I have a friend in China.... try saying that and have someone believe you a hundred years ago.

No, seriously... try it.


Globalization (or globalisation for all of you weirdos) is the increasingly global relationships of culture, people, and economic activity. This is anything from a restaurant chain expanding from one border to another, or something a little more personal like a family migration.



I suppose there are quite a few people who claim there are negative affect of globalization. These reasons are pretty basic and most have to do with culture. An example of this is that there can be negative affects on the development of civilizations when they skip stages. When a highly developed country like the US or someone in the EU contacts and trades with a low developed country like Uganda or the Republic of the Congo, then people who are culturally and intellectually unprepared for development can't handle such a change which causes social unrest.


But, in my opinion there are more benefits than downfalls to globalization. With the globalization of a world economy into countries that would have been excluded otherwise,  it allows for the addition of significantly more material wealth. If it weren't for globalization countries like the UAE wouldn't be tapping their resources such as crude oil in order to fund development. It also allows for societal development, like if a civilization were to sacrifice humans for a deity, globalization would mean that they would become aware of the possible human rights violation (if you would like to consider that an example).


But I suppose most of my opinion is generated by my Pro-American interventionism views.

I hope ya'll had a nice holiday weekend!

I'm positively an interactionist!

The century long question..... Wich approach to sociology is better; Positivism, or Interactiois. Before I tell you what I believe (even though I'm already sure you know what I'm going to say), I'll quickly explain to you what each of them means. Positivism,is the relation of sociology, to natural and real sciences. Wherein sociology should be conducted in the same manner as other hard sciences. These persons will push for things such as questionnaires and statistical data. Interactionists, unlike positivists, attempt to understand the reasons behind the interactions that occur day to day. Interactionists tend to lean more towards the use of qualitative data collection and personal analysis to come to conclusions. I, am a positivist. I believe personally in the use of objective and quantitative data when it comes to social sciences. This is because I believe when people become subjective, any results that can be concluded from a study could have been interpreted differently, this not making it reliable. And I honestly have a hard time believing in something that would have different outcomes depending on the person reading a sheet of paper... Or asking questions.

Poverty? Not for my kids!

A main theory in sociology involved the cycle that of which is poverty. A lot of sociologists claim it's something people are unwillingly thrown into and is a result of our capitalist bourgeois nation... some other sociologists claim it's a perpetual cycle that is never ending and generation entrapping... and the last facet of poverty niche sociologists will claim it's just a temporary occurrence that is easily attainable and very much escapable (totally not a word).

I'm personally on the side that claims it's not a never ending cycle, and I definitely don't believe that poverty stricken persons aren't there because of the capitalist swine in charge of this country. I just believe it's something that happens, because in any country you visit you will find someone who is in poverty whether it's the communist Soviet Union of the 1900s, the uber socialist France of the 21st century, or even the capitalist U.S. from forever.

Not only that, but just with personal experience I know poverty, and can say that I in no way feel oppressed, I don't feel stuck in a circle of poverty, and I think given time things can change for myself.




Word out.

Pants on the ground, pants on the ground. Lookin' like a fool, with your pants on the ground!

Our topic this time around is the force and/or institutions involved with shaping popular culture. For this topic, just as many others have already stated... I believe the driving force in our society is High Culture. High Culture, is the style and way of living present within the high echelon/classes of society.
My reasoning behind such a claim, is that the second people attain finances, most of the time they will be used for living style upgrades... whether it's your car, your house, or even the clothes on your back. The only reason they have TV shows completely dedicated to analyzing and praising the clothing that celebrities wear on the red carpet, is to allow the rest of society know what the current trending styles are.
Now I don't personally believe it's all 100% one sided. There is still a little ebb to this flow... and my title does a good job of pointing this out. Popular culture even now has society wide trends that arise from the lower classes. In prison, you are forced to wear clothing without belts or means of supporting, which has diffused and spread out of prison, even upwards. You would imagine that this kind of fashion statement only stick with persons who either
1: Experienced this first hand in prison.
or
2: Can't afford belts and use hand-me-down clothing that are too large.

Yet still, on a daily basis I see persons who don't fit either category, but still let their pants hand around their ankles. This isn't something that occurs within the lower classes, but even friends of mine who are quite well off refuse to wear a belt let-alone purchase a pair of pants that actually fit them.


I suppose all I gotta say about all of this, is that it's all about the persons in power. Because if famous musicians were to act and dress a certain way, without a pause in the heartbeat that of which is adolescent teens, it would be mirrored not only in America, but most likely across the world.

Sociology... or Fauxology, it's your call!

I guess Symbolic Interactionists just aren't cool enough now a days to be considered members of the Sociology club...
The big question is whether or not since they attempt to explain and understand human interaction, they aren't a study of society.

In my honest opinion, I believe that Symbolic Interactionism falls under the category of a more micro-sociologist study rather than a macro.

To me, I think of it as simply as studying an ant hill. Sociology, or for the sake of this example; 'Antstudyingology', is when you're examining an ant-hill to discover and create data on what that hill does, and the way it works. But without Symbolic Interactionism, or for the sake of this example; 'Microantstudyingology', you won't know what the ants do, or their specific roles in society. If you aren't able to tell the functions of the worker ants, apart from the builders, or the queen... no matter how much you know about their reproduction rates and rates of expansion, if all of the builders were to expire and the hill would stop its growth, you wouldn't be able to explain the phenomena.

That got very confusing, but what I'm trying to say, in simple terms, you can't expect to just make a cake without knowing what goes into it first.

I find it to be a pre-curser of sorts, wherein you can't have much depth or understanding of overall Macro-Sociology without first understanding the individual.

Marxism or Functionalism... hmmmh...

     The obvious winner is Functionalism. Honestly while contemplating this in the 21st century if you ask most persons about the theories behind the actual frame you would find a majority believe more in the Marxist side of things. Just ask around.. I'm sure 8 out of 10 (or 4 out of 5) will say they believe 'The Man' is putting the low class worker down, or that 'The Gubmint' is supporting and running big business which is running all of our maw and paw neighborhood stores dry. But it is my honest opinion that functionalism is the framework which will withstand the tests of time.

     In a world in which people are becoming more individualized, women are building up new industries, and anyone can start up their own business, I find it hard to believe that the bourgeoisie is claiming power. Historically, in the mid 20th century functionalism was in a decline. At that time in America it was all factories and factory workers. There was the machine, and the men who oiled it (ironic to use functionalism terminology in explaining Marxism). But with the internet bubble, women rights, and overall autonomy and power granted to persons on a more global scale increasing, the dreaded bourgeoisie were loosening their tight greedy fingers on the hard working proletariat (whether they wanted to or not).

     With this trend doing nothing but increasing, I have a hard time imagining the whole Marxist framework rising to the top of the basket. But as a final example as to why Marxism is doomed to stay in the shadows.. look at history. It's had its shot at running countries and dictating ways of life, and it didn't work out all too well. After seeing its failure in a literal workplace I have a hard time imagining anyone pick it up as a broken toy.

Technology.. in my classroom?

My parents always talk about 'Back in the day...' and 'When I was your age...' when discussing school. I tell them about how I have online classes, and they never fail to mention their crazy nuns who would rasp them with rulers. I suppose my point is just that things have changed from then to today, with many benefits if you ask me!
Instead of packing a 50+ pound backpack with sorted random crap unnecessary for learning, but required by teachers (80 page notebooks, 3 inch binders that never get full, books, textbooks, packets, folders, loose leaf paper because notebooks are inadequate, more notebooks just 'cause, over 9000 pens and never a single pencil, colored pencils since we do artwork I suppose, markers for the same reason, and since I have downtime in my class I also carry a laptop around) we can now just bring what is really necessary for school, our iPads, a notebook for paper, a few pens and pencils, and a brain! Honestly thinking back to middle school when there was no technological integration with what we do, there is a stark and surprising difference between back then and today. Being a member of the STEP-UP program our teachers are doing a great deal in order to help further the technological integration into our classroom materials and activities. For example, right now I'm working on a technology based assignment; my blog.




The main and most stressed benefit of integrating technology into the school environment is that of real life application. Now a days if you enter the work force, you're either gonna be doing manual labor, or sitting behind a desk and typing all day working towards that inevitable carpel tunnel syndrome either way. But sitting at desks in school writing notes from a random teacher each class period then writing a 3 page paper by hand on the types of soil found in the different layers of the earth is going to have about a zero percent help to you in the real world. But now with the integration of technology it isn't just typing notes, it's making them ourselves, it's using the interwebs in order to research and discover the answers ourselves, not just looking in the index of our textbooks for page 58, then going to paragraph two where the section is bolded.... no matter how enticing that might sound.

I suppose my main argument is just that technology helps, and don't say otherwise.. or you'll be left in my generation's dust.