The title of this first individual exercise comes from "A Note to Students" in the opening of our text. What I want you to do is state a question about our world, other than ones mentioned in the text (p. xxix) that you have pondered and tried to answer in your own mind (not necessarily something you've researched or written a paper for in another class). In addition to stating the question, briefly describe how you tried to answer it.
I am only looking for a paragraph (or two) at the most. This first exercise is worth 3 points. And please try to post it no later than next Thursday, 2/14.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Last interim I participated in an internship at Spartanburg Mental Health Center. I think it would be accurate to say that 1 out of every 5 women I saw had been abused or raped by their boyfriend or husband. After I experienced and listened to these women tell the same story repeatedly, I kept asking myself why abused individuals stay with their spouse or partner. Why would anyone continue to place themselves in such dangerous and violent situations?
In my mind, I began thinking of potential reasons why this would occur and before long I had a variety of different reasons as to why women and men stay in abusive relationships. Because 90% of the cases I saw involved abused women, I focused on explanations women might use as excuses for not running away. I believe the most significant factor deals with economics and financial status. Most women probably do not have access to family finances, and husbands tend to control and make the money while females stay at home and tend to the children (although this is slowly changing). Women may be afraid to leave their home because they do not have adequate resources to take care of themselves and their children. A second explanation I believe also accounts for abused individuals staying in their respective families is the fear associated with leaving and the community’s reaction; women are socialized to believe marriages are meant to remain for a lifetime and may worry that people will think less of them if they give up on a marriage. Fear may also result from alarm that a husband would hurt or kill them if they were to leave them. A final explanation I developed was based on low self-esteem. Women may believe they are not worthy and that is why their husband beats them or think that their actions deserve the sub sequential abuse.
Using thought and acting as a theorist, these three explanations quickly revealed themselves, although I am sure there are numerous other explanations as to why abused individuals remain in their relationships. In order to answer this question, I thought of the different scenarios I came in contact with during interim and why those people said they continued to stay in the abusive marriage. In addition, I thought of reasons I might stay in an abusive relationship and also asked my supervisor his thoughts on this situation. I incorporated my psychological knowledge into my thinking and thought about how religion, denial, and family theories may explain the observed behaviors. One’s religion may discourage her/him from breaking off the marriage or denial may convince an individual that abuse is not really occurring. In summary, as I tried to make sense and understand a serious problem occurring in society today, I discovered that there are a variety of factors that contribute to individuals remaining in abusive relationships. An individual may have only one reason for remaining in an abusive relationship or there may be a combination of factors that contribute to ones’ decision to remain in the relationship.
Just recently I found myself in a discussion about the use of pay day advance locations. These locations such as Advance America charge interest rates above 350%. I find it interesting that as a society we allow the poor and desperate to become burdened with such high levels of debt. Clearly, these types of businesses are necessary or Spartanburg would not be inundated with them. However, I have tried to theorize why the American people allow for predatory lenders to take advantage of individuals in their time of greatest need. The free-market has never truly been free, labor laws and other developments in the last century have curtailed an entirely free market. Most people would agree that this curb is for the benefit of society. It is interesting that such regulations have not significantly dealt with outrageous interest rates on loans people who live pay check to pay check.
I have not done any real research on the subject. The only fact that I have gathered is that Advance America, the largest pay day lender, charges a 391% interest rate on loans. This type of interest rate surely creates a cycle of poverty. Through discussions with peers I have found that many people do not see anything wrong with this type of business and do not think that regulation is necessary. It would be interesting to explore the historical evolution and cultural relevance of such pay day lenders.
The summer after my freshman year, i took an internship with a non-profit agency in Atlanta that dealt with the working poor and homeless of the area. Through this I was able to have conversations with people who were struggling to varying degrees with economic issues on a daily basis. I was particularly interested in the perception of our homeless clients. Because I was able to talk to them candidly everyday, I learned the stories of how they became homeless. Some of the stories were things I would expect such as alcohol or drug problems, but I was very enlightened to see that a good number of our clients really did have incredible and harsh circumstances that caused them to ultimately have to live on the streets.
So the question came to me, "Why does the general public seem to think that the homeless population is in that position because they did something wrong or are lazy?" When people automatically assume this about the homeless, it really bothers me because I know that there are other very honest reasons that people can become destitute and to withhold help or consideration on the assumption that they did something wrong does not seem right to me.
There are several reasons why I think people may make such the assumptions. I think it has something to do with the fact that industrial society puts such an emphasis on "making an honest living" that when people do not have a job, it is seen as being lazy and no consideration is given to whether they want a job, have been searching, or are capable of working. (Many times, there simply are no jobs that will hire these people.) I also think that people generally become uncomfortable when encountering homeless people and ignore them because they do not know how else to react. Therefore, if you can just ignore a person it is much easier to assign a story to them (like they are this way because of drugs or alcohol, are lazy, etc.)perhaps to deal with the dissatisfaction at your own reaction to the situation. These things may lead to the assumption that was the topic of my initial question.
Many of my friends have begun the process of applying for jobs. Wofford offers seminars and a great deal of information to students in order to help improve their chances of getting a good job. One thing that I have heard over and over from friends is that they have been told to take down or drastically edit their Facebook/ Myspace profiles. Companies, and some schools, are having their technology departments search for students and are evaluating them not just on their applications and resumes but on the content of their Facebook/ Myspace profiles. This issue not only affects students but just look what happened to Ms. USA.
The social question that I have been pondering recently is when and why do people our age, and even more so those younger than us, feel a compulsion to put so much personal information on the internet. I understand that many people feel it is private and only their “friends” can see their pages or that they do not put anything on their profiles that they are embarrassed or ashamed about. I feel that this social phenomenon has come about recently and is even more widespread with students currently in High School. I wonder if it a sense of voyeurism or if it is the need to be noticed that pushes people to put that much on the internet. It would be interesting to interview people about this topic, both those who have profiles, those who don’t and the managers or admissions departments that look at students profiles.
As a finance major, I am constantly thinking about the business world. It is drilled into our heads in class to the point where it becomes part of our daily thought. Whether checking on changes in stock prices, analyzing quarterly financial statements, or just keeping up with daily news, it becomes a habit and an obsession. With this habit also comes questions about how corporations operate. One of the main topics in the past year or so is the rise of the woman CEO. My questions on the subject are what took so long, and why is there still inequality in the workforce?
The only facts I have on inequality in the workforce have come from the intro to sociology class with Thurmond. If I remember correctly, the difference in earnings between males and females was somewhere around $17,000 (but please don't hold me to that figure). That statistic sounds a bit high to me, but when considering the overwhelming number of males in top level and middle level management positions, it seems to be correct. It is preposterous that corporations are still under the influence that female workers cannot possibly lead as well as a male in an executive or top level management position. Society has progressed leaps and bounds over the past 60 years with women in the workplace; however, it still feels as though many believe they have more to prove. At Wofford College, it is evident that females are predominantly the best students as they are usually receiving the awards for top honors from biology and chemistry departments all the way to finance or sociology. For hard work in undergraduate programs all the way through the working world, I believe someone who excels through hard work and diligence should be rewarded for their efforts. The main argument is for women in this question; however, it can apply to anyone. I believe the main determinant for advancement should be based on hard work, not someone's gender or race. To get back on subject, I will say that women have made great strides over the past 5 years in corporations to where they are now recognized as leaders. With the continued success of current female leaders, the disparity between top level male managers and female managers should decrease greatly. Within the next 20 years when I will hopefully play a large role in the working world, I hope for myself and colleagues to be able to be rewarded based solely on performance, and by no other determining factor.
Throughout my four years at Wofford I have taken a variety of classes that focus on the social problems that are present in our world today. One recurring theme that has been the topic of many sociology classes is the problem of global warming. As a sociolgy major at Wofford, I have found myself in the presence of many people who are truly making an effort live their life in order to benefit the environment. On the other hand, I have also met a great number of people who call themselves environmentalists and yet choose to live a lifestyle that is not environmentally friendly. My question is, Do the majority of people only claim to be environmentally friendly because they think it is the "right thing?"
This question first came to mind the other day. One of my friends calls herself "borderline hippie" because she is extremely concerned with the environment. However, in the computer lab the other day, she threw two old notebooks into the trashcan while the recycling bin sat immediately to the left of her. She also drives an SUV that is not environmentally friendly.
When trying to find the answer to my question, I realized that some people simply care too much about "the right image" and is consumed by it. While one may say they are an advocate for a healthy place to live, they still want to portray an image of wealth (like driving a huge SUV). I feel that if we want to truly make a change in the world we are living, everyone needs to take one step back from their wants and focus more on the needs for our future.
I am not sure if this is very theoretical, but it is something that I have always wondered. Being a person that has always played sports and is very competitive you run into a lot of people who are as well. Everyone wants to win and hates losing, but there is a way in which you can act on the playing field. I guess the question that I have always wondered is, can a person really be nice off the court or field but a jerk on it? Or do we see their true colors on the field and off it, they are just being fake to your face?
This is something that I have encountered many times because I know people who are really nice off the tennis court, but are jerks on the court. It is like the heat of the moment and the competition makes them become a totally different person. Totally disrespectful and sometimes an outright mean person. Sometimes I think that if you are truly a genuine and nice person, you do not change just because you want to win. A person can compete, but still compete with class. On the other hand I have also thought that the heat of the moment can make anyone change if the match or game gets close and you want to win. I can see both sides of it. I am not sure if there is a right answer to this question. I guess its like if you have to play your friend in a game. You are enemies on the field during the game, but friends once the game is over and done with.
As a sociology major, I have experienced and witnessed and became more aware of certain situations that could classify as a social theorist. Dealing with many circumstances and different dilemmas help to speak our mind and use thought about things we observe. I did a observation on children at a daycare and how alot of them cling to males more often when they tend to have visitors. Also I observed that when you come to visit they think of you as a play toy more than a another person. These are children from the ages of 2 to 4. So I think that I am already a social theorist to a certain extent, if i did more research then i would consider myself one.
I have recently been volunteering at the South Carolina School for the Deaf and the Blind (SCDB) as a part of my scholarship work at Wofford. Through Success Initiative, I have been able to take Sign Language classes as well as interact with the largely unknown and misunderstood deaf world. This exposure has led me to think about the differences, as well as the similarities, between the hearing and deaf culture.
To be honest, I was extremely intimidated and hesistant when it came to interacting with those in the deaf culture. I was scared because, at least on the surface, it seemed like we lived in two totally, different worlds. I did not know any sign language at the time, and did not understand how I was going to be able to accomplish anything with this service opportunity. However, with gradual exposure into the deaf culture I learned a great deal about the deaf world and myself as well. People tend to focus more on the obvious differences between the two, such as communication, instead of looking deeper within. While the communication issue does create differences, it does not change the fact that we all are in fact, people. While i recognize the cultures are seperate in a sense, I also have learned that they are intricately intertwined with one another. If I was not for my experience with the SCDB I would not have learned so much about the deaf culture and been able to adequately ask and answer this type of question.
Whenever I am flipping through the TV channels and end up on WE (women’s entertainment) there is always some show on about weddings (Bridezillas, Rich Bride- Poor Bride, Platinum Weddings, My Big Fat Fabulous Weddings, etc.). There seems to be an obsession with spending vast amounts of money on weddings today (which I also experienced personally at a recent family friend’s wedding). The bride and groom often spend more than a year’s salary on the event and it is not uncommon for them to go into debt because of it. Others are put in the embarrassing situation of asking family members for loans. It seems as though many otherwise rational and even money conscious people throw it all out the window for their wedding, spending thousands on a dress or flower arrangements that will be used once.
When attempting to find a reason for this absurdity I came up with many social pressures that are put on couples, especially women to have extravagant weddings. Firstly women often dream of their wedding day from the time they are young girls (it goes along with finding prince charming). At one time it was the most important event in women’s lives, the ultimate success being finding a man and creating a family. Women still often expect their wedding to be the happiest day of their lives and something that they only get to do once so they might as well go all out (hopefully most brides aren’t thinking about the increasing divorce rates on their wedding days). When I asked my cousin about why she spent so much on her dress, hair, makeup, and other accessories at her wedding she told me that she wanted to be able to look at pictures years from now and see herself looking as beautiful as possible at the peak of her life. Another reason I thought of was its use to convey status. You invite all of these people from various points in your life and you want them to see that you are doing well.
Lately, I find myself wondering why so many Wofford students go to law, med, or grad school in state. I think the answers are different for each individual, and for me, few are acceptable. I suppose that some SC students want to be close to their family, and others may have financial reasons. Maybe some feel that it doesn't matter where they go, so they go to a relatively 'cheap' school, or a less selective school.
Yet I know that Wofford prepares us to be successful in whatever we do, wherever we do it. I am from GA; I didn't go too far. But I think some distance from one's family is useful in making him/her an independent and responsible young adult. Many, many Wofford students can be and are accepted to grad programs in prestigous universities: Will & Mary, Georgetown, Duke, and Chicago, just to name a few. Barring major financial difficulties, I just do not understand why many of these students opt for places like USC.
I wonder why it is that people can be motivated by such different things. For example, some may be motivated by the prospects of accumulating money and wealth, and some may be more focussed on doing the things they enjoy, or having a profound impact on the lives of young people and so on. I suppose this idea connects quite clearly with theory being that one might say that those who are driven by money are simply rational actors within a market who are acting within their self-interest. This vision of humanity is the very basis of the economic way of thinking. It's also rational to choose to do something that you enjoy doing or to choose to aid others if that gives the individual in question more 'utility' than seeking the greatest possible amount of money or anything else would. It strikes me that it is quite a stretch for basically anything a person chooses to do to be described as rational. This has always bothered me. But people do not make totally irrational choices either. People do not always act rationally or selfishly or irrationally, but they do always act humanly and that's as far as I think we can honestly specify our general behavior.
I have always wondered why according to so much research, does the divorce rate seem to increase with multiple marriages. According to divorcerate.org the divorce rate for 1st marriages is 50%, second 67%, and third 74%. Just using the same knowledge as one does in life where one gets better with practice, you would be led to believe that the rates would decrease with multiple marriages. When trying to understand this issue one must look at the underlying reasons for why people get divorced in the first place. According to divorcerate.org one interesting fact is that couples without children seem to have a slightly higher divorce rate than those with children. This is very understandable in my opinion. Couples without children would only have to worry about how the divorce affects them. I have heard of plenty of situations where people state that if it wasn't for the kids they wouldn't be together. Also when trying to understand divorce you must consider the basic fact that “baggage” is brought into the new relationship. This as we all know can be a huge problem. There are plenty of explanations of why the divorce rate in marriage are high. In my opinion it is the most basic reason, people don't take the time to really get to know each other in the way that they should to realize if they are compatible with each other.
Post a Comment