to have true function within society would be to abandon the poor and become one with the upper class.
Additionally, the self-esteem of the poor would cause those in lower classes to view certain objects as symbols of wealth and higher esteem both among themselves and those within their communities. If one could find the means to obtain these symbols, one could reduce their class shame and feel in someway connected with the upper class. In Symbolic Interactionism, it is believed that people respond to others by the way they perceive and interpret another person's actions. Moreover, if a person sees an individual who has wealth and material objects verifying this wealth, one will interpret that this person has high esteem amongst the community and is wealthy in various aspects in one's life. However, while the means by which a person obtained this wealth is unknown, an individual who seeks to obtain this level of social and economic capital will go to great lengths to ensure that they attempt to reach this level of social and economic solidarity.
Hooks discusses how - especially in the African American community - obtaining high levels of social and economic stature is incredibly difficult. However, unfortunately, some of the people who do surpass both the racial and economic boundaries in order to achieve success tend to look down upon blacks who have no obtained the same level of success as themselves. She states, "fewer black people know intimately the contrete everyday ways class power and priledge mediate this pain [racism], allowing some black folks to live luxuriously despite racism. Sadly, to escape this pain or to shield themselves from the genocide that is assaulting black masses, they surrender all transformative forms of racial solidarity in anti-racist strugle to protect thier class interests" (98). For the African Americans who have reached high levels of class, they tend to forget about the racial implications they once faced and many of their counterparts still face daily. As a result, those who still must deal with the racial inequalities that are still present in society will continue to interpret those who have as better than those who don't and, consequently, strive to achieve these statuses as a means for a high-ascribed status and high class esteem.
Where We Stand takes a scathing looking at the elephant in the room that has long been ignored: One's class can greatly affect one's quality of life as well as the opportunities an individual will be afforded in life. As individuals continue to strive for higher class status as well as a more effective means of achieving this status, those who "have" continue to be held to high esteem within society, while those who are of lower and working classes will most likely spend their lives striving to achieve higher social clout as well as high personal esteem. While lower class individuals are sometimes deemed with as offering little function to society, these individuals will turn to experiences with those with wealth to determine what they must do in order to achieve this level of societal esteem. However, per hooks, money is not the determining factor of one's wealth. Without dignity and character, a person is without any wealth because these characteristics cannot be purchased or bartered - they are instilled and practiced without a mere mention of what is in one's wallet.
In hooks's college years, she was met with the unpleasant reality of what classism was; moreover, she came to realize that her working class background would affect her college experience in ways that aggressively transcend the boundaries of race. Hooks discusses several incidents where her class background was often misunderstood and, in turn, ridiculed. As a result, her class often alienated her from her affluent classmates and at times made her feel shame for her family's economic background. As she furthered her education, she began to embrace her economic upbringing and re-examine the importance of class and how other people who are from lower and working classes -regardless of race -cope with how their economic positions affect thier quality of life and their views of themselves.
Hooks believed that as a result of classism, individuals of all races have had to overcompensate for their financial shortcomings by excelling in areas which produced both material and non-material wealth. Although one may be classified as being working or lower class, they could always use their ownership of items intended for those of higher economic classes to deceive others of their true class status. Furthermore, obtaining these upper-class possessions can allow one to feel a decreased amount of class shame.
Yet while individuals - especially African Americans - tried to soothe their economic woes by indulging in items to appease their wilted self-esteem, poorer whites loathed African Americans. Regardless of a black man or woman's economic status, poor whites saw their racial dominance as a way to continue their oppression of African Americans. Although whites were rejected by their own race, they still had the power of their skin color to degrade blacks and make them inferior regardless of their skin tone.
Furthermore, hooks realized that money could never determine an individual's character or their dignity. She went on to appreciate her upbringing and the lessons she learned from it. Despite the negative experiences she encountered as a result of it, she found a way to transcend the boundaries she would come to face and accept herself and others around her regardless of their status or position in society.
Where We Stand discusses the issues that a society is presented with when one of the determinants of one's status and quality of life is his/her economic status. Throughout hooks's childhood, she was taught to have solidarity for the poor and to learn from the experiences of the poor as a means to improve one's own character and appreciation of life. However, having grown up in a capitalist society where the emphasis is less community-centered and almost entirely self-centered, the poor have been left feeling class shame and - instead of being looked as leaders to help all people - have been looked at as individuals in need of charity who lack the defining characteristics that the higher class supposedly hold. Furthermore, by looking at how society's view of the poor along with how the poor view themselves within the context of sociological theory, one can further understand how society has created their views of the poor and, in turn, point the blame. By examing the role of Functionalism, Conflict Theory, & Symbolic Interactionism, one can get a better understanding of the poor and their roles in society.
Functionalism believes that the values that are instilled in us as children determine our roles in society. Furthermore, these roles that are prescribed to us are intended to help the greater cause of society. Per this theory, our society is made up of several interdependent functions that come together for the greater good of the rest of the society. However, it can be determined, per hooks, that for those who grow up in working or lower class households, these roles are less defined and, as a result have little function within society. The functions they do have, however, are intended to keep them in their current economic status and to assist those who are in higher classes in maintaining their status as well. In the chapter "Coming to Class Consciousness", hooks describes how, in her college years she began to realize that her education was not meant to uphold the beliefs and values of the working class; in fact, most conversations regarding the lower and working class were quite negative and left these individuals with little regard.
Through her college experience, she would come to see that at "the various colleges [I] attended [the classroom] was the place where social order was kept in place. Throughout my gradaute student years, I was told again and again that I lackd the proper decorum of a graduate student...Slowly I began to understand fully that there was no place in academe for folks from working class backgrounds who did not wish to leave their past behind...Poor students would be woelcome at the best institutions of higher learning only if they were willing to surrender memory" (36). Hooks's college experience exemplified the much larger picture society saw for those who were poor: in order to have a higher function within society, in exchange, one must leave behind their previously lower-held status. This degradation of the lower class usually led to class shame, where individuals would chose to stray from their family's economic background in order to bring increased self-esteem to oneself. By choosing to remain poor, one would never be regarded with esteem within their community, and would inevitably feel shame and pity as a result of their lack of success. The only way to have true function within society would be to abandon the poor and become one with the upper class.
Additionally, the self-esteem of the poor would cause those in lower classes to view certain objects as symbols of wealth and higher esteem both among themselves and those within their communities. If one could find the means to obtain these symbols, one could reduce their class shame and feel in someway connected with the upper class. In Symbolic Interactionism, it is believed that people respond to others by the way they perceive and interpret another person's actions. Moreover, if a person sees an individual who has wealth and material objects verifying this wealth, one will interpret that this person has high esteem amongst the community and is wealthy in various aspects in one's life. However, while the means by which a person obtained this wealth is unknown, an individual who seeks to obtain this level of social and economic capital will go to great lengths to ensure that they attempt to reach this level of social and economic solidarity.
Hooks discusses how - especially in the African American community - obtaining high levels of social and economic stature is incredibly difficult. However, unfortunately, some of the people who do surpass both the racial and economic boundaries in order to achieve success tend to look down upon blacks who have no obtained the same level of success as themselves. She states, "fewer black people know intimately the contrete everyday ways class power and priledge mediate this pain [racism], allowing some black folks to live luxuriously despite racism. Sadly, to escape this pain or to shield themselves from the genocide that is assaulting black masses, they surrender all transformative forms of racial solidarity in anti-racist strugle to protect thier class interests" (98). For the African Americans who have reached high levels of class, they tend to forget about the racial implications they once faced and many of their counterparts still face daily. As a result, those who still must deal with the racial inequalities that are still present in society will continue to interpret those who have as better than those who don't and, consequently, strive to achieve these statuses as a means for a high-ascribed status and high class esteem.
Where We Stand takes a scathing looking at the elephant in the room that has long been ignored: One's class can greatly affect one's quality of life as well as the opportunities an individual will be afforded in life. As individuals continue to strive for higher class status as well as a more effective means of achieving this status, those who "have" continue to be held to high esteem within society, while those who are of lower and working classes will most likely spend their lives striving to achieve higher social clout as well as high personal esteem. While lower class individuals are sometimes deemed with as offering little function to society, these individuals will turn to experiences with those with wealth to determine what they must do in order to achieve this level of societal esteem. However, per hooks, money is not the determining factor of one's wealth. Without dignity and character, a person is without any wealth because these characteristics cannot be purchased or bartered - they are instilled and practiced without a mere mention of what is in one's wallet.
Monday, February 11, 2008
SOC Theory Midterm
1. Are human beings motivated by interests or values? Summarize both positions discussed in Chapter 1 of Wallace & Wolf in your answer.
Depending on one's perspective, human behavior can be influenced by either interests or values. Per Functionalism, people's behavior is motivated by society's values that we are taught as we mature. Additionally, because our behavior is essentially learned at birth, it leaves very little room for individuals to create independent, autonomous decisions regarding our behavioral standard.
On the contrary, Conflict Theorists believe that interests motivate human behavior. Accordingly, they believe that as individuals fight for power and esteem within the community and within their social circles, there are interest for gratification motivates their actions. Interestingly, when conflict theorists discuss interests as being the main motivator of human behavior, they identify this behavior specifically as being able to inconspicuously promote one's own interests.
I believe that both theories are correct; however, I believe that - upon being born and into adolescence - individuals are motivated by their values. These values, which are instilled by one's parents, are the initial building blocks on which individuals make their decisions. However, as one gets older and is socialized by various mediums such as the media, school, and peers, one will begin to establish one's own interests. As these individual interests solidify and become more established, these interests will begin to dominate one's behavior. It is possible, however, for one's values to also be one's interests. In the case of people who practice various religions, a person who aspires to live and act in a manner that is conducive with their believes, will live according to their values since it is also something that is of interest to them.
2. Imagine you are invited to give a lecture on functionalism to an introductory sociology class of freshmen students. What would you tell the class? Be sure to discuss individual theorists.
Functionalism involves the interdependence of different parts of society. Within the different parts of society, each part plays a distinct role in maintaining a normal flow and keeping its state at equilibrium. If any part of society is disrupted, the rest of society will have to reorganize in an effort to bring society back to equilibrium. However, the process of reestablishing homeostatsis within society can be a difficult process, as it requires a rewiring of every other function in society. Three prominent sociologists -Emile, Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton -established significant Functionalism theories to try to better understand the interworkings of society.
Emile Durkheim is one of the most influential theorists of Functionalism. One of Durkheim's primary interests in discussing and theorizing Functionalism is the concept of integration. Integration discusses the individual's role within society as a whole. Additionally, he discusses the society's transition from a collective unit in which values provided the framework for individual activity to the impact the division of labor had as society becamse more industrialized. Initially, individuals relied on each member of their community to provide a specific service for the entire community. As a result, one's identity became synonomous with the community. However, as individuals began to do more for themselves and become more independent as technology assisted in this transition, people became more concerned with their own interests than those of the community. While the community's interests were still of importance, the interests of the individual became more and more prominent in one's every day behavior and attitude.
Durkheim was also famous for his concept of anomie. Anomie, which is french for "normlessness" , is defined as when rules or norms are absent from a society. Per Durkheim, their were two types of anomie: acute anomie, which occurred after a significant life event such as divorce or untimely crisis; and chronic anomie, which is a state of constant change. In his study on suicide, he says that individuals need structure in the form of norms and values in order to properly function in society. In events of acute anomie, these significant change can throw off a person's balance; Without this, an individual will lose their sense of homeostasis, which in turn can result in suicide.
Another important Functionalism theorist is Talcott Parsons. Parsons's action theory was his major sociological contribution. Per this theory, society consisted of four systems: the cultural system, the social system, the personality system, and the behavioral organism as a system. According to Parson's, the cultural system is made up of actions which carry symbolic meanings. These meaning can derive from religion, political affiliation, or other beliefs and values that are held by a society. These meanings and values are then internalized by those who associate with them. In a social system, however, role interaction is an important component in determining society's condition. Per Parsons, a social system consists of more than one actor - which can be a person or a collective group of persons - and their interactions among familiar backgrounds and settings where individuals share similarly structured cultural symbols.
Within the personality system, there is more focus on the individual actor and one's desires, needs, and motives and how a person's need for gratification of these things can influence one's actions. Parsons's belief that, in ther personality system, people are motivated by their own wants and desires, is consistent with the ideas of the Conflict Theory, in that individuals are driven by their personal desires as opposed to those of others and society at large. The last system discussed by Parsons is the behavioral organism, in which he seeks to analyze an individual's physiological systems to determine one's actions. Moreover, one's environment also plays an important role in defining one's actions within the larger social system.
Another important Functionalism theorist is Robert K. Merton who, instead of trying to come up with an all-encompassing theory like Parsons, did not try to theorize about society based upon one theory. Instead, he focused on a more general theory with less restrictions and was more relatable to every day society and it's situations. While his theory is inheritantly different from that of Parsons, it does relate in the fact that they both look at Functionalism as the relationship between interdependent parts. Moreover, Merton also believes that culture plays an important role in determining the shared values within a community. However, he focuses more on function than on the system like Parsons.
Merton differs from other Functionalism sociological theories in that he does not focus as much on the inherent "normal state" of society. He, instead, seeks to identify the dysfunction within society. Merton's idea of dysfunction can be divided into two important ideas: the incorporation of consequences in society can throw off the dynamic within a society and essentially weaken it, and the rules of function and dysfunction are ambiguous in that what is functional for one may be dysfunctional for another.
3. Your textbook identifies two traditions within conflict theory. Discuss each and then discuss which tradition you feel more afficinity for and why.
Two traditions in respect to Conflict Theory are discussed in Contemporary Sociological Theory. The first tradition is that individuals are driven by their need for gratification based on one's own motives, wants and desires. The second tradition states that individuals are driven by their urgency for power and assertiveness within the community. With these two traditions are two influential sociologists - Karl Marx and Max Weber - who have studied these ideas and their impact on society.
Marx believed that the core conflict in society is when individual interests collide with those of the ruling class. Marx, also a key figure in Communism, sees individual desires - albeit economic or material gain - as a factor in determining one's behaviors. Additionally, people most often often act in a way that will best support their interests; when they do not act accordingly, it is because the person does not know their own "true" interests. However, one's individual desires can be overshadowed by those of the powerful majority. The powerful majority has the power to create society's standards and, in turn, affect one's perception of one's own desires.
Weber shared a similar view as Marx in that people are primarily motivated by their self-interests. However, Weber believed that one's self-interests are usually dependent upon the values of society. He also focused on the role of the powered few and how only a few people could exercise control over the society at large. He disagreed with Marx in that economic interests were the only motivator of human behavior. He argued that several other factors - such as education, religion, or other affiliation - could impact one's actions. Weber also claimed that there were three types of authority: charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational-legal authority.
In charismatic authority, Weber states that people look up to a leader not because of his title, but because of the qualities the person carries. In this type, people are more likely to have an affinity to this person after careful observation and interaction with this person. These leaders are usually easily relateable and lures in society with the personality as opposed to because of their status.
Traditional authority, on the other had, deals with leaders who hold these roles because of family or other historical ties that inevitably carry this person into their current role. While this type is also personal like in charismatic authority, society views a traditional figure as a leader because they have to, not based on personal traits that have been directly displayed to the public in order to sway their opinion. They are mainly leaders by association.
Lastly, Rational-Legal authority establishes power based on rules that have already been set. This type of authority is not personal like Traditional and Charismatic authority. It is mostly derived from a set of rules that have already been established for which those in power are to direct those in society to obey.
I have an affinity to Marx's theory that individuals tend to act in a way that is consistent with one's economic standards. Today, society is driven by the accumulation of material items to establish one's worth. Additionally, there is less emphasis on the community as a mainstay for values within the individual; the individual looks at society to see what it can do for himself as opposed to what he can do for society. With the increase in technological advances that are based more on vanity than function, individuals in society are allowing their need for economic gratification to establish oneself in the community as a person of power. The more you have, the more powerful you are in the community.
4. Is society evolving? Why or why not?
Society is continuing to evolve as a result of technological advances that have caused our society to become less dependent on society and more self-reliant. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, society underwent more severe changes as the technological advances changed the economy and the way goods were produced. Additionally, the onset of industrialization shifted society from a society that relied on farms and others in society to produce goods, to a society in which factories created the goods faster, cheaper, and more effectively. One could say that, with the introduction of factories, railroads, and motor vehicles, individual interests went from those in which each individual seeked to fulfill their role as a part of society to roles in which one's chief motivation was to satisfy one's own desires.
Today, however, society's evolution has become more stagnant. Instead, the role of the individual has been expanded and society has lost a majority of it's influence on individual behaviors and values. With the introduction of internet, cell phones, and other devices meant to make communication less personal, there is less need to talk to people and it has become increasingly easier to obtain products and services with limited contact with the rest of society. While technological advances have improved society's conditions throughout civilization, today's technology is based more on vanity than on function. Additionally, technology has created a society where one's worth can be measured by one's possession of intensive technological material items and less on one's effect on society based on what he or she can contribute to the rest of society. As we shift from a community-to-self-driven society, our evolution is slowing down.
Depending on one's perspective, human behavior can be influenced by either interests or values. Per Functionalism, people's behavior is motivated by society's values that we are taught as we mature. Additionally, because our behavior is essentially learned at birth, it leaves very little room for individuals to create independent, autonomous decisions regarding our behavioral standard.
On the contrary, Conflict Theorists believe that interests motivate human behavior. Accordingly, they believe that as individuals fight for power and esteem within the community and within their social circles, there are interest for gratification motivates their actions. Interestingly, when conflict theorists discuss interests as being the main motivator of human behavior, they identify this behavior specifically as being able to inconspicuously promote one's own interests.
I believe that both theories are correct; however, I believe that - upon being born and into adolescence - individuals are motivated by their values. These values, which are instilled by one's parents, are the initial building blocks on which individuals make their decisions. However, as one gets older and is socialized by various mediums such as the media, school, and peers, one will begin to establish one's own interests. As these individual interests solidify and become more established, these interests will begin to dominate one's behavior. It is possible, however, for one's values to also be one's interests. In the case of people who practice various religions, a person who aspires to live and act in a manner that is conducive with their believes, will live according to their values since it is also something that is of interest to them.
2. Imagine you are invited to give a lecture on functionalism to an introductory sociology class of freshmen students. What would you tell the class? Be sure to discuss individual theorists.
Functionalism involves the interdependence of different parts of society. Within the different parts of society, each part plays a distinct role in maintaining a normal flow and keeping its state at equilibrium. If any part of society is disrupted, the rest of society will have to reorganize in an effort to bring society back to equilibrium. However, the process of reestablishing homeostatsis within society can be a difficult process, as it requires a rewiring of every other function in society. Three prominent sociologists -Emile, Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton -established significant Functionalism theories to try to better understand the interworkings of society.
Emile Durkheim is one of the most influential theorists of Functionalism. One of Durkheim's primary interests in discussing and theorizing Functionalism is the concept of integration. Integration discusses the individual's role within society as a whole. Additionally, he discusses the society's transition from a collective unit in which values provided the framework for individual activity to the impact the division of labor had as society becamse more industrialized. Initially, individuals relied on each member of their community to provide a specific service for the entire community. As a result, one's identity became synonomous with the community. However, as individuals began to do more for themselves and become more independent as technology assisted in this transition, people became more concerned with their own interests than those of the community. While the community's interests were still of importance, the interests of the individual became more and more prominent in one's every day behavior and attitude.
Durkheim was also famous for his concept of anomie. Anomie, which is french for "normlessness" , is defined as when rules or norms are absent from a society. Per Durkheim, their were two types of anomie: acute anomie, which occurred after a significant life event such as divorce or untimely crisis; and chronic anomie, which is a state of constant change. In his study on suicide, he says that individuals need structure in the form of norms and values in order to properly function in society. In events of acute anomie, these significant change can throw off a person's balance; Without this, an individual will lose their sense of homeostasis, which in turn can result in suicide.
Another important Functionalism theorist is Talcott Parsons. Parsons's action theory was his major sociological contribution. Per this theory, society consisted of four systems: the cultural system, the social system, the personality system, and the behavioral organism as a system. According to Parson's, the cultural system is made up of actions which carry symbolic meanings. These meaning can derive from religion, political affiliation, or other beliefs and values that are held by a society. These meanings and values are then internalized by those who associate with them. In a social system, however, role interaction is an important component in determining society's condition. Per Parsons, a social system consists of more than one actor - which can be a person or a collective group of persons - and their interactions among familiar backgrounds and settings where individuals share similarly structured cultural symbols.
Within the personality system, there is more focus on the individual actor and one's desires, needs, and motives and how a person's need for gratification of these things can influence one's actions. Parsons's belief that, in ther personality system, people are motivated by their own wants and desires, is consistent with the ideas of the Conflict Theory, in that individuals are driven by their personal desires as opposed to those of others and society at large. The last system discussed by Parsons is the behavioral organism, in which he seeks to analyze an individual's physiological systems to determine one's actions. Moreover, one's environment also plays an important role in defining one's actions within the larger social system.
Another important Functionalism theorist is Robert K. Merton who, instead of trying to come up with an all-encompassing theory like Parsons, did not try to theorize about society based upon one theory. Instead, he focused on a more general theory with less restrictions and was more relatable to every day society and it's situations. While his theory is inheritantly different from that of Parsons, it does relate in the fact that they both look at Functionalism as the relationship between interdependent parts. Moreover, Merton also believes that culture plays an important role in determining the shared values within a community. However, he focuses more on function than on the system like Parsons.
Merton differs from other Functionalism sociological theories in that he does not focus as much on the inherent "normal state" of society. He, instead, seeks to identify the dysfunction within society. Merton's idea of dysfunction can be divided into two important ideas: the incorporation of consequences in society can throw off the dynamic within a society and essentially weaken it, and the rules of function and dysfunction are ambiguous in that what is functional for one may be dysfunctional for another.
3. Your textbook identifies two traditions within conflict theory. Discuss each and then discuss which tradition you feel more afficinity for and why.
Two traditions in respect to Conflict Theory are discussed in Contemporary Sociological Theory. The first tradition is that individuals are driven by their need for gratification based on one's own motives, wants and desires. The second tradition states that individuals are driven by their urgency for power and assertiveness within the community. With these two traditions are two influential sociologists - Karl Marx and Max Weber - who have studied these ideas and their impact on society.
Marx believed that the core conflict in society is when individual interests collide with those of the ruling class. Marx, also a key figure in Communism, sees individual desires - albeit economic or material gain - as a factor in determining one's behaviors. Additionally, people most often often act in a way that will best support their interests; when they do not act accordingly, it is because the person does not know their own "true" interests. However, one's individual desires can be overshadowed by those of the powerful majority. The powerful majority has the power to create society's standards and, in turn, affect one's perception of one's own desires.
Weber shared a similar view as Marx in that people are primarily motivated by their self-interests. However, Weber believed that one's self-interests are usually dependent upon the values of society. He also focused on the role of the powered few and how only a few people could exercise control over the society at large. He disagreed with Marx in that economic interests were the only motivator of human behavior. He argued that several other factors - such as education, religion, or other affiliation - could impact one's actions. Weber also claimed that there were three types of authority: charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational-legal authority.
In charismatic authority, Weber states that people look up to a leader not because of his title, but because of the qualities the person carries. In this type, people are more likely to have an affinity to this person after careful observation and interaction with this person. These leaders are usually easily relateable and lures in society with the personality as opposed to because of their status.
Traditional authority, on the other had, deals with leaders who hold these roles because of family or other historical ties that inevitably carry this person into their current role. While this type is also personal like in charismatic authority, society views a traditional figure as a leader because they have to, not based on personal traits that have been directly displayed to the public in order to sway their opinion. They are mainly leaders by association.
Lastly, Rational-Legal authority establishes power based on rules that have already been set. This type of authority is not personal like Traditional and Charismatic authority. It is mostly derived from a set of rules that have already been established for which those in power are to direct those in society to obey.
I have an affinity to Marx's theory that individuals tend to act in a way that is consistent with one's economic standards. Today, society is driven by the accumulation of material items to establish one's worth. Additionally, there is less emphasis on the community as a mainstay for values within the individual; the individual looks at society to see what it can do for himself as opposed to what he can do for society. With the increase in technological advances that are based more on vanity than function, individuals in society are allowing their need for economic gratification to establish oneself in the community as a person of power. The more you have, the more powerful you are in the community.
4. Is society evolving? Why or why not?
Society is continuing to evolve as a result of technological advances that have caused our society to become less dependent on society and more self-reliant. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, society underwent more severe changes as the technological advances changed the economy and the way goods were produced. Additionally, the onset of industrialization shifted society from a society that relied on farms and others in society to produce goods, to a society in which factories created the goods faster, cheaper, and more effectively. One could say that, with the introduction of factories, railroads, and motor vehicles, individual interests went from those in which each individual seeked to fulfill their role as a part of society to roles in which one's chief motivation was to satisfy one's own desires.
Today, however, society's evolution has become more stagnant. Instead, the role of the individual has been expanded and society has lost a majority of it's influence on individual behaviors and values. With the introduction of internet, cell phones, and other devices meant to make communication less personal, there is less need to talk to people and it has become increasingly easier to obtain products and services with limited contact with the rest of society. While technological advances have improved society's conditions throughout civilization, today's technology is based more on vanity than on function. Additionally, technology has created a society where one's worth can be measured by one's possession of intensive technological material items and less on one's effect on society based on what he or she can contribute to the rest of society. As we shift from a community-to-self-driven society, our evolution is slowing down.
I don't understand how and why it happened, but I don't know why I love her as much as I do. I have never felt so strongly for another human being in my life. I have never wanted to give so much of myself for someone else ever. All I want is to love her, to spend my life with her, to have a family with her. I want it all. And all I ever feel is she's "unsure" about me. I wish she just knew. I want her to be sure that she wants to me with me. I want her to love me for all of my flaws. I want her to accept me as I am. Blah. I hate love. It's so confusing.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Convicted Rapists Vocabulary of Motives
When committing an act that society deems as deviant, criminal actors will create different motives and excuses to justify their behavior. Even when justifying crimes deemed heinous such as rape, those who commit these acts tend to come up with their own reasons why their actions are not as deviant as the rest of society views them. Per the book Constructions of Deviance, rapists develop their own vocabulary of motives to credit their behavor as acceptable. Moreover, these deviants were likely to justify their behavior by using one of five excuses for their actions.
The first excuse given is that women are seductresses. This implies that women present themselves in a manner that is essentially enticing the deviant actor to pursue ger for a sexual encounter. Secondly, these deviant actors may claim that women mean "yes" when they say "no". This justification attempts to discredit a woman's ability to make independent decisions and almost implies that her saying "no" is a means of trying to further seduce the rapist.
A third justification is that most women eventualy relax and enjoy it. This idea of being persistent attempts to say that most women are uncomfortable at the beginning of a sexual encounter; however, as time and effort persists, she will eventually calm down and allow herself to enjoy the experience. Moreover, another justiftication is that "nice girls don't get raped". This justification does not necessarily discredit the rapist's actions, but mostly discredit's the victims character. It implies that the victim deserved to be raped. Lastly, a rapist wil say that the act is only a minor wrongdoing. In this case, the rapist does not deny accountability, but instead downplays the gravity of their actions as only being something minor.
However, their are also rapists who acknowledge their wrongdoing and fully blame themselves for the rape occurring and not the victim. They view their actions as being morally unjustifiable and, in turn view themselves as repulsive and vile beings. For individuals who justify their actions, their excuses for their actions are designed for outsiders. However, for the case of those who internalize their criminal behavior, their excuses are designed for themselves to encourage them to have piece within themselves.
The first excuse given is that women are seductresses. This implies that women present themselves in a manner that is essentially enticing the deviant actor to pursue ger for a sexual encounter. Secondly, these deviant actors may claim that women mean "yes" when they say "no". This justification attempts to discredit a woman's ability to make independent decisions and almost implies that her saying "no" is a means of trying to further seduce the rapist.
A third justification is that most women eventualy relax and enjoy it. This idea of being persistent attempts to say that most women are uncomfortable at the beginning of a sexual encounter; however, as time and effort persists, she will eventually calm down and allow herself to enjoy the experience. Moreover, another justiftication is that "nice girls don't get raped". This justification does not necessarily discredit the rapist's actions, but mostly discredit's the victims character. It implies that the victim deserved to be raped. Lastly, a rapist wil say that the act is only a minor wrongdoing. In this case, the rapist does not deny accountability, but instead downplays the gravity of their actions as only being something minor.
However, their are also rapists who acknowledge their wrongdoing and fully blame themselves for the rape occurring and not the victim. They view their actions as being morally unjustifiable and, in turn view themselves as repulsive and vile beings. For individuals who justify their actions, their excuses for their actions are designed for outsiders. However, for the case of those who internalize their criminal behavior, their excuses are designed for themselves to encourage them to have piece within themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
