Everyone Deserves a Good Home

The suburban sprawl outside Washington D.C. boasts of some of the wealthiest counties in the nation. People with bank accounts padded by good government jobs, a technological career, or development enjoy cushy lives. In contrast, Washington D.C. struggles with its high poverty and crime rates and bad public education. With the exception of people who live in richer communities such as Georgetown, residents and business owners are in no place to sufficiently support many services required of the city.

This is the situation that authors of Introduction to Sociology seemed to be referencing as they talked about suburban wealth causing inner-city decay.
If I were a member of the Washington D.C. City Council, I would concentrate on building a community that can support better schools and make for safer, healthier communities.

No one wants to live in dangerous, shabby areas. This is why I believe that the Washington D.C. government should do much to encourage and sustain revitalization. Non-profit groups interested in improving the city should put some focus on supporting cultural and business initiatives to make the city more attractive and build community.

I have no research to prove this statement, but based on personal experience, even larger cities such as New York are more attractive to wealthier people because of the shops, culture, and business opportunities it presents. I realize there are dangerous parts of New York, but even in the small amount of time I have spent there I noticed a small-town feel in the city that is sorely lacking in Washington D.C. Bagel-shop owners chatted with loyal customers. People acted more comfortable.
For the sake of many suffering Washington D.C. residents, I hope D.C. becomes a place like this soon!

Power in Numbers in Politics

I think individual citizens have a limited idea of what goes into running a country and have little influence in what transpires in its halls of power.
This is why I believe that both pluralists and power elite theories of democracy reflect realities of the political system in the United States.
Pluralists believe that people as individuals have very little voice in shaping public policy. But when they join with each other to form businesses or interest groups, they began carry enough clout to influence leaders.

Unfortunately there is an aspect where those with the money have access to the power, even in a democracy. Campaigns cost money and connections. Politicians frequently have a good education. While interest groups, lobbyists and business more clout than individuals, I really do think that an elite few monopolize politics (the Bushes and the Clintons, for example). The decisions of these elite few are changes by desires of interest groups when they realize their powers are threatened.

Cheap Isn't Always Good

I believe that best things in life are free. Or so goes the song by Luther Vandross and Janet Jackson. But on the contrary, I think the best things in life comes with a cost. It is bad when an economy is flooded with too many things that are free.


Let's look at large retail stores such as Wal-Mart, for example. On the surface, Wal-Mart and other similar stores seem like a win-win for the American economy. Cheap labor produces cheap products by the mass and this makes things accessible to a large group of people. It seems like an ideal cycle in the economy. But I think this convenience creates a problem in society that limits hundreds of thousands of people to buying and working at places such as Wal-Mart long-term. I don't think many Americans would argue that this is a good thing.

Wal-Mart is bad for America because it puts business owners and manufactures in the United States out of business, or in tough spots, as the PBS special "Is Wal-Mart Good For America" pointed out. Smaller businesses or manufactures have to compete with the stores such as Wal-Mart that stocks their shelves with much from countries where labor is cheaper. When unable to do so, they go out of businesses and their employees loose their jobs. All of the sudden the job market is flooded with people who take jobs at stores like Wal-Mart to survive and then they also can't afford to purchase at more expensive stores, and often don't have enough incentive to pursue careers that allows them to get a better life-style.

The ability to get cheap things is good, but a market flooded with cheap things doesn't lead to a good lifestyle. All this perpetuates the vicious cycle that actually depresses our economy instead of bolstering it. The best things in life aren't free, and hopefully our economy will realize that the many benefits of having large retail stores like Wal-Mart among us comes with a cost we must all guard against.

What changes families?

As I read through material about family, I was struck by the consistent dysfunction of the family throughout history. I wonder what society can do to promote healthy families if anything. I also wonder what causes the nature of families to shift and change. Is is technology? A different economy? The authors of Introduction to Sociology alluded to that. But does the construct of families also shift independently of these factors and if so, what causes this? I wonder if societies value different things at different times, and this is reflected on the family.

I thought about the roles that men and women usually perform and it did surprise me that women's jobs seemed harder than they are in reality. I know women who find joy and happiness in cooking every day and decorating and cleaning - all the typical women's roles. They love to nourish and are content. But I understand that more and more people consider these tasks too much and unfair to expect of women, especially when women have the ability and talent to be successful outside the home.

In my opinion, I believe that if women have children and a husband, these people are their first responsibility However, I do think that some women can do a good job of balancing work and family, or sometimes the husband and wife make a decision to have her work more while he does care taking duties in the family.

The Relationship of Religion and Politics

Religion is something that has touched almost every culture in someway. As science and technology develop, people argue that the face and nature of religion is changing. Theorist argue that religion is an ideology and not reality, or that there are too many myths bound up in religions to make them real. They argue that our world is secularizing. In one sense, I believe they are correct. But I also think that stating that would is secularizing is a statement that is too general. Some societies are still heavily influenced by religious principles, even to the point that they often influence politics and governance.

I should caveat this next statement by saying that I am a deeply religious person. I have been all my life. That being said, I believe that the democratic form of government protected by checks and balances is the best because without checks, people easily abuse their power. If the people are religious and want religious politicians, than I think that is their choice. I do not think that religious groups should try to advance their religion or win converts through government. This is wrong because it is forcing others into false conversion. But there are rights and wrongs that is the responsibility of the government to legislate. For example, people can't murder, steal, or abuse drugs. This gets tough when people don't agree on what is right and wrong (take abortion for example), but the justice system does exist to legislate morality. It has to.

Prejudice: Always Unfair

The internment of Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor illustrates the quick tendancy we all have to judge and stereotype. With no evidence, the United States government assumed that all Japanese were a threat and acted on assumptions.

I understand that they wanted to take precautions, but they should have at least established a system to to verify that they were imprisoning people who were threats. It is indeed ironic that the Japanese who lived closest to the Pearl Harbor tragedy were not imprisoned. Could it be that those Japenese were actually known for who they are, instead of being abused because of their skin color?

Several years ago I read "Snow Falling on Cedars." The novel by David Guterson paints a story about a Japanese man wrongly charged with murder and of his people sent into exile for no reason as their neighbors watched. Stories like that remind me of how tragic and unjust prejudice is. We all know it. I hope we can all live like we know it.

Equal Value to Differences

Someone shouldn't have to change the way they are in order to get respect from others. When it comes to gender inequality, I think this principle should apply. I know the gender equality movement has many aspects and is a complicated one for society. But on a very personal level, I think the movement is a way for women to cry out for respect and appreciation we should be getting, but aren't. Whether our societies, families, or own behaviors contribute to this respect deficit, it's a hurtful reality for women all over the world. I wonder if this drives women to try to be more masculine than they would otherwise. Let women be happy being mothers and daughters and wives and let them be praised and admired for them. Some of the world's most influential women were exceptional mothers and wives.

But if women feel drawn to other callings, let them also be praised when they achieve.

I think it's interesting how different societies assign value to a life and how they do this differently. In some societies, women are literally less valuable. I think western cultures are just now realizing how wrong this is - at least I hope this is the case. Whether poor or rich, man or woman, black or white, our lives are all of equal value, but not necessarily equal. We're unique too, and I think that paradox is the beauty of being human.

A Personal Road to Equality

I think that as Americans, we have a lot to consider when it comes to global stratification because we are a richer nation. We must be cautious not to treat people from other nations who may be less privileges with any less respect. We should always be cognizant of the needs and cultures of others, and that they are often very different from our own.

The United States is known throughout the world as a very giving nation, but I think sometimes that giving is turns into a convenient cash-toss at whatever cause has grabbed our attention.

When the Haiti earthquake devastated that country, we responded fast and we responded in person. We saw the destruction of that country and understood their pain enough to get dirty to help those people improve their lives. I wish our nation knew how to respond in such a personable way all the time, not just when there are disasters.

Is "Fitting In" Fueling Social Class?

I think social class in modern America matters a lot. I think this truth is masked by the "politically correct movement" which encourages everyone to treat everyone the same. However I think attitude doesn't translate into our realities because of the economic conditions, personal experiences, and communities that make us different and divide us.

The controlling concept of acceptance is what stands out to me the most as I reflect on social class discussions I have encountered for this class and in my life-time. And in my mind, the concept of acceptance and non-acceptance goes hand-in-hand. By this I mean that people shun or treat people differently because other members of their social class do. We all do this because we want to be accepted by those who matter most to us.

I wonder if we live in social classes, whether blatantly or not, because it is not accepted in our social groups to treat others a certain way. Generally, a poor member of a minority group associated with gangs would be frowned on to try to hang out with a middle-class white person. Members of a well-established community club or organizations would collectively feel uncomfortable to allow someone with an impoverished background participate in their meetings. A club member would have to be brave enough to break a social norm to have meaningful contact with this poor person.

According to the text of Introduction to Psychology, studies show it is hard for people to break out of the social class when poor. There are many reasons for this, but high among them is a lack of education or means. The text says that children who are poor don't know what to aspire to. I wonder if this is because there is no motivation to be accepted by another social group, so they don't do anything.

I personally identified with the story of Dena on the PBS special "People Like Us: Social Class In America." Like her I moved to the Washington D.C. area to build a career, but I struggle with the pulls of a slower, more modest life-style I left on the West Coast. It has always been important to me to fit in where I grew up. It worries be that I've changed too much and may never fit in at home. The other stories in that documentary also illustrated that people are controlled by who does or does not accept them and how they do, or don't reach out to others.

The messages of equality that we have heard in America for decade now are important and I think they've made a difference. But I think until we can all truly learn to put others before ourselves, social classes will always exist.

Technology Isolates

I think that technology makes our society more connected, but less personal.

You're at a bar with a bunch of people. Your family and close friends live far away so you just found some acquaintances to watch the big game with. The Unites States scores and instead of calling your family or friends, you mass text them, or tweet, or check our iphone from such messages from them.

It's a good friend's birthday. Instead of calling them, or visiting, or sending a card, you post a sweet little message on facebook. A lot of people see the message, but you have no idea what kind of day your friend had, or how he is doing in general.

You're at the office. Instead of having an important conversation with some co-workers, you e-mail. It takes to long to get everyone together. Some people understand what you said, but others don't. There are misunderstandings and feelings get hurt.

I think that people are more connected because of technology in the sense that we can now easily reach hundreds of people in our lives instantly. They can reach other people. As the authors of Introduction to Sociology point out, our technological networks are huge. Organizations now have large, loose networks and this is quickly leading to a more global society.

However, I think that we are actually less connected in a personal sense than society before the technology boom. I am guessing that rare are the days when we just spend time playing board games, talking on the front porch, eating around the table or having people over for dinner parties.

Criminals Among Us?

I believe that criminal justice programs are not significantly effective in reducing recidivism rates because they don't really connect criminals to their communities.

I would not go so far as to advocate for community-based punishment. Instead, I am a proponent of community-based restoration.

From what I know, pprograms offered the incarcerated do offer beneficial education, therapies or support. But for the most part, they are all offered in the context of the criminal justice system.

I think programs that incorporated active contact with their communities post-release would give inmates a chance to be restored to their own worlds. Perhaps programs could incorporate the prisoners churches, schools, families, or organizations in their communities. It would place them in a position to receive support from from people who understand where they come from. It would also give them an opportunity to give back to their community.

The problem with such an approach to reducing recidivism is that the community must also cooperate, and without unfairly judging or discriminating against former inmates.

How Treatment Defines Us

The "A Class Divided" experiment was deeply fascinating to me on several levels. Teacher Jane Elliot brilliantly created a social environment in her class which debased some of her students based on their eye color.

Depending on whether they above or bellow their classmates, the children responded by either discriminating or acting as if they deserved to be oppressed.
What resonated with me most strongly about this experiment is how quickly the children of the "lower class" conformed and accepted their inferiority. They lived with the stigma assigned to them.

After being mistreated because of his eye-color, one little boy quipped, "The way they treated you felt like you didn't even want to try to do anything."
Elliot asked her students what it means to have brown eyes. "It means that we're stupid. Well, not that, but...," he said, struggling to find words to express what had happened in his classroom.

I don't mean to disregard the significance of how quickly all of us can discriminate and mistreat others, given an excuse. The famous Stanford Prison Experiment also taught us that. However, it's interesting to see how we act also fuels how others treat us.

Men such as Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglas pushed for African Americans to rise up and defy the discrimination. I think that Booker T. Washington's exhortation to his people to make the most of life where ever they are is priceless for all minorities. I believe discrimination is excruciatingly painful, but what we all do despite of it is what will shape who we are at our cores.

Nature v. Nurture? It Depends

I believe it is our environment, coupled with our inner traits that makes us who we are. It is difficult to say which plays the biggest role, but I dare to suggest that it depends on the person and the life they lead.

Like yellow and red together form a completely different color than blue and white together. For artists, which colors dominate depend on the strength of the colors.

I've done no personal research on the classic nature versus nurture debate, but it seems that researchers psychologists have somewhat reached an agreement that both play I role. My hypothesis that nature versus nurture is situational rests on my observations of people I know, or have interviewed as a journalist.

For some, living in extremely difficult situations such as a severely impoverished environment causes a person to rebel and even resort to breaking the law to survive. In that scenario I would argue that nature played a stronger role in shaping that person's life. Another person in the exact same situation may rise above their challenges to make something of their lives. I think of Prudence, the star of Music by Prudence. The documentary is about a band of disabled people in impoverished Zimbabwe. They rose above their circumstances to create music together, and now they are known throughout the world.

Humor: Societal or Universal?

I watched this BBC skit on YouTube where Hugh Laurie was talking about a mathematic equation. After getting into it, he inverted the numbers and the crowd went into hysterics. I could not tell what on earth was so funny until I read the YouTube comments explaining the error.

Apparently it was making the point that comedy, like much of our conversations, is received differently by different cultures and groups. Something that may not make any sense to one group or culture may rock the world of others.

It makes me curious what elements of humor and comedy are universal. Or is humor but created and appreciated differently by different societies? So similar societies respond the same to humor? All questions too big to answer easily, but I’m the BBC skit still made me curious. Societal or Universal?

Was the Stanford Prison Experiment Ethical?

The Stanford Prison Experiment was not ethical for several reasons. The overarching reason is that it gave humans unbridled permission to harm other humans. The prisoners were harmed in a way that was beyond their control, and in a way that compromised their dignity and safety as human beings without their permission.

The facts of the experiment are now history. Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, a psychologist, recruited graduate students to participate in an experiment looking at the reactions of people in a mock jail environment. Specifically he was examining the interaction between prisoners and guards, and how quickly these people conformed to their assigned roles.

The guards were very cruel and the experiment went horribly badly, I believe, because the way it was conducted was not ethical. It created conditions in which the worst of the human spirit could rear its ugly head.

Zimbardo told the guards to wield authority over the prisoners. I think this gave them a charge to be harsh. It made Zimbardo a key player in his own experiment, unduly influencing the outcome of its results.

The experiment was also not monitored by anyone who could watch for the safety of the prisoners. There was no one to hold the guards in check because Zimbardo was watching to see how far they would go with their cruelty, and if the prisoners would endure it.

As difficult as this experiment was, it serves to remind us that any social experiment is not worth the harming of others. Experiments of our world must be conducted wisely and with accountability.

Hi, Sociology

Dear SOC 200 Class,

I am excited about taking this class because it is the first step towards a career change to social work for me. I know it will be challenging, but I am excited about it.

Let's see, maybe I should briefly explain why social work. I used to be a reporter and after writing a lot about crime, I decided wanted to do more than write about hurting people.

I am particularly interested in working with people who are incarcerated and their families. The plan is grad school at Virginia Commonwealth University in the fall.

In my "free time" I am teach piano, try to be outside as much as possible, and work at my church.

I look forward to meeting you all.