Below I am going to describe the extra credit opportunity I briefly described yesterday in class. Also, I may be posting some lecture notes over the weekend or on Monday in an effort to catch up a bit, so you might want to look for that. If I do post some lecture notes, I'll let you know on Tuesday.
EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY: By attending any ONE of the events (such as a talk, roundtable, or panel discussion) associated with the upcoming Citizenship and Leadership Symposium (April 12-24) you may earn 3 extra credit points. To earn these three points you need to attend the event of course AND post a brief overview of the event in which you should also tie it in to our class. For example, I am sure the various speakers and panels will be referencing various social thinkers (such as Marx, among others) or broader theoretical perspectives that we have covered (or will cover in class). Or, even if the speakers do not drop any names you should be able to relate their remarks to at least one of the ideas, issues, or concepts we have discussed in class. You only have to make one such tie-in. I just want some evidence that you went and thought about what you heard in the context of this course. POST YOUR RESPONSES AS COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG POST (no more than two paragraphs).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I just returned from the roundtable discussion “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual Issues at Wofford.” During this roundtable, a panel of 2 students, a faculty member, and a woman from the community answered Mr. Clowney’s questions. From the hour discussion, I learned about why it is important to study gay/lesbian issues and realized that in the past decade there has been significant community and educational changes in order to promote acceptance of these types of students. Specifically, I learned that these issues are important because there are numerous myths and misunderstandings that must be acknowledged and discussed in order to achieve clarification and accuracy. Gay/Lesbian students are 3-7 times more likely to commit suicide, drop-out of college, or consume alcohol to cope with rejection and alienation feelings. In the past, these students have been discriminated against and consequently are likely to have a poor sense of self or self-concept. In terms of changes, this year Wofford established a gay/lesbian organization called GAS alliance. Churches are becoming more accepting, therapists are specializing in gay/lesbian issues, and there is now a National Coming out day and Silence day to honor/respect these students. Educators are also more likely to incorporate gender issues into the curriculum, such as in classes of gender studies or in feminism courses. It appears that radical changes have been made in the community and in the curriculum to address these issues.
In relation to class, it appears that in the homosexuals were perceived as deviant. From the insights of the students, it appears that deviance acted as a stigma construct or label in which facilitated exclusion and rejection among peers. According to Durkheim, every society needs deviance. He believes deviance fulfills specific functions, such as bringing about social change or social solidarity. Deviance can provide creative forces that can ultimately challenge group norms. Using his theory, social change has resulted from the deviance associated with being homosexual or bisexual. For example, the deviant acts committed by gays inspired a period of slackened attitudes towards gays and lesbians in the 1970s. Another example is with Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG), which is a national non-profit organization with over 200,000 members and supporters and over 500 affiliates in the United States. This movement began in 1973and thirty years later, these chapters have encouraged the legislation to pass the First Safe Schools for gays and lesbians. Thirdly, Wofford now has an on-campus organization to support homosexuals.
I was also able to find connections between Simmel and his concept of the “Stranger.” Strangers, to Simmel, lacked a sense of belonging within the major groups of society and feel as they are excluded and outsiders. The panel students all agreed that while students have been accepting, they all feel they talk behind their back, crack jokes, or would be appalled if they showed up at the row with a partner. After today, I also believe a majority of gays and lesbians feel Durkheim’s concept of “anomie.” I think sometimes individuals are confused and unclear about what norms, expectations, and behaviors are appropriate for society. Some individuals may be drawn to a different sexuality out of this confusion. In summary, the issues of gays and lesbians can be related to sociology and have relevance for modern society. Specifically, the recent social movements show how deviance can promote social change and solidarity.
** Also, after reading Cooley's description of a primary group, it could be that homosexuals experienced threat in their contact with their significant primary groups, thus resulting in deviance or problems for society.
ok, MC, you have more than earned the three points. Your connections to the class were very good. I was thinking of Cooley, which I see you addressed in your second comment.
Jean Bethke Elshtain delivered a speech entitled “Soverign Self? Critical Reflections”. In it Elshtain assesses sovereignty in relation to the individual, the state, and god. She discusses how states can be oppressive systems, but individuals can take also take on too much freedom, and without observing limits can become destroyers and “death-dealers”. In relation to the state, she brings up communism, in which difference was the enemy and the goal was to stifle variety in order to create equality. She also gives the example of terminating downs syndrome births in an attempt to create equality and get ride of “disabled people with empty pockets”. The ideal, “responsible” self follows the only true sovereignty, which is that of God, and allows religion to set limits on our sovereignty. She complains that in contemporary times people tend to give up on God and therefore other allow forms of human sovereignty to dominate, leading us to “worship at the alter of sovereign self”. What she said reminded me a little of Simmel’s idea of the money economy and rationalization destroying the “soul of humanity through the quantification of the aesthetic” (210). This came into play when she talked about how logic produced modern technology that allows us to kill unwanted members of society who we consider burdensome, for financial reasons (in the case of disabled) or other. In this way the rationalized side is taking over the soul and the limits that morals place on our logic.
Monday, April 21, 2008
India Newspaper Articles-- The Telegraph, Calcutta, India
I decided that for this week I would read some newspaper articles from Calcutta, India. I just got excited about finally having it nailed down where I was going, so I thought because of that I would read something specific about the city of Calcutta and what is going on there currently that is related to the topic of this independent study project. I learned some really interesting things that supplemented what I have already read elsewhere.
From the article, “Slum dwellers’ rally on cards” from April 15 in “The Telegraph”, I learned about demands that the slum people are making in regards to their conditions. One thing that they are demanding is land “pattas”. I did some digging and I am not sure what a “patta” is, but after looking around I get the idea that maybe it is a grant of land that is used for agriculture. I know at least it is some sort of land grant, but may not necessarily be used for agriculture. It is interesting to me that these people are asking for grants of land especially in the city, because it seems like there would not be very much land to be had unless they moved. And, would they want to do that? This article also talked about slum people in general and their demographics. Evidently, there are about 220 slums in Calcutta most of which have been “built” over the past 70 years. This makes me wonder if the slums they are counting are concentrated mostly in a certain area of the city, or if they are spread all over. Finally, when talking about homeless people (do slum people consider themselves homeless?) in the United States, we often assume that they are unemployed. However, this article makes a point to say that these slum people usually do have jobs such as telephone or construction workers, vendors, rickshaw operators, or daily labor. This difference between American and Indian urban poor was very distinct and interesting to me.
It is also interesting to me that several of the articles referenced an effort to make a database of all the slum dwellers in the city. This seems like quite the endeavor to me. With all those not only homeless people, but slum dwellers as well, it seems that it would take a lot of centralized government power to organize and educate such a task. It also makes me realize that maybe these people are seen in a different light than in America cataloguing them shows concern for their wellbeing. However, one could also take this effort as dehumanizing the slum dwellers by making them a number instead of a person on level with any other citizen of Calcutta. Judging from my other readings, however, it seems that the homeless are not seen with such a stigma as in the United States, so I would tend to think that maybe this effort at a database is showing more concern for the people and wanting to help them than anything else.
Finally, another article spoke of how a slum area was defined. It says that slums “consist of clusters of hutmet comprising several rooms constructed with building materials where each room is inhabited by a family sharing a common latrine without arrangement for water supply, drains, disposal of solid waste and garbage within slum boundaries.” This is something that I had been curious about since beginning this study—how do you define poverty, or a slum? If course, this is not the only way to define it, but it is a clear-cut definition and that is something that I was not able to find previously.
Jessica Oxley, ok on your comments on the Elshain lecture yesterday.
Jessie Davis, this extra credit was only for this leadership & citizenship conference. Are you sure your comments were not meant for Dr. Fowler? They are interesting but clearly not relevant to the extra credit opportunity I described.
I attended the Citizenship and Leadership talk on Thursday at 4:00. It was entitled “Local vs. Global Environmentalism and Citizenship.” Speaking was Dr. Lane of Wofford and Kathy DeMaster, a PhD candidate at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. I thought it was very interesting and several things tied into our class. The speakers talked a lot about how we should view the environment—on a local or global scale. Dr. Lane said that he best appreciates the environment by walking around in it at his home. He said that he best learns to appreciate the earth by taking walks in the morning with his dog and appreciating the wildlife that he sees. It is a personal thing for him. However, DeMasters said that we should “Think globally, act locally.” Therefore, she advocates that we need to see environmentalism as an overarching force that applies everywhere as opposed to as a personal thing for the individual. These ideas reminded me of Durkheim’s social realism and the opposing conception, social nominalism. Dr. Lane’s idea was like social nominalism because the way he views the environment views the individual’s response as the most important. However, DeMaster’s conception of environmentalism is more parallel to social realism because it sees environmentalism as an overarching, global ideal that is above the individual. I thought this parallel was very interesting with respect to our class.
Jessie, ok on your second submission. Local vs global as compared to nominalist vs social realist makes sense, although nominalist might be a bit unfair to characterize Prof. Lane because I'm sure he'd be among the first to recognize the larger reality of nature even if he appreciates it best as an individual.
The section of the Citizenship and Leadership Symposium I attended was called, "Feminist Critiques of Marriage." This section was led by Professor Nancy Williams. It was centered around the institution of marriage and the feminist views and attitudes toward it. The feminist movement was created in order to stop sexism, exploitation, and oppression of women. The discussion began by describing how marriage has a sexist foundation, in that the husband controls his wife in every aspect. For instance, he controls her body, mind, money, and degree of freedom. The idea of spousal rape also was brought up. A wife could not legally accuse her husband of rape and it remained this way until the 1970’s. While the law has changed, spousal rape is still considered a lesser crime than rape in general. Feminist critiques also viewed marriage as having sexist imagery and meanings. For example, a simple thing such as a white dress was criticized because of its’ association with virginity and innocence. Another aspect I thought was interesting was when she brought up the act of the minister saying to the man, “You may kiss the bride.” I had never thought of that before in great detail until it was brought up as being remnants of marriage’s patriarchic origin. The discussion then led into the idea of how marriage has negative practical effects, as well as how it discriminates against same sex couples. The discussion ended with feminist proposals to solve these problems with marriage. Such actions suggested were to modify or even abolish the institution of marriage in general, or at least as a legal category. This section of the Symposium was very interesting and thought provoking to say the least. This relates to the class in many ways. First of all, all of the important sociological theorists we have talked about have always had their own opinion on gender relations, especially the opinion of women in society. While some believed in an egalitarian relationship between the sexes, some still believed in the superiority of men in the family. For instance, Max Weber was extremely influenced by his wife Marianne Weber, who was a feminist activist. This shaped Weber's view of women in that he viewed them as human beings first, and only secondly as members of the opposite sex. Karl Marx was a firm believer in an egalitarian society as well. In stark contrast, Spencer expressed his disapproval of an egalitarian society, even though this belief came later in his life probably because of the experiences he had with women.
Tye, ok, just one amendment to your comment. While some theorists believed in egalitarian relationship, MOST (not just some) believed in male superiority.
I went to the Ethics and Leadership talk that was conducted by Mrs. Joanne C. that was in McMillan Theatre. Joanne talked about the Importance of leaders being there for the people they are leading. That was the jist of the whole talk. Also what is the difference in the leader being there and seeing them on t.v., or hearing from them on the radio. She said that people want to see their leaders in person just to know that they care and they feel protected. She dicussed that when there is a time of crisis then that is when the leader should really be there and the leader is expected to be there. I can relate this to Lenin and Marx ideas on that. Lenin led the Russian Revolution and he was not in rigid idealing. Lenin was a good leader and he was practical enough to admit his mistakes. Lenin was not only a Marxist but he was a Russian Marxist and he interpreted the Marxist theory according to the needs and problems of Russian society.
She also made an important point at the end of her talk when she said, "reverence is a virtue that keeps leaders from acting like they are gods". Lenin had reverence he admitted to his mistakes and he knew he wasn't perfect so he didnt think he was a God.
Shane, ok, although you could have proof-read your comment. There are a lot of misspellings. And the term for Lenin was ideologue, NOT "idealing," which isn't even a word.
I attended the Global Environmental Citizenship and Leadership speech presented by Kathy DeMaster of University of Wisconsin at Madison and Wofford professor John Lane. Each presenter spoke about what being a global environmental citizen meant to them. DeMaster began by discussing the first Earth Day in 1970 and how it acted as an impetus to the development of the E.P.A., the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Earth Day was an event that altered the consciousness of peoples around the world, it occurred the same year as “Earth Rising”, the picture of the world taken from Apollo 11, and the coining of the phrase “Think Globally, Act Locally”. DeMaster’s spoke about socially constructed dichotomy’s that affect how we view the boundaries of global and local areas. She suggested a new phrase, “Look Locally, See Globally”. John Lane took a more personal approach and read a piece of prose that illustrated how nature and the environment affect his daily life.
DeMaster and Lane took very different approaches to their presentation but each spoke about having a greater global understanding. This made me think about Durkheim’s theory of collective consciousness in a society that has reached organic solidarity. Globalization is upon us and the world continues to get smaller, we are no longer citizens of America or even the South Carolina but of the world. A quote from Sociological Theory reads “organic collective consciousness requires us to be “charitable and just towards our fellow- men, to fulfill our tasks well,” and to work “towards a state where everyone is called to fulfill the function he performs best and will receive a just reward for his efforts”” (94). Acting charitably no longer means helping out our neighbor, it now means undertaking practices that will allow all citizens of the world to live a cleaner, healthier and safer life, while, protecting the environment as a whole. This is what DeMaster and Lane were speaking about but each presented this idea in their own manner. Overall it was a very interesting and eye opening discussion.
McKenzie, ok, I believe Durkheim's notion of being conscious of organic solidarity (only in a global sense) fits, which of course is also the basis of his Moral Education.
I went to the Feminist Critique of Marriage lead by Dr. Williams. She talked about Feminism and a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression. Feminists say that marriage has a sexist foundation where the husband controls all aspects of a woman's life. He controls everything from the finances, what she says, wears and essentially does on a daily basis. Things like this have lead to many accounts of spousal rape, but in the 17th century it was considered ok for a husband to rape his wife because she was bound to him. The law was like this until about 1970, but it is still considered a lesser crime separate from other forms of rape. Another thing that Dr. Williams said was that sexual assault did not matter between people who are married under the law. She then went on to talk about how a wedding has sexist imagery. How the dress is suppose to represent virginity, father giving the bride away, and wedding vows basically saying that she will obey her husband. Another thing that Dr. Williams talked about that I am very passionate about is Gay Marriage. She talked about how the Gay and Lesbian community are excluded from this and do not receive the same benefits as heterosexual people do. Also civil unions do not allow gay people to have the same benefits of a marriage and this keeps the division between homosexuals and heterosexuals great. People have come up with solutions to the problems with marriage that they see. As a society we should modify marriage, abolish marriage, abolish marriage as a legal category or make it a personal contract with lawyers and make people renew it after so many years. How this discussion relates to class is that I feel like many of the sociologists that we have discussed in class are in favor of keeping marriage the way it is. Auguste Comte stated that family was a place which the fundamental principle of the subordination of women was demonstrated. Comte states that this subordination of women was natural and that biology made the differences between the sexes this way. He said that the female was in a constant state of infancy. That the role of women was to be domestic and having the public life being only for men. When women were starting to earn the right to vote he said that they were unfit for political power and unfit for mental labor.
Scott, ok.
Post a Comment