by

Operation: Save the World

A mission statement by: Savannah Bishop

“Water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink.” Growing up, there was this commercial with the aforementioned message, expressing the importance of water conservation and recycling. As children we were taught to “think global, buy local” and “reduce, reuse, recycle.” Of course, these were things that we were purposefully taught, campaigns to try to make a greener world. What we actually learned from our society was very different. We learned that capitalism is good, we want to be rich, and that money can’t buy happiness…money can buy the things that lead to our happiness. The problem with this, besides creating a society of egocentric self-serving people, is that  “the current trajectory of human activity is not sustainable”Sachs, J.(2008, p. 57). Humans continue to take more and more of our natural resources, not giving anywhere enough time for them to replenish themselves, and polluting the earth as we do so.

            No matter what you argue, if you look around you, this is very obviously true. We have overpopulated the earth and now both the earth and we are paying the price. We reproduce at an exponential rate, decimate animal and plant populations, and will do so more and more as time progresses. Yet this is not the whole issue. The real problem here is the inherent opposition between the needs of a nation economically and the needs of a place environmentally. What we need, as with so many of the cases like this before, is a compromise. The economy can be as prosperous as we want it to be, but if we don’t check ourselves against the needs of our environment we won’t be alive to see it. The environment can be as healthy as we want it to be, but if we don’t maintain our economy the ensuing violence and chaos will ensure that we are unable to enjoy it.

 

Sources:          

Chapter Three, Sachs, J. (2008) Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. London: Allen Lane.

by

Mission: Nationhood, State, and Power/Study Abroad

A Mission Statement by Rebecca Korn

The Angels’ seventh mission was to explore the power of nationhood and state, and to learn how college students who study abroad stay connected to their country of origin. Although countries are generally made up of multiple ethnic groups that do not always agree with each other the state stays cohesive and does not fall apart. There are many possible reasons this occurs, but the Angels have agreed upon several that seem the most likely. A common language and holidays are usually shared throughout a state, which automatically gives most citizens a connection to one another, because they are celebrating on the same days for the same reason, and they will never feel lost or confused within their own country due to a miscommunication. Also, like Benedict Anderson (1991) said, a nation is an ‘imagined community.’ This means that there is nothing biological connecting the people within a nation, but what connects the people is completely social. The Angels and I agree with this view, as we can observe multiple ethnicities in our country of origin, and the country in which we are living now. This social phenomenon might be due to the theory that when people are put into groups, they tend to bond with their group, and form an irrational dislike of any other group. This is shown in the experiment where a group of boys at summer camp were split into two groups that started hatred within the boys of the group that they were not in. This could be happening with countries because people are told they belong to a certain country, and therefore they bond to the country, and have a dislike of the other countries that are not in agreement with their own country, if they share the same beliefs as their country.

Next, the Angels and I discussed how students who study abroad, like ourselves, see their own nation and how their views of the world are expanded through their travels. We came to the conclusion that students like us will generally always feel connected to their home country because that is where they grew up, and where they share a common language and culture with the people. Also, since there is an emphasis on their own country’s history in school (although we agree that learning world history is important, we do think that it is appropriate that a country teach its children their country’s history more than any other type of history), the students will generally feel a pride for their country’s history and past. Students will especially feel a bond to their home country while abroad during wartime or in a time of crisis (Nadine Dolby, Reflections on Nation: American Undergraduates and Education Abroad). However, travelling abroad does open students’ eyes to new languages and cultures, and it is their own choice if they want to embrace them or not. It is usually good to embrace a country’s culture while in that country, but upon returning to the country of origin, it is the individuals’ choice if they want to carry that new culture with them, or completely go back to their own culture.

Works Cited (In MLA)

Dolby, Nadine. “Reflections on Nation: American Undergraduates and Education Abroad.” Sage Publications. Sage, 22 May 2007. Web. 2 Nov. 2013. <https://blackboard.arcadia.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1333244-dt-content-rid-1600134_1/courses/FA2013.LONS_SOSC_143.LONS.CGS/reflections%20on%20nation.pdf&gt;.

 

by

Operation: Chromosomes

      A mission statement by Eliana Bernstein

The chromosomes you receive from your parents determine what sex you will be. Receiving one X and one Y chromosome makes you a male and receiving two X chromosomes makes you a female. Sex is a product of nature meaning that it is biological. Gender is applied through nurture meaning that it is formed by cultural differences. “Gender is linked to socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity (A. Giddens 107)”. Everyone is born into a sex, but our sex does not determine our gender. When you are born you are one sex or the other but your gender is not determined yet. Most people follow social norms, and are shaped into the attributed gender roles of each distinct sex. The media, parents, and friend groups are a few examples of the varying human factors that people can be shaped into their gender roles by. At a young age people begin to create stereotypical concepts of genders, and then use this information to decipher how they should behave. Humans have the possibility of being more masculine of feminine without such being determinant upon their sex. Women can come off as more masculine and less feminine both if they chose to do so and often times through their mannerisms. For example if they wear a pants suit instead of a dress they may be perceived in a fashion that is considerably masculine as opposed to the feminine fashion that would have been attributed with a dress. The ways in which one dresses can also help define our gender. For example a man may dress in cloths appropriate for the opposite sex. In this scenario this person’s sex is male however their gender is more feminine then masculine.

Gender is not permanent. It is not fixed. There are a number of ways to change ones appearance, which could make them look more masculine or more feminine which in hindsight changes their gender. “Some people, for example, believe that they have been born into the wrong bodies and seek to ‘put things right’ by switching genders part way through life ( A. Giddens 106)” Individuals have the ability to decide their gender for themselves.

There has never been a point in time where gender inequalities did not exist, but hopefully one day in the future this will cease to be the case. Gender inequality is created by social structures. Gender inequality has existed in our world for far to long that it has become a social norm. Men believe its normal to sexually abuse women at work ,and it has become a social norm to pay them less then men. Feminists seek to understand this so as to understand why there is such a huge pay gap between sexes. These individuals have discovered that women have been excluded form public life, likely because in the past women were expected to stay home clean the house and care for the children. Slowly more and more women are entering the work force, joining public life. Eventually the presence of women in the public world will end gender inequalities; unfortunately this may take many years. Women are still usually expected to take on domestic responsibilities whether at home or at their job.  I hope to someday live in a society where I am judged by my abilities and not the difference of a single chromosome.

Bibliography (MLA FORMAT)

Giddens, Anthony. Sociology. 4th ed. Cambrige: Polity, 2001. Print.

by

Operation: The Class Following The Worst Class Ever

A Mission Statement by Savannah Bishop

 

            In last week’s Introduction to Sociology we had what was likely one of the most interestingly awkward classes I’ve ever been present for. For some inexplicable reason we were unable to communicate about the notion of class. It was almost as if we were speaking entirely separate languages where the term “class” simply did not compute. The term was literally defined for us by Giddens as “a contested concept, a general definition is that a class is a large scale grouping of people who share common economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead.”(2013, p.485) and yet we were unable to understand this idea of class. With this highly problematic issue prevalent in my memories of the previous class I was worried that this week’s topic of “Race and Ethnicity” would prove as worrisome.

            Luckily, this week’s subject did indeed turn out to be easier to tackle. Prior to this class in every day conversation and educational settings the terms “race” and “ethnicity” tended to be considered jointly, with the focus on “race,” and “ethnicity” as just a tag along term. Half the time they’ve been practically used as synonyms. As was well proven by this class, this is not, in fact, the case. Race is viewed as a biological category where the genetic differences produce individual characteristics of a physical nature that are the basis for social categorization. Contrastingly Giddens states “An ethnic group is one whose members share a distinct awareness of a common cultural identity, separating them from other groups around them.”

            As race is based on obvious physical variances it is, as a concept, easy to make use of. Ethnicity on the other hand can be far more problematic, especially when attempting to generalize for governmental use. The way in which this was well explained to us was through the sense that a sports team can be considered an ethnic group. And in this context it is made readily apparent that the defining of individuals in this ethnic group can be easily changed should an individual’s loyalty change or they move to a different area.

            These difficult definitions transitioned well into the issues of racism and in-group bias. Racism as a concept is rather easy to wrap one’s heads around, but I found it to be especially interesting when viewed in context with the idea of in-group bias. The sense that human beings instinctively form themselves into social groupings is understandable. The fact that we are then prone to racism and ethnocentrism, as is defined by William G. Sumner “the technical name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” is more difficult to find believable. It is, however, inarguable that these prejudices could not exist without the one committing them being part of a race or ethnic group different from that toward which they are being racist or ethnocentric.

            Overall, this class was highly interesting and made me personally reevaluate how I define myself in relation to race and ethnicity and what this means in the bigger picture.

 

Citations:

Giddens, Anthony. Sociology. Cambridge [England: Polity, 1993. Print

Sumner, W. G. Folkways. New York: Ginn, 1906.

by

Mission: Race and Ethnicity in West London

Mission Statement by Rebecca Korn

Philip’s Angels were assigned the important task of exploring west London to observe the changes in racial population between different areas and take note of any financial income differences between the areas. The area that stood out most was Shepherds Bush. It was extremely racially diverse, with individuals of African, Indian, Arabic, Middle Eastern, and a variety of other racial decent. It was also a noticeably low-income area, with block towers visible up and down the main road, and many cheap shops underneath them. This was a stark contrast from Holland Park, which was clearly a high-income area with very posh houses and high fences. White people dominated this area, with only rare spotting’s of people of different races. Kensington is very similar to this area, extremely posh and extremely white. It has beautiful spacious mansions, and police guards with machine guns confirming the richness of the area, and making it even more posh than Holland Park. Portobello Market is a mix between Shepherds bush and Holland Park. While it is very racially diverse, it is also a rather nice area, making it a happy medium. The Philip’s Angels and I therefore came to the conclusion that while less wealthy areas are mostly associated with diversity, and rich areas are mostly associated with white people, this is only true in the most extreme cases. When areas are of a middle income, they could either be mostly white or racially diverse, it just depends upon where people are initially drawn to when they move. According to the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is, by John Scalzi, the white people living in the wealthy areas of West London had fairly easy lives, especially the men. This probably means that they were able to afford college education from a reputable school and is possibly why they have plenty of money and live in such nice areas today. On the other hand, according to Scalzi people with a more diverse background probably had a more difficult life, and may not have been able to afford to go to college, and therefore could not get a high paying job. This could be one reason why areas of less income have more diversity.

Statistics back up these observations, looking specifically at the differences between Shepherds Bush and Holland Park. While 45.93% of people in Holland Park have a degree, only 37.73% of people in Shepherds Bush have a degree, showing that Holland Park is indeed a wealthier area, based on the assumption that people with degrees have higher paying jobs. The houses in Holland Park are in fact almost twice as expensive as the houses in Shepherds Bush, being £479,694 for a one bedroom flat in Holland Park, and only £262,476 for a one bedroom flat in Shepherds Bush. Crime rates are also significantly higher in Shepherds Bush than in Holland Park, which is usually expected from a lower income area (Shepherds Bush, Be a Londoner), (Holland Park, Be a Londoner).

Works Cited (in MLA)

“Holland Park.” Be a Londoner. Be a Londoner, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.bealondoner.com/en/areas/holland-park&gt;.

“Shepherds Bush.” Be a Londoner. Be a Londoner, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.bealondoner.com/en/areas/shepherds-bush&gt;.

Scalzi, John. “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is.” Whatever.

N.p., 15 May 2012. Web. 05 Dec. 2013. <http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/&gt;.

Aside by

  Operation: How to Determine Class Edits
A mission statement by Eliana Bernstein 

“We are so classy!” I say when I put on expensive attire and go out to a fancy restaurant with my friends. Apparently my usage of the term “classy” is actually indicative of the fact that I am not of upper class. Interestingly enough the process by which someone determines an individual’s social class is determinant upon the individual doing the determining. This allows for someone’s social class to be determined by either someone’s economic circumstances or that person’s cultural expression such as their apparel, accent and even diction. A prime example of this is if I say “lets have dinner.” If it is midday and I say this, most people would assume I am in the working class.

Kate Fox (2005, pp.77-78; pp.309-310) argues that class is a cultural phenomena, often defined by language and has very little to do with occupation. In direct contrast to this, Max Weber, believed that class is defined by occupation. Weber founded this belief on the notion that occupation takes into account social conceptions of status and the ability to command authority. Max said that the structure of class depends on economic inequality, power, and status, which are interrelated with occupation. Economic inequalities depend on income and labor skills, which people receive from their occupation. Power is related to occupation because the more money one has the more power or influence they have and income relies on occupations. A persons status can be different in there own community compared to a big city. For example a Rabbi has a higher status in the community he works in compared to a community he does not work in.

So which belief is correct? Do we distinguish classes through their occupation or their cultural expression? In all actuality both are correct and it just depends on the situation. When we see a construction worker working we first examine their clothing. Usually they are covered in dirt and debris because they have been working outside all day. This leads us to the conclusion that the construction worker is in the working class.  Contrary to this idea the construction worker’s economic status may declare that he is of upper class because of his colossal income. If we were to stop assuming things based on what we see and actually take into account the variety of other contributing factors we may find that our perception of class might differ greatly. This construction worker is, on a level of cultural expression, in working class. On an economic level however he is of a higher class.  Most people would chose to believe that the man is of upper class after learning about his income, but since we do not have this information upon viewing him, we would just assume he is of working class. Can we then conclude that we in fact indicate class based on our own perspective of someone and then once we get the background info we combine our perspective and the information to truly declare what class a person is in. This shows that in we do use both cultural expression and economic status to declare class and they in all actuality go hand in hand. So given the fact that I use words like “classy” and that I have a relatively low income one can conclude that I am sadly not actually a classy person at all.

Operation: How to Determine Class Edits

by

Operation: Modernity and the Holocaust

A Mission Statement by Rebecca Korn

At 14:00, Philip’s Angels were required to go to a mandatory meeting to learn about modernity and the foundations of sociology. Modernity is the way in which people perceive the world. This view tends to become more progressive and reject former notions regarding the world of centuries prior. The idea of Modernity gives people the sense that humans are in control. This idea has led to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism, and the constant rise of new technologies. All of these have achieved the end goal of making peoples’ lives easier. It was important for us to be knowledgeable about modernity because it is the foundation of sociology. Interestingly enough, it is argued by Giddens that we are currently in a phase of late modernity, or hyper-modernity, due to the rapid rate that technology is advancing.

After being briefed on the importance of modernity, all of my fellow agents split off into two groups to discuss the Holocaust and the sociological influences that led to it. We conferred about how a large number of Nazis and German soldiers used the excuse that they were just taking orders from people higher in command. It is shown that humans have an innate tendency to listen to people who seem to hold positions of higher authority than themselves than they would listen to an equal or someone they believe to be of a lower status. This is shown in the Milgram experiment where people thought that they were shocking other people. When the degree of the shock was moved up to a dangerously high level, people were more likely to push the button to trigger the shock if someone in a lab coat is telling them to do so because it seemed like they were in charge. When a seemingly regular person told someone to push the button, they were less likely to do it (Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust). Another contributing influence that may have added to the Nazis being able to do as they did is the theory that when put in charge or in a certain role, people tend to conform to those roles. This is shown in the Stanford experiment, where people were chosen at random to be prison guards or prisoners. All of the prison guards said at the beginning that they would not be cruel to the prisoners, but as time went on, the guards and the prisoners started to take on the attitudes that their uniforms represented. The experiment had to be shut down because the guards started beating the prisoners and treating them horribly. It is important to study the sociological reasoning behind the Nazis’ actions so that we can prevent similar things to the Holocaust from happening ever again. I think that people in the modern world are still prone to obeying superiors unconditionally, but if we learn that it is not always a good thing we can stop. If we cannot learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.

Work Cited (In MLA)

Bauman, Zygmunt. “Modernity and the Holocaust.” Cornell University Press, n.d. Web.

<https://blackboard.arcadia.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1333231-dt-content-rid-1597096_1/courses/FA2013.LONS_SOSC_143.LONS.CGS/Modernity%20and%20the%20holocaust.pdf&gt;.

by

Operation: Breaking Social Norms

A mission statement by Eliana Bernstein  

Everyone wants to be unique. They want to have their own personality, their own style; they want to stand out from others. If this is true, then why do most people follow social norms? Why do people conform to the society around them? Social norms are the behaviors expected for an individual to follow when a member of a group or society.

My fellow members of Philip’s Angels and I were assigned the task of breaking social norms on the tube this past week. We did push-ups, sat on the floor, stood on the seats, and even did the Macarena in the middle of one of the trains. The other passengers on the tube gave us dirty, confused looks. These passengers seemed to feel uncomfortable around our abnormal behavior. From a sociologist’s perspective it is easy to determine that we received these looks because we were not following the so-called normal behavior expected of passengers in this social setting. Some passengers avoided eye contact with us, wanting nothing to do with us, likely because they did not want to encourage our abnormal behavior. Another possibly motivation behind the passengers avoiding us was because they did not know how to change our non-conformist behavior. The passengers probably thought it was not worth yelling at us, as we did not cross the threshold of threat into that of danger. Yelling at us and verbalizing their discontent would only cause more passengers to break a social norm. They must have considered the worthwhileness of trying to stop people from breaking social norms if it caused them to do so. From this experiment I realized that most people do not consider it worth the risk.

As weird as it is to witness people breaking social norms it is also difficult to break them yourself. While sitting on the floor of the tube instead of the seats, the glares I received form other passengers made me feel as if they were rejecting me. I felt uncomfortable and like an out cast for acting differently. People probably believed I was strange for not following the seemingly obvious social norms. The glares they gave me made me want to conform, to rejoin society, and to sit on the tube seats in place of the floor. Society is made up of many different social norms, and when one doesn’t follow them they are frowned upon and rejected by society. The environment we live in is made up of many different rules that individuals follow in order to fit in, and when one doesn’t follow these “so called” norms one often finds society to be a much more difficult place to live in. We all strive to be individuals ,but do social norms allow us to fulfill that desire?

by

Operation: Stand Still

   A mission statement by Savannah Bishop

At 15:00 we, Philip’s Angels, did a brief exploratory investigation of the surrounding area. We separated from a larger group and traveled along the streets making note of prominent features. These included the Holborn tube station, a Sainsbury’s, and a bustling populace. It was the populace that most greatly held our attention. As an American agency, we practice many mannerisms that are highly different from those of the locals. It was one practice in particular that was highly distinguishing and garnered my sociological curiosity:  the behavior of talking to one another and standing still.

George Herbert Mead was an early constructionist who believed that the “Most human and humanizing activity that people engage in is talking to each other.” Given the behaviors we observed on our search this idea seemed to merit a great deal of consideration as far as their sociological ramifications are concerned. These observations are based both on our own actions and the interactions of the resident persons we observed.

Whenever we would stop to gain our bearings or discuss something we would form a circle so that we are facing inward and able to look at everyone in our group. This behavior is also typical of our peers and occurs with nearly everyone of my culture I have interacted with. Interestingly enough, I have yet to see this conduct exhibited by any individuals from the region. Through careful observation, firstly noted during this exploration, we found a very different action performed by said other individuals.

The Londoners, when stopping to talk to their friends or acquaintances in the public setting we observed, all tend to deviate minutely on a specific subset of actions. They stand off to the side, relatively near to one another and talk quietly amongst themselves. The aforementioned deviation from this norm primarily include: how close they stand to one another, the angling of their bodies either toward each other or simply in a manner that best keeps them out of the way, and the loudness of their tone.

The difference in the behaviors of the Londoners we observed and our own actions is likely due to a variety of sociological influences. In the following text I shall address that which I consider to be most likely.

The most viable influence in regard to these actions is that of culture. A person or society’s culture shapes them from the instant they are born and instills in them numerous social protocols that we follow without necessarily having any basis in practicality. Intriguingly enough, I find that both the behaviors exhibited by those we observed as well as us ourselves do in fact serve a purpose.

When we stopped and formed a circle, we were doing so because of several motivations: we were closing ranks so as to not be separated, allowing ourselves to best see and hear each other, and exposing ourselves in the least vulnerable position afforded to us. When the Londoners establish themselves so as to speak with one another in the same situation they stand against the wall for equally compelling reasons. These include: gaining an unimpeded view of the surrounding area, staying out of the way of the flow of foot traffic, and giving them maximum mobility.

In summation, while the actions performed by the locals and us ourselves differ, they both serve highly similar purposes. I have no doubt that in the future we, Philip’s Angels, will continue to observe interesting sociological behaviors while out in the field.