Hey guys! So this week my blog is about the sociological perspective to discuss forces and institutions that shape the popular culture.
WELL. Like Omar, I'm going to discuss the High Culture (capital letters for emphasis). What is the high culture, you ask? I shall tell you, good reader!
High culture refers to the culture of the elite. They are the refined, educated, and let's not forget... wealthy!
So basically, high culture is the culture of the super rich.
The term was introduced by Matthew Arnold. The theory that a high culture exists describes it as the best, most refined culture. Everyone else is common folk. Those of the high culture run everything, while we follow like cattle. This fits hand in hand with the Elite Theory.
The Elite Theory contends that a small minority--the super rich and elite--holds the most power and basically run everything.
So, how does this apply to the topic? Well, the high culture (super rich) decide what is popular. The high culture decides what is portrayed through the media. The high culture creates institutions that the common folk use.
Common trends in art and music is decided by the high culture. After they do it, then the popular culture wants it. Look at those expensive designer clothes/purses poor women (like my mother -_- ) want so badly. They see the high culture women wearing them first.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism.
For starters, let me explain the definition of our topic this week. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that "places emphasis on micro-scale social interaction to provide subjective meaning in human behavior."
That sounds like giberish. Basically, symbolic interaction portrays a family as a unit of interacting "personalities." It describes the ways that people interact through "symbols" (such as words, gestures, rules, and roles).
It was developed by Herbert Blumer. He set three basic ideas of the perspective:
-"Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
-"The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and society."
-"These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."
So, society supplies you with a role, and you act accordingly or "deviantly." By integrating ourselves into society and learning how to interact with others and our roles, we develop our sense of self.
In my opinion, symbolic interactionism is a justified part of sociology. Even if the theory lends itself to psychology, it explains how people act and why. Seeing as sociology is the study of the functioning of human society, this seems like a pretty important aspect of that (understanding why people act the way they do/how they are integrated in society and their roles.)
For starters, let me explain the definition of our topic this week. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that "places emphasis on micro-scale social interaction to provide subjective meaning in human behavior."
That sounds like giberish. Basically, symbolic interaction portrays a family as a unit of interacting "personalities." It describes the ways that people interact through "symbols" (such as words, gestures, rules, and roles).
It was developed by Herbert Blumer. He set three basic ideas of the perspective:
-"Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
-"The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and society."
-"These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."
So, society supplies you with a role, and you act accordingly or "deviantly." By integrating ourselves into society and learning how to interact with others and our roles, we develop our sense of self.
In my opinion, symbolic interactionism is a justified part of sociology. Even if the theory lends itself to psychology, it explains how people act and why. Seeing as sociology is the study of the functioning of human society, this seems like a pretty important aspect of that (understanding why people act the way they do/how they are integrated in society and their roles.)
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Functionalism vs Marxism
So. Functionalism vs Marxism... which will withstand our rapidly changing society?
I don't think it's that tough of a question, really. Especially considering Marxism SUCKS.
Okay, so, to explain... Functionalism is a theory by Durkheim that says that everyone and everything in society serves a function. It describes the roles each person places (employee, student, parent, etc). Functionalism also describes how we are socialized and begin to learn the norms and values of society through contact with others in the society to be normal people. So, basically, it explains what functions we serve and how we've become the way we are.
Marxism is a more retarded theory by some freaky communist who predicts that the workers of society will realize they're being exploited and resort to communism. He thinks capitalism is the root of all evil, blah, blah, blah. He's crazy. Like, Marxism isn't even worth explaining. But because I have to, it's just: Capitalism is the spawn of Satan. Workers are exploited by the rich. They'll overthrow them. Communist, classless, "equal" society results.
That STILL hasn't come true and it's nowhere near close to how our society is today.
So functionalism FTW.
I don't think it's that tough of a question, really. Especially considering Marxism SUCKS.
Okay, so, to explain... Functionalism is a theory by Durkheim that says that everyone and everything in society serves a function. It describes the roles each person places (employee, student, parent, etc). Functionalism also describes how we are socialized and begin to learn the norms and values of society through contact with others in the society to be normal people. So, basically, it explains what functions we serve and how we've become the way we are.
Marxism is a more retarded theory by some freaky communist who predicts that the workers of society will realize they're being exploited and resort to communism. He thinks capitalism is the root of all evil, blah, blah, blah. He's crazy. Like, Marxism isn't even worth explaining. But because I have to, it's just: Capitalism is the spawn of Satan. Workers are exploited by the rich. They'll overthrow them. Communist, classless, "equal" society results.
That STILL hasn't come true and it's nowhere near close to how our society is today.
So functionalism FTW.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
ONLINE CLASSES
Online classes... I dreaded the word a few months ago. Personally, online classes seemed much more horrible to me than real classes. Why? It's like homework you HAVE to do (and at home, nonetheless!) It was just extra work on top of in-school work, and it wasn't something I felt like dealing with... (also why I was afraid of STEP-UP at first)
However, I've grown to accept them more. Online classes are actually quite handy.
For one, as a STEP-UPper, I can do them in school, which means no take-home-y-ness.
Secondly, it's much easier to help yourself and your friends. AKA cheat.
Really, does anyone not cheat with online work...
You can use each other's exact assignments and even take tests together. Can't do that in a real classroom setting. Well, you can... but it's harder. Cheating on tests is risky business that I don't even bother with in school. Homework, on the other hand...
Still, you'd have to write it out for class, whereas online you just copy and paste.
ANYWAY.
I'd say those are huge pros.
(Btw, in case my online teacher sees this... I'm totally lying. Like, trying to get in the mind of dirty cheaters. I would never, personally!)
Oh, and it's really flexible. I can do my online work whenever I want. And there's no deadlines!! I love that.
So while online work may be extra work on top of school, it's flexibility vs classroom setting makes less hellish.
However, I've grown to accept them more. Online classes are actually quite handy.
For one, as a STEP-UPper, I can do them in school, which means no take-home-y-ness.
Secondly, it's much easier to help yourself and your friends. AKA cheat.
Really, does anyone not cheat with online work...
You can use each other's exact assignments and even take tests together. Can't do that in a real classroom setting. Well, you can... but it's harder. Cheating on tests is risky business that I don't even bother with in school. Homework, on the other hand...
Still, you'd have to write it out for class, whereas online you just copy and paste.
ANYWAY.
I'd say those are huge pros.
(Btw, in case my online teacher sees this... I'm totally lying. Like, trying to get in the mind of dirty cheaters. I would never, personally!)
Oh, and it's really flexible. I can do my online work whenever I want. And there's no deadlines!! I love that.
So while online work may be extra work on top of school, it's flexibility vs classroom setting makes less hellish.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
TECHNOLOGY FTW
Technology is defined as " Machinery and equipment developed from such scientific knowledge."
While some (haters) may claim that technology is only a distraction, that's not true. Yes, it has its flaws. However, no one can deny the usefulness of it.
My parents can say,"Back in my day, I had to go to the library and..." Yes, that's all good and well for them. But I'm getting the same information they did from books (even more, actually) through the internet.
For example, whenever I'm in school, sometimes a word or term pops up in our lesson that no one knows. But as STEP-UP, we pull out our i-pads, and simply look up the term. This is actually very handy.
If I have an essay to type up, I can do it in Ms. Basi's (wooo. She's awesome!) class using either a computer or an i-pad. I can also easily go on my online classes and do work in school.
People DO use their technological devices for "evil" often (texting, Facebook, etc), but the benfits outweigh the good. Technology simply makes our lives easier.
While some (haters) may claim that technology is only a distraction, that's not true. Yes, it has its flaws. However, no one can deny the usefulness of it.
My parents can say,"Back in my day, I had to go to the library and..." Yes, that's all good and well for them. But I'm getting the same information they did from books (even more, actually) through the internet.
For example, whenever I'm in school, sometimes a word or term pops up in our lesson that no one knows. But as STEP-UP, we pull out our i-pads, and simply look up the term. This is actually very handy.
If I have an essay to type up, I can do it in Ms. Basi's (wooo. She's awesome!) class using either a computer or an i-pad. I can also easily go on my online classes and do work in school.
People DO use their technological devices for "evil" often (texting, Facebook, etc), but the benfits outweigh the good. Technology simply makes our lives easier.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Getting Rich the Ninja Way
From rags to riches. Okay, so I struggled with myself, wondering who I could write about. After some intense... thinking (or Google-searching and picking the first link), I found Steven Spielberg.
Yes, the film director!
In my opinion, Spielberg is a total ninja. You'll understand after I explain his story.
He was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, brought into his world by his mother Leah Adler and Arnold Spielberg. He saw his first film in Haddon Township, New Jersey. Eventually, Spielberg made his own amateur films with his friends. The films were shot at a restaurant, and the admission was only 25 cents.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), Spielberg didn't make the cut for filmaking school. Instead, he went to the California State College in Long Beach.
Luckily for him, during one casual visit to the Universal Studios, Spielberg met with Shuck Silvers. Silvers was an executive in the editorial department, who liked Spielberg enough to invite him back sometime.
Spielberg came back the very next day, without a previous appointment (officially). He wore a dark suit and carried a suitcase to look professional, while the suitcase only had sandwiches and candy. However, with his confident walk, he was able to get in without the security guard asking who he was.
(See? How ninja is that? Sandwiches and candy... that's the only reason why I chose to write about him.)
Spielberg continued to show up for the entire summer, becoming friends with all of the directors and writers, learning from them. He found an abandoned office within the place, and made it his own, even putting his name in the building directory. Steven Spielberg, Room 23C.
After 10 years, Spielberg directed Jaws. The movie was a huge hit, becoming the highest-grossing movie of all time (back then). Then, he made more movies and became even richer. The end!
Yes, the film director!
In my opinion, Spielberg is a total ninja. You'll understand after I explain his story.
He was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, brought into his world by his mother Leah Adler and Arnold Spielberg. He saw his first film in Haddon Township, New Jersey. Eventually, Spielberg made his own amateur films with his friends. The films were shot at a restaurant, and the admission was only 25 cents.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), Spielberg didn't make the cut for filmaking school. Instead, he went to the California State College in Long Beach.
Luckily for him, during one casual visit to the Universal Studios, Spielberg met with Shuck Silvers. Silvers was an executive in the editorial department, who liked Spielberg enough to invite him back sometime.
Spielberg came back the very next day, without a previous appointment (officially). He wore a dark suit and carried a suitcase to look professional, while the suitcase only had sandwiches and candy. However, with his confident walk, he was able to get in without the security guard asking who he was.
(See? How ninja is that? Sandwiches and candy... that's the only reason why I chose to write about him.)
Spielberg continued to show up for the entire summer, becoming friends with all of the directors and writers, learning from them. He found an abandoned office within the place, and made it his own, even putting his name in the building directory. Steven Spielberg, Room 23C.
After 10 years, Spielberg directed Jaws. The movie was a huge hit, becoming the highest-grossing movie of all time (back then). Then, he made more movies and became even richer. The end!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Social Stratification
Stratification is defined as the "act or process or arranging of persons into classes or social strata" by dictionary definition. Stratification is actually a pretty wide concept. Thus, we break it up into different elements, including: inequality. Yeah, you hear inequality talk everywhere but... you're gonna hear it again.
Inequality is the act of people being better placed in society over others, and signals which group these people belong to. You'll find that people in the same group often share similar characteristics (culture, interests, life chances).
The first division is class. The UK's statistics show that the higher a class one is born into, the higher chances they have of surviving in their first year of birth, perform in school, live longer, and retain their natural teeth (woah, weird). The more wealth one has, the more they can afford. They can afford better schooling, health care, etc.
The next division is gender. Gender's only recently considered a part of stratification, but it's been an issue for quite a long time. Despite there being more women than men within the US, they still have generally a less successful life and less power than the men. Also, they tend to earn less than men, and are outnumbered in important positions.
Ethnicity is another dimension of stratification. There are obvious differences in the economic and social standing between ethnic groups. Prejudice is still quite strong today, and many people do not get the positions they deserve or the same exact chances due to their ethnicity.
Age is the final one (at least that I'll bring up). The youngest and the oldest hold the least power within our society (though in other parts of the world, the elderly are well respected). No matter your age, there is someone who considers your wisdom not wisdom-y enough because you're either too young or too old. Certain buildings and organizations do not allow children, as well (as another example of the age factor).
That's really all I have to say. Social divisions may suck, but I don't really see how there's any other way.
Inequality is the act of people being better placed in society over others, and signals which group these people belong to. You'll find that people in the same group often share similar characteristics (culture, interests, life chances).
The first division is class. The UK's statistics show that the higher a class one is born into, the higher chances they have of surviving in their first year of birth, perform in school, live longer, and retain their natural teeth (woah, weird). The more wealth one has, the more they can afford. They can afford better schooling, health care, etc.
The next division is gender. Gender's only recently considered a part of stratification, but it's been an issue for quite a long time. Despite there being more women than men within the US, they still have generally a less successful life and less power than the men. Also, they tend to earn less than men, and are outnumbered in important positions.
Ethnicity is another dimension of stratification. There are obvious differences in the economic and social standing between ethnic groups. Prejudice is still quite strong today, and many people do not get the positions they deserve or the same exact chances due to their ethnicity.
Age is the final one (at least that I'll bring up). The youngest and the oldest hold the least power within our society (though in other parts of the world, the elderly are well respected). No matter your age, there is someone who considers your wisdom not wisdom-y enough because you're either too young or too old. Certain buildings and organizations do not allow children, as well (as another example of the age factor).
That's really all I have to say. Social divisions may suck, but I don't really see how there's any other way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)