Hi Evan

1. I'm e-mailing about your final essay. Brad and I divvied up the final essay proposals, and I'm e-mailing each student whose proposal I have. Sections 1 and 2 are identical in all of my e-mails, whereas section 3 addresses your particular proposal.

2. The final essay assignment says that the "central problem for these essays is simple enough: to what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?" As with the research essay, your final essay should not be just a description or report on the topic. Your paper should be argumentative. There should be a thesis that you defend. Quoting once again from the assignment, "your job is to pick some area in which you think the notions of time and progress are particularly complicated or interesting. ... As the syllabus explains, we're particularly interested in topics that will allow you to 'relate modern ambivalence about [progress] to its complicated history.'"

3. I don't know the details, of course, of how you will develop this, but it sounds like a fascinating thesis. A powerful nation's concept of progress may lead to war with a nation that doesn't share that concept. I can certainly see parallels between the British Imperial era and the present. I think particularly of General Gordon in the Sudan being overwhelmed the forces of the Mahdi, a man claiming to be the Islamic Messiah, and then Kitchner's Anglo-Egyptian army crushing the Mahdi. And then there's the present unhappy day. Is that the sort of thing you are planning?
I have two minor comments/questions about word usages in your proposal. 1) In what sense can a third-world nation be a counterpart of a Western nation? The Taliban is certainly an opponent, but I wouldn't describe that group as a counterpart. 2) The other is about the phrase political violence. Is progress a political concept? Progress seems to me something broader than politics. If it is, and if it leads to violence, the notion that the violence is political seems to me too narrow.
What sources do you have?

JBT






To what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?

Final Paper
IS 2001-Section 2, Fall ‘05/Political Violence, Fall ‘05
Evan Mowry

In this paper, I will attempt to outline a new theory of progress; not a new understanding of the inherent nature of progress, but a theory of its effect upon the world. This perspective, which I will label progressionism, for lack of a more suitable term, views events happening at every level of humans’ lives as primarily motivated by consonant or dissonant concepts of progress. The extent to which we are living with worldview change brought about by the industrial revolution is extensive, and I will examine contemporary conflicts over “progress” and draw parallels between them and turn of the century models of progress. Further, this essay is itself, essentially, an attempt to build upon, extend, and amend former models. The primary empirical focus of this paper is the conflict over Globalization and its familiar concepts: Democracy, Free Trade, etc.
In order to outline what is an apparently new perspective, clarifications must be made of certain terms that may have become distorted, or distortions must be made of certain accepted terms. For the following pages, please read the following terms not as what you previously thought of them, but what they are defined as here.
Historically, progress has been a rather slippery term, which contributes to its seemingly broad, but actually rather specific definition within1 progressionism. Progressionism views progress as a concept of the past and present, and more importantly, the future. Furthermore, progress, while being an objective concept as an extant abstract, is a highly subjective perspective when applied to the real world. The best analogy that comes to mind is that of a vehicle; there is one thing a vehicle must do, and that is transport or allow for the transportation of something. However, were one to ask another for an example of a vehicle, responses would vary widely, from something as obvious as an automobile to something as subtle as a road. Within the framework of the above example, and continuing on throughout the paper, “progress” will take the place of vehicle, and “progress ideals” will take the place of the myriad individual responses, such as cars and roads.
Progressionism has a much broader concept of politics than is currently fashionable; it does not limit politics in a society to city councils, or dictators, or international trade agreements. Politics is the everyday interplay of multiple progress ideals, at all levels of human behavior. International trade agreements are certainly political, as are classroom discussions, as are religious gatherings; playground antics as well are political.
Progressionism does not take a positive or negative view of progress, but instead classifies it merely as change that is perceived negatively or positively by different people. Progressive ideals always advocate some level of change in the future. This is not to say that conflict cannot arise from a progressive ideal and traditionalist ideals: people disagree just as much over the benefits or consequences of change as they do what sort of change should happen.
The two hundred-some year span of the Industrial Revolution has had two main effects. Primarily, it vocalized progress as an objective concept. Individuals during the turn of the century most likely didn’t view it this way, but for an unclear reason: perhaps it was the amount of minds focusing on the future as an attainable goal; perhaps it was the anthropological comparison of “primitive” cultures to those of Europe and the United States, a sense of possible betterment was engendered. For the first time, people began to think about the future as a “better” place than the present. Perhaps individual progress ideals were technological; perhaps social, some were undoubtedly spiritual, but whatever path they took, they all saw the next day, month, year, or century as a potentially better “place” in time than their current state.
Secondly, Colonialism was, in effect, the grandfather of the current state of our world. The domination of resources outside of traditional borders allowed for more colonies, and hence more economic development. This evolved, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, into Imperialism, as influxes of resources graduated from a part of the great game of nation states to the game of nation states due to the polarizing, and admittedly invigorating, effect of industry on governments’ policies, and is currently manifested as Globalism, which is essentially a reincarnation of Colonialism.
In the period of time since the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has emerged as the Global superpower of the day, much as Britain was 100 years ago. American corporations such as WalMart, as a matter of course, purchase low-cost goods or services from countries with weaker economies-per-capita (WalMart has the dubious distinction of importing 10% of US imports from China in 2002 alone (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html)), and profit from them by re-selling them in the markets of stronger economies (primarily Europe, the United States, and Canada), with little benefit to China or other comparable countries. Further, Globalism has combined the Colonial ideal of massive influxes of raw or semi-complete material from less-developed nations with classical liberal free-market theory, which has the effect of expanding consumer markets to every locale possible. Companies like WalMart and McDonald’s are no longer “American” companies, in that they sell their product or service to citizens of many nations: McDonald’s website asks visitors to select their “country/market” from a list of 62 nations.
This globalization of trade has the effect of introducing (and in many minds, forcing) Western culture into societies that want little or no part of it. The introduction of America-provided jobs to a developing or third-world nation is often a double-edged sword, as the companies do not pay “American” wages (which would almost always be higher) and promote Western free-market ideals, western eating habits, and, most importantly, western progress ideals.
Is this, then, progress? From the perspective of a stereotypical American, of course it is. Globalism means that, in the future, goods will be cheaper, standards of living will be higher, democracy (our championed political system) will engender peaceful resolution of disagreement between nations and ethnic groups previously at odds, and philosophical conclusions that have been accepted by our country such as racial, gender, and economic equality will be accepted by the whole world. After all, once a hungry person discovers a new, good, food source (a fruit, if you will, for dramatic symbolism) isn’t it natural to share that fruit with those they love or depend upon?
Progressionism does not judge these progress ideals. The cynical tone of the previous paragraph was to illustrate that, in keeping with the idea that progress has no absolute positive value, it is simply change. Gender equality is a welcome change to most Americans, but many, less “advanced” cultures would see it as unnatural. It is in these cultural clashes between American or Western philosophical progress ideals and those of the rest of the world that a new, Cold War-esque conflict has arisen. Those who disagree with any of these tenants of the American progress ideal will likely fight back in order to maintain their current state or to unseat the future that Globalism has set and replace it with their own.

Hi Evan

1. I'm e-mailing about your final essay. Brad and I divvied up the final essay proposals, and I'm e-mailing each student whose proposal I have. Sections 1 and 2 are identical in all of my e-mails, whereas section 3 addresses your particular proposal.

2. The final essay assignment says that the "central problem for these essays is simple enough: to what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?" As with the research essay, your final essay should not be just a description or report on the topic. Your paper should be argumentative. There should be a thesis that you defend. Quoting once again from the assignment, "your job is to pick some area in which you think the notions of time and progress are particularly complicated or interesting. ... As the syllabus explains, we're particularly interested in topics that will allow you to 'relate modern ambivalence about [progress] to its complicated history.'"

3. I don't know the details, of course, of how you will develop this, but it sounds like a fascinating thesis. A powerful nation's concept of progress may lead to war with a nation that doesn't share that concept. I can certainly see parallels between the British Imperial era and the present. I think particularly of General Gordon in the Sudan being overwhelmed the forces of the Mahdi, a man claiming to be the Islamic Messiah, and then Kitchner's Anglo-Egyptian army crushing the Mahdi. And then there's the present unhappy day. Is that the sort of thing you are planning?
I have two minor comments/questions about word usages in your proposal. 1) In what sense can a third-world nation be a counterpart of a Western nation? The Taliban is certainly an opponent, but I wouldn't describe that group as a counterpart. 2) The other is about the phrase political violence. Is progress a political concept? Progress seems to me something broader than politics. If it is, and if it leads to violence, the notion that the violence is political seems to me too narrow.
What sources do you have?

JBT






To what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?

Final Paper
IS 2001-Section 2, Fall ‘05/Political Violence, Fall ‘05
Evan Mowry

In this paper, I will attempt to outline a new theory of progress; not a new understanding of the inherent nature of progress, but a theory of its effect upon the world. This perspective, which I will label progressionism, for lack of a more suitable term, views events happening at every level of humans’ lives as primarily motivated by consonant or dissonant concepts of progress. The extent to which we are living with worldview change brought about by the industrial revolution is extensive, and I will examine contemporary conflicts over “progress” and draw parallels between them and turn of the century models of progress. Further, this essay is itself, essentially, an attempt to build upon, extend, and amend former models. The primary empirical focus of this paper is the conflict over Globalization and its familiar concepts: Democracy, Free Trade, etc.
In order to outline what is an apparently new perspective, clarifications must be made of certain terms that may have become distorted, or distortions must be made of certain accepted terms. For the following pages, please read the following terms not as what you previously thought of them, but what they are defined as here.
Historically, progress has been a rather slippery term, which contributes to its seemingly broad, but actually rather specific definition within1 progressionism. Progressionism views progress as a concept of the past and present, and more importantly, the future. Furthermore, progress, while being an objective concept as an extant abstract, is a highly subjective perspective when applied to the real world. The best analogy that comes to mind is that of a vehicle; there is one thing a vehicle must do, and that is transport or allow for the transportation of something. However, were one to ask another for an example of a vehicle, responses would vary widely, from something as obvious as an automobile to something as subtle as a road. Within the framework of the above example, and continuing on throughout the paper, “progress” will take the place of vehicle, and “progress ideals” will take the place of the myriad individual responses, such as cars and roads.
Progressionism has a much broader concept of politics than is currently fashionable; it does not limit politics in a society to city councils, or dictators, or international trade agreements. Politics is the everyday interplay of multiple progress ideals, at all levels of human behavior. International trade agreements are certainly political, as are classroom discussions, as are religious gatherings; playground antics as well are political.
Progressionism does not take a positive or negative view of progress, but instead classifies it merely as change that is perceived negatively or positively by different people. Progressive ideals always advocate some level of change in the future. This is not to say that conflict cannot arise from a progressive ideal and traditionalist ideals: people disagree just as much over the benefits or consequences of change as they do what sort of change should happen.
The two hundred-some year span of the Industrial Revolution has had two main effects. Primarily, it vocalized progress as an objective concept. Individuals during the turn of the century most likely didn’t view it this way, but for an unclear reason: perhaps it was the amount of minds focusing on the future as an attainable goal; perhaps it was the anthropological comparison of “primitive” cultures to those of Europe and the United States, a sense of possible betterment was engendered. For the first time, people began to think about the future as a “better” place than the present. Perhaps individual progress ideals were technological; perhaps social, some were undoubtedly spiritual, but whatever path they took, they all saw the next day, month, year, or century as a potentially better “place” in time than their current state.
Secondly, Colonialism was, in effect, the grandfather of the current state of our world. The domination of resources outside of traditional borders allowed for more colonies, and hence more economic development. This evolved, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, into Imperialism, as influxes of resources graduated from a part of the great game of nation states to the game of nation states due to the polarizing, and admittedly invigorating, effect of industry on governments’ policies, and is currently manifested as Globalism, which is essentially a reincarnation of Colonialism.
In the period of time since the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has emerged as the Global superpower of the day, much as Britain was 100 years ago. The United States,

Response Paper #3
Sociology of Deviance
Evan Mowry

In the reading “The World According to NAMBLA”, the author is attempting to explain the ways in which the members of NAMBLA justify and rationalize their deviant behavior and/or beliefs. The author outlines and provides examples of four strategies NAMBLA’s members use to rationalize their beliefs, those of condemnation of the condemner, denial of injury, appeal of higher loyalties, and denial of the victim. In doing so, the author generalizes the specific case of NAMBLA, and provides an explanation of rationalization relevant to all instances of deviant and normal human behavior.
While reading this chapter, I was struck by the audacity that society labels things as harmful, when they could in fact not be. I began to critically examine concepts most people take for granted, like age of consent, or the accepted “damage” that is done by sexual activity between children and adults, and really distinguish the many viewpoints possible in those situations from a socially acceptable paradigm of “right” and “wrong”. In simple terms, what struck me most about this reading was how readily I understood the positions of the NAMBLA members, and how uncomfortable that made me feel, despite believing that I disagreed with them.
I agree wth the author’s main premise, that, when a belief held by a person or group is unpopular with the ruling societal consensus, that that group or person has “…a vested interest in justifying and thereby normalizing its philosophy and…practices.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 116). People are always attempting to describe their thought processes to those who assault their philosophical positions in order to elicit empathy, and by inference, societal acceptance. Outliers aside, I believe that it is an inherent urge for members of a society to attempt to belong to or even change a society rather than remove themselves from it.
I do not disagree with the authors so much as I wish they would have extended their analysis of rationalization beyond deviance and at least hinted that the desire to rationalize one’s behavior does not begin where societal norms end, and does not end where they begin. Most members of a society attempt to blend into the fabric of it, their status as acceptable or not regardless.
Because of its analysis of the seemingly universal drive for rationalization, and because this reading attempted to generalize specific examples of rationalization tactics to much broader themes, it has a wide application to the sociological study of deviance on the whole. Examples of “explanations” for deviant behavior, from the perspective of the deviant actors themselves, are present in the vast majority of types of social deviance, and so this reading sheds light on the vast majority of cases encompassed by “the sociological study of deviance”.
In addition to describing common themes of rationalization, this reading also highlights the deep intolerance contemporary western society has for any sexual activity outside the norm. By using words like “taboo” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 105) and “trauma” (pp. 109) to describe popular perceptions towards the nature and effects of adult/child sexual relations, this reading touches on the commonality of semantics used to describe sexual deviance, both violent and non-violent, and blurs the line between the two.
I do not think any particular sociological theory of deviance can be applied to the subject matter of this reading to explain NAMBLA’s behavior. The authors’ main premise was that deviant members of a society attempt to rationalize their behavior, because it is in their interests, so…Game Theory? Game Theory advocates a metaphorical view of human relationships: that of a game, with complicated rules. Game Theory would state that NAMBLA is only attempting to realize greater return in the societal game of acceptance by convincing the greater populace that their behavior is rational, and therefore acceptable, as if they were able to do so, they could pursue their chosen behavior more freely and, presumably, to greater lengths.

In chapter 10, “What’s a Nice Girl Like You Doing In a Place Like This?” the authors are attempting to explain that women strip as a means of limited social acceptance. Dancing provides a stripper with different aspects of a social conception of acceptability, through socially unacceptable means. By citing evidence of low self-esteem and other factors that would be detrimental to the women’s self-perception, the authors describes stripping as both a job choice and a path to achievement to socially acceptable goals like “…beauty, popularity, …fame, praise, and money.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 158).
To be honest, much of this reading did not surprise me, but I was shocked by the study stating “Three of every four strippers reported one or both parents abused alcohol, and fully one half had at least one parent who abused drugs.” It would make sense for sociological deviance to be a result of dysfunctional households during childhood, but numbers that high are staggering.
I agree with this reading in the sense that I also have come to the conclusion that the allures of stripping are not “deviant”, only in that it is labeled such is it actually a deviant act. The desire to acquire socially acceptable things is certainly understandable, and the “Ugly Duckling Syndrome” described by the authors contributes to the decision to take up stripping as stripping offers the same benefits as modeling without the social acceptance. For these girls, the study concludes and I agree: the benefits of stripping outweigh the detriment of being declared a deviant. Also, the final sentence of this reading “[strong and confident] qualities are typically present in dancers, but they are not qualities that lead women into stripping,” was very insightful, and ties in the authors’ belief that stripping provides these women with something they previously lacked, rather than being a simple job.
I don’t disagree with the authors of this reading on anything. Their hypothesis and conclusion; that strippers as a demographic have similar life characteristics, is supported by their research.
By exploring the factors resulting in deviance in a person’s life in one circumstance, any conclusions can be used to decrease or increase the occurrence of that deviance. These results would also be of interest to policymakers, for example, interest groups that want to reduce the occurrence of stripping in the US could concentrate on minimizing the characteristics that most female strippers share (i.e., a broken home, low self-esteem, etc).
This reading is related to other readings on sexual deviance because a common theme in sociology is the search for a cause: in this case, what causes women to pursue a career in stripping? By examining the strippers’ pasts, and their attitudes towards themselves and their past and present situations, a sociologist can determine the factors that led them to the decision to engage in deviance.
Structural Functionalism satisfactorily explains this reading. Stripping would be a societal structure with the purpose of providing women with low self-esteem fulfillment. Stripping, Functionalism would argue, has a purpose in society in that it provides a service to a demographic.

In chapter 11 of Sexual Deviance: a reader, Exposing the “Pretty Woman” Myth, the authors attempt to convey the complexity of the factors that converge to lead a woman into prostitution. The authors’ main point was that popular perception is that prostitutes are either beautiful women who get “saved” from the street life by a prince or are depressed drug-addicts who define their life by prostitution, and that this perception is incorrect; prostitution is the result of a complex interplay of factors, leading to the decision to engage in a dangerous act for very specific benefits.
I was most struck by the high incidences of abuse represented in the sample. Nearly all of the subjects had been severely abused in one way or another before turning toward prostitution, and nearly all were abused after beginning to prostitute themselves. Also, I was struck by this assertion: “Still, when asked, participants explicitly reported personal responsibility for choices made.”(Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 183) This statement caused me to really think about the mentality of the prostitutes, and how I would deal with personal responsibility in an environment that seemed to force prostitution on me. The realization that accepting personal responsibility for things I would have no control over would be the ONLY control I would have, like when one subject said “I ain’t givin it away…I ain’t no 10, 15$ ho”, really pushed the whole reading into both stark contrast and parallel with my own life.
I did not disagree with any assertions made by the authors in this reading. I do think the evidence overwhelmingly points to external factors strongly influencing women to engage in prostitution, and that personal choice is a meaningless term when questions of survival, drug addiction, and children go unanswered.
Like the other readings in this section, the factors that lead to a life of deviance are of special interest to policy makers and to people who are faced with the same situations as the subjects. If we can understand what influences a person to engage in dangerous activities, it is theoretically possible to decrease, or even eradicate, negative situations for people considering deviance in their lives.
This reading ties in well with other readings on sexual deviance, in that so far they have examined factors that are present in deviants’ histories before they choose to begin deviating from the normal standard of behavior. As in the reading on strippers, the pursuit of socially acceptable goals by unacceptable means has distinct commonalities depending on the demographic and society, regardless of the actual act. Ironically, I think, the actual goal is misunderstood by both blue and white-collar deviants because inherent in the goal is an understanding that it was acquired through socially acceptable means.
I wouldn’t have said this before the reading, but Differential Association theory is very strongly suggested throughout. Many of the subjects reported being coerced into trying drugs or prostitution by their male acquaintances, frequently referred to as husbands or boyfriends or pimps, implying a somewhat intimate relationship. As far as this study is concerned, associating themselves with deviant individuals directly influenced the subjects’ own decisions to engage in deviance.

The authors of the study “Male Street Hustling” attempted to show that a major factor in the choice to engage in hustling was that of peer introduction to it, and also that identification of the hustler as not gay (or, at least, not “slutty”-gay) was very important to the subculture.
I was most struck by this study’s depiction of hustlers vehemently protecting their heterosexual label. It made me think that there are many deviant groups in our society that attempt to rationalize their behavior into the mainstream, instead of remaining outside it. This ties in very well with the reading on NAMBLA, and the universal desire to fit in, despite being different.
I agree with the authors in their assertion that separating the hustlers from the clients is a means to identity. In today’s society, the perception is that having sex with men makes you gay, and having sex with females makes a man straight, where in reality the sexual act is generally a function of sexual attraction, and not the other way around. The hustlers’ uses of words like “queer” and “fag” were indicators of identity declaration, in a situation where they perceived many people would be confused as to the hustler’s sexual orientation.
In their conclusion, the authors stated that failure to avoid arrest would result in stigmatization. I disagree with this, as I believe avoidance of public knowledge of deviant acts is an acknowledgement of a pre-existing stigma, held by the hustlers; if people knowing about your behavior is realized to be a negative thing, then the stigma has already set in a personal sense. I admit that stigmas could easily have little effect on one’s life outside hustling before they are realized in the public sphere, but the shame inherent in avoiding a public stigma goes unmentioned, which I feel is an oversight.
The intentional separation of hustler from client that this study depicted reminded me of the rationalization of NAMBLA’s attitudes towards adult/child sex. In both instances, the deviant group was vehemently attempting to justify its actions: NAMBLA by exclaiming the benefits of adult/child sex and rejecting the claims that it is harmful, and the hustlers by making it very clear to the researchers that their motivation was strictly monetary, whether it was or not.
As in the reading on female street prostitution, male prostitution seemed to strongly suggest Differential Association theory, as “The majority of these hustlers became involved in male prostitution as a result of peer introduction.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) This would indicate that association with deviant individuals positively influenced the subjects’ perceptions towards that deviance. Evidence of this is seen not merely in the general act of male prostitution, but in the specific acts, as inductees were given “…key instructions…[as to]…the type of sexual acts they should engage in with their tricks,” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) which implies a great influence of peers over perception of specific aspects of hustling.
I selected these particular readings because they were the ones that I felt provided a good sample of the readings we did for this unit, and because I thought they all had interlocking themes. Rationalization, and the select deviance being well-described by Differential Association theory, were common themes. However the readings differed from one another in that some attempted to describe why deviance was engaged in (Strippers, Prostitutes), while others only attempted to explain how (Hustlers). The reading on NAMBLA did neither, instead choosing to focus on a characteristic of the deviant’s that occurs after the deviant act becomes a part of their life.



















Bibliography:

Sexual Deviance: A Reader (Hensley & Tewksbury, 2003)