In a society where there are many “haves” and “have-nots” it is inspiring to see such a prestigious school fight to break down the barriers of social class. In Carl Marx’s conflict theory, society is viewed as an arena of inequality generating conflict and change. This is true for many pursuing an education. Often, lower and middle class families have difficulty financing the education of their youths. Either no secondary education is provided or families are forced to settle with what they can afford, not what they would like to pursue, or are qualified to pursue. "I think everyone in higher education is aware of the growing economic divide in this country, and the challenges that divide creates for institutions that want the best students from across the society," says Amherst president Anthony Marx. Amherst is trying to accommodate for those in the middle-class who have worked extremely hard to get placement at the school. They are provided with loans and financial aid; Amherst even provides suits to students for job interviews. Then you have students whose parents have been able to easily provide for them financially and are nearly guaranteed a great paying job after graduation. Ultimately Amherst is working to correct inequalities so that students can get the education they deserve.
Take Edinboro University for example, we all come here for similar financial reasons. We are given good educations but due to the lack of funds our environment isn’t as beneficial as some. I have a friend who attends Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. From discussing classes with her, yes her work load seems a bit more hectic than the load I have experienced but they are also provided with opportunities connections that we just don’t see here. This is strictly due to the social class. She has a friend who is music major; with his connections he has already become a millionaire, as a radio DJ. Students at Edinboro are lucky to get their name out there. When is the last time Bill Gates donated money for a new building on Edinboro’s campus? He has for Carnegie Mellon. It is obvious to see the divide of social class, and it would be nice to see it slowly disappear, however, I’m not sure if I see that any time soon.
What do you think can be done at small schools like Edinboro to help tackle this issue?
Why is it that this divide is so hard to correct?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Will the Death of Family Birth Individuality?
Religious beliefs aside… is it possible that the institution of family, more specifically the nuclear model, has died and been reincarnated as individuality? Not individuality in a sense of rebellion against cultural folkways i.e. piercings and tattoos (before it was cool) but individuality as it relates to the structure of family. More and more people are choosing not to marry and have the two and a half children. Instead people are opting to stay single, cohabitate or exercise their right to legally live in union with someone of the same sex. The institution of marriage itself is moving away from the “love will conquer all” Western view to a more capitalistic business venture. I believe the changing structure of the family in America is affecting the way younger Americans view marriage.
Of all of the institutions that contribute to the socialization of an individual, I choose to attack family because it is the first institution an individual is exposed to and in my mind the most important. The reason I put family on a pedestal in terms of importance is because this is where socialization starts. Family encourages conformity on a micro level. Familiy teaches individuals how to behave by the example set by parents and older siblings. The status of a family dictates where the children are educated and what media they are exposed to. If the family is of lower class standing it generally means that their child will be attending a local public school, where there is a good chance that over the course of their 13 year education (kindergarten included) the child will encounter things attributed to a lower class culture like drugs, violence and premarital sex. I believe these experiences will shape the lenses in which they will view the world.
-CAVEAT- The key word here is GENERALLY. I understand that there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part everything goes according to plan, so to speak. What I’m trying to illustrate is “the other side of the news” the side where everything stays the same. Yeah there was a school shooting at this high school but at every other high school, not highlighted in this segment, it was business as usual. -CAVEAT ENDED-
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think ones family structure is the end all in how a person will be socialized to view relationships in the future because I believe it is a lot more complex than that. For example, both of my parents are together, have four children and are living happily. They met in October of 1981 and were married by April of 1982. To my knowledge there wasn’t any exchange that cemented their marriage except love. I see things a little differently. I wouldn’t even hint at a relationship with my last girlfriend until she got a job. Things are different in 2009. I think it takes more than love to make a relationship work passed the honeymoon. It takes tax breaks, prenuptial agreements and hard work. Okay, the last sentence was a joke but you kind of see what I’m saying.
Discussion Questions:
1. What social institutions do you believe directly affect the family structure? Do you believe the affect of these institutions on family truly determines who a person will become?
2. What role does the acceptance, or disapproval, of the biological approach have on marriage in the 21 Century? Has the biological approach shaped what we view as a normal marriage?
Of all of the institutions that contribute to the socialization of an individual, I choose to attack family because it is the first institution an individual is exposed to and in my mind the most important. The reason I put family on a pedestal in terms of importance is because this is where socialization starts. Family encourages conformity on a micro level. Familiy teaches individuals how to behave by the example set by parents and older siblings. The status of a family dictates where the children are educated and what media they are exposed to. If the family is of lower class standing it generally means that their child will be attending a local public school, where there is a good chance that over the course of their 13 year education (kindergarten included) the child will encounter things attributed to a lower class culture like drugs, violence and premarital sex. I believe these experiences will shape the lenses in which they will view the world.
-CAVEAT- The key word here is GENERALLY. I understand that there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part everything goes according to plan, so to speak. What I’m trying to illustrate is “the other side of the news” the side where everything stays the same. Yeah there was a school shooting at this high school but at every other high school, not highlighted in this segment, it was business as usual. -CAVEAT ENDED-
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think ones family structure is the end all in how a person will be socialized to view relationships in the future because I believe it is a lot more complex than that. For example, both of my parents are together, have four children and are living happily. They met in October of 1981 and were married by April of 1982. To my knowledge there wasn’t any exchange that cemented their marriage except love. I see things a little differently. I wouldn’t even hint at a relationship with my last girlfriend until she got a job. Things are different in 2009. I think it takes more than love to make a relationship work passed the honeymoon. It takes tax breaks, prenuptial agreements and hard work. Okay, the last sentence was a joke but you kind of see what I’m saying.
Discussion Questions:
1. What social institutions do you believe directly affect the family structure? Do you believe the affect of these institutions on family truly determines who a person will become?
2. What role does the acceptance, or disapproval, of the biological approach have on marriage in the 21 Century? Has the biological approach shaped what we view as a normal marriage?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Yet Another Old Ass Woman Has A Baby
I can guarantee you that the title of this post was the third thought that came into the minds of 99 percent of the people who first heard this story. The first response was "What?!" The second response was "Why? Why would you do that?" (speaking to her as if she were standing in front of us, willing to be questioned). But is it the third response that is most lasting -- resignation. "Yet another old ass woman has had a baby."
In the myriad social variables among which we all live, it is difficult to place ourselves in the shoes of another person in our own society. It would seem an easy thing to do. We are, after all, reared with the same core cultural values, more or less. But even in our own society we are harshly judgmental of people whose ideas, actions and beliefs systems differ, even slightly, from our own. Culture, though the one common factor of people in various societies, is (potentially) the most divisive of all social factors and social determinants. It is culture which helps us to to decide what is good, right and acceptable in our social realms. Hence, it also defines what is bad, wrong and down right unacceptable.
Which brings me to Rajo Devi, Adriana Iliescu, and Carmela Bousada. My mother doesn't even know these women's names, but a discussion of any of them and their (old age motherhood) sends her into paroxysms of spitting tirades if incomprehension. She doesn't understand and, (here's the important part) she doesn't want to understand. My left leaning, accepting, outspoken, mother thinks that these women are at best, crazy, at worst very, very stupid. I admit, that I understand her point of view, personally, but when it's examined from a socio-cultural perspective of the life cycle it begins to make some intellectual sense.
They are all women. Yes, I know that this should go without saying, but it is the most important social variable of their stories. They are from India, Romania and Spain. How is it that they have all come to the conclusion that bearing a child as such advanced ages is a good thing to do? They are all women and in the lives of women the thing which is stressed most consistently, most ubiquitously, most obviously, most ferverently is motherhood. "What kind of a woman are you if you don't have children?" Look at the fertility industry in the United States. It is an industry, built upon the socio-cultural belief that women, above all else, must be biological mothers. Without motherhood, all else is meaningless. Right? Women who can't have children are viewed with pity in most societies. Where is the ancillary fertility industry to make men fathers; the ancillary pity for men who do not reproduce?
There are, undoubtly class issues at work here as well. Do we approve of poor women availing themselves of these services to have children? Would we look at them differently if their class standings were different? What about health and longevity? Does that make a difference when we examine their situations? How about ethnicity? Are some groups seen differently than others in terms of hyper-reproduction? These are all sociological factors and play a role in the women's decisions as well as our responses to them.
Discussion Questions
1. Discuss the importance of gender in reproduction in U.S. society. Address cross cultural perspectives. Are U.S. ideals on reproduction very different from that of other cultures?
2. Discuss the sociological impact of reproduction at older ages? What are the effects on societal structure?
3. What theoretical perspective work best in an analysis of the negative responses to these women having children at such advanced ages? Explain
Welcome to Sociology of Life Cycles!
In the myriad social variables among which we all live, it is difficult to place ourselves in the shoes of another person in our own society. It would seem an easy thing to do. We are, after all, reared with the same core cultural values, more or less. But even in our own society we are harshly judgmental of people whose ideas, actions and beliefs systems differ, even slightly, from our own. Culture, though the one common factor of people in various societies, is (potentially) the most divisive of all social factors and social determinants. It is culture which helps us to to decide what is good, right and acceptable in our social realms. Hence, it also defines what is bad, wrong and down right unacceptable.
Which brings me to Rajo Devi, Adriana Iliescu, and Carmela Bousada. My mother doesn't even know these women's names, but a discussion of any of them and their (old age motherhood) sends her into paroxysms of spitting tirades if incomprehension. She doesn't understand and, (here's the important part) she doesn't want to understand. My left leaning, accepting, outspoken, mother thinks that these women are at best, crazy, at worst very, very stupid. I admit, that I understand her point of view, personally, but when it's examined from a socio-cultural perspective of the life cycle it begins to make some intellectual sense.
They are all women. Yes, I know that this should go without saying, but it is the most important social variable of their stories. They are from India, Romania and Spain. How is it that they have all come to the conclusion that bearing a child as such advanced ages is a good thing to do? They are all women and in the lives of women the thing which is stressed most consistently, most ubiquitously, most obviously, most ferverently is motherhood. "What kind of a woman are you if you don't have children?" Look at the fertility industry in the United States. It is an industry, built upon the socio-cultural belief that women, above all else, must be biological mothers. Without motherhood, all else is meaningless. Right? Women who can't have children are viewed with pity in most societies. Where is the ancillary fertility industry to make men fathers; the ancillary pity for men who do not reproduce?
There are, undoubtly class issues at work here as well. Do we approve of poor women availing themselves of these services to have children? Would we look at them differently if their class standings were different? What about health and longevity? Does that make a difference when we examine their situations? How about ethnicity? Are some groups seen differently than others in terms of hyper-reproduction? These are all sociological factors and play a role in the women's decisions as well as our responses to them.
Discussion Questions
1. Discuss the importance of gender in reproduction in U.S. society. Address cross cultural perspectives. Are U.S. ideals on reproduction very different from that of other cultures?
2. Discuss the sociological impact of reproduction at older ages? What are the effects on societal structure?
3. What theoretical perspective work best in an analysis of the negative responses to these women having children at such advanced ages? Explain
Welcome to Sociology of Life Cycles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)