Friday, September 23, 2011

Lost boys

video Here is a website dedicated to the Lost Boys of Sudan in Chicago.
To speak about culture in a more measured way, think in terms of the way sociologists might break down culture. Culture is made up of material culture as well as the nonmaterial: gestures, language, norms, values. Did you see aspects of these cultural components in the movie? Have you ever met anyone from a different country? Did you notice or discuss any cultural differences? What component of culture (from the terms above) did those differences fall under?

I also like the theme in the movie about communal society versus individualistic society. We see the Lost Boys in the United States have food, shelter, jobs and schooling but they feel lonely. They miss their culture because they are so used to communal culture. That is being together with their friends and family, rather than living nearly alone in an apartment. This is an important revelation that our culture sometimes de-emphasizes to a fault; we need other people. Humans are social and communal beings. Do you see how this individualist way of living and thinking shapes our lives? How can we work to change that and satisfy our inherent needs for connecting with other people?

Monday, September 19, 2011

Lost Boys of Sudan




 Here is a description of the documentary we are watching in class this week ,"Lost Boys of Sudan"

(This) Emmy-nominated feature-length documentary that follows two Sudanese refugees on an extraordinary journey from Africa to America. Orphaned as young boys in one of Africa's cruelest civil wars, Peter Dut and Santino Chuor survived lion attacks and militia gunfire to reach a refugee camp in Kenya along with thousands of other children. From there, remarkably, they were chosen to come to America. Safe at last from physical danger and hunger, a world away from home, they find themselves confronted with the abundance and alienation of contemporary American suburbia.

In what ways does Looking at our culture through the eyes of these refugees help us to see ourselves in a new light?

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Sociological perspectives on Freaks and Geeks


We will watch an episode of Freaks and Geeks. The show centers around the lives of a group of high school students in Michigan in 1980. Short plug: Although it only ran for only one season, the series appeard on Time magazines 2007 "100 greatest shows of all time" list, and in 2008 Entertainment weekly ranked it the 13th best seies of the past 25 years.

Of course we didn't watch the show just because I like it. We are using it to learn how to apply the major sociological perspectives to real life experiences. Of course this TV show isn't 'real life', but it's a pretty good representation for our purposes. My hope is that, by being able to use this not-so-far-away-from-your-own-experiences example you will be able to look at the world and see it the way that sociologists do. And hopefully have some laughs along the way. After all, sociology is fun!



Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Honfest

The film brings up some interesting questions about Honfest, particularly what it means that one group of Baltimore residents dresses up and acts like a caricature of another part of the population–”hons,” or working-class women (so named for their supposed habit of calling everyone “Hon”).
From the Honfest website:
The Bawlmer term of endearment, Hon, short for Honey, embodies the warmth and affection bestowed upon our neighbors and visitors alike by historic working-women of Baltimore. HonFest is an annual celebration in honor of these women…
In answer to the question, “Is the hon a dying breed?,” Denise Whiting, creator of HonFest, exclaimed, “No! Absolutely not. Hon will live on forever in our hearts, and HonFest gives everyone an opportunity to celebrate and embrace their heritage.”
The festival includes a Miss Hon contest. Here is a photo of Miss Hon 2007:

The website’s description of hons:
…the women who vie to become Baltimore’s Best Hon are a vision of the sixties-era. They are women with beehive hairdos, bright-blue eye shadow, spandex pants and anything with leopard print!
But commentators in the documentary argue that some of the things being parodied–big hair, certain makeup and clothing styles–are still common, particularly in the working-class areas of Baltimore. From this perspective, it’s not just that people are mimicking or parodying the past; there’s also an element of class ridicule involved (since the style, taste, and speech associated with working-class women are being fetishized and parodied by other, often wealthier, women). This brings up a number of questions: Is this just good-hearted fun? Is it truly honoring these women, or mocking them? Does it bring attention to Baltimore’s working class residents, or simply treat them like they are historic relics?
(In)famous Baltimore resident and “Hairspray” director John Waters says,
It’s condescending now. The people that celebrate it are not from it. I feel that in some weird way they’re looking slightly down on it.
This might be useful for a discussion of social class and issues of representation–is Honfest respectful and fun or condescending? Does it make any difference whether some of the styles and mannerisms being parodied are still used by working-class women? Does it matter what the class background of attendees and participants tends to be? You might compare it to the controversy surrounding American Indian sports mascots for a discussion of concerns about representation more broadly. (

Sunday, March 13, 2011

From my friend, Chris Salituro's sociology blog:

We have been examining the components of culture. The non-material aspects of culture are often the most important but we are often unaware of them. One type of non-material culture is symbolic culture, or gestures and language. Here is a link to a list of some single hand gestures from around the world.

Language is important too as it affects how we think. When we think about something, we are using language inside of our heads so if we use certain words or do not have certain words, it may affect how think about things especially how we categorize something. This was first studied by Saphir and Whorf. Sapir-Whorf has been critically contested in recent years, but the NY Times ran a story about how there is still some merit to the idea of language affecting our thoughts. See that article here. Here is a book that highlights untranslatable words from around the world.
Here is a study explaining that with out language, numbers do not make sense.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Nurtured by Love or Matured by Nature?

As we begin to look at the topic of "socialization", It is amazing to me that so much of what we take for granted as being human (part of our nature) is actually learned from our environment (nurture). The "Wild Child" video about children raised without human love and support demonstrates the power of social experiences on individuals. The following website: Feralchildren.com is a fascinating source of more information on the topic. Please read the article on this site entitled, "Nurtured by love or Matured by Nature"you and comment on your impressions from the video and the website, and about how you feel that your life has been shaped by both your inborn qualities as well as by the experiences of your life.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Gang Leader for a Day


One of the ways that sociologists do research is by participating in the societies that they are interested in learning about. What follows is an excerpt of the book 'Gang Leader for a Day'
by University of Chicago graduate student Sudhir Venkatesh.


After nearly three years of hanging out with J.T., I began talking to several of my professors about my dissertation topic. As it turned out, they weren't as enthusiastic as I was about an in-depth study of the Black Kings crack gang and their compelling leader. They were more interested in the standard sociological issues in the community: entrenched poverty, domestic violence, the prevalence of guns, residents' charged relations with the government — and, to a lesser extent, how the community dealt with the gang.
If I explored these subjects well, my professors said, I could explain how the Robert Taylor tenants really behaved, rather than simply arguing that they didn't act like middle-class people.
Bill Wilson in particular was adamant that I adopt a wider lens on the gang and its role in Robert Taylor. Because sociology had such a strong tradition of "community studies," he wanted me to write the definitive report on everyday life in high-rise housing projects.
He also said he's started worrying about my safety in the projects. By this point, I had taken up golf as a way to spend more time with Wilson, an avid golfer. "I'm having nightmares, Sudhir," he said once in the middle of the fairway, staring out blankly. "You're worrying me, and I really want you to think about spending some time with others." He drifted off, never instructing me about which "others" I should be observing, but I knew this was code for anyone besides the gang.
I knew he had my best interests in mind, but it still came as a shock to me that I would have to widen my focus if I still planned to base my dissertation on this community. This meant that J.T. wouldn't be the sole target of my attention, and perhaps not even the primary target. A few of my professors were seasoned ethnographers, experts in the methodology of first-hand observation. They were insistent that I avoid getting so close to any one source that I would be beholden to him.
Easier said than done. I hadn't forgotten how agitated J.T. became when he saw me branching out into the community. I really didn't feel I could tell J.T. that my project was moving away from a focus on his leadership. By now, J.T. wasn't my only access to the community, but he was certainly my best access. He was the one who had brought me in, and he was the one who could open — or shut — any door. But beyond all that lay one simple fact: J.T. was a charismatic man who led a fascinating life that I wanted to keep learning about.
***
J.T. seemed to appreciate having the ear of an outsider who would listen for hours to his tales of bravado and managerial prowess. He often expressed how hard it was to manage the gang, to keep the drug economy running smoothly, and to deal with the law-abiding tenants who saw him as an adversary. Sometimes he spoke of his job with the same dispassion as if he were the C.E.O. of some widget manufacturer — an attitude that I found not only jarring but, given the violence and destruction his enterprise caused, irresponsible.
He fancied himself a philanthropist as much as a leader. He spoke proudly of quitting his mainstream sales job in downtown Chicago to return to the projects and use his drug profits "to help others." How did he help? He mandated that all his gang members get a high-school diploma and stay off drugs. He gave money to some local youth centers for sports equipment and computers. He willingly loaned out his gang members to Robert Taylor tenant leaders, who deployed them on such tasks as escorting the elderly on errands or beating up a domestic abuser. J.T. could even put a positive spin on the fact that he made money by selling drugs. A drug economy, he told me, was "useful for the community," since it redistributed the drug addicts' money back into the community via the gang's philanthropy.
I have to admit that J.T.'s rhetoric could be persuasive, even when I tried to play the skeptic. The fact was, I didn't yet have a good grip on how his gang really affected the broader community. On an even more basic level, I didn't even really know what J.T. did on a day-to-day basis.
One cold February morning, I stood with him on a street corner as he met with one of his drug-selling crews. I was shivering, still unaccustomed to the chilling lake winds, and trying hard to focus on what J.T. was saying. He spoke to his men about the need to take pride in their work. He was also trying to motivate the younger members to brave the cold and sell as much crack as they could. In weather like this, the youngest members had to stand outside and sell while the ones with more seniority hung out in a building lobby.
After addressing his troops, J.T. said he was going off to play basketball. He climbed into his car, a bright yellow Mitsubishi 3000GT, and I climbed in with him. We were parked near a busy intersection at State Street, within view of a Robert Taylor high-rise, some low-rise stores, Pastor Wilkins's church, and the Boys & Girls Club. Before he even turned the key, I mentioned, half-joking, that I thought he was seriously overpaid.
"I don't see what's so difficult about your job," I said. "I mean, you say how hard it is to do what you do, but I just can't see it being that difficult." All I ever saw him do, I said, was walk around and shake hands with people, spend money, drive nice cars — he owned at least three that I knew of — and party with his friends.
J.T. just sat for a moment, making no move to drive off. "Okay, well, you want to give it a try? If you think it's so easy, you try it."
"I don't think that would be possible. I don't think graduate school is really training me to lead a gang."
"Yeah, but you don't think I need any skills at all to do this. So you should have no problem doing it, right?"
It was true that sometimes his job looked hard. When his gang was warring with another gang, for instance, J.T. had to coordinate his troops and motivate 15-year-old kids to stand out in the open and sell drugs despite the heightened risk of being shot, beat up, or arrested. And it wasn't as though these kids were getting rich for their trouble. The B.K.'s, like most other street gangs, had a small leadership class. J.T. kept only a few officers on his payroll: a treasurer, a couple of "enforcers," a security coordinator, and then a set of lesser-paid "directors" who managed the six-person teams that did the actual street-level selling of crack.
But for the most part, it seemed that J.T.'s gang members spent their time hanging around on street corners, selling drugs, shooting dice, playing sports, and talking about women. Did it really take a self-styled C.E.O. to manage that?
I expressed this sentiment to J.T. "I could do it," I said. "Probably. I mean, I don't think I could handle a war and I've never shot a gun, so it depends what you mean when you say 'try it.'"
"Just that — try it. There's no war on right now, no fighting. So you don't even have to touch a gun. But I can't promise that you won't have to do something you may not like."
"Like what?"
"I'm not telling you. You said you think it's easy, so you do it, and you'll see what I mean."
"Is this an offer?"
"N——-, this is the offer of a lifetime. Guaranteed that if you do this, you'll have a story for all your college friends."
He suggested that I try it for a day. This made me laugh: how could I possibly learn anything worthwhile in a single day?
From inside the car, I watched as parents gingerly stepped out of the high-rise lobby, kids in tow, trying to get to school and out of the unforgiving lake wind. A crossing guard motioned them to hurry up and cross the street, for there were a couple of 18-wheelers idling impatiently at a green light. As they passed his car, J.T. waved. Our breath was fogging up the windshield. He turned on the defroster, jacked the music a bit louder. "One day," he said. "Take it or leave it. That's all I'm saying. One day."
Excerpted from Gang Leader for a Day by Sudhir Venkatesh. Reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc. Copyright Sudhir Venkatesh, 2008.