Capital

So, where I left off in my last blog was at false dichotomies. I started these blogs by explaining social space to be the area in which players hold positions, act according to their positions, and follow the rules of the field. After explaining social space I continued by explaining habitus which is a combination of the internalization of the social structures, or more specifically ones own position in the social space, a situation, context, or interaction that requires from the individual a certain course of action, and the individuals own judgment with a little bit of their own freewill. That is what makes up habitus and lead me into my explanation of false dichotomies. A false dichotomy being something with two opposite ends which in reality are far from opposing each other, like structures and action. With habitus, we can see this false dichotomy. One would first think that structures and action are separate oppositions but in fact they rely on each other and work with each other.

So we have this space, which we all have a position and take actions in that helps to structure the structures that are structuring, but what is the point? Do we exist in this space to take position and action to continue change the structures which determine our actions for no reason? 

No, the reason is for capital, or more specifically “Cultural Capital” “Social Capital” and “Economic Capital” (Bourdieu 1986). Everyone is divided by their positions in social space because of the practices that are required of their positions. Those practices are determined by the capital of their position. For instance if someone has a lot of money they will send their child to a good school, if they don’t have a lot of money then their child may have to work for the money to pay for school. The two actions are different because both exist in two different positions in social space which have been divided by their different forms of capital. 

The picture above is one that I took to better depict the different forms of capital. Cultural capital is things that can be used by an individual to gain social class and more economic capital. Cultural capital is defined by Bourdieu as “ cultural capital, which is convertible, on certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the forms of educational qualifications” (Bourdieu 1986). In the picture I used text books for this representation. By going to school and getting an education one gains better social standing and can convert their education into economic capital by getting a good paying job. The more cultural capital one gains the more economic capital they can convert. Other forms of cultural capital would be their physical appearance, and other objects that would be desired, like cars, houses, art work and other things. 

Social capital is a bit different. Social capital are things that are not necessarily physical but still have great value. Bourdieu defines social capital as “ the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition - or in other words, to membership in a group” (Bourdieu 1986). Things like your family name, or social groups like a yacht club, and even places you go to eat can contribute to your social capital. In the picture above I used the dinner place to represent social capital. While knowing how to eat in a fancy restraint would be cultural capital, being seen in a fancy restraint with the right people would be social capital. 

The last form of capital is the most straight forward and that is economic capital. Economic capital is simply defined by Bourdieu as “immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the forms of property rights” (Bourdieu 1986). It is the things you own and amount of money you have. I did also say that certain things you own would count as cultural capital like a nice car or a big house and that is true. A nice car and big house do have cultural capital but the action of owning them means that they also have a material value which is economic capital. Economic capital allows us to reproduce our capital by buying nice things for our children and sending them to good schools so they gain the cultural and social capital so that they too can one day obtain economic capital. 

But thats not the whole story. How things are valued varies depending on where you are. Something may have a large sum of capital in one place but less in another, and its always changing through habitus. Like the example I made earlier about the rich parents paying for their child's college while less fortunate parents can’t afford it and their child has to work to pay for school. When the child from the rich family will gain many types of capital because of the family they were born into, the other child who has to work to pay for college will also gain capital in another way. They might gain more respect for hard work, or be a better employee and move up in their profession one day. Everyone has some form of capital and it might not always be worth something everywhere but it still does have some worth somewhere or at some time, due to habitus, the changing social structures, and our freewill. 

References

Bourdieu Pierre, 1986 “The Forms of Capital.” marxist.org. 11/28/12 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm

Blumer: Collective Bahvior

This week, I have decided to investigate Blumer's theories on collective behavior. 

The idea of collective behavior was established by Robert E Park and was further developed by Talcott Parsons and Herbert Blumer. It is used to refer to social events and processes that do not reflect existing social structures such as institutions or laws and to organize crowd behavior. Collective behavior arises spontaneously and is neither conforming nor deviant. It takes place when norms are irrelevant, unclear or conflicting of each other (McPhail 1991; Eyerman, Jamison 1991).

Blumer sees social actors as being passive, where social forces control them. He also thinks that the majority of routine collective behavior is due to the fact that "people have common understandings and expectations". An actor responds to another actor's behavior based on the interpretation that they have made from that behavior, rather than to the actual behavior itself. The disruption of routine causes individual actors to develop new impulses that the existing social order cannot have capacity for. This encourages erratic and uncoordinated behavior, which Blumer refers to as “restlessness” (McPhail 1991).

Blumer’s perspective was that collective behavior encourages social creativity within forms of symbolic interaction that allow for the breaking down of customary, institutionalized behavior. It develops in five steps, according to Blumer.

·      An exciting event occurs.

o   It draws people’s attention

o  While being preoccupied by the event, people let go of the control that they have over their reaction to the event

·      Milling behavior

o   People stand or walk around, talking about the event

o   People respond to and reproduce other’s behaviors

·      Emergence of a Common Object

o   People experience a collective excitement in reaction to the event

·      Foster of Common Impulses

o   This collective excitement continues

o   Social contagion occurs whereby people mimic other’s behavior in response to the event

·      Elementary collective behavior

As I have mentioned in earlier blog posts, I am currently studying abroad in the US. So, whilst trying to study, I am also trying to see as much of the country as possible and experience different cultural events. Obviously, as Thanksgiving was recently, it was only natural for me to go to the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. The parade gave me a really good insight into American Culture, as we do not celebrate Thanksgiving at home. It also provided me with an insight into society in general. Collectively, people gather along the streets of New York City, hours before the parade starts and stand together, while they wait. This is not something that I would classify as being a normal thing for people to do. Leaving the comfort of your homes, in the early hours of a Fall morning, to stand along a street for what can sometimes be hours, waiting for a parade to start, then spending another two hours standing around, watching the parade. Personally, I see this behavior as being somewhat collective in the way that it does not occur often and the actions and behaviors that are carried out, whilst at this kind of event, is most likely to be spontaneous and neither conforming nor deviant.

In regards to Blumer's five steps:

-       Exciting event

o   Thanksgiving Day Parade

-       Milling behavior

o   People all gather to wait and watch the parade

o   People respond similarly to other crowd member’s behavior

    - Sitting on sidewalks

    - Going for coffee breaks

    - Starting conversations and sing-alongs with the people around them

-       Common Object

o   Whilst the parade is happening, people’s collective excitement over the event starts

-       Common Impulses

o   This collective excitement continues

o   People in the crowd start to mimic other crowd member’s behavior that is in response to the parade

-       Elementary Collective Behavior

o   Collective behavior is achieved

Parades are not the only example of people participating in this form of collective behavior. Sporting events and concerts are also good examples of times that people behave collectively. Although this kind of collective behavior occurs regularly, I still think that it really exemplifies the idea that Blumer had – of spontaneity and non-comforting or deviance, through the way that the behavior that people show in these situations are not of the norm.

Collins: Qualifications TOO High for Some?

After discussing the connection and need for education and skills in the work place in his piece "Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification", Randall Collins talks about how that, a lot of times, these demands are not possible for some people in society so therefore, leaving these people struggling to get ahead. He calls this the functional approach to stratification. “A fundamental assumption is that there is a generally fixed set of positions, whose various requirements the labor force must satisfy”. It is because of these guidelines that companies have for who they want to hire or promote in their work place that is making it more and more difficult to move up anywhere. As stated in my previous entry, if you don’t have the education or background, people will look at you like you have five heads! In order to move up and forward, that piece of paper really goes a long way! Because of this high demand, it creates a shift in society. As things become more modern and technology becomes more advanced, it forces individuals to scramble to keep up with the constantly changing work place and society as a whole.

Collins then goes on to state the obvious….people get the education and the skills for the profit, money and rewards that come along with advancing and working hard for a company or work force. Years ago, people went to school to learn, people learned to expand their knowledge and minds. Today though…it’s unfortunately all about the Benjamin’s. Money affects how people act and feel about their jobs. I feel like most people don’t even LIKE their jobs which is so sad!!! And what’s worse is that, depending where you stand on the “power level” of a company, you’re expected
to just “satisfy” the needs of the company, as Collins puts it. “that is, setting average levels of performance as satisfactory, and making changes in procedures only when performance falls noticeably below minimum standards”. I think we see this in our jobs today. I hear the sayings constantly at my own work place “well its not my job” “why should I do that” or “just leave it for so and so when they come in on Monday”. It just seems that people work so hard to get to a certain level or position but when it comes time to step it up, people don’t.

As stated before, a lot of people simply just don’t have the resources or money to gain the skills and education that are needed. Many people cannot afford to send their children to good colleges so therefore, the child is stuck with a minimum wage job. I personally have witnessed young Hispanic girls barely graduate high school then go straight to working at the same fast food place with her mother. That girl will grow up not being able to get ahead because she wasn’t given the opportunity to grow and prosper in society and in the work place. Randall Collins states “Cross-sectional studies, based on both biographical and survey data, show that approximately 60 to 70% of the American business elite come from upper-class and upper-middle-class families, and fewer than 15% from working class families”. It’s not about companies being racist and discriminating against minorities, but so many minorities can not even apply for certain jobs because of the high demand for certain skills to even qualify. And although many schools offer financial aid and programs for families and people that do not have the money to provide, these lower class minorities do not know how to go about it! And most likely they will not hear about the opportunities that are offered to them. These goals and expectations to even qualify for certain jobs might make these individuals feel like they don’t even stand a chance; it stops them from getting ahead.

Of course, Collins can not discuss the issue of minorities without bringing up women in the work place. Randall Collins makes many very good points saying that legally women have the same exact rights as a man when it comes to getting a job. However that unfortunately is not always the case. Collins argues that many companies abide by the rules to hire and promote women only to make sure the company does not get a bad name! Many big companies are controlled by men and the last thing they need is a bad wrap about how they did not hire a woman.

So yes, society is growing and changing with the advancing technologies, but not everyone is able to keep up with the changes. A lot of people get left behind unfortunately.

Herbert Blumer - Social Structure: Opportunity vs. Constraint

This week, I have found it quite difficult to try and capture Blumer's theories into photographs as I feel that I am going to be repeating my previous posts on symbolic interactionism. However, I have decided to go in a different direction this week by talking about Blumer’s argument on the relationship between the individual and social structures. A criticism of Blumer is that he does not pay enough attention to the impact that social structures have on individual behavior, as he strongly focuses on interaction between individuals and meaning making, which is why I have decided to focus on it this week. He believes it to be a repetitive process whereby there is a temporary gap between the people who create social structures and the people that live under it.

“The things, which [have to be taken] into account—tasks, opportunities, obstacles, means, demands, discomforts, dangers” (Low 2008; 332).

He argues that the structures, which are created through social interaction, provide individuals with both opportunities and constraints. According to Blumer, social structures include culture, social systems, social roles and social stratification. The organization of a human society is the framework for which social action occurs and is not the deciding factor of that action. Although social structures set conditions for individuals, it is equally dependent on the individuals for its existence. Blumer recognizes the ways in which patterns that are established within group life are not able to exist alone, as they are dependent on continuous recurring definition from individuals.

With this idea of Blumer’s in my mind, I couldn’t help but think about money. Money is something that provides both opportunities and constraints for people within society. Although it is not strictly a social structure, I feel as though I can link it to Blumer’s idea through the cycle that money is a part of. Humans (actors) are the people who make and produce money, in the physical sense. We also impact the value of it, in the way that without humans, there would be no such thing as money. Money depends on individuals and society for its existence. We gave both the physical and mental idea of money a meaning and through this meaning, we have given it value within society. The value that money has, impacts individuals through the way that it, as I mentioned, provides opportunities and constraints.

I think that the opportunity versus constraint idea is visible within society through rich versus poor. Typically, people who have money (rich) have more opportunities presented to them compared to people who do not have (much or no) money (poor), as money provides the means to grasp those opportunities, such as access to education. The constraint that money presents is when not having it, individuals miss out on certain opportunities. It is also constraining in the way that in order to live comfortably, individuals need to earn money and to earn money individuals need to be employed, which some may feel is a constraint that stops them from being able to do what they would otherwise want to do. I am not necessarily saying that this is all 100% fact. I am, however, voicing my thoughts on the link that I could draw between Blumer’s idea and things I have experienced within society. Of course, money is not the only thing that presents opportunities and constraints. 

References:

Low, Jacqueline. 2008. "Structure, Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism: The Influence of George Simmel." Symbolic Interaction 31(3): 325-43.

Herbert Blumer - Interaction

As mentioned in my previous post, Blumer was interested in the meanings that we assign to certain objects and words. To go into more depth about his interest in this, it is necessary to discuss the process that he argues is responsible for this assignment of meanings: an interactive interpretative process, whereby an actor notes the things that have meanings towards which they are acting, then, by using an internal social process of interpretation, they assign a meaning by a process of preparation, re-evaluation and review. Drawing from his influence from John Dewey’s understanding of the interaction between humans and the natural work, he believed that interaction was the basis of the creation and assignment of meaning. Blumer went on to create a structure of ideas that he referred to as “root images”, which are images that point to and portray self-interaction, human groups and societies. With the action of individuals being heavily emphasized, he stressed that social interactionism allowed the best, most direct observation of human behavior and interaction. Blumer believed that meaning has a forceful nature given to it through a self-interacting process (Alexander 1987).

With Blumer’s theory in mind, I find it quite interesting to think about the different interactions that people have, which result in them assigning different meanings to certain things. An example of this, in my every day life, would be the interaction that I have with inanimate objects. A quick insight into me: I easily become attached to inanimate objects because of different experiences and memories that I have with them. I tend to assign meanings to things, based on interactions that I have had with them, which ends in me using this meaning to justify hoarding or holding onto certain objects. It may seem a bit far-fetched from Blumer's theory but an object that I feel to have assigned an important meaning to, based on my interaction with it, is my bedroom. Like most people, I enjoy spending time in my bedroom. There is obviously more than one object in my bedroom, as you can see in the photo below. However, overall, through the interactions that I have had with each individual object, and them as a collective, the meaning that my bedroom has to me is comfort and stability.

I am always able to come back to my room at the end of the day and recuperate, which is where the meaning of it lies. Past interactions that I have had in and with my room, over the past 12 years, have allowed me to establish a meaning of comfort and stability. All of the objects that are in my room are in there because of the meaning that I associate them with. For example, the bear that is sitting on my bed; although it is just a plush object that provides no conversation or external social interactions for me, I have had it my entire life and have interacted with it at times where I have needed comfort, which in turn has led me to associate a meaning of comfort with it. Personally, I see the assignment of meanings as a cycle. I received this bear the day that I was born, I have used it to seek comfort from over the past 20 years, due to the comfort that was provided, I have assigned a meaning of comfort to that object and now go back to it when I am seeking just that. Another example is the teddy bear lamp that I have on my bedside table: a present from a family member when I was very young. Due to the fact that it was a gift from someone that I am extremely close to, I refuse to remove it from my room, as it has a lot of meaning tied to it. It also provides me with comfort, as well as memories of receiving it and the person who gave it to me.

I see this as being relative to Blumer through the way that I have assigned a meaning to the bear/other objects in my room, due to past interactions that I have had with them. Individually, all of the objects in my room have small, similar meanings to me, due to the past interactions that I have had with, or involving, each object. Therefore, they collectively come together to share a meaning of comfort and stability as they are all inclusive in the overall meaning that I associate with my bedroom.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. Twenty Lectures: Sociological Theory Since World War II.New York: Columbia University Press.

Race and MoMa

This week, I visited The Museum of Modern Art in the city. Studying social theory this semester has made me more acutely aware of the importance interpretation and perception play in decision making and the construction of intellectual products. My academic pursuit has always been one of understanding—I’ve sought to answer how the ugliest of attitudes can develop, and even become pervasive, in a society. Still, ingesting readings on phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, standpoint theory and other contemporary sociological theories has opened my eyes to concepts such as a priori knowledge, that not only effect the development of theory but also research methodology, fiction writing, and even works of art.

Hannah Deinhard (1970) writes that the main question that the sociology of art asks is “ How is it possible that works of art, which always originate as products of human activity within a particular time and society and for a particular time, society, or function -- even though they are not necessarily produced as 'works of art' -- can live beyond their time and seem expressive and meaningful in completely different epochs and societies?” Obviously, the beauty to art work is often its ability to be perceived, to hold different meanings to different people. Art clearly becomes socially constructed, and can be used to represent and transmit our own social constructions of concepts such as race and ethnicity. Additionally, it can be used to at least highlight and explain trends in race and ethnicity. These are my interpretations of some of my findings.

This piece is Joseph Kosuth's "The Word Definition." He lists various definitions for the concept of defining. To me, this shows the vast differences we can have in our process of defining. Morning's research on race is on racial conceptualization: what race is, how race differs and what the origins of race are. Race holds different definitions to each of us that are developed through processes of defining, that are different to each of us, even if regularities exist. Kosuth's "defining" is similar to Morning's many measures of conceptualization.

This picture is by Glen Ligon. The texts are inspired by prose from Zora Neal Hurston's "How it feels to be colored me" and Ralph Ellison's "The Invisible Man." While you may have trouble reading the black on black text, it reads “I am an invisible man…I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids—and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.” The materials Ligon chooses to use to display these quotes make them difficult to read and understand--this, to me, represents how it is difficult for me, as a white male, to understand feelings of black existentialism and alienation. Also, it represents the difficulty to understand deeply rooted race problems. This invokes thoughts of standpoint theory, pointing to the conceptualization of race according to those of different races. It highlights our difficulty to understand what it means to be a certain race or ethnicity to someone.

This final picture I've chose to note in this blog entry is by Robert Colescott, a favorite artist of mine, and is named "Emergency Room." The piece has a lot going out, depicting racial hardship and even stereotypes. He paints a chaotic emergency room, what in Colescott's words he sees as an "allegory for the whole country." The scene has several different characters being shown. There's a group of apes stabbing eachother with knives in the upper corner; a sickly skeleton with a black female head recieving a blood transfusion; a priest holding a decapitated black head. To me, the picture shows Colescott's view of race in American society as one where blacks are put at a serious disadvantage, suffering from attacks in several areas.

The reason Morning's research is so important is that she provides a multidimensional outlook at defining notions of race. By showing the way race functions in several different contexts we see that only race is a social construct dependent on environment AND that these different context-dependent functionings can relate to racial attitudes and eventually even preference for policy and creation of policy. Kusuth's "The Word Definition" strongly sums up Morning's research, as different ways of defining is at the heart of Morning's studies.

references

Morning, Ann. 2009. “Toward a Sociology of Racial Conceptualization for the 21st Century” Social Forces 87, March 2009

Randall Collins Techo-Function Theory

Education is something that occurs in our everyday lives. Whether you’re in school yourself, you have kids in school, or if you’re in the work force. It’s a topic that involves our everyday lives whether we notice it or not.

Randall Collins discusses, in depth, his theories in his piece “Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification”. The first theory is called the techno-function theory. Collins believed skills are important in getting a job because technology is constantly changing. The two processes involved in this theory are the fact that the proportion of jobs asking for lower skills decreases meanwhile the need for high skills begins to increase. The same jobs require high skill requirements wherever you go! Collins states in “Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification”: skill requirements of jobs change with industrialization and concerning the content of school experiences.

Education is tied into these high demands of skills because in school is where these skills are learned. All over the country and the world you find schools offering different programs to help individuals succeed in the work place. Schools such as BOCES on Long Island offer electrical programs, nursing, culinary and other programs to give people a head start in specific fields. My own brother took electrician classes at BOCES and now is working for one of the biggest gas companies in the country and he thanks the electrician program he was a part of for helping him get ahead.

This is a perfect example of Collins’ techno-function theory. Collins fully believes this is why educational requirements for jobs is constantly rising everywhere you go. I feel because of the high demand for education (to obtain these skills jobs require), more and more people are either going back to school or even spending LONGER to obtain an even HIGHER degree such as a Bachelors or even a Doctorate Degree. Today, high school graduates are constantly asked the famous question “where are you going to college?” because nowadays, NOT advancing your education isn’t even a question. In order to make the “big bucks” it requires you to earn the skills from educational institutions.

When you fill out any job application, one of the very first questions are about your education, what courses you’ve taken that have to do with the job and so forth. It’s something you cant really avoid. And if you don’t have schooling, people look at you like you have five heads.

According from the Opinion article in Newsday titled “Nation Needs More Utility Laborers”, (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/wheary-need-for-utility-workers-is-a-problem-and-an-opportunity-1.4226041) Jennifer Wheary discusses how in New York, companies like National Grid and Onondaga Community College run a utility worker certificate program that combines technology, math and science courses with on the job training. This is because they are trying to promote more young people to come into that line of work. So many people go right for the academic schooling while that’s all well and good but a lot of people forget about the trade fields. Companies such as Lipa, National Grid and other power companies have the average worker aging 50 years old. The fact that these companies know that education is a huge factor, they are offering programs that not only focus on the books but hands on experience as well. That is something you cannot find in a class room. Wheary states: "We need to rethink the role that high schools, community colleges and utility companies themselves can play in getting more students interested in and prepared for utility careers. And we need to give them the resources to do more. There are successful models in place at the local level, where these groups are working together to fill employment gaps. There just aren't enough of them in operation”.

When I first walked into an interview a few years back for a Clerical position at my job, the first thing the supervisor said to me was “what makes you qualified to even be sitting here right now?” Although it was intimidating, I was able to explain what my skills were. Then the very next question was “How fast can you type? Have you taken computer classes before?” And so forth. When I explained that I was an English major at Suffolk Community College and currently studying Sociology at Stony Brook University. I told her about typing, keyboarding and many other computer classes I have taken. She was pretty impressed and started talking to me differently. She came off very harsh at first but once she knew my background, she stopped. I found this incredible and didn’t realize at the time how having a certain piece of paper can change how people view you. I find this experience as a good example of Collins’ theory of techno-function.

Randall Collins really goes into depth defending his techno-function theory and even today we see examples of it everywhere. Our world is changing and we need education to keep up with the high speed technology and advances needed in our society today.

Habitus and False Dichotomies

In my last post I discussed my thoughts on social space and made a comparison with high school. I had originally wanted to talk about three concepts from Pierre Bourdieu in my last blog but ended up rambling too much about high school and social space. So, in this blog I would like to continue where I left off which is with that picture I posted at the end of my last blog as a teaser.      

To explain this photo I will first review the concept of habitus that I’m matching it to. In society there are social structures that influence an individuals actions, but sometimes an individuals actions can influence the social structures. Individuals have a slight amount of freewill in their actions which allows for variations. In order to make any kind of decision we need knowledge of past experiences and individual judgment based on the context of the situation, that is what habitus is. Habitus is the link between our position in social space and our actions based on our position and the context of the situation. 

So now that I gave a brief summery of what habitus is I can draw the connections between it and my picture. When thinking about habitus I wanted to break down the concept into the simplest ideas possible. First I figured that habitus is partially comprised of your past experiences, so its not only what you know or what you have learned, but it is what you have to work with. You can’t place judgment on anything you know nothing about, you need some kind of experience to access. This is what got me thinking of the tool box. A tool box is a collection of tools that you know from past experience that are available at you disposal.

Habitus is not only your past experiences at your disposal but also your judgment. With a tool box you have the ability to combine your past experiences with your judgment of the situation and take appropriate actions. Different tools do different things and some may be better then others depending on the situation but in the end it is left up to your judgment. There may be multiple routes that end up at the same solution. Or, you can choose a different out come for the situation and do whatever you see fit. This is why the tool box represents habitus. It is a compilation of past experiences and your personal judgment based on the situation in order to take appropriate actions.

Now then, after talking about habitus I want to lead this blog into the next concept by Pierre Bourdieu. When explaining habitus I mentioned that there are social structures that influence an individuals actions, but that the individuals actions also influence the social structure. Well this is an example of a false dichotomy. A dichotomy is something with two opposed groups. Bourdieu believes that we shouldn’t only look at both opposing groups to a dichotomy but also see how much they work together, which makes them false dichotomies. Thinking about this concept I could have come up with plenty of ideas to relate this to but this one in particular stood out to me. 

So what I got here is a picture of a weight and a video game console. Both of these represent activities done by players at commonly misrecognized opposite ends of social space. The video game console would be associated with someone who is not physically active. The weight being associated with someone who is the exact opposite as a physically active individual. Normally what would be assumed is that one who plays a lot of video games uses their free time for that, which involves sitting around for long periods of time, eating unhealthy, and enforcing lazy habits. The individual that uses the weight would want to eat healthier, be active, and enforce active habits. But Im going to argue that this is a false dichotomy, or a misrecognition. I’m not only arguing this stand point from an observationally perspective but a personal perspective. I believe that I actually would be a good example for this false dichotomy. 

I have always been into video games, comics, and anything else that would be associated with a geeky lifestyle but at the same time Im also very enthusiastic about combat sports and exercising. I actually cosplayed at comic con this year as one of my favorite anime characters, and was confident in myself because I wasn’t your average overweight anime fan boy who never leaves his house. Actually there were a lot of people there at comic con who were in great shape and cosplaying like their favorite characters. Its kind of like these characters that you become so attached to help to motivate you to become more like them. After all super heros are suppose to be role models. So when someone would think that video games and comic would lead to a lazy, unhealthy lifestyle, it could in fact help motivate an individual to be more active. This is why I choose this picture to be an example for a false dichotomy. 

Unpacking Implicit Racism: How Morning, and other scholars, have combated the problem of social desirability effects

            I couldn't help but think of this Louie C.K clip when reflecting on Morning's study of racial conceptualization. For me, stand up comedy yields some of the sharpest and most relatable social commentary accessible to a wide range of Americans, both intellectual and nonintellectual. Louie C.K, George Carlin and Patrice O'Neil have highlighted inconsistencies in racial conceptualization in ways that are plenty more entertaining than journal articles. Still, what drew me to this clip when I was thinking about Morning's research was the honesty to which he discusses race. Patrice O'Neil, a black comedian, discusses race in a similar way; however, Louie, as a white male, addresses his ideas on race from his own standpoint. While its similar to theories on white guilt and a utilitarian approach to race relations, he still addresses the issue in a conversational but honest way. One of the major obstacles Morning's research had to overcome was the effects of social desirability--individuals hiding their conceptualizations of race that they may have considered would make them appear racist. However, through solid methodology, Morning is able to make this subtle racism more implicit--or at least, expose the assumptions people make when conceptualizing race.

            Despite the fact that our society is still largely racialized, and the fact that many Americans support policies that would disproportionately punish non-whites, it is generally accepted that being racist is NOT a positive quality in contemporary American society. This is a roadblock for researchers seeking to understand racism, as subjects often do not want to appear racist. This has caused many social scientists to attempt to manipulate their methodology in ways to combat social desirability effects. Feldman and Huddy (2005) studied opposition to racial programs, coining the term "new racism" as hidden symbolic, racial resentment while old, "blatant racism" was easier to detect. Feldman and Huddy found that opposition to race-based scholarship programs are largely driven by racial resentment, despite the claim that opposition to these programs is due to a drive for increased individualism. Payne (2001) addressed this problem even more head-on through his study of automatic activation of stereotypes. Using a priming task depicting a black or white face and a gun or a garden tool, they used a study of automatic activation via reaction time and misidentification errors to prove that racial stereotypes are automatically activated outside of conscious awareness. The real life implications of this can be seen from the Amadou Diallo tragedy of 1999.

            In Morning's research, she discusses how interviewees often shift the discussion of race to ethnicity/culture. She believes they do this to circumvent the "old racism" biological explanations for racial differences, and avoid engagement with America's long history of racial oppression. Interviewees still, however, make claims that there are insurmountable cultural differences, even when they are not able to locate what they are. This cultural racism is a phenomenon Balibar calls "racism without races." Morning suggests that "culture served as amore socially acceptable rendering of racial difference than biology could alone" (1176).

            Additionally, Morning avoids social desirability effects by her particularly questioning. Through the use of two particular lines of questioning--one on race in professional sports and the other on differentials in infant birth weight--Morning is able to weed out the conclusions that many people still hold notions that blacks are superior physically and inferior intellectually. An interesting conclusion she found was the result of her questioning on hockey. While most subjects provide biological explanations for why blacks were more prevalent in the NFL, they provided cultural explanations for why whites were more prevalent in the NHL.

            Social desirability is an interesting phenomenon. I've never held back any of my opinions on race or gender issues, despite being a straight, white male. As I grow intellectually, I even noticed how many of the old viewpoints I had were wrong, and even offensive. It makes me reconsider my own views on race; still, I have a hard time biting my tongue when I hear someone say that affirmative action programs are unfair to whites, or that women have equality in the workplace. There's so much apparent stratification deeply rooted in our social systems that I can't imagine not discussing it. I recently collected data via survey on race and ethnicity for a project I'm working on, and rather comically, a student put his race/ethnicity as human. I can't think of a better way to describe my own race/ethnicity. While it doesn't take into account the historical and social implications of race, it embodies my own belief that race is a social construct and that as human beings, we're interconnected.

References
Morning, Ann. 2009. “Toward a Sociology of Racial Conceptualization for the 21st Century” Social Forces 87, March 2009
Payne, Keith. 2001. “Prejudice and perception: The role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon”

High School as social space.

After last weeks blog post I spent a lot of time thinking about the practical applications of the concepts I pointed out by Pierre Bourdieu. I spent some time reading further into his work to try and get a better understanding to help me come up with a clearer idea of how I want to portray them. 

To recap really quickly, in my last post I discussed Bourdieus ideas on Social Space, Habitus, and False Dichotomies. Basically a social space is the same thing as the field in game theory. This is the area of play, with individuals that have roles depending on their position on the field. Habitus is the linking point between your position and your actions. The habitus is determined by your experiences, the current conditions in your situation, and your own judgment. This allows for the social structures that structure action to be structured by action. Then that leads into the last concept of a false dichotomy. A dichotomy is something that is divided into two opposite ends. A false dichotomy is when something is divided or two ends opposing each other but in actuality they don’t. The example from before is structure and action. The structure determines actions and the actions determine the structure so even though they are opposites to each other they both exist together. That is what makes a false dichotomy.

After having some more time to think about this and do a little more reading I believe I have found a few good ways to depict these concepts through photos of the social world. I will probably post other photos on the same subjects in future blogs but for right now this is what I have come up with.

The first of these concepts that I will talk about in the social realm is Bourdieus concept of social space. Social space is a fairly easy concept to under stand and has been include in many other theories by many other theorist. The most recognizable form of social space would be game theory. The reason why game theory is called game theory is because the analogy to a sports game often times works the best to describe this. Basically there is a field that has actors in it. There are sets of rules on the field that influence the actors actions. But the actors actions are also influenced by the constantly  changing situations and variables. Because of this actors can slightly use their freewill or judgment to determine their actions. So actions in a game and in the social world are slightly determined by the social institutions, you place in these institutions, your perceived role in your position, and your own freewill. I feel that the best way to describe the social space besides using game theory would be thinking back to high school.

For this part I wanted to get a picture of the high school I went to, but Im encountering difficulties with that due to obvious reasons, but I should be able to get a photo for next weeks blog. Anyway the relationship I draw from social space to high school is this; growing up in high school every knows that there are kids in different groups from you. High school is so divided that its constantly used in media interpretations for movies and TV shows. Its just kid trying to figure out who they are in this world, and high school acts like the space, stage, or field necessary for them to practice their positions. This is why I feel like high school is a perfect example. Kids at that age create obnoxiously large barriers between their groups in order to emphasis the differences between them and make themselves as individuals more defined. All of these groups that exist, exist in the social space of high school. There are so many roles to be played. There are the jocks, stoners, music groups, emo kids, scene kids, nerds, thugs, book worms, hipsters and probably many more that I can’t think of. Everyone in high school finds a group, or a click to fall into, so that they can define who they are. The school acts like the field, the rules of high school effect how the kids interact and their roles are somewhat limited to the field of the school. After High school they enter into new fields with new roles and new players, so they develop different roles and groups to identify with. 

I would like to end this blog by setting myself up for next weeks by talking about habitus.  If the social space is high school, and the players in high school have roles or positions to interact then it would be assumed that every interaction could be predetermined based on how the social space of high school dictates that the groups interact. This is not true though. There are cases where kids from different groups interact with each other. They also blend into different groups. This is because of habitus. Their habitus is affected by the social structure of high school, the positions the individuals fall into, and their own decisions. This leads to more flexibility between groups in high school and a more realistic idea of what high school is really like. Its true that there are well defined groups but that doesn’t mean that they static. Finally to end this blog I want to add in a picture I took that I think would represent the notion of habitus very well. Not in terms of high school but if habitus were to manifest into a physical form. I wanted to go in depth about my explanation for choosing this picture but I have decided to post the picture now and let you think about it over the week until I post my next blog and go into detail with my thoughts. 

Tragedy and social behavior: how Morning’s conceptualization of race relates to Hurricane Sandy

Photographing the social world the last two weeks has been a strange experience. Spending my time on the south shore of Staten Island, an area seriously devastated by Hurricane Sandy, I witnessed the transformation of my hometown from a relatively typical American city to an unrecognizable war-zone. Houses, restaurants, and businesses that stood for years, concrete community fixtures, were flooded, destroyed, some to the point of complete collapse. It’s been pretty impossible for me to focus any of my attention and efforts on anything other than recovery from this storm.

Still, while tragedies such as this are atrocious, it is often in these moments of incertitude that the saliency of social psychological phenomenon is heightened. It took the Holocaust for Milgram’s research on obedience to authority, or Zimbardo’s work on social roles in the Stanford Prison Experiment, or Hannah Ardent’s banality of evil theory to surface. It takes war to study the “rally-around-the-flag effect.” While Sandy was bad to Staten Island, it did highlight interesting sociological trends.

Staten Island is consistently rated one of the rudest American cities in the United States. It’s one of the most conservative voting districts in the state of New York. It’s steeped in racial prejudice. There is a literal distinction between the black and white sides of Staten Island, with the “north shore” being a more urban, black area and the south shore being a more suburban, white area. But as I watched the reaction from my fellow Staten Islanders to the storm, I noticed an increase in emotional energy and group solidarity that showed no socioeconomic borders, no racial lines. At first to me, this seemed strange. Isn't it in times of hardship, deprivation and paranoia that we cling to our in-group and show greater rates of out-group hostility?

My theory is that our subconscious conceptualization of in-group changed. The blacks vs. Italians dichotomy that dominated Staten Island social behavior for the last 70 years became temporarily resolved, and in the face of this struggle, we were united as “Staten Islanders.” Was there still out-group hostility? Absolutely. Some of the most troubling arguments occurring over social media were ones regarding which areas got hit the hardest in an almost competitive sort of way. Staten Islanders scolded city-dwellers and Long Islanders for complaining about no power when so many residents of our area were killed. Those on the south shore of Long Island complained their area was just as devastated and under covered in the media. Conflict became both materialist and idealist. Each regional area wanted more emotional and economic support for their recovering areas.

What does this say about the conceptualization of race and ethnicity? Clearly, its strength as a social construction is large enough that it causes people to believe race is an impermeable boundary. But if times of stress show there can be shifts in our interracial social interactions, can we shift these patterns without total destruction?

I’m eager to explore my social world through the lens of Ann Morning’s research on conceptualization of race. Just as I thought the houses in my neighborhood were concrete fixtures, Morning highlights how many conceptualize race as if it impermeable, with biological boundaries. Morning’s different findings on conceptualization of race, and theory on race for hundreds of years, has established race as a social construction. Just as divine right was accepted as unchangeably dictating the limits of human behavior, race becomes one of these seemingly objective characteristics. My research this semester will examine Morning’s ideas and seek to explain how one comes to an understanding of race, what social conditions foster certain ethnic attitudes, and more importantly, how can we use this knowledge to facilitate less hostile inter-ethnic and interracial social interactions while maintaining a sense of cultural identity?


Post-note: Of course, racial depiction in the media is completely separate from on-site solidarity. While I haven't studied or noticed issues in coverage of Sandy, Katrina--as many already know--produced horribly racially biased coverage.

(Picture taken from http://pavanvan.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/looters-in-chile/ )