Shift Happens

I thought the video Shift Happens was interesting and pretty cool. It makes me excited for the future and amazed at how far technology has come in such a short amount of time. I think the world will adjust to all the changes that are coming in the future. There is always uncertainty with the unknown but the best advancements are made when you embrace the unknown. It will definitely be a challenge for the educational system to keep up with all the changes. The potential for new jobs not even known about yet are endless. There will be more untraditional jobs and the work experience needed by the future workforce will be very variable. I think this will make things more interesting and less mundane. The new ideas and inventions that will be developed to make life more globally interconnected and the changes in information processing and availability are improving lives today for the better. Technology sometimes takes away from the personal side of things - seeing someone in person is a lot better than on a video screen but that is better than nothing if it’s all you have. Globalization is a movement that won’t be stopped or slow down any time soon. As the video says: Shift Happens. We need to embrace change and the challenges it presents to not be left behind. Sometimes technology is good and sometimes it does not have the desired effect but you have to be excited about the possibilities and the applications because they are endless.

Urban/Suburban/Rural Life

After growing up in what sociologists consider the megalopolis, the “city of cities”, the area stretching between Boston and D.C., I always considered my area of the megalopolis much more rural.

Home to a pharmaceutical company and a major defense contractor, the cutbacks in manufacturing and changes in government spending have changed the requirements of the workforce from higher skilled technical and manual jobs to more service oriented jobs. Two separate gaming casinos within close proximity to each other were built. This huge growth of the service industry has caused a huge influx of Asian workers to the area. Some possibly just relocating from communities in New York or Massachusetts. With smaller cities located close by, hotels and new malls have also been built. More of the area is becoming urbanized. The small towns comprising this area were unequipped and have had a difficult time handling all the development that has drastically changed the area.

The area has been affected by general changes seen by sociologists in rural America, an increased population of retirees and a decrease in the numbers of young people due to limited sectors of business and job opportunities along with minimal cultural amenities. With a lot of land still available for new development and the rapid advancement of technology the possibilities of attracting and retaining new people and businesses to the area are endless.

Who wields the power?

Who wields the power? Special interest groups. From Freddie Mac trying to quash a regulatory bill that would have limited its operations to the health industry fighting against health care reform in the early 1990s to the pharmaceutical industry getting involved in medicare reform which extended prescription drug benefits, special interest groups attempt to influence government policy in their favor. In pluralist theories of democracy, individual citizens do not have a direct influence on the policy making process. Instead government policies are influenced by special interest groups. Pluralist theory also holds that while all interest groups have some affect on policy, no one group totally sways the direction of public policy. Special interest groups with more financial resources have more power and may be able to diminish the voices of other groups. Some interest groups such as the National Organization of Women strive to address inequalities. Others simply exacerbate current political divisions. Most do not limit their activities to simply influencing elected officials. They may also engage in public relations campaigns in an effort to manipulate public opinion against or in favor of specific legislation. They help elect candidates by providing funding which is another way to influence the outcomes of policy votes in Congress. In this way the government is not directly influenced by the people but reacts to pressures from and bargains with special interest groups, who wield the power.

Is Wal-Mart Good For America?

Wal-Mart is good for America. They have set a standard for businesses operating in the global economy. They are able to accurately interpret consumers needs and efficiently serve them. Wal-Mart is doing what any successful business should do - keeping their costs as low as possible, providing their customers with a value and still making a profit for their shareholders. The money consumers save at Wal-Mart can be spent else where and American consumers like shopping at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is competition for other businesses and an absence of competition can lead to higher prices, particularly in many smaller communities.

Today’s workers need to become more like portfolio workers, as defined in the text as, those with a number of different job skills and credentials, so they can compete in the changing economy and the changing job market. No longer can you learn a trade, get a job and stay with that company for your entire working career.

Wal-Mart has adapted well to a modern economy. They are operating according to post-Fordism practices which, according to the text, “include the replacement of highly bureaucratic, vertically organized business structures with more flexible, horizontally organized networked approaches; the transition from mass production to global outsourcing....” Those who adapt stay in business and those who don’t, don’t.

Division of Labor

There are considerable variations in families and the division of labor within the family. After doing this exercise, I fall somewhere in the middle of my friends. I knew this exercise would point out a huge disparity in the “division” of labor and was not surprised to see an X in just about all the columns under my name, whether shared with another or not. There were some things I would not have considered family chores such as keeping connected with family and friends. Though, that definitely would slip away if it wasn’t for the women planning events and get togethers. In my house, everyone likes to participate in the fun but nobody likes to do the leg work such as planning the vacation/trip, making the reservations, etc. I’m up on the day to day when it comes to friends, activities and school related issues. I relay a “Reader’s Digest” version of important events and the level of participation is determined by the issues. There are some aspects of family life where women are much more actively involved today such as access to and control over household finances including involvement in financial planning, managing the household budget, completing a large purchase, and handling household moves, etc. These can be viewed as having a more equal role in the family relationship. Though everything comes with some limitations because the majority of domestic duties still fall to women. This includes finding reliable child care when you’re at work or need to travel as well as changing schedules for a sick child. A favorite phrase in our house: Well, if you didn’t do it, I would.

Is our society secularizing?

Even though there is little consensus on how to measure secularization and how to define religion, our society is secularizing. According to the text, "Secularization is typically accompanied by a decrease in religious belief and involvement, and it results in a weakening of the social and political power of religious organizations." Three objectives can be used to evaluate secularization. 1) Membership levels in organizations. Almost all industrialized countries have seen a decline in religious membership. People are moving away from the well defined religious traditions and are making their spiritual practice more individualized and making life choices that are right for them. While one might identify with the religion of their parents, they are not "practicing" and not attending services on a regular basis. 2) Religious leaders have lost much of their social and political influence. This is seen in the financial insecurity faced by many religious organizations. They are no longer supported financially as they have been in the past. Also, people are consciously choosing to "disobey" fundamental church teachings, such as Catholics choosing to use contraceptives even though the church has reaffirmed its ban on their use. Rapid social change and a tolerance for civil liberties, women's rights and alternative lifestyles has helped to weaken the influence of religious institutions and religious leaders. 3) The importance of religion in ones daily life - religiosity. The holding of religious ideals is weaker and no longer strongly influences family and personal life. One may only turn to religion when their belief system breaks down. With intermarriage between faiths, people choose to accept and incorporate parts of different religions into their lives and question the value of hanging on to 'well defined religious traditions.' Religion has become much more private and a matter of individual choice rather than an observed obligation. Even in places that have seen a rise in religious nationalism ("the linking of deep religious convictions with beliefs about a people's social and political destiny") and that claim to oppose secularization and "Western influence" do not "simply revive ancient religious beliefs." Instead, according to the text, "they partly 'invent" the past, drawing on different traditions and reinterpreting events to serve their current beliefs and interests." All these factors have contributed to a decrease in "traditional" religious beliefs and involvement leading our society to be more secularizing.

A Tale of Two Families

A Tale of Two Families briefly describes 'how government policies and past discrimination have made generating wealth easier for some Americans than others." Both Max and Byron took advantage of the opportunities that were open to them to build wealth and for Byron to help close the wealth gap. While Max definitely had an easier road, Byron has shown intergenerational mobility and has overcome a lot of the barriers associated with inequality - education (college graduate from an Ivy League school), employment and income (same company, same income as Max), and residential segregation (same neighborhood as Max). They both have the ability to continue to move forward in the future and try to give each successive generation a start that is a step ahead of where the last one started. It's what you do with the opportunities that have opened up for you that makes all the difference. Sometimes it means more when you have to work for it. You may be more likely to take a conservative financial approach (similar to Byron) and increase yours and the next generations chances of closing the wealth gap.

Social Construction of Gender

At first glance I am torn between the socialization approach where biology provides a framework and the social construction of gender where society completely builds the identities and differences. But after reading "Gender identities emerge, ....., in relation to perceived sex differences in society and in turn help shape those differences", it is not as hard to totally discount biology as having any effect on individual identities. Is it a boy or is it a girl is the first question asked of new parents. We then treat the child according to long standing traditions. If that child was left to their own devices how would they be? To take it a step further we look at body types and steer the boy with the muscular frame towards football and the boy with the slighter frame toward band or baseball so he doesn't get hurt. We are constantly adjusting the socialization of the child to make up for perceived inadequacies or differences in physical appearance. Society does shape and cultivate the body image and mannerisms based on it's perceptions and long standing cultural values otherwise gender roles would not vary across different cultures. My personal experiences definitely support the sociological perspective of social construction of gender. We treat boys and girls differently because of the gender label society puts on them.

Global Inequality

We should care about global inequality because if affects us all. Everything is becoming more and more connected and interdependent including economies and jobs. Global inequality has both positive and negative implications. One of the many issues when it comes to global inequality is who benefits? Those who benefit from the positive are unlikely to want or work for drastic change. Global inequality can be seen as a positive for big business. They are free to move their factories and other services from one country where the cost of doing business is high to another where the cost is much lower. The businesses bottom lines certainly benefit from this. That trickles down to the management, employees and the shareholders of the company. Consumers also benefit from global inequality because the prices of goods and services can be kept down. These benefits are part of what keeps the system going even though it may have negative implications. The people who now form the labor force may or may not benefit depending on working conditions and wages. The negative implications extend to the people who lost their jobs when the local factory moved. Global inequality is a puzzle with many pieces and won't ever be eliminated. As we become more and more global we need to work at managing the negative implications and keeping them to a minimum.

How much does social class matter in America today?

The class system is based on perceptions with different measures for everyone. In the documentary Joe Queenan expressed that it is criticism that drives us and creates our desire and motivation to get more and have more. And while appearances still matter it is much easier to create your own desired lifestyle today. You may be born in a certain area into a family with a certain bank balance but the opportunity to move beyond that has never been better. While social class still matters in the US, today it is much easier to remove the limitations and blur the lines. Technology has created new opportunities in education, one of the important dimensions social class stratification. Social programs and the internet make education more accessible. You can attend Nova through their distance education programs even though you might not have enough money to move to DC. Things that were once only available to those in the upper class such as learning proper etiquette, attending "knife and fork" school or learning about investing and financial planning are available to anyone with access to an internet connection. The same holds true for material possessions. No longer are designer clothes or the fastest lap top or the biggest screen tv available only to those who live in certain areas or to certain classes of people. If, according to the text, "Modern societies have become consumer societies, and in some respects a consumer society is a "mass society" where class differences are overridden" then in today's society it is much easier to regard yourself as being like most other people. By removing limitations and making more available to everyone the distinctions of the social classes are not as important today as they were 10, 20 or 50 years ago.

Does Technology = Isolation?

Americans are more isolated today due to technology. With text messaging, email and numerous social networking sites you can keep in touch with friends and make new ones without ever having to come in contact with people. Technology allows you to be whoever you want - a new and improved version of yourself, if you desire. You are able to link up, have discussions and play games with people in different states or different countries without ever having to reveal yourself. With busy lives full of work and numerous activities it is easy to lose personal contact. Too much technology is an issue to be concerned about because you are depriving yourself of really being part of a group and functioning effectively in a group dynamic. You lose a sense of belonging and have no close personal ties. While technology allows you to reach out to others who share the same ideas and hobbies it eliminates the personal interaction and meaningful relationships that can only be built through face to face contact and by becoming emotionally invested in someone.

The Criminal Justice System

The text presents some compelling arguments about corporate crime, "the offenses committed by large corporations". The reasons a corporation would not adhere to legal regulations always comes down to money. Corporations, especially CEOs in an effort to keep their jobs, must have favorable bottom lines and must continue to grow profits. At what cost? With corporations having such a global reach and affecting so many people dealing with this type of crime is a very delicate situation. It seems the unsuspecting consumer, investor or low wage worker are always the ones most affected even though they were the ones most removed from the immediate issue. I'm not sure there are any solutions to corporate crime as they will always have the resources to find a way around the rules and regulations. And to date shaming a CEO hasn't proven to be an effective deterrent. Corporations, particularly the people who lead them, need to continually be held liable. But how do you do that without imposing some sort of indirect punishment on the unsuspecting consumer, investor or low wage worker? Eliminating corporate crime all together seems an insurmountable task. Directing and managing the risk seems to be the best option.

In the nature vs nurture debate I land more on the nurture side. While both the environment and biology have an influence, the majority of behavior/actions is due to learning through life’s experiences. Part of the definition of socialization is that no individual is immune from the reactions of others around them, which influences and modifies their behavior at all phases of the life course. Some things attributed to nature can be greatly affected by socialization and choice. So while biology may increase the likelihood that you will behave in a certain way it is the socialization (the shaping and molding from learning as you mature) that makes people do things. Your socialization determines how you act, how you perceive things and the changes you make in your behavior as you develop your identity.

We can look at the behavior differences of children who attend preschool (enter a school setting at age 3) versus those who do not (begin school experience with kindergarten). The child who is taught at an early age that normal school behavior is to sit in their chair and listen to the teacher will put that in to practice. A child who has not had that exposure to the school environment will not know how to act in that environment and can only bring their current experience in to that environment. You can also look at self confidence related to body issues with young girls. Their obsession over not good enough and constant striving for something more ideal is shaped by mass media and the constant barrage of “perfect” bodies and a magazines definition of what is beautiful.

The behavior of the guards and prisoners in Stanford Prison Experiment, on a very basic level, could be used as an example of learned behavior. The subjects were randomly selected to be guards or prisoners. All subjects knew how to play both roles. Their behavior presented in these roles showed how they thought a guard should act or how a prisoner should act. This behavior was learned through socialization shaped by the mass media.

Video Clip

When I first watched the video I have to say I didn't get it. But then I saw Hugh Laurie as a Bruce Springsteen-esque singer. Springsteen is representative of the working class and his songs epitomize its struggle. The song was simple - repeating only America and the States. And he sang it full of angst and anguish. In the end he is punched out by a man in a suit symbolizing how others (other countries around the world) are tired of hearing Americans cry and complain about how difficult things are for them.

Was the Stanford Prison Experiment ethical?

After reading up further on the Stanford Prison Experiment I don't think it was ethical. Zimbardo became an active participant in the experiment. There didn't seem to be enough controls in the experiment, beyond the structural ones. The guards received little guidance and few limitations on their behavior. Did it resemble real conditions as closely as it should/could have? Also, I'm not convinced there was full disclosure as to the treatment you may receive if you were selected to be a prisoner. Plus, all were compensated for their involvement. What would the pool of applicants been had they not?

It was surprising to read that each side slipped so deeply in to their roles so quickly. And with the number of visitors to the "prison" - including parents and other university staff no one thought Zimbardo had lost perspective and the experiment was out of control until 6 days in.

Week 1 Blog Entry: Introduction

Those who know me might disagree but I don't like to talk about myself. Talk, yes. About myself, not so much. But here goes.... I am currently going back to school to get a second degree. I am taking sociology because it is a prerequisite. However, I am an engineer by training so I'm looking forward to getting out of my comfort zone of structure and taking on issues that have many viewpoints and more than one answer. This is also my first time taking online classes. I don't think they were very popular when I first went through college. But then neither were computers. Outside of school, I enjoy getting outside and exercising. And I'm a big fan of all the crime shows on television. I think I may have missed my calling as a forensic scientist. I'm looking forward to learning about the new ideas and subject matter this class will offer.