What is Sociology - Article Example

HI there. Since I don’t know your specific preference for cover page or I have left both blank. You will need to add this based upon whatever you have done in the past. That way it looks like the others. Also, I noticed that one of the articles from the text you sent referenced Michael Parenti. I have several of his texts and took the liberty of using one as an additional source to supplement the mass media argument presented by Gregory Mantsios. Also, the paper is a little long, so please edit out whatever you feel necessary to meet the 7 page criteria. I wanted you to be able to personalize it a bit, since you’ve used a different writer for the other projects. Hopefully this one will appear similar to the others and not raise questions regarding writing style, etc. Good luck, and please contact me with any edits/rewrites that you feel are necessary. The sociological perspective is the specific way that sociologists study human behavior, as opposed to theorists of other social sciences. Rather than focus on personality traits to describe both normative and anomalous behavior, sociologists look at environmental determinants of the actions of both individuals and groups. Sociologists share certain procedures with the other sciences, such as forming hypotheses, objective data collection, and meticulous interpretation of the results of their research in order to confirm or reject theories that are formed by observing human behavior. There are several tenets under which sociologists operate. These include the assumptions that humans are drawn to social interaction, that social behavior is learned, that group behavior is created by the behaviors of the individuals that make up the group, and that the study of a person’s relationships are vital to understanding the behaviors of any one person (Common Ideas, 2007). The process in which groups are formed of individuals is called socialization. The act of socialization occurs in various subtle ways and is a regular part of any culture. From early childhood we are taught that belonging to a group is important, and identities are formed by distinguishing “us” from “them.” As noted by Messner in his essay Becoming 100 Percent Straight (in Kimmel & Ferber, eds. p.181+) this concept of identity and belonging is especially strong in adolescence. At the time he questions his sexuality in the ninth grade, he is unaware that his sudden and violent rejection of his friend Timmy is a reaction to his desire to be accepted by a group, and the consequence of being ostracized for his homosexual feelings. This strong subconscious reaction underscores the grasp that socialization has upon each of us from the very moment of our birth. A more extreme example of the desire to be accepted into a group is Messner’s description of his interview with homosexual Olympian Tom Waddell and Waddell’s recount of wanting desperately to be a dancer, preferably in ballet. He realized, however, that this would be social suicide for a male athlete. The social climate of the 1950’s prevented Waddell from pursuing his dream and he instead sought masculine activities such as football, gymnastics and track. So ingrained was the social stigma of being gay that he did not announce his sexuality until several years after his retirement. Social status is another motivating factor in ensuring norms within groups. A person’s social status, ethnicity and gender all affect the way he or she becomes socialized. A child has no control over the class into which it is born, so studies of various classes of families and differences in child-rearing practices have been one focus on research establishing parental-influenced socialization. Research has shown that parents of different classes have different expectations for their children and how these expectations are to be obtained. Examples include education, peer groups and even acceptable employment upon reaching adulthood. In addition to identifying individual traits that have been shaped by group behavior, sociology also offers explanations for the interactions of groups with each other. Examples include racism and classism. Overt racism is still practiced in America despite affirmative-action initiatives in employment and education. Subtle examples of this discrimination are apparent in the practice of “white privilege.” White privilege is the preference, conscious or not, that is given to white middle-class Americans, especially males. It is a fact that white males commit minor as well as heinous criminal acts, but as Jensen states, “I smile, I am white, I am one of them. I am not dangerous” (in Kimmel & Ferber, eds., p.80). His perception is further affirmed by actions committed by all of us every day. When walking down a street at night, most of us are cautious when encountering an African- or Mexican-American. The man may be dressed well enough, and may not be staggering drunk, but there is nevertheless an innate reaction to be wary of this person. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we are likely to assist an intoxicated white man to find his way home or lead him to a café so he can sober up. Even among whites this privilege is awarded based upon the perceived or known class of that person’s family. Jensen acknowledges this in that “Some white people had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege” (p. 81). The American media perpetuates these class distinctions by minimizing the existence of the poor and minorities and ignoring the unique problems they bring to society. What little is said in media reports regarding this class is negative (more crimes by minorities are reported than crimes by whites) and reducing their existence to impersonal statistics instead of portraying families with children. Minorities experience the same problems as whites, including economic set-backs and drug and alcohol addiction, but these are reported very differently. In his essay Media Magic, Mantsios reaffirms the impression that unemployed whites are victims and substance abuse is a disease (in Kimmel & Ferber, eds. p.100-101). Minorities, however, are held personally responsible for their plights because they are lazy and have no self-control to inhibit their indulgences in drugs or alcohol. Racial separation is not the only way that the media controls the various castes in America. Society also distinguishes between the “ruling class” and the “working class” (Parenti, p.14). Parenti supports Mantsios’ conclusions that affluence is grossly unevenly distributed in this country, with the ruling class making their living off of the toils of the working class, rather than actually earning their income. Not actually having to work it is easy to dismiss the demands of labor organizations for better wages and working conditions. The social inequality imprinted through socialization and assisted by gender and class stratification is endemic to capitalism because the philosophy of capitalism depends upon emphasizing profits and materialistic ideals. In order to achieve this, it is obvious that not everyone can be wealthy. There must be a working class; they just don’t need to be exploited to the extent that they must organize unions and fight for fair wages and just treatment. There are many companies that promote employee satisfaction and offer generous benefits, family-friendly policies, and retirement plans to ensure that valued employees continue to be able to provide for themselves when their working years are over. Unfortunately, too many companies continue to exploit their workers in order to increase their profits. When it really comes down to it, how is one person supposed to spend billions of dollars? Rather than succumb to greed, the CEOs and other decision makers should recognize that there is a point to which wealth becomes ludicrous and instead of trying to squeeze another million dollars into their personal bank accounts, the money would be better spent on employee welfare and incentives. Compensation, or lack of, to the workers is how corporations manipulate their profitability. In order to save output of capital and thus increase return of profit, large corporations are more frequently decreasing wages and exporting labor. Workers may find themselves in the position of taking a wage and/or benefit decrease, or lose their jobs altogether. Even after accepting the decreased compensation, they frequently find their jobs being moved overseas anyway. Another alternative is that the workers will find their labor force cut dramatically, but the expectation of output remains the same or increases. By demanding more work from fewer workers, profits increase exponentially. As Parenti states, “By holding down wages, employers reduce the buying power of the very public that buys their products… weaker competitors are weeded out, unions are weakened and often broken, strike activity declines, a reserve supply of unemployed workers helps to depress wages, and profits rise faster than wages” (p.14). As an example, Parenti cites statistics from 1973 to 1997: while “worker productivity increased by over 20%, wages decreased by 22.6%” (p.17). This disparity is made possible by the process of corporate concentration. Sometimes referred to as monopolization, corporate concentration is in fact the control of the market by a small number of corporate giants. This occurs via mergers and acquisitions and enables prices to be more easily manipulated. Jensen finds the mass media guilty of this manipulation. According to public information, half of the media sources in America are owned by twenty-three corporations (in Kimmel & Ferber, eds. p.99), and the number of owners is decreasing as mergers, acquisitions and buy-outs take place. The result is that the messages put into the minds of consumers by newspapers, magazines, movies, television and radio are controlled by a minority of extremely wealthy individuals who have their own private agendas that are forced upon the viewing public every day. One of these agenda items is to convince us that the “owning class” isn’t as greedy and negligent to the “working class” as the workers perceive. American’s should be grateful to have a job – any job – and the use of welfare and other public assistance is shameful and to be avoided at any cost. Through manipulation of wages and profits America’s “owning class” is able to continue to achieve enormous profits while the majority of America struggles each day to be able to provide food for their family, have access to medical care, and perhaps hope for higher education for their children. Others barely earn enough to buy food and cannot afford rent for a place to live. While enjoying privileged lifestyles, it is easy for “rulers” to ignore such conundrums as the fact that “workers” who may be poor and unemployed go hungry while supermarkets and restaurants discard good but unused food. The food has been paid for and throwing it away will not create a refund, so why not just give it away? The cold truth is that such actions would upset the skewed balance between supply and demand, leading to lesser profits for the supply side. This would be a step in the direction of increasing the well-being of the poor, the minorities, and the lowest caste of whites. For corporate America, that would be a bad business move. Sociology is important in that is helps us to understand how we interact with each other and the causes and means with which these interactions take place. Such knowledge can help to achieve equality or keep the status quo of inequality. Either way, there are factual reasons for these behaviors and any excuses must be owned up to. In addition, this field of study helps the public to understand that certain aspects of their lives are not beyond their control and that they can make improvements in their situations, they can understand their neighbors and others different from them, and they can overcome their fears of those who are “different”. By realizing that all poor citizens – white and minority – suffer due to similar reasons Americans can begin to overcome their irrational fear and avoidance of this population. By understanding how class systems work and knowing the facts about how American workers are not supported, but confined, by their corporate employers labor groups have ammunition to fight back in the judicial system. There are many non-profit groups who do not care about making a large profit but instead want to better the lives of those oppressed by forces beyond their control. Without the study of sociology, none of these ideas would exist – or if they did, they would not have the backing that a bona fide field of science gives to their credibility. Despite the importance of the field of sociology, it can be argued that there are plenty of other social sciences to explain human behavior, so why add another one to confuse things? Most obvious would be that of psychology. Centuries of exploration of the human mind have already answered questions that sociologists pursue to this day. Such topics include what causes human behavior, how does one develop their sexual identity, why does one child turn into a psychopath while his or her sibling grows up to be a respectable member of the population? Psychologists and sociologists rarely agree on the answers to such questions, and it can be confusing to have multiple answers to the same question. One example is the nature-nurture debate. If the psychologists have proven a relationship between brain chemistry and childhood behavior, why muddy the waters by introducing the argument of habitat and parental behavior? However, working in tandem these two fields of study can address anomalies that are brought up during research. It is not uncommon for the completion of a study to create as many questions as it has answered, and many of these can be addressed by seeking information from other sciences. In the case of the nature-nurture debate, twin studies have been particularly helpful in demonstrating the importance of both the field of sociology and that of psychology in addressing causes of human behavior. As a legitimate field of scientific study, sociology conducts research that adheres to strict standards. In forming hypotheses, existing explanations for human behavior are often re-examined based upon new or existing ideas. Some of these ideas are based on common sense. The problem with common sense is that we develop our own sense if it based upon our unique experiences and therefore common sense assumptions can be narrow and misleading. When the results of vigorous research confirm what seemed obvious from the beginning, due to common sense, then at least there is valid scientific backing when explaining the theory to others. Common sense can also be compared to “gut feeling” or “women’s intuition,” neither of which are rational explanations outside of a psychic’s circus tent. Even if the concept of common sense was given credence, not everyone possesses it. Of those who do, quite a few either do not know how to use it, or misinterpret it for fact and act for irrational reasons. This is obvious in our eagerness to believe as factual anything reported to us by “those who know,” such as news or print media. To reiterate the example given by Mantsios (in Kimmel & Ferberg, eds. p.99) regarding the influence of mass media, “Americans spend an average of twenty-eight hours per week watching television.” He continues to state that when we are not watching TV, it is likely that we are listening to the radio or reading a newspaper or magazine. Such media devices form our identities for us and we place a dangerously high amount of faith in their content – to the extent that we think or act how the popular media tells us to. Although common sense would lead us to behave otherwise, American society is rife with sexism, racism, and classism. Such forms of separation create fear of the “others” when common sense would lead to curiosity and a desire to understand our differences. The study of sociology, while criticized by some, is vitally important in understanding our role individually and in groups. Rather than merely explain biological processes for behavior, sociology offers insight to how these process combine with group dynamics and outside influences to shape American society. Inequalities are explained and remedies are suggested. Sociologists strive to improve the lives of those affected by phenomena such as discrimination based on race, gender or social class. They bring to the forefront ways in which one group (the super-rich) influences everything we do (through media, employment, welfare, etc.) and tells us who we are and how we are to act. The disparity between classes and the false sense of security we as Americans have come to rely on is thrown to the forefront and we are given the chance to use this knowledge and resources to make positive changes to our situations rather than be brainwashed into filling the vacant space in the group to which we have arbitrarily been assigned. Fear of the “ruling class” leads to inaction by the “working class,” but as the general public becomes more enlightened, and more outraged at the atrocious greed of those in power, the possibility of social reform looms in the not-too-distant future. References Common Ideas. Author Unknown. Accessed 12 June 2007 at < http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2i6n1.htm> Kimmel, M. & Ferber, A. (eds.) (2003). Privilege: A Reader. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Parenti, M. (2002). Democracy for the Few. New York: St. Martin’s. Read More