Looking back to a discussion we previously had in
class about how, if someone was born in the US and taken to a different
country, such as Russia, and then raised to learn how to live like a normal
Russian person, the question that comes up is, would he/she still be a normal
American citizen based on where he/she was born? Well, no because he/she may
have been born in the US, but since they were raised in a different country,
their birthplace would not entirely determine what kind of person they can turn
out to be. For example, I’m born in the US and most people would assume that since
I’m born on American soil, I’d turn out to be like a normal American citizen.
First off, what is considered normal? Everyone has their own perspective of
what normal should be like and to me, personally based on my upbringing, I
perceived normal as not challenging the ideas or thoughts of someone with
higher authority over me. Things like using a computer to do my homework or going
to the theater on weekends wasn’t considered normal in my view. At least,
during my high school years. Near age 17 of junior year, I faced what most
people called culture shock, which is to be in an unfamiliar environment
different from someone’s normal upbringing. I landed my first job as a cashier
at a small burger joint and there, I was introduced to an embracement between
two people called hugging as a “hello” gesture and I learned that raising my voice
at other is a normal thing as long as I’m being respectful. Ice cream that were
mixed with milk and different kinds of berries were called a milkshake. It went
along with fries and an entree called a burger which consisted of lettuce,
special sauces, cheese, and a beef patty between two pieces of bread. On
weekends, Americans like eating burgers and going to the movie theater which is
a normal hobby of American culture. Fortunately, one day, my coworkers invited
me to watch movies with them. Thinking to myself, maybe they meant a movie at
their house like the way I watch movies at mine…? Ha! I was so wrong. Our
driver took us to a shopping center called a mall and for the first time, I got
introduced to the infamous movie theater. The room went dark with a gigantic
screen put in front of us as the movie played from behind while everyone sat in
cushioned seats eating popcorn. That was the norm of American culture, but that
wasn’t the norm for me-my Hmong culture.
Similar to James Henslin's article Culture Shock: The Arrival of the Hmong (Henslin 2012 38), I grew up being taught traditionally
like back in the days when women and men weren’t equal; when staying home
studying my cultural roots and doing homework was the norm. Stepping outside of
the house except for school or grocery were consider dangerous unless going
with an adult. When people asked me where I’m from, I’ll answered that I’m an American
citizen. Given that answer, they assume that I’m in sync with American culture.
Little did they consider that I might have been born in the US, but maybe I’m raised
differently or even culturally different? In contrast, culture shock is when
someone gets introduced into an unfamiliar environment different from their normal
upbringing. Whether they were living 5 or 50 years in a particular country,
does it possibly mean that they are a part of that country's culture based on being born
there? Even though I’m born in the US, I feel out of sync with US culture and
experiencing culture shock.
Today's day and age may not recognize the affects of social isolation. Symbolic interactionism is essential to normal personality development, interaction produces the social self. As individuals linked into society this social self is very important in human behavior. Symbolic interactionism is a way to adapt to the enviroment around you. For example a person that suffers from social isolation lacks the symbolic interactionism may be the outcast in a crowded room away from the other people in the room, due to lack of interaction with others during the developmental stages of growth were as, on the other hand. A person with the developed personality may enter the room and start introducing themselves to others.
Henslin, J. M. (2012). Sociology a Down-to-Earth Approach (11th ed.).
A gender role is a set of social and behavioral norms that are generally considered appropriate for either a man or a woman in our society or our personal connections. For example, men are usually out working making money for the family while the females are staying at home cleaning and taking care of the family. There are differences in opinion as to how each gender is supposed to behave and how their personalities relate to the social norms and which are due to cultural or social factors. Therefore the product of socialization witch is the lifelong process of inheriting how to act and think for ourselves (Henslin. 2011. 62)
.
In conclusion, no matter how successful women are becoming they will always be expected to have a small curvy bodies, cook and clean for there husbands. As well as men are always going to be seen being fit, successful making money, and controlling to their wife's.
Henslin, J. M. (2011). Sociology, a down-to-earth approach. (Eleventh ed.). Edwardsville: Prentice Hall.
Can addicts be considered deviant under the terms of sociological theory?
According to a study by Gresham Sykes and David Matza, social deviants are able to unpin themselves from negative social labels through utilization of five "techniques of neutralization."
These five techniques are all part of the labeling theory on social deviance. Which is centered around the idea of social view or reputation and how the views of others help shape the way a person will behave and act. Almost similar to how socialization is achieved, labeling theory helps to explain how negative or positive labels assigned by others help to shape behaviors of individuals (Henslin, 2010).
The five techniques are all ways in which deviants use to make themselves believe they are not acting against social norms.
Denial of responsibility and denial of risk/injury are two of the most common neutralization techniques used by addicts whom are attempting to remove themselves as social deviants and make themselves believe they are acting in a socially normal way. Many researchers consider this act to be self-deception (Levy, 2003).
Denial of responsibility is as the name suggests. In this case, the act of an addict blaming his/her problem on some other power beyond themselves. Such excuses as being victims of life, often citing some personal struggle in life as the reason they turned to drugs. The denial of risk/injury is similar to that of denying responsibility. The act of an individual saying that only because no one else is being hurt, their habit doesn't harm society or depict a form of social deviance. Other individuals state that they haven't any other choice than to turn to drugs, alcohol, or sex because the risk of committing suicide was greater without the drugs. Even some state that they are not being deviant because they have found a way to cope and be happy (Levy, 2003).
The following videos points out a use of Condemnation of the Condemners and an Appeal to Higher Loyalties.
In this clip you see the addict, Amelia, lashing out at Addison and the other members of the intervention group by using her past life as a way to help explain her addiction as "having fun." The use of the excuse of "wanting to have some fun" is an example of the appeal to higher loyalties. In this case, the loyalty is Amelia's achievement of becoming a Neurosurgeon. Also in the clip, Amelia uses another's acts and states that Addison is being a hypocrite due to her "drinking." This shows the condemning of condemners, accusing people whom appointed the labels of being hypocritical, thus making themselves feel like they aren't being deviant.
Works Cited
Henslin, James, M. 2010. Sociology, A Down-to-Earth Approach. (10th edition). Boston: Pearson
Levy, Neil. 2003. "Self-Deception and Responsibility for Addiction." Applied Philosophy, 20(2), 133-142. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5930.00242
We are
all born into an assigned sex. We can be male, female, and sometimes even a
little of both. We can’t choose our sex (with the exception of gender
reassignment), but we can choose how we want to act regardless of our sex. We
can choose our own gender. So, why then do most people act along the same set
of guidelines that are set out for a particular sex? This is because of gender
socialization. Gender socialization is how the society you live in guides your
behaviors and attitude based on your sex. This process that teaches us how to
act can come from things like family, peers, and media. I believe that one of
the most influential gender socialization factors is the media.
People
are exposed to the media a lot from a very young age. This exposure to
television, news, ads, video games, and movies can have a huge effect on the
behaviors and attitudes of an individual. We learn how society wants us to be
every time we watch our favorite character in a movie or TV show. A perfect
example of media socializing us is a classic Disney movie. In the movie
Pocahontas, the main male character is very strong and bold while the main
female character is petite and caring. This movie is just one of many media
outlets that teaches children how they’re supposed to be.
I wonder
if it’s good that people are slowly pushed to be what society expects them to
become. What would happen if people had more freedom from outside influence to
act the way they chose to? Would we end up the same as we are now, or would we
become completely different people?
Bibliography
Fagot, Beverly, Carie Rodgers, and Mary Lienbach. 2000. The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yJ43_5tJGycC&oi=fnd&pg=PA65&dq=gender+socialization&ots=XnRfcejPNB&sig=lyWAwluDYlXVJrV-r7ByvAqnWgA#v=onepage&q=gender%20socialization&f=false).
I would like
to start off by distinguishing between gender and sex. Sex is purely your body
parts. Gender refers to behavior and attitudes appropriate for males and
females (Henslin 2012). From day one we are guided in one way or another. Starting
even with the color of balloons you buy, or the hospital blanket they hand you
your freshly swaddled baby in.
There are
quite a few components that come into play when shaping gender. First and
foremost is family. When I say family, I mean the people you live with, who
parent you and take care of you. They are your first teachers, your first
friends or playmates. In the study of Goldberg and Lewis in 1969, they
concluded that gender socialization begins at infancy. They found this by
studying the parent’s interactions with their children during different scenarios.
For example, when the parent would set the child down on the ground, and they
were separated by a baby gate, it showed that daughters and sons were rewarded
for different behaviors. The daughters were rewarded for being more passive. And
the sons were being rewarded for being more active, i.e. trying to climb the
baby gate in an attempt to reach the parent. Rather than the girls being
rewarded for sitting there and crying.
Or if you think about being in the school yard, and a boy
comes up and punches another boy in the face. The boy who got punched would
probably be ridiculed if he ran crying to a teacher to tattle and seek comfort.
But would probably be somewhat idolized if he punched the kid right back, because
that’s a “manly” thing to do. Whereas if it was a girl who was punched in the
school yard, it would be appropriate for her to seek comfort, to be consoled by
a teacher, and wouldn’t receive any backlash for doing so. (Sophia Nathenson 2013).
Your family
makes many decisions for you between infancy and adulthood. Focusing on infancy
to adolescents, your parents presumably choose and purchase all of your
clothes, toys, bed sheets, shoes, color of your bike etc… So we then learn what
“we” should wear, play with, act or how we do our hair.
It is
estimated that we see over 25000 commercials a year (Henslin 2012). From age
1-12, that’s three hundred thousand commercials. We watch these commercials and
observe these typical gender roles and norms displayed in these advertisements.
We see a big pink shiny Barbie doll house and you don’t think to yourself, “I’m
going to buy this for my nephew.” You don’t see boys playing in it; it is
specifically targeted towards little girls. Then a young girl sees this and
makes the connection that that’s what she should like.
Here is a
great video I found on YouTube. It gave me a good laugh.
I would like to raise question as to, what if we raised a
gender neutral child. If the child was dressed in royal blue and red rather than
pink or blue. Providing gender neutral toys and tried to shield them from the
media’s messages. Maybe until they hit puberty and are able to decide for
themselves which, if either they want to identify with.
Sources:
Henslin, J. M. (2012). Sociology a Down-to-Earth Approach
(11th ed.). Sophia Nathenson lecture 2013
YouTube
In
todays modern society, it is truly hard to image mankind at a much more
primitive state of living, one that closer resembles that of animals of the wild.The fact is that there have been and still
are cases of children that in some way find themselves alone in the wilderness
to fend for themselves.In many cases
they are left in the wild at a young enough age where they have yet to develop
any characteristics of any modern society. In the case of some of these children, they
were “adopted” by some sort of animal or pack of animals as one of their own.These children grow to become a near hybrid
between the adoptive parent animal and a human.Their sensory system changes to better match themselves to their
parents.Their senses of smell, sight
and hear are greatly well developed in comparison to children raised within
human society.These children are
referred to as Feral Children.
“If
we were untouched by society, would we be like feral children” (Henslin, 2012,
p.62)? The affects that society has on
us are not evident to those who know nothing else besides society. Without society humans are left to fend for
themselves and their family. Survival
becomes the primary object over everything else. The human body is in a near constant state of
awareness for its own survival. James
Henslin describes a case that occurred in 1798.
A boy was found in the forests of Averyon, France. The boy showed characteristics of a wild
animal. The boy would growl like an
animal and also ate his food raw by ripping it apart. The boy show no indication of the feeling of
cold (Henslin, 2012). Much can be learned from these children of the wild. These children are the only true thing that can be used to determine what society does for mankind.
Source:
Henslin, J. M. (2011). Sociology, a
down-to-earth approach. (Eleventh ed.). Edwardsville: Prentice Hall.
