II.

Alright, I'm going to start this entry off with a pat on my back for being on time and getting a better seat :P!
/me pats herself on the back.

The discussion in class was pretty interesting, as was the material that Professor Smith went over. A small portion of the class was spent going over definitions and study guide questions. I did not start making many mental notes until after we went over the theoretical approach/perspective (not to be confused with the sociological theory).

We briefly discussed Auguste Comte (1/17/1788-9/5/1857) and identified him as the “Father of Sociology”. He had ‘given birth’ to the concept that the Universe lives under one law, and that law is “The law of three phases.” (I later looked into both him and the phases using Wikipedia to elaborate on the phases and subcategories.)

1. Theological Phase the theological phase covers different religious beliefs that many
people may conform to.
a. Fetishism- this is the belief in magical items
b. Polytheism- the belief in many gods
c. Monotheism- the belief in one God

2. Metaphysical Phase the metaphysical phase was the justification of ‘universal
rights’ as being something that no human could change or interfere with.

3. Scientific Phase also known as “Positivism”, which is a way of understanding based
on science. This was broken off into two categories: inorganic physics and organic
physics.

Structural functional approach was the first perspective that we discussed in class. This approach makes note that all social patterns and institutions operate to help society function, whether they are prominent or latent. They all contribute to how our society works as a whole. Our professor made a good example about how both the beautiful and ugly things in life are necessary for the functionality of the world around us by comparing situations to organs. She had said that our eyes are beautiful, and that we need them to function; our bowels are also needed for us to function, but they are less than appealing to look at. One of the questions she had asked us in relation to the topic was: Why can society not survive without crime? I believe, after looking past learning the moralities of the situation and the jobs that it provides, that it helps us find our place. Like- when it came down to it, who are we, really? Are we the 'Hero'; are we the 'Villain'?

Another question that was posed during the lecture had been “Why do we need the poor?”
The ‘right’ answer had been that it provided jobs for the lower classes. It is frustrating, but it is true. I remember discussing this topic with some of my peers one day when the topic of illegal immigrants had been brought up.
The argument had been that they are “stealing our jobs”, although in all actuality they are merely taking the jobs that none of us want. Sure, we will work fields and lay bricks… but oh! If only it paid better! We would have them to thank for affordable produce they break their backs gathering for “laughable” wages.

The discussion also made me think of Communism. I could not help but think that if there were not any social classes and everyone was as strong as their weakest link, it would give people less of a drive to strive to do bigger better things. If getting paid to gather produce was equal or close to the wages of being a doctor- I think a lot of people would prefer to pick fruits and vegetables (for the most part).
Affordable items usually are products of cheap labor. We often forget that.

Talking about social classes had also made me think of the animal kingdom. Every creature has its place, and we are merely playing our roles in life according to that system. Like how big corporate companies (the lions in the business world) eat up the small mom-and-pop stores (the gazelles).


We then discussed the Social Conflict approach. This brings to light that society is the birthplace of inequalities that generate conflict and change.
With that, it was brought up that inequality starts within family life, and I agree entirely. There was a story that I read back in high school called “A Child Called ‘It’”, (by Dave Pelzer) this was about a man’s childhood and how he had been treated by his own mother while growing up. He was the half-brother to his two younger siblings (whom were treated much better than him), and his mother did not give him a bed to sleep in, or food to eat. She would torture him in the most sickening ways and it was something that went on for years and years.
I can also relate to inequalities within the family, with my own family. I am the oldest of three children and nothing I do is good enough for my parents. They have the highest standards for me, and I feel that I will never reach them. My younger sister and I had always found it extremely unfair when it came to our parents dealing disciplining our younger brother. It seemed that he was able to get away with many things we would have been (gasp) *spanked for.
[*Off on a tangent: Punishing your children. I feel that the social services have made their definition of ‘child abuse’ much too wide. I am very grateful that I had been disciplined by physical means. I never felt as if I had been abused, but it sure did make me think real hard about doing something I knew was wrong (in which cases, I usually chose to take the moral path). It helped me realize at a young age that all of my actions had consequences, and that sometimes the consequences were painful. I then learned that I probably should not repeat these actions if I feel the consequences I will suffer would not be worth it.]

Many things are also kept under wraps and scrutinized within the family, like sexualities. My father is embarrassed for others to know that his younger half-sister is a homosexual. It has also had an effect on how he communicates and interacts with her. She once shared an instance with me, in which he had told her, “I love you, you know… but you’re going to Hell.” Many people will hide things like this because it is generally socially unacceptable.
Abuse is another situation families tend to hide from the public. Whether it is substance, domestic, or emotional abuse; it is something families do not like to talk about for fear that it will separate them from the status quo of society. Instances like these, and sexuality, also tie into our last lecture, which went over causes of suicide. We hurt more when we feel like we cannot talk about it, or that no one else will be able to relate to how we feel.

One’s opinion on crime is also affected by social inequalities. When this was discussed in class, Professor Smith had said that some people can justify crime by pointing out that society had pushed them into these situations. It made me think of a quote by Thomas More: "For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them."

Symbolic interaction had been the last perspective we discussed. It was defined as a “close-up focus on social interaction in specific situations.” It was later broke down to assumptions we make about people based off of their appearances and mannerisms.
To cover something serious, Professor Smith brought up something comical- like basing a woman’s decision to pursue a mate based off of his possessions (i.e.: a fancy car, polished dress shoes, an expensive watch, et cetera).
A classmate had also mentioned an instance of when they had seen a poorly dressed mother and a shirtless child at the mall. Her first impression had been that perhaps they were homeless or just trashy. Later on, it dawned on her that, perhaps something bad happened to them, and this is why they appeared like that.

This is why I try (very hard) not to pass judgment on individuals I do not yet know. I understand that everyone has their story, and it is not my place to treat a person differently because their appearance is not (or is) up to “social standards”.
For those who are perceptive to what is “socially acceptable”, it is easy to mimic the social groups they want acceptance from. A pair of shined, Italian leather shoes is not going to tell me anything about a man’s life-style. He could be married man looking for a one-night fling and a momentary escape from his devoted wife and squabbling offspring; he could be a sociopath looking to attract his next prey; he could be anything and everything other than what we assume about him.
I have to try and remember (often) that people are almost never who they seem. Generally, what we present in the public around professional peoples is not who we really are. Like myself, for example. I try to keep my professional life (work and school) separated from my private or personal life. Not that I am too different in private than I am in the public, but there are several situations in which one must know certain actions or exclamations are not appropriate.


Professor Smith had also this video in class.
It is sad when people behave like this, especially when most of us are in the same bad situation, and some of us feel the need to better our situation by making others’ worse; “Self preservation versus compassion” at its finest.


Also, the book *“Black Like Me” was mentioned. It was a social experiment done by the journalist John Howard Griffin in 1961. He described the culture shock he experienced while disguising himself as an African American citizen travelling through racially segregated states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia).
*[I read in Wikipedia that the title was taken from a line in a poem by Langston Hughes “Dream Variations”.]
Anyhow, it piqued my interests, and I plan on eventually purchasing the book.

Those were my thoughts (well, most of them).
So until next time- Ona!
-Rachel