Durkheim Say What

This post will be responding to this news article from Human Rights Watch.


Thanks to Helena-Handbasket for this photo.

Globalization and capitalism have fundamentally changed the world we live in, some would argue for the better, others say for the worse. These social and economic forces have broadened the space for technological developments and communication while simultaneously causing suffering and rampant competition that often hits the most vulnerable populations the hardest. Locally, either because of race or the continuous cycle of poverty, minority groups work menial jobs for minimum wage with minimal (if any) benefits or protection, employed by enormous corporations - capitalism seems to have fettered them into the realms of the service industry. Globally, companies (Nike, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc) have targeted and abused the rights of poor men and (especially) women and children. What, then, does globalization mean for us, the individual bodies who are surrounded and immersed in it day by day? How do we negotiate the struggle between corporations, governments, and the people for dominance?

“Economic globalization has thus become a formidable cause of inequality among and within states, and the concern for global competitiveness limits the aptitude of states and other actors to address this problem.”Stanley Hoffman (2002).

“Nation-states and multi-national corporations are in fundamental conflict, as two modes of organizing the global social system.” James S. Coleman (1990).

The conflict between nation-states and multi-national corporations is a particularly damaging one. Both of these organizations are fighting for control - who calls the shots? Business owners that are backed by powerful, success, and wealthy corporations can and do oppose the governments of nation-states. It puts these governments in quite the predicament, more so if the country of that government is “underdeveloped” by global standards and its citizens are consumed by staggering poverty, war, or internal instability. These governments must choose between protecting and ensuring the welfare of its citizens and profit. I do not think we can necessarily pass judgements if governments choose profit - it seems to me that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, put there by capitalism.

“Here the key choice is between uniformization (often termed “Americanization”) and diversity.” Stanley Hoffman (2002).

Multi-national corporations are usually based in countries that have higher capital, e.g. America, and out-sourced to countries that don’t. They do it because it’s cheaper, and it’s cheaper for obvious reasons. One country gets richer while one country stays poor. I would call that blatant exploitation but some theorists have written that the jobs provided by these multi-national corporations are beneficial; it allows women access to economics, independence, and autonomy. But does it really? Women in impoverished countries are subjected to horrible human rights violations, labor law violations, and dangers to their physical, mental, and sometimes sexual health. How exactly does that foster independence? Aren’t the very forces that were “intended” to bring freedom just crippling them further?

What kind of dominance are we bringing to these countries? On a grander scale, if we want to discuss Connell’s notion that globalization brings intrusive masculinities to different countries, corporations are supporting a masculinity that still marginalizes and disadvantages populations that have always been marginalized and disadvantaged - women and children. The wages these people receive would not sustain them in America, much less in their countries.

To solve these problems is a daunting task, and if we truly want to make amends and turn globalization into the things it’s said to be instead of what it actually is, it is up to democratic societies to vote in politicians who are dedicated to changing our behavior and punishing corporations that do not follow the rules. We need to demand fair wages and fair treatment in our nation and in our partner nations. This could take several years considering the firm grasp that globalization and modernity have on our society.

This post was influenced by these theorists:
James S. Coleman - “The New Social Structure and the New Social Science” (1990)
Vaclav Havel - “The End of the Modern Era” (1992)
Stanley Hoffman - “The Clash of Globalizations” (2002)
Raewyn Connell - “Masculinities and Globalization” (2000)
Saskia Sassen - “Toward a Feminist Analytics of the Global Economy” (1999)

This post will be responding to this article from the Kentucky Kernel.

Seattle University’s campus

College campuses have historically been centers of both education and activism. Personally, I see no better arena to make a statement about social injustices and inequalities. Colleges around the state of Washington, the nation, and the world are often situated in the heart of bustling and diverse urban centers, making them the ideal place where faculty, staff, students, and community members can come together for a common cause if one is established. What happened at the University of Kentucky is just one example of this phenomenon.

The question of the role of the sociologist when it comes to activism is often an ambiguous one. While I understand that sociology is first and foremost a discipline of science, I have never opted to pursue an objective, quantitative stance in my short undergraduate career. I have always preferred theorists and social commentators who chose an opinionated, contextual, and intersectional approach for their writings. In my eyes, it is the job of the sociologists to investigate, understand, and identify social problems and then apply that knowledge to ameliorating them. As a budding sociologist, my area of interest has been historically marginalized groups of people, more specifically minority women.

“The only way of knowing a socially constructed world is knowing it from within. We can never stand outside it.” Dorothy Smith (1974)

Sociology cannot avoid being situated because it is the study of people and societies, and people and societies are always situated, especially for people who characterize themselves (or are usually characterized by others) as Black, Native American, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc. Race and gender are major “situaters” in the United States. Although I, a middle-class, heterosexual, White female, can make as many attempts as I want to fully comprehend what it means to be a poor, lesbian, Hispanic woman, I will never have that experience - my heterosexuality, socioeconomic status and Whiteness prevents it. Whatever description and interpretation I arrive at subsumes hers because of our different identities and my authority as a sociologist. I will make my own assumptions about the data, and that poor, lesbian, Hispanic woman’s true story is unlikely to be heard. We can only solve this issue through collaboration and discourse.

“As women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separationand suspicion rather than as forces for change.” Audre Lorde (1979)

“Each individual has a unique personal biography made up of concrete experiences, values, motivations, and emotions. No two individuals occupy the same social space; thus no two biographies are identical.” Patricia Hill Collins (1990)

The personal is inherently political, not in the sense of politics, but in the sense of power. Our differences must be seen as strengths, crucial pieces of the puzzle that would be otherwise incomplete without them. In much the same fashion that I cannot “know” what it means to be a poor, lesbian, Hispanic woman, she does not “know” what it means to be a middle-class, heterosexual, White woman. Together, we could combine our experiences and gain a better understanding of each other and our womanhood. Therefore, it is the sociologist’s role to facilitate compassionate dialogue among community members, students, and activists. Many sociologists are professors and the college campus can serve as the dialogue’s site.

This is how we can merge boarders and erase separation between women of all backgrounds, social locations, and color. This is how women, collectively and individually, can stand and claim a space of their own. We have to separate ourselves from a culture that has denied us unity and silenced our voices - and this can only be established through solidarity and security that will empower the self.

This post was influenced by these theorists:
Dorothy Smith - “Knowing a Society from Within: a Woman’s Standpoint” (1974)
Audre Lorde - “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House (1979)
Patricia Hill Collins - “Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination” (1990)
Gloria Anzaldúa -“The New Mestiza” (1987)

This post will be responding to this New York Times article from February 2, 2011.

I think it would be beneficial to take a few minutes and analyze the info-graphics below in order to find correlations between poverty, inequality, and gang related deaths in the United States.

Please note that firearms deaths include gang warfare, self defense shootings and criminals killed by police. Also notice that the age ranges from 15-24 and 25-34 years old comprise almost half of the total deaths in the firearms category - 35.3%.

It should become readily apparent that areas affected the most by poverty and inequality experience higher levels of gang related deaths, and therefore higher levels of gang activity.

“To say that the goal of monetary success is entrenched in American culture is only to say that Americans are bombarded on every side by precepts which affirm the right or, often, the duty of retaining the goal even in the face of repeated frustration.” Robert K. Merton (1938)

This topic is a complicated and multi-faceted one but we are surrounded by it everyday. Personally, I’ve seen increases in gang related activity where I work (Kent, WA) and where I live (Federal Way, WA). Part of this I attribute to the gentrification trend and “urban renewal” programs in Seattle, which are pushing poor individuals and families from their homes and further south into the suburbs of the Puget Sound - Renton, Kent, Federal Way, Des Moines, etc. I would never say that impoverished people are the reason gangs exist, nor would I say that all impoverished people are gang members. Rather, it seems to me that poverty creates a context where gang activity is a way to make money and gain status when more socially acceptable avenues have been blocked by various economic and social factors.

Before I can begin to make the argument that gang activity can be viewed as its members pursuing the American dream and thus belong to a broader set of cultural aspirations that has been routinely made difficult for them, we must first identify how gang activity (seemingly unreleated to the wholesome image of the American dream) is a product of American ideals.

In 1938, Robert K. Merton said of American culture: “the culture enjoins the acceptance of three cultural axioms: first, all should strive for the same lofty goals since these are open to all; second, present seeming failure is but a way-station to ultimate success; and third, genuine failure consists only in the lessening or withdrawl of ambition”. Merton defined several types of individual adaptation, and for me, gang activity falls in the type of innovation - it accepts cultural goals (money, success, power, and prestige) but does not follow its institutional means (not achieved through education but through violence, drug trafficking, and other illegal activities).

“Internally the gang may be viewed as a struggle for recognition. It offers the underprivileged boy his best opportunity to acquire status…” Frederic M. Thrasher (1927)

The average gang member has probably been denied access to the conventional means of attaining money, success, power, and prestige through numerous disadvantages - his or her race, his or her gender, the community he or she is raisedin, the education he or she completed, poverty, etc. For a person who has been marginalized and likely treated as insigificant by the majority, becoming a gang member holds the possibility of belonging to a group where social mobility is based on performance and loyalty. I would not imagine that anyone envisions themselves working a menial, minimum wage job where (if they work 40 hours per week and minimum wage is $7.50) they can expect to make a meager $15,600 per year. Let’s face it, selling drugs on the street involves an enormous cash supply and flow (and it’s an added bonus that you don’t pay taxes), and it’s been reported that successful dealers can easily make between $10,000 and $20,000 per week, translating into over half a million each year. But dealing drugs is rarely an individual enterprise. In the world of capitalism, the competition between dealers is stiff and too often extremely dangerous. The gang offers protection and organization from this chaos.

In many respects, gangs resemble the corporations and bureaucratic systems of the United States. They’re based on hierarchies where each member performs a specific task and has a specific duty to the gang. The lower status members are easily replaced (unfortunately, usually through death or imprisonment) while the upper division reaps the benefits and collects money and status.

The issue of gangs in America is an especially troubling issue considering what it represents. Personally, I view gang activity as a physical representation of a poverty and inequality that has long been racialized. Like the “Negro problem” of the 1940s and 1950s, gang activity reveals that although Americans will defend the principles of liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for all, there are factors operating in our society that have prevented and will continue to prevent certain peoples from enjoying these “inalienable” rights.

I do not know how to solve the problem of gangs, drug trafficking, or street violence but we can start by recognizing exactly how race (gangs are statistically overwhelmingly comprised of African American, Latino American, and immigrant populations), poverty, and inequality can systematically work to disadvantage a person. We can also admit that the American dream does not apply to everyone and that it is wholly unrealistic. The people dying as a result of gang activity are too young, barely adults, and it is important that communities foster feelings of partnership and support while emphasizing the importance of an education. I think it’s an awful and disgusting reality that there are children who grow up idolizing gang members instead of world leaders, authors, poets, artists, and social activists because they are made to believe that, due to their social location, gang members can be their only role models, and that gang life is their only path, the only thing they will ever amount to.

This post was influenced by these theorists:
Robert K. Merton - “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938)
Frederic M. Thrasher - “Personality and Status Within the Gang” (1927)
Gunnar Myrdal - “The Negro Problem as a Moral Issue” (1944)

This post will be responding to this articlefrom the Michigan Daily. It’s from 2002 - a little less than 10 years old - but this phenomenon has definitely continued.

If you’re interested, you can puruse through this forum and see what an array of college students are saying about this issue.

Last quarter, in my SOCL 302 class, I remember what seemed like my professor completely obliterating the pre-concieved notions of about half the students in the room. My professor was a very straight-forward, genuine woman, and she had the uncanny ability to tell you exactly how it was going to be in the real world. I can’t recall exactly what prompted this conversation, but somehow we all got to talking about graduate school. Adamantly, my professor assured us that if we wanted any sort of career in sociology, we would at least have to get our master’s degrees - most likely our PhDs - unless we were interested in doing quantitative analysis (which I wasn’t). I’d known that since before starting my undergraduate education, and while some of us laughed, I looked around the room and saw a couple extremely puzzled faces. They plainly read: “WHAT?! MORE school?!”

The point of this post will be to discuss the state of the bachelor’s degree. What I think people don’t realize is that your BA still means something but that meaning has changed. Because of the influx of students enrolling in college, and consequently, a 20% increase in the number of annually awarded BAs, the BA has become a prerequisite to even be considered for employment at a serious job. I see the BA as basically the new high school diploma.

But why has this happened? Why isn’t the BA enough? To answer this, we must take a walk down Weber lane:

“…stratification by status goes hand in hand with a monopolization of ideal and material goods or opportunities, in a manner we have come to know as typical.” - Max Weber (1909-1920)

According to Weber, bureaucracies are a definitive element of modernity - and capitalism. Bureaucracies are not natural but are created, characterized by hierarchies, arbitrary rules, regulations, and power gradations. These power gradiations create titles, and especially for the upper echelons, prestige . Consequently, those with better titles and status have implicit protection and security, while those at the bottom are easily replaced and do get replaced on a routine basis. Their skill sets are not specialized enough to receive benefits, and a few players at the topmost levels control the proverbial “iron cage”. Of course, this sounds like a Marxist analysis - the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat - but Weber’s critique is not as black and white. Instead, Weber accounts for the different levels of stratification and the nuances that are present in complex hierarchies. I’ve said it before: you don’t need a degree to become a barista. And what happens in these conditions? Rampant, ruthless competition.

A unique problem arises here, and it’s related to life chances. In our modern era, a BA is too general to warrant employment. Employers are looking for people who have a focused area of study and are specialized in their field. Unfortunately, not all of us have the opportunity or the means to attend college, particularly if you’re expected to get a degree beyond a BA. That translates into roughly six to eight years of post-high school education, and attending a state university, that translates into $120,000-$160,000, not including text books, room and board, parking, etc. Unless you’re lucky and are eligible for a scholarship, financial aid, or have parents that are willing to help with your expenses, it becomes increasingly difficult to fathom being able to afford a college education. In our country, the good ‘ol US of A, poverty is racialized. Go to any university (even those that pride themselves on being multicultural and diverse) and people of color remain a minority within an overwhelming White, upper-middle class majority. Combine key ingridents such as gender, disability (visible and invisible), location, age, and you’ve been force fed an intersectional soup of unequal life chances.

To be sure, there are sociologists and social theorists of the functional perspective that would argue that unequal life chances are a necessary evil when it comes to preserving the order of society. If we were all able to get college degrees and jobs in specialized, prestigious positions, who would collect our garbage, serve our food, or run our check-out stands? Durkheim would point out that although low in prestige of the laywer-ian or doctor-ian sense, garbage collectors have an appreciative prestige because we require their services. We need Suzie at the local QFC to bag our groceries just as much as we need Jake to dig graves at the cemetery - who else would do it? Certainly not John with his PhD in Quantum Physics.

It makes sense, but I find it a bit ridiculous to justify inequality, more so when that inequality is driven by a long history of White privilege, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and hetero-patriarchy. I don’t have a solution. But I will say this: a college education, no matter your resulting degree, specialization, or where you choose to attend, is never worthless. I’m a scholarship recipient, as well as the recipient of my parents’ good graces and financial support, and I do not have the words, nor the eloquence, to explain how grateful I am. The encouragement of my family is the only reason I can type this to you now.

This post was influenced by these theorists:
Max Weber “The Bureaucratic Machine” and “Class, Status, Party” (1909-1920)
Karl Marx “Estranged Labour” (1844)
Emile Durkheim“Anomie and the Modern Division of Labor” (1902)

This post will be responding to two news articles, one from BBC News and another from News Ahead.

Unfortunately, YouTube has prevented this video from being embedded on any site at the request of its author. You can follow the link above directly to YouTube to view it, however.

“White men are saving brown women from brown men.” - Gayatri Charkravorty Spivak (1988)

If you read between the lines, France’s new law (which went into effect April 11, 2011) is clearly not about gender equality and public order. Rather, I suspect it is part of the growing anti-Muslim and anti-immigration sentiments that have been a part of French politics for a number of years. The law also bans hoodies as well as balaclavas in public spaces, though I’m doubtful that people wearing these clothing articles will be as targeted as women of the Islamic faith. I personally do not agree with any form of veiling, but I do agree with freedom of religion, the freedom to openly practice that religion, and a woman’s inherent right to choose whether or not to veil.

Before I begin to dissect this issue from a sociological standpoint, I think it’s necessary to discuss France’s colonial history and how the prejudices of the past continue to exist. The majority of practicing female Muslims in France who choose to veil are immigrants or part of immigrant families from former French colonies (please see this link and this link for more information on population composition in France). It is illegal in France to collect data on ethnicity and race, but some sites estimate that the Arab/North African population is between 4%-5% of the total population; an additional 10% is estimated to be of Sub-Saharan African origins. Approximately 6% of the population identifies as Muslim. A wave of immigration into France happened after its former colonies were de-colonized, including Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco.

Read a handful of the comments on the video that I posted. It becomes painfully obvious that colonial “othering” still operates in France. From the YouTube video comments page:
#1: “Arabs and Africans are destroying Paris and southern France…Algerians and Africans routinely break laws, piss on the streets, sneak on the Metro, and defy French…” (As if White French people and your common drunk weren’t guilty of this)
#2: “These people can’t stand the way they are treated by [Islamofascists] in their own country, so they move to another and try to create the exact same thing.” (I wasn’t aware that Muslim immigrants were trying to establish an Islamic, fascist government in France)
#3: “When you migrate to a new country you need to embrace their ways, their ideals, their lifestyle. Do not bring your negative and foolish ways.”

“The colonist and the colonized are old acquaintances. And consequently, the colonist is right when he says he “knows” them. It is the colonist who fabricated and continues to fabricate the colonized subject.” - Frantz Fanon (1961)

In the colonial mind, the colonized are defined by what the colonists are not - the process of “othering”. The colonized become the object, the colonists the powerful subject. As an object, one does not have the power nor are they allowed the voice to construct their own identities. Rather, identities are created for them, and part of the violence of a colonial history results from the fact that colonialism (and domination in general) robs individuals from assuming a subjective attitude. This “othering” is readily apparent in the comments I shared earlier.

Says the White man: “These Muslims, Africans, Algerians, they are dirty, backwards, foolish - and we, the TRUE French citizens, must steer them from their ridiculous paths because WE know better. WE the MAJORITY have the RIGHT to make decisions for and judgements upon the MINORITY. They are like children. Oh, the nobility and righteousness of the WHITE MAN’S BURDEN.”

“My turn to state an equation: colonization = ‘thingification’.” - Aimé Césaire (1955)

White men in influential positions have decided that the veil is oppressive to Muslim women - white men must save brown women from brown men. But how do the actual Muslim women feel? Don’t they deserve a chance to speak? The woman in the video said that she would go to jail if it meant that she could keep her veil. I know that for some Arab cultures, veiling and recognizing when to veil, whom to veil for and doing so correctly is a way for women to gain social standing and respect (see Lila Abu-Lughod’s book Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society). Because of this “othering” and objectifying, women are denied their voice, and are spoken for by White men.

I’m not sure what else Muslim women in France who support the veil can do besides organize themselves into peaceful protests. Perhaps demanding the space and taking initiative to speak openly and publicly about their convictions can have an impact on the 82% of the French public who oppose the veil.

Keep in mind that freeing women from religious oppression was one of the reasons for America going into Iraq and Afghanistan. Did these women ever get to speak?

 
By artist Deborah Lawrence

This post was influenced by these theorists:
Simone de Beauvoir “Woman as Other” (1949)
Aimé Césaire “Between Colonizer and Colonized” (1955)
Nancy Hartsock “A Theory of Power for Women?” (1987)
Frantz Fanon “Decolonizing, National Culture, and the Negro Intellectual” (1961)
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988)

This post will be responding to this ABC news article.

Please watch this video as supplementary material (embedded below):

“We always imagine, and in imagining share, the judgements of the other mind.” - Charles Horton Cooley (1902)

Although tragic and inexplicably unfortunate, Tyler Clementi’s suicide serves as a example of how the construction of the self is not simply an internal process. Rather, it involves the reflection, imagination, and multplicity that arises from interactions with others. Clementi’s suicide also demonstrates the consequences that come from this process and the impact that the other has on the self.

The self is social and consists of two parts: the subject and the object. Individuals experience themselves indirectly through interactions with members of social groups and from the standpoint of the social group as a whole, the generalized other. An individual must become an object to themselves; this objectification allows for the individual to reflect upon their actions in the context of the other, much in the same fashion that others are objects to the individual. Therefore, we define who we are by reflecting on the percieved attitudes of others.

The individual’s idea of themselves comes from this reflection process, characterized by three stages:
#1: The individual imagining their appearance to other people
#2: The individual imagining how their appearance is judged by other people
#3: The individual’s resulting feeling about the self, e.g. pride or mortification

As Cooley once said (1902), “The thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon another’s mind.” For instance, if I wear a Christmas sweater in the midde of July, I may recieve strange looks from people on the street. By reflecting upon these strange looks, I may feel embarassed and go home to change into something more appropriate.

Despite its cohesive appearance, the self is actually multi-faceted. The self is situational and it can be divided up to include the many social groups that it is a part of. The self I present to a potential employer is quite different from the self I present to my friends when we’re at a party. According to Mead (1929), “We often recognize the lines of cleavage that run through us.” A person can have as many social selves as their are individuals with whom they interact.

Of course, these multiple selves and multiple interactions can pose problems when an aspect of the self is revealed in the wrong context. Goffman (1995) described this phenomenon in terms of “face”. When a person is in “face”, they are likely to feel confident, secure, and self-assured. When a person is in the wrong “face”, information about one of those person’s selves comes about and the individual cannot effectively save “face”, usually resulting in feelings of shame, inferiority and apprehension about the state of their reputation.

After taking these various elements of social theory into account, it becomes evident that Clementi’s suicide demonstrates the reflective, imaginary, and complex nature of the self. Perhaps Clementi was not ready to reveal his sexuality to the public (he had multiple selves) and when the live streaming video of him kissing another man was posted on the Internet, I’m sure he felt an indescribable humiliation. This humiliation would have come about from his imagining the percieved attitudes of others. How would the friends and peers around him who didn’t know about his sexuality view him now? Sadly, I believe that this reflection and imagined attitude led him to commit suicide.

In the light of Clementi’s death, it is important to stress the impact that those around us have on our self-perceptions and our developments of the self. Bullying and hate crimes need to recieve special attention and punishment, especially in our modern era because of the speed with which they can be done. The Internet serves as a breeding ground where unwanted information can be made privy to virtually the entire world. As Ravi and Wei’s sentencing continues, it is my hope that they serve the maximum sentence for their ignorance, cruelty, and violation of what I consider basic human rights. Clementi deserved dignity, respect, and safety in his dorm room, despite his sexuality.

This post was influenced by these theorists:
George Herbert Mead (1929) “The Self, the I, and the Me”
Charles Horton Cooley (1902) “The Looking-Glass Self”
Erving Goffman (1955) “On Face Work”
William James (1890) “The Self and its Selves”