Sociology Reflection Essay #1
Social Change: Altering the Conditions Under Which We Live
Evan Mowry
Probably the most important question one can ask when considering Sociology is whether or not people have the ability to change their current position in societal strata. This isn’t just a question encountered by sociologists, however. All members of society are eternally, if subconsciously, attempting to improve their lot in life. Many of the individual problems encountered in psychology owe their cause to a struggle with the forces affecting society, and confusion in separating what can be from what is. Simply put, determining whether or not people actually have any control over their lives is an important issue. No one answer by one person will answer this question for all, but a study of what effects society has on the individual and societal institutions can expand one’s view of the forces acting on them, and help to develop the individual sense of place that is necessary to understand life lived with others.
When speaking of society, it is only fair to use the only society I have ever really known, and the one that is most applicable to the class: that of America. If we are to assume that human existence is, first of all, existential, and not largely a result of random factors that exert an overwhelming control over our lives, then America is a place of many different entities that, less than sinisterly, attempt to exert strong controls over the individual.
From the moment we begin to understand concepts, and even before, American children are indoctrinated into society. This is probably not sinister in nature, and is perpetrated the world over, but it does raise questions as to the nature of America. In a country where liberty from others for others is held as gospel, the shaping undergone by the young by their parents directly contradicts this. Adolescence is likely the most stormy era of someone’s life not exclusively because of sexual tension and new, oddly placed body hair, but because some things about one’s parents’ view of reality and what one sees existing do not, and indeed hardly ever, truly jibe.
The central tenet of the concept of America is freedom, which naturally manifests itself in an attempt at Capitalism. Capitalism would, ideally, only result in the best idea, product, or service being applied to each job. However, it has developed into a system in which the most appealing idea, product or service is instead harnessed, with no self-imposed truth existing. Because it is in the suppliers’ best interests to appeal to you, honesty is frequently left by the wayside. In a society that encourages manipulation, it can naturally be difficult to grasp the true nature of things, and one’s own place in them.
While a significant influence is exerted over a person during their childhood by their parents, perhaps an even greater force pressing upon them is the advertising industry. For example, the average child sees 10 advertisements for unhealthy foods on television for every day of their childhood. If a parent were to “pitch” a healthy food, perhaps using a celebrity endorser, as was suggested in the film Super Size Me, at dinnertime every day for their entire childhood, that childhood would see ten times as many professional, “pure bred” suggestions for unhealthy living than their parents can make for healthy living. This is a testament to the influence people give to others who might not have their best interests in mind.
Religion, while an extension of parental shaping, is another distinct force that enjoys a great deal of influence in American society. I do not mean religion in the sense of an abstract, sinister power, warping the naïve minds of the gullible, but instead merely the importance individuals place on a community that only indirectly draws their beliefs from actual society. Speaking from a hopefully objective sociological standpoint, it is risky for a demographic to draw its mores from any defunct, or only partially relevant, source. For example, the bible; not only is it convoluted enough that the majority of Christianity cannot accept each others’ beliefs about it as their own, but it was written, to a certain extent, to provide an answer to specific societal problems many, many years ago. Answers, if there really are any for society, from so long ago can potentially cause more problems then they solve when practiced.
Again, though, it is not the entity of “Religion”. Karl Marx, when he disdainfully said “Religion is the opiate of the masses” did not mean, metaphorically, that Religion was wondering around forcing people to get high on it, but instead that people willingly placed what he viewed as an absurd amount of importance on something that did little to solve problems, and in some circumstances perpetuated them.
In his book Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson puts forth the possibility that societal ideas behave similarly to, and sometimes are a function of the behavior of, viruses. Small genetic changes can have huge impacts on the manner in which thought is produced, and that the process of evolution amplified this process. If you want to view this fantastical thesis in the most metaphorical terms, then isn’t too difficult to imagine that children are born “pure”; a blank slate, and that their parents “infect” them with ideas, as do societal institutions such as their government, religion, the functions of the economic system in whichever country they live in, and all the myriad of individual interactions that hopelessly tangle their influence in, and are influenced by, the others. These ideas then multiply in the cell that is the child, and are released when that child multiplies, and the cycle continues.
What effects these forces have on individual freedoms however, are another set of questions entirely, and whether or not they retain the freedom to change society is another still. It is tempting to say that individuals can make monumental impacts in the structure of society, but really, they never do. Society might change because of one person’s actions, but they aren’t really changing Society (with a capital S), but affecting the many building blocks of its construction. So, the important question to ask is not whether people can change Society or not, but whether people can make an impact on the lives and minds of their fellow man.
Because we are assuming that some free will remains, even in this sea of conflicting, overpowering sensations, it must be true that people are, essentially, free. One can recite moral platitudes about true freedom being a Tabula Rossa, and no such blank slate existing in America, but in reality Society exists. Society affects people, and by that I mean to say that people and the effects of the effects of their actions affect people, everywhere, not just America, and to define “true freedom” as both a worthy goal and a possibility is both nihilistic and naïve. Freedom, really, is the ability to work towards individual happiness, which is definitely present in America.
As for changing society, I believe that everything we do changes it, it is only a matter of understanding what we want it to look like to determine our actions. Too often people blame “society”, or attempt to make large, immediate, sweeping changes. Groundbreaking court cases and protests in front of the White House and their ilk certainly have their place in shaping what society “thinks”, but more effective is the slow, plodding living out of your ideals and understanding them; more effective still is a combination of both combined with interaction with others. This sounds trite, but “living a good life” is the key to social change. Throughout history people have not respected the reactionaries, the radicals and the revolutionaries for very long if they were not (or at least perceived to be) “good people”. Living through example is the least sweeping, but most permanent method of social change there is, and it is one that is certainly being left by the wayside in American life. Even in my own life, I find myself contradicting my beliefs through my actions…that to a certain extent is healthy; part of the learning process; even a necessary part of growing up. However, I see it too often ignored or ridiculed by others, and not taught to children.
Do people have the ability to think for themselves, and to do what they want in a society? Yes. There are certainly obstacles to the ability to ascertain what they want, but they are not insurmountable, and they will always remain in some shape or form. People eternally retain the ability to change each other and through it the ability to shape society. Of the utmost importance is that people retain the freedom to question the nature of these obstacles and their role in society. Only through the constant application of democratic principles in daily life can people strive for lasting happiness.
Evan Mowry
Probably the most important question one can ask when considering Sociology is whether or not people have the ability to change their current position in societal strata. This isn’t just a question encountered by sociologists, however. All members of society are eternally, if subconsciously, attempting to improve their lot in life. Many of the individual problems encountered in psychology owe their cause to a struggle with the forces affecting society, and confusion in separating what can be from what is. Simply put, determining whether or not people actually have any control over their lives is an important issue. No one answer by one person will answer this question for all, but a study of what effects society has on the individual and societal institutions can expand one’s view of the forces acting on them, and help to develop the individual sense of place that is necessary to understand life lived with others.
When speaking of society, it is only fair to use the only society I have ever really known, and the one that is most applicable to the class: that of America. If we are to assume that human existence is, first of all, existential, and not largely a result of random factors that exert an overwhelming control over our lives, then America is a place of many different entities that, less than sinisterly, attempt to exert strong controls over the individual.
From the moment we begin to understand concepts, and even before, American children are indoctrinated into society. This is probably not sinister in nature, and is perpetrated the world over, but it does raise questions as to the nature of America. In a country where liberty from others for others is held as gospel, the shaping undergone by the young by their parents directly contradicts this. Adolescence is likely the most stormy era of someone’s life not exclusively because of sexual tension and new, oddly placed body hair, but because some things about one’s parents’ view of reality and what one sees existing do not, and indeed hardly ever, truly jibe.
The central tenet of the concept of America is freedom, which naturally manifests itself in an attempt at Capitalism. Capitalism would, ideally, only result in the best idea, product, or service being applied to each job. However, it has developed into a system in which the most appealing idea, product or service is instead harnessed, with no self-imposed truth existing. Because it is in the suppliers’ best interests to appeal to you, honesty is frequently left by the wayside. In a society that encourages manipulation, it can naturally be difficult to grasp the true nature of things, and one’s own place in them.
While a significant influence is exerted over a person during their childhood by their parents, perhaps an even greater force pressing upon them is the advertising industry. For example, the average child sees 10 advertisements for unhealthy foods on television for every day of their childhood. If a parent were to “pitch” a healthy food, perhaps using a celebrity endorser, as was suggested in the film Super Size Me, at dinnertime every day for their entire childhood, that childhood would see ten times as many professional, “pure bred” suggestions for unhealthy living than their parents can make for healthy living. This is a testament to the influence people give to others who might not have their best interests in mind.
Religion, while an extension of parental shaping, is another distinct force that enjoys a great deal of influence in American society. I do not mean religion in the sense of an abstract, sinister power, warping the naïve minds of the gullible, but instead merely the importance individuals place on a community that only indirectly draws their beliefs from actual society. Speaking from a hopefully objective sociological standpoint, it is risky for a demographic to draw its mores from any defunct, or only partially relevant, source. For example, the bible; not only is it convoluted enough that the majority of Christianity cannot accept each others’ beliefs about it as their own, but it was written, to a certain extent, to provide an answer to specific societal problems many, many years ago. Answers, if there really are any for society, from so long ago can potentially cause more problems then they solve when practiced.
Again, though, it is not the entity of “Religion”. Karl Marx, when he disdainfully said “Religion is the opiate of the masses” did not mean, metaphorically, that Religion was wondering around forcing people to get high on it, but instead that people willingly placed what he viewed as an absurd amount of importance on something that did little to solve problems, and in some circumstances perpetuated them.
In his book Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson puts forth the possibility that societal ideas behave similarly to, and sometimes are a function of the behavior of, viruses. Small genetic changes can have huge impacts on the manner in which thought is produced, and that the process of evolution amplified this process. If you want to view this fantastical thesis in the most metaphorical terms, then isn’t too difficult to imagine that children are born “pure”; a blank slate, and that their parents “infect” them with ideas, as do societal institutions such as their government, religion, the functions of the economic system in whichever country they live in, and all the myriad of individual interactions that hopelessly tangle their influence in, and are influenced by, the others. These ideas then multiply in the cell that is the child, and are released when that child multiplies, and the cycle continues.
What effects these forces have on individual freedoms however, are another set of questions entirely, and whether or not they retain the freedom to change society is another still. It is tempting to say that individuals can make monumental impacts in the structure of society, but really, they never do. Society might change because of one person’s actions, but they aren’t really changing Society (with a capital S), but affecting the many building blocks of its construction. So, the important question to ask is not whether people can change Society or not, but whether people can make an impact on the lives and minds of their fellow man.
Because we are assuming that some free will remains, even in this sea of conflicting, overpowering sensations, it must be true that people are, essentially, free. One can recite moral platitudes about true freedom being a Tabula Rossa, and no such blank slate existing in America, but in reality Society exists. Society affects people, and by that I mean to say that people and the effects of the effects of their actions affect people, everywhere, not just America, and to define “true freedom” as both a worthy goal and a possibility is both nihilistic and naïve. Freedom, really, is the ability to work towards individual happiness, which is definitely present in America.
As for changing society, I believe that everything we do changes it, it is only a matter of understanding what we want it to look like to determine our actions. Too often people blame “society”, or attempt to make large, immediate, sweeping changes. Groundbreaking court cases and protests in front of the White House and their ilk certainly have their place in shaping what society “thinks”, but more effective is the slow, plodding living out of your ideals and understanding them; more effective still is a combination of both combined with interaction with others. This sounds trite, but “living a good life” is the key to social change. Throughout history people have not respected the reactionaries, the radicals and the revolutionaries for very long if they were not (or at least perceived to be) “good people”. Living through example is the least sweeping, but most permanent method of social change there is, and it is one that is certainly being left by the wayside in American life. Even in my own life, I find myself contradicting my beliefs through my actions…that to a certain extent is healthy; part of the learning process; even a necessary part of growing up. However, I see it too often ignored or ridiculed by others, and not taught to children.
Do people have the ability to think for themselves, and to do what they want in a society? Yes. There are certainly obstacles to the ability to ascertain what they want, but they are not insurmountable, and they will always remain in some shape or form. People eternally retain the ability to change each other and through it the ability to shape society. Of the utmost importance is that people retain the freedom to question the nature of these obstacles and their role in society. Only through the constant application of democratic principles in daily life can people strive for lasting happiness.
posted by evan at 8:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home