Herbert Blumer: Movies and Conduct

Blumer conducted a study that investigated the reactions of people when watching movies, using observational methodology and a “biographical method”. Data was collected from nearly two hundred thousand students, using questionnaires, “motion picture autobiographies” and interviews of students (National Humanities Center: America in Class 2012). During this data collection, the students provided information on their impressions of the movies’ influence through writing these “motion picture autobiographies”, which detailed the impact that the movies had on their attitudes and actions. It was found that many of the students learnt things, from how to kiss, to attitudes about life and how to pickpocket, from the movies that they watched (Peters and Simonson 2004).

Overall, Blumer found that movies influence the stereotypes that we associate with different characters, as well as how we conduct ourselves within society. People are provided with ideas on how they should act, notions of their rights and privileges, as well as the difference conceptions that are held within society. These ideas influence people's behavior by encouraging them to act/think certain ways in certain situations.

I found the results of this study to be quite interesting, as straightforward and as obvious as they are. For as long as I can remember, I've watched movies that have influenced my outlook on life, my attitudes towards certain things and my behavior in certain situations. Movies like Grease and Coyote Ugly have, without me being consciously aware of it, been some of these influences. Another movie, which I see as being something that would strongly influence people's attitudes, is Thirteen (2003), starring Evan Rachel Wood, Holy Hunter and Ashley Greene. The movie tells the story of two thirteen-year-old girls and the difficulties that they face with being a teenager in today's society. The main character gets involved with the wrong people and ends up behaving extremely out of character, as a result of peer pressure and the want to fit in.

Although this movie aims to portray the difficulties of being a teenager, starting high school and wanting to fit in, with Blumer's study in mind, it would also be fair to assume that it may lead people to believe that the behavior that is depicted is normal and that all teenagers act like this. Obviously, this is not the case as not all teenagers behave like this when becoming a teenager. However, I do believe that it would sway people's opinions and attitudes on teenagers and the activities that they are involved in.

I also think that the movie may encourage teenagers/people to adjust their behavior or do whatever they can in order to fit into where they want, whether it is at school, work or within society in general. Blumer’s study was based on data gathered from adolescents, providing even more justification for me to believe that this movie would have an influence on teenager’s attitudes and behavior.

An example of this influence would be: during the movie, the girls take to getting piercings that their guardians do not approve of. At one point, one of the girls pierces the other girl's belly button. As you can see from the photo, both girls have their tongues pierced. The other half of the photo shows someone piercing their own tongue, due to the behavioral influence that the movie has had on them.

Obviously, some generalization has gone into assuming that the movie influenced people’s attitudes and behavior, however it has only been used as an example of something that I have found to link to the results that Blumer presented in his study.

References:

National Humanities Center: America in Class. 2012. “Herbert Blumer: Movies and Conduct, 1933, excerpts.” Becoming Modern: American in the 1920s. Retrieved December 2, 2012 (http://americainclass.org/sources/becomingmodern/machine/text6/moviesconduct.pdf)

Peters, John D. and Peter Simonson. 2004. Mass Communication and American Social Thought: Key Texts, 1919-1968. Maryland: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Collins: Status Groups & Subcultures

In my last entry, I began to discuss the effects gender and race had on an individual’s success in both education and the work place. According the Collins, everyone is part of what is called a status group. Status groups (or “subcultures”) give people a sense of identity with people with similar backgrounds, cultures, religions and so forth. The main core of said groups begins with family and friends but definitely goes beyond that. Status groups can extend to education, religion and ethnic communities. These groups tend to come together through common interests or similarities such as fashion, morals, language and even different sports, movies, art or media. Once someone finds their status group, they feel a sense of belonging and comfort with people they can relate to and be with. “Participation in such cultural groups gives individuals their fundamental sense of identity, especially in contrast with members of other associational groups in whose everyday culture they cannot participate comfortably” Collins states in Educational Stratification.

An example I found in society that would symbolize different Status Groups would be sports fans and their teams. Whether it be football, baseball or even hockey, fans gravitate towards one another. There are different jerseys, mascots and players that specific fans can relate to. If you’re a Yankee fan and your friend likes the Mets…chances are you aren’t going to be cheering for the same team. I see people teasing one another especially when your favorite team loses. People classify and relate to not only games but their teams as well.

Status groups tend to differentiate themselves from other groups by having different categories of what Collins calls moral evaluation. These moral evaluations can range from topics such as morals and honor to saying the right “lingo” or wearing the right clothes. If you don’t follow these “guidelines” in a group, you would not be considered normal for that status group.

Now you may ask where theses Status Groups even come from. Collins states that there are many sources but he gives us three…

1. Differences in life style resulting from economic situations

2. Differences in life style based on power positions

3. Differences in life style resulting from your cultural situation such as religion or ethnicity

A more serious example than mentioned above would be immigrants in the United States. Especially in the last 10 years, there has been a stereotype against (for example) Muslims. After the September 11^th attacks in 2011, many people in society judged this religion as a violent and terrorizing people when that is not the case at all. This would be an example of the third moral evaluation that life style is affected by your cultural situation. Muslims in schools and societies came together when whites, blacks and other religions looked and judged them with fear.

According to the article "Racism Against Muslims has Rocketed since 09/11" (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8271) Joseph Choonara states this exactly. He even goes to say that if you asked a child  to draw a picture of a terrorist, they will most likely draw a picture of a person with similar traits to someone of a Middle Eastern Muslim. After the attacks on the Twin Towers, terrorism was seen as something associated with that culture when that is not the case at all.

In the United States, there are many societies that are lower class and people are unable to better themselves based on their economic situation (as discussed in the previous blog). Most likely if you are financially unstable or poor, you are going to live in a poor community. An example of this may be the economic situation in Farmingville, New York. Many lower class men wait at local drug stores or even on corners, hoping a landscaping truck or any company will pick them up and hire them for the day to do any manual labor. These low class, poor men come together looking for work. Even if that means waiting at a corner for it.

　
This goes to show how big of an influence Status Groups and Subcultures have on both the work place and an individual's success. Some of us that are fortunate enough to have nice things, an education and a good job may not notice or realize how many people actually struggle to gain the things that others have everyday.
　

　

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.