Week 6: Social Group Dynamics, Influence, Obedience, Conformity, Influence and the Media

C&S: Altheide 422-436, BB: Revisiting The Stanford Prison Experiment – Zimbardo, Behavioral Study of Obedience – Milgram

In both The Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s Behavioral Study of Obedience, people committed heinous acts or potentially heinous acts. They almost unquestioningly conformed to what was asked and expected of them, despite the consequences that may ensue. They were obedient to what was asked of them by authority figures. These experiments shocked the world. With proper instruction from a person who appears to be in a position of authority, people were willing to severely harm or kill others. There is the diffusion of responsibility—if something goes wrong, the authority figure may be held responsible. Also, there is the trust in the authority figure that he knows what is going on and it can be assumed that his judgment is more accurate and knowledgeable.

These experiments cause us to stop and think and remind us that we must think critically and independently. Though no physical harm was inflicted upon the subjects of Milgram’s experiment, there was severe emotional distress and the potential to kill people (if the shocks really were administered to someone). It serves as a warning as to how we may be influenced by authority and obedience. “Consuming Terrorism” discusses how politicians use fear and the media to influence people. How often do we take information for granted and leave it unquestioned? I know I have used the excuses before that “I am just going off of what I heard” or “I heard it on the news, so it must be correct” or “I’m just doing as I was instructed.” These excuses are meant to take any potential blame away from myself. Instead of responding this way, however, it would be more productive for me to critically think before acting so that I may properly know what I am doing and can take responsibility for it.

Both of these are reflected in the incidents of torture that occurred at the prison in Guantanamo Bay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO-eFPE-vw8

Week 5: Emotion and the Body, EXAM 1

BB: Stearns; C&S: Waskul, Vannini, and Wiesen 95-108, Orend & Gagne 137-147

               The body is a very private and personal thing, yet we learn about it and come to understand it in public forums. Like the women in the article by Waskul, Vannini, and Wiesen, we all learn to make sense of our bodies through different types of social institutions. Biology class, health class, and peer discussions make school a place where people learn to make sense of exactly what each part of the body is. Family is another social institution where the body is discussed and taught. However, these understandings become limited by what is socially acceptable and what is appropriate speech. Many women are taught only vaguely about parts that are not seen as critical to reproduction. Thus, understanding becomes very limited and certain taboos and stigmas prevail. Other people have an effect on how we experience our bodies and conceptualize them. Not only in sex discussions, but also of things such as tattoos. Other people’s perceptions become imposed on these personal things whether we like it or not.

               My experience with institutions and discussion of the parts of the body was very similar to many of the women’s experiences. It was limited to what was ‘essential’ for reproduction. Without getting too personal, it left me quite ignorant for quite some time. Without proper language or knowledge to discuss things, society almost pretends that they don’t exist, and for some women, they might as well not exist because they don’t know about it. Here is an example of how even private matters are socially constructed. Society gives us the proper language to conceptualize and make things real or seem real. Many women didn’t know about their clitoris (or enough about it, including what it is called), and to some degree, it might as well not have existed for them. They didn’t know, and so they didn’t do much about it. Many of the testimonies showed that simply after learning it had a name, masturbation increased. The fact that there is a word for something legitimizes it and makes it more acceptable and ‘real.’ We interact with symbols, like language, to make sense of our world.

               Tattoos are also personal and have personal meanings. However, when others see them, they perceive their meaning based on their own experiences and understanding and can then recreate the meaning behind the tattoo and impress their own meanings on the person who has it. These meanings are socially constructed. While a cross has religious affiliations, tattoos have often been seen as rebellious and defiant of the beliefs associated with that same religion. Thus, how is one to make sense of a tattoo of a cross? The person who gets it may get it to show their faith or religion, but another person may perceive it as an act of rebellion against that religion. Even personal matters are socially constructed.

Week 4: Memory, Intelligence, and Emotion

BB:  Wagner-Pacifici & Schwartz; C&S: Hochschild 51-56, Arluke 326-339

Required entry: Anniversary of 9/11.  Please follow these general guidelines, but tell a story!

-Read “Commemorating America’s Involvement in Vietnam” by Wagner-Pacifici and Schwartz.
-How do you remember September 11th, 2001?
-Use the reading to explain how our memory of 9/11 is currently being constructed by media, politicians, etc.

                     

On September 11, 2001, I woke up expecting it to be like any other school day. However, instead of getting up and getting dressed and brushing my teeth as I would for a typical day in the fourth grade, my mom had me come straight downstairs. All I can clearly remember is standing in my living room in front of the TV while Mom was in the kitchen, and watching the planes fly into the twin towers repeatedly. There was red ticker tape running across the top of the news station we had on, and there was smoke coming from the towers. There was a sense of shock, unbelief, and sorrow. At some point (I don’t know when), my mom explained to me that not just a couple years before, we had stood at the top of those towers. She explained it was in New York. She also explained that the towers were no longer standing because those planes crashed into them. She said that there had been another plane headed for the Pentagon that crashed, but didn’t make it all the way to Washington D.C.

I was young and confused and slightly disconnected from all of it. Sadness registered within me, and so did worry for our personal safety and for the safety of the country, but otherwise it didn’t affect me much. I didn’t personally know anyone who worked or lived in New York or Washington D.C. I don’t remember how the rest of the day went. I don’t remember being at school, or anything else about that day. At some point following that morning, my family had a conversation that Colorado (where we lived) wouldn’t be a target for an attack, so there was no need to worry about that. That was the extent of my personal memory and connection to what actually happened on 9/11.

However, as the last ten years have passed in remembrance of 9/11, there have been ideas and impressions associated with what happened on that tragic day. As more pictures were released each year by the media, the collective memory has been shaped differently from that of how I personally remember that day. There is a sense of national pride, unity, and coming together in a time of tragedy. There is a sense of honor and respect for the emergency personnel who responded. Now, it’s these people that I think of and picture when I think of 9/11. There are also things about 9/11 that we would rather not remember—such as how it caused a lot of tension, suspicion, and racial profiling in regards to Middle-Eastern Americans. This is something that the media didn’t depict and that memorial services on Sunday didn’t talk about. Similarly, the article read for class talks about how the Vietnam Memorial was constructed in honor of those who lost their lives, not so much about how our government and how we as a country acted in regards to the Vietnam War. We (meaning the media, politicians, and U.S. citizens) don’t talk about and remember the negative responses in both the Vietnam War and September 11^th, 2001. What we do remember and talk about are those who fought and lost their lives. We remember and choose to remember these events in ways that reflect our love for our country.

Week 3: Perception and Cognition

C&S: Zerubavel 23-29, Waskul & Vannini 41-50; C&S: Karp 70-77

We are constantly taking in information, perceiving it, interpreting it, and storing it. In a previous sociology class, I learned about how we categorize information and store it in order to better access it and interpret and evaluate new information. This is similar to the mental processes that Zerubavel discusses. As I walk around campus, I see different things: people, friends, plants, buildings, places, school supplies, etc. If it weren’t for classification and typification and creating islands of meaning, how I would interpret what I see as very different: red book, blue flower with 5 petals, large tree, small tree, different tree, tall person, Nicole, Julie, pile of organized bricks put together in a shape to create areas for learning sociology. It would make taking in senses and recounting my day and figuring out what is important very difficult.

Having categories is good for determining what is important in a situation. In the grocery store, if you are looking for Fritos, you would look for similar things, (such as other chips) to help locate them. In this case, finding dairy products is unimportant and requires no attention. Without the categorizing, someone might end up searching though the dairy products and every other aisle until they find Fritos wherever they happen to be. If I’m headed to class, categorizing what I see is helpful when I recognize someone I know; if they are in my sorority I know what to say to them, what to talk to them about. It is also helpful when I see different types of people, so I can easily figure out how to respond to them. For example, if I see someone who looks like a professor, then I know to be more respectful and professional. This is one reason for stereotypes: people are mentally categorized so that we can generally figure out how to act towards them, as with the teacher instead of a fellow student. That is, stereotypes aren’t always correct, just as not all types of cheese are located in the dairy section. Categorizing is just helpful, not always right. When we start to associate negative meanings and feelings with stereotypes is when we begin to have problems.

We learn to associate meanings with the different senses and categories. We first learn what is categorized as trash: old food, uneaten scraps, used napkins, food wrappers, torn paper, banana peels, and broken items. This is important when we are looking to clean up our rooms or after lunch because we have lumped and split items to know what should be thrown away. We have learned what trash looks like, and what it smells like! It takes time and habit forming to know that when we smell a certain smell, we must take the trash out. Some (like Groucho on Sesame Street or dogs) might like the smell of trash, but most people have been socialized and taught that trash has a bad smell and have attributed meaning to it. As kids, we don’t automatically react to the smell of trash by going over to the trash can holding our breath and carrying it elsewhere. It is through social experience that we learn that that is what we should do, that trash has a bad smell (we give the smell value) and to associate that smell with something. Garbage seems bad to a lot of people, but to some (like animals) it seems good. Or for some people, it may be the source of their next meal if they don’t have the means to get it elsewhere. The example given in class is that roses have a certain smell and we have been taught to associate that smell with romance, love, Valentine’s Day, and nice gestures, and that it is good. Not everyone likes roses, but because we associate it with something and categorize it with other things (such as love, hearts, and Valentine’s Day) it is thought of as good. One of my favorite smells is Old Spice because it reminds me of my brother. If it weren’t for that association, I wouldn’t care about it. The same thing goes for a lot of colognes and perfumes. There are many that I don’t like, but that, because certain people use them, they smell good to me. I don’t like the perfume my aunt uses, but when my aunt sends a birthday card or something and I can smell her perfume on it, it is nice. Same thing goes for my grandma—she once gave me a Bible, and though it is big and heavy, it is my favorite because it smells like her.