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?