Browsed by
Category: Sociology

Me vs We Views Impact Social, Political And Personal Outcomes.

Me vs We Views Impact Social, Political And Personal Outcomes.

Let me share a viewpoint with you that might help explain some social, political and maybe marriage behavior.  Let me begin by briefly explaining the concept of a continuum.  A significant portion of becoming educated is looking at situations and attempting to break the whole into parts so we can better look at the parts, examine the parts instead of the whole, and try to see if the parts stand out in any way from other parts.  Differentiation arises out of this process; in fact, it is the process of looking for differences and then defining them or explaining them as to how they are different.  Differentiation is recognizing something that we think is different and separate in some unique way.  If it is different, then that component may become important enough to use as an analysis tool.

Sometimes one factor which we think is unique also has a factor of degree.  The concept of a person having a temperature is an ideal example.  A high temperature might tell us to take some action like taking a medication or taking a person to the doctor or hospital.

Differentiation can also be expanded to present two different, and often times, opposite measures.  Light versus dark is an ideal example.  Then there are shades of gray in-between those two extremes.  Many people remember better if the writer can offer some graphical image that really parallels what is being presented.  I wish to present to you the concept of continuum and at each end are two opposing political views.  To best offer a graphical image in your mind, think of this continuum as a horizontal line, ruler or board.

Let me first define the continuum.  A measuring ruler, held horizontally, is perfect for showing this concept.  The horizontal length is a scale of sorts.  At either ends are opposite components, in this case, views.  This really works when you find societal components that appear to be in conflict, typically opposites.  Freedom and slavery would be a prime example.  The ruler, in this case, is not a temperature gauge but a societal gauge.  The continuum ruler allows us to place individuals and parties, in relative positions along that ruler as to their beliefs and actions.  What is wonderful about the continuum analogy is we can typically  “see” this ruler in our minds.  People who have visual memory can really grab on to this technique.  What is also important and implied by the use of the ruler analogy is that we can place people and society groups anywhere we want along this continuum.  It is very important that you define what the two extremes are.  Also implied is that this continuum significantly sweeps up, includes, a lot of the society we wish to talk about and may help us talk about and possibly explain political behavior of individuals and groups.  In the prior example of free and slave, or, free and incarcerated, there are also degrees of how much freedom a person has or how many impediments are put upon a person that do not allow full freedom.  In this case putting free on the left or right might not matter, just make sure you put them at opposite ends.  But, there are some instances when one should place a defined social situation on the left or right of the ruler or scale.

“The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the ?president’s? right and supporters of the revolution to his left.”

In the Western world: “The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

I wish to share with you a personal suspicion I have behind why individuals in the United States, and possibly other nations, have right or left political views.

It should not be enough to make a drawing in our minds with two opposite factors placed at either ends of a ruler.  We should endeavor to understand why the differences exist.  What is the why or reason behind two factors being opposed.

Here is the view.  I think whether you are a right continuum person or left depends upon, in part or whole, whether you are a “ME” and  “I”  type of person.  Let’s put the “ME” person at one end of the ruler and the “WE” person at the other end of the ruler.  The WE person is left and the ME person is on the right so that we follow the French and EU political seating arrangement.

Look closely at the Wikipedia use of words to describe the left; they are inclusive and recognize and embrace more people.  Look at the words to explain the right.  “Private” implies individual and family.  The word “capitalism” implies valuing profit over the needs of society.

There are two basic forms of political views and philosophy that may result in different political parties.  This is very close to be the situation in the United States but it also works for other nations, too.  The concept starts out being extremely simple to conceptualize.  The first is the view of “ME” a rather self centered view.  The second view is “WE” which tends to include people outside my family, tribe and state.  These two personal outlooks by individuals seem to translate and expand into a political philosophy similar to what is listed below.  I will use only the word ME and US to represent the two opposing views.

We will next examine each separate end of the continuum,ME and We, in our next posts (soon to be added).

Marsun Rane edited this post.
Firing Of Carmen Aristegui May Reveal Much More.

Firing Of Carmen Aristegui May Reveal Much More.

In studying sociology I found a singular concept that almost works like a tool to uncover hidden knowledge.  That concept is called “empirical indicator”.   This means “what we see” thus “shows us” something else.  The idea is that there can be one or more things that we can see but may actually stand for some hidden meaning.  In sociology the examples given are typically things you might see in a person’s office may indicate their rank in the organization.  If you see a potted plant, a rug, even a fire place in a person’s corporate office, each indicates a corporate ranking.  Simply put, the more elaborate the office furniture and trappings, the higher the person’s status.  The concept is based on common sense and we all had been using this concept well before sociologist put a name to it.  When we see a person not dressed well, we may think that person is poor.  The clothing a person wears may equate with how much money they have or not have.

This idea of empirical indicator can also be utilized in a lot of other ways.  Let me propose, for your consideration, that we take this concept and try to see if it fits a political situation.

A prominent Mexico journalist, Carmen Aristegui, was fired from her job at MVS Radio.  She revealed a number of political embarrassments committed by some top Mexican officials.  One such revelation, that the current president, Enrique Peria Nieto may have used his powerful office for personal gain in real estate deals.  Exposing this may have sent the ratings of the current Mexican president in a downward direction.

Now it is obvious conjecture that the president of Mexico exercised any influence in having Carmen Aristegui’s assistants dismissed.  Obviously, attacking her directly would be way too revealing.  Obfuscating the alleged pressure being applied to Carmen is better applied by sending her a strong message by having her close associates attacked, dismissed and hope she bows.  She obviously got the message.   She did not buckle and seems to have the tough stuff that we normally attribute to men.  Mexico needs more tough people in power like her, that have good ethics and moral values.   If she fades away, it will be a further loss for Mexico.

The empirical indicator I wish to suggest to you is that the alleged action taken against Carmen may stand for the fact of top Mexican corruption.   So, not a potted plant or a fire place in an office but instead an action may stand for something way more important – top Mexican political corruption.

Seeking Education In Sociology, Book v. Sensuous World

Seeking Education In Sociology, Book v. Sensuous World

Comments 0 Comment

The following is an edited version of actual correspondence.

SC: I ran into Dr. T.    I described to him, as I could best describe how you told me the way you perform in your classroom, not having viewed your “performance” but just what I could remember from your telling me, and passed out but a few phrases to Dr. T.  He picked up on a small reoccurring theme from my most inadequate description of you and told me that sociology instructors must convey the science of sociology and not push for any agenda.  When he told me this I must admit I was taken back, shocked at being told this.  I have reflected much about what he told me and I guess it is much safer to present the current teachings of sociology without pushing any viewpoints to avoid ire from administration and community.

In my opinion, if one values education and strives to determine the truth in all things, then does it not follow that attitudes and viewpoints arise out of this?   Could it be that they just want safe, no radical, no fringe viewpoints?  That possibility, if I am correct in this line of reasoning, might work for high schools but in a college setting one expects distillation out of truth by faculty to share with students and have those students agree or disagree with well reasoned arguments.  If this is  possible, that Sociology Department might be vanilla flavor and adamant against any deviance from that.

I am not sure I have this correct; just had to share with you what I learned from Dr. T and see if any of this fits.

Dr. B: Those who espouse that sociology should be neutral miss the point of what sociology is, according to the founding fathers of the discipline.  Most of these people are conservative apologists.  Sociology by definition is political.  The founders, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, DuBois, etc. were very much into social justice and reform.

One can teach from a passionate point of view without converting others.  This is my approach–to provide an alternative to those who have been given the “normative” view of society.  If students are disengaged from the social world, how are they to “know” what it means to exist in that world?  Sociologists are a unique and quirky bunch–they analyze and interpret society and attempt to be objective, but are embedded in the world they study.  If they could remove themselves from that world, they become abstracted from it and are better able to understand.  However, how do you understand if you do not experience the sensuous world of the concrete?  Max Weber suggested that one should engage in verstehen, a subjective understanding of social reality at the same time he advocated for an objective analysis of that world.  In other words, if we acknowledge our biases, we are more able to objectively approach our subject.  People like T assume that they can be objective by not being involved, i.e., being a “scientist.”  However, they are most certainly pushing their own agenda by accepting the normative, uncritically.  The reproduce the social structure rather than produce new information and social change.

If one is to exist in and study the social world, one must be involved otherwise one becomes a “book” academic—the worst kind of teacher.

That’s my two cents!

SC: In your opinion, how do you rank the  Sociology Department, in total?  Is it a book academic department or does it offer more of what you listed as your ideals?

Dr. B: That department is a product of the environment where it is situated–conservative O. County.  They tend to want to hire people like themselves although the department likes to project an image of inclusiveness.  If one talks with the minority student population in Sociology, one gets a sense that they are not being appreciated by a large number of faculty members, even the younger ones.  To put it bluntly, most of the minorities came to me rather than other professors.  I could understand their plight of being disenfranchised and marginalized in the department.

I enjoyed being in the department because I could be one who could create waves as well as one who mitigated against the problems that students faced.   It was okay to have the “white liberal” to voice what they perceived to be radical, but the same was not okay from a minority faculty member.

In “Science as a Vocation,” Weber (1918/1919) writes:

The primary task of a useful teacher is to teach his students to recognize ‘inconvenient’ facts–I mean facts that are inconvenient for their party [political] opinions. And for every party opinion there are facts that are extremely inconvenient, for my own opinion no less than for others. I believe the teacher accomplishes more than a mere intellectual task if he compels his audience to accustom itself to the existence of such facts. I would be so immodest as even to apply the expression ‘moral achievement,’ though perhaps this may sound too grandiose for something that should go without saying (p. 147).

Gatekeeping Young Women

Gatekeeping Young Women

Comments 0 Comment
A previous post (490) was sent to an Assistant Professor of Sociology.  I asked his opinion for the accuracy of the post.  This is his response:

I will be somewhat broad and brief since this is a rather complex issue.

At the heart of the problem is the notion of patriarchy and power.  In other words, it is a man’s world, hence men rule.  This idea is inculcated through socialization, i.e. brainwashing of both girls and boys who are told in many ways that there are certain realms that they should “roam around in” in order to be good citizens.  This is reinforced, not only in the mass media, but also at home, school, the workplace, and society in general.

In regard to historical male-female disparities, women have lagged significantly in terms of wages.  In 1960, the percent of men’s income that women earned was 61%.  In 1965, it declined to 58%, increased to 65% in 1985 and 71% in 1990.  Around 2000, it declined to 65% and as it stands now, it is at 78% (U.S. Census Bureau).  Those numbers are significant over the course of a lifetime.  As one goes up the salary hierarchy, across the board, the actual earnings are even more dismal for women.

Statistics for this article.
Statistics for this article.

Another factor that could bolster the argument is the fact of tracking at the early points in a child’s life.  Basically, educators and the educational system begin to sort students into different educational programs (or tracks) on the basis of real or perceived abilities and characteristics.  This practice is common based on the race and gender of the child.  There are two tracks or ability groups—the academic track and vocational track.  Those in the former go on to community colleges and universities, and the latter, end up learning skills and trades that allow them some mobility, but significantly less than those who move on to higher education.  The gatekeeping dynamic continues on at the university level—students are tracked into majors sorted by gender.  [Remember the brainwashing stared early, continued at the parochial levels, and is set by higher education.]

When we examine the field of study and gender, we observe the following for women versus men: 73% vs. 27% in Psychology, 36% vs. 64% in Mathematics, 31% vs. 69% in the Physical Sciences, 28% vs. 72%, and 21% vs. 79% in Engineering (Statistical Abstracts, 2005).  Additionally, when we look at the starting salaries in some professions, a clear picture emerges: in Computer Science, the average is $52k, Chemical Engineering: $51k, Mathematics: $44k, and the Social Sciences: $32k (Statistical Abstracts, 2003).  Remember, women are tracked into the “helping” professions, which tend to pay less (teaching, for example) and men are tracked into the more lucrative majors and professions.

The “glass ceiling” (i.e., the invisible barriers that deny women the opportunity to move up) is built into the system.  Note this is not natural, but an artificially created condition (by men).  In the professional world, women are put on the “mommy track” and men are put on the “glass escalator” that puts them on the fast track to the top where the rewards are to be had: higher-level positions, more desirable work-assignments, and higher salaries.  This is still quite poignant as I write this.  People point to the exceptions—women who have made it—and generalize.  However, when one examines the hard facts, things are a bit different.

How does this all relate to marriage and divorce?  Simply put, men enter with more resources than women, even at the professional level.  When a divorce occurs, men leave in a better position than women because they have already accumulated a key capital that allows them more life chances—education.  In addition, the legal system gives preference to women’s desires in regards to children.  This is another manifestation of the patriarchal system—women are viewed as more competent caretakers (again, this is not true for either sex).  The result is that women are burdened down by childcare responsibilities and costs, and businesses are less tolerant of single parents or females with children.  [Remember the “mommy track?”]

What does it mean for girls at a young age?

1)  My recommendation would be for parents to recognize their complicity in inculcating and reproducing the system of domination they take for granted.  Change the practice of buying certain things for boys and certain things for girls.  Be aware of the double standard that they practice everyday when they interact with their children.

2)  Most importantly, strongly encourage females to get into professions that will allow them to pursue higher incomes that will allow them to be independent of men in their adult life.

The more controversial recommendations for females, in particular, would be:

1)  Do something that will provide a financial basis for the future by doing something that will get you there—not necessarily doing something that you love to do.  As a whole, people have been taught to follow their hearts and dreams—do what makes them happy.  This is part of the brainwashing in the system.  Think about it this way, encourage your daughters to become lawyers, doctors, businesswomen, etc. even if they do not want to do.  After accumulating what is desired (say after 10 or 15 years), do something that will make them happier.  They will have the finances to pursue what they love instead of struggling.  In the long run, they will be able to create a basis that can be transferred across generations.   Delayed gratification goes a long way.  [How do you think the rich remain rich as well as their descendants?  They do what is necessary to maintain a lifestyle, and yes, they are happier and healthier as well as their future generations.  Don’t fall into the trap that rich people are miserable.  That is what they want you to think, which means there is more for them and less for you.]

2)  Delay marriage until after getting graduate degrees and starting a career.  Again, the better base one has, especially women, the better off life may be in the event of divorce.

3)  In regard to finances, a) Save money.  Do not impulse buy.  b) Maintain a separate saving account that only you have access to even when married.  Think logically, not with emotions, on this account.  In the workforce, people are exposed to a variety of individuals from the world over, especially, in large corporations that require travel.  Unintended and intended things do happen when people begin to move up the socio-economic ladder.

4)  The Cinderella story is a myth.  A prince is not going to come along and sweep you off your feet.  You are not a princess.  Marriage should be a rational decision, not based on some romantic ideal.  Evaluate the person objectively and then make a sound decision.  What does he have to offer?  What do you have to offer?  This may sound harsh, but why do marriages fail?  One of the primary reasons is money.  Love is a fleeting emotion.  Finances are objective and measurable.

5)  In cases of abuse, females must divorce their husbands.  “He will change” is wishful thinking.  Do not stay in a marriage because of children.  They will be worse off.  Again, awareness and logic will go along way in making a better life.

There are so many theoretical and practical aspects of this, but this will have to suffice for now.

Best,
Davison Bideshi, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Western Illinois University

Graphics done by M. Rane
Scientific Illustrator

Why Some Young Women Make A Life Choice Mistake.

Why Some Young Women Make A Life Choice Mistake.

Comments 0 Comment

See also the article Gatekeeping Young Women

I have come across a number of middle aged women who might have made a mistake in one of life choices that can significantly impact their lives and the lives of their children.  This article will spend time exploring one of these possible life choices because we see a pattern repeat over and over again and wish to alert young women about this possible problem.

The life choice pattern we are concerned about works like this.  A married women is separated, divorced or the husband dies.  The problem arises when the women, has been left alone through divorce, separation or death, does not have a profession and/or an employment record that helps her to find a good job.  Statistics fails to support a husband and wife staying together.  When a divorce takes place this places both in a lower economic rung of the ladder.   The women most often suffers more.  She is the one who typically takes care of the children. She is the one who has less employment history.  She is the one who is removed from the job market due to child birth and rearing of children.   She is the one who takes the children to school and club activities.  We put the burden of children upon her but fail to balance out her rewards for doing so.

A good portion of women  might lack good retirement benefits. With a good solid marriage, where both husband and wife have good jobs there is a better statistical probability that one or both will have a good retirement.  When the marriage is splits the family the total retirement asset value might be cut in half.   Social Security requires a number of quarters to qualify you for drawing Social Security benefits.  Women are often times taken out of the job market for raising children and just might not make the necessary minimum quarters for receiving Social Security.   Any women who is still married and not working in a job that offers retirement benefits is putting herself into a position where she may be forced to work the rest of her life if her spouse dies and he did not have a good retirement.  These factors, not finding a job, finding a lower paying job, finding a job that is not a pleasure, obtaining a job that does not have good benefits all work to potentially placing this women in a lower  pay and retirement scale.  Counter to that is when a women has a mate and they both have good jobs, better chance they both enjoy a good retirement, a good life to death.

Another somewhat related issue is that some women do find good paying jobs but it is not a pleasure for them.   The pursuit of happiness is a universal goal for all of us.  If a women finds herself alone she needs to find a job quickly to pay bills.    This some times translates into accepting a job that pays less than what her education and experience tells us she should attain.

Once a divorce or separation takes place, a women can fall lower in the social economic scale.  She will be facing stressful circumstances.  Children might be affected from results of this family break up and loss of purchasing power.  She might also  become a burden to her extended family members if unemployed for any extended time.

To solve this potential problem we must back up to viewing young girls environment to see what might have promoted this intellectual mistake.  It is our opinion that an attitude comes about from and through the mass media trying to promote stories that sell well to young girls.  The stories are usually romantic where a young girl meets the right boy, they date, and marry and the wedding is given major importance.  The media stories might not include all those elements but typically one or more.  The stories are typically light, friendly, and seasoned with obligatory romance.   In middle school and high school young girls especially use special shampoos, oils, lip gloss, eye shadow, and other makeup.  This is quite normal for young girls.  They dress in clothes that are often eye catching and conversation starters.  Girls might take special pride in hair style, nails and even body piercing to make billboard statements as to who and what they think they are.  Again, this is normal behavior and it points to their sensitivity and easily being impressed by new products and fashion.  Boys and girls are followers at this young age.  Girls read girl magazines, go to movies that are targeted for their age group and view television in the same way.  These are impressionable years for these girls and big business has each girl in their cross hairs.  The girls are studied by survey groups and pandered to according.  The media outlets are selling the good life as Hollywood thinks it should be sold for best return on their dollar by putting forth a dreamy life style to sell their product(s).  A lot of girls and women eat it up like it is all real and if they do they may be more prone to make the same trek down into a troubled life that so many women before have followed and suffered for.

We all have images of what we want, who we want to be and who we want to be with.  These images are not drawn out of thin air but we get them from watching our parents, friends and the media.  The points being made here are two.  First, media organizations promote an image that is typically pumping up romance and glittering the marriage ceremony.  As a result some girls might put too much of their aspirations into their partner for “life”.  Reality counters this with a cold hard statistic that tells us that roughly half of all marriages fail.  Point two follows the first point.  We recommend a solution.  To solve this problem we recommend that young girls do well in school, seek out a passion to follow as a profession, complete their education for that profession, and find a job and keep it for a significant number of years so they can market themselves again after removing themselves for child rearing.    It is ok to date and have boy friends but think about your profession first.  This down plays the romance element quite a bit.  A sociologist friend, who teaches marriage and family class, tells his students that marriage is not about romance but should be an economic union between two people, a business partnership.  Personally, I think throwing out romance is a bit harsh.  Instead, I recommend a balance of romance and good business sense with the scales tilted in favor for the business portion.  A young women should seek out a mate that is not solely physically attractive because that wears thin shortly.  A women should consider a lot of things when choosing a mate but strong consideration for a man who has a good profession and who is heathy should be valued.

Parents, you can help by talking to your daughter about what the media is attempting to do to them and why.  We recommend you do not tell your daughter but have a discussion about this subject and get her input.  For example, as she watches TV or reads a book or magazine, discuss what is being portrayed.     What life style is she being told to lead?  If she were to follow that life style, how realistic is it?

We recommend, support and encourage your daughter to participate in activities that will make her her own person and not subservient.   She needs to be her own women and feel she is any man’s equal because the odds say she will be alone, on her own, if  marriage dissolves at some point.

For parents consideration when your daughter is in middle and high school:

  • Team sports, school and league, (only recommended if school grades are good).
  • School band (also may help self discipline and school grades).
  • Boy Scouts Venturing for girls.
  • School debate.
  • Theater and dance (only if your child is on stage as a participant).
  • Drill team.
  • Cheer leader.

Less important but might help if there is some development problem or shyness:

  • School clubs.
  • Theatre, dance, audio visual, behind the scenes, for students that might be too shy.
  • Girl Scouts.

Finally, a young women should seriously consider finishing college before having children.  A women should enter the job market in a good profession as soon as possible and stay long enough to brand her a good hire if she decided to quit to have children.  A women needs to think, in the back of her mind, what do I need to do to ensure my life style if my life partner leaves or dies.

_____

For a more deeply examined view on this subject, please read Gatekeeping Young Women.