Basic Rules
FIRST: generate both your own posts and comments on each other's posts. Posts cannot be anonymous. Comments can.
SECOND: experiment with what you say and how you say it, but be sure to respect your fellow classmates.
THIRD: reference your classmates' posts and comments in your own posts and comments. When at all possible, link back to posts.
FOURTH: reference specific portions of the texts we are reading by including the author's last name and page numbers.
SECOND: experiment with what you say and how you say it, but be sure to respect your fellow classmates.
THIRD: reference your classmates' posts and comments in your own posts and comments. When at all possible, link back to posts.
FOURTH: reference specific portions of the texts we are reading by including the author's last name and page numbers.
Monday, December 3, 2007
The issue with labels
I believe Foucault has a very optimistic approach to solving the label issue. It seems he does not believe in labels and without labels there would be no way to negatively define others. It is very dangerous when defining oneself. If people could be who they are and there was no “policing” of idea the world would be a happier place. But there are norm, which creates a very sticky situation when trying to define oneself. Labeling is a very dangerous part of our society. It can cause people to be tracked and make individuals believe in traits that are truly not their own. Or, even feel as though one trait is the only characteristic that others see. There is definitely the ability to control with words. It is not the words that are the issues; it is the personal views that then in turn do not give validity to an individual. People need to be more accepting of different people to allow labels to hold less value in society. Are there certain traits that you see in others where your personal definition of those words creates a negative view of that person? Sexuality, race and gender terms are very controversial in today’s society. Acceptance of certain words varies to different people. Trying to define individuals through these traits are very difficult. Foucault warns us of these dangers and how people become oppressed by societal norms but even more so when looking at sexual norms. Do you agree with Foucault?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Harvey, Park, Simmel and Urban Communities
As a born and raised Manhattanite, the pieces from Simmel, Park, and Harvery all struck a familiar chord with me. What I found interesting were their similarities and differences when it came to their opinions of urban communities. Harvey was adamant in his approach to point out the capitalistic qualities of cities and their dependency on a “coalition of class forces" (pg. 229). Park favored the size of urban communities, citing it was beneficial to the inhabitants in various sorts of ways. Simmel quite overtly displayed keenness to metropolitan people, stating that their "intellectualistic quality" gave them a leg up against "that of the small town which rests more on feelings and emotional relationships" (pg. 325-6).
Personally, I agreed with much of what the authors said in terms of how urban communities function. People seem to be driven by capital, and the number of different types of people in a city tend to blur the racial and ethnic differences but push them rather into classification based on earning power. This is just a little bit of what I've observed as a New Yorker and studying sociologist.
Personally, I agreed with much of what the authors said in terms of how urban communities function. People seem to be driven by capital, and the number of different types of people in a city tend to blur the racial and ethnic differences but push them rather into classification based on earning power. This is just a little bit of what I've observed as a New Yorker and studying sociologist.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
W.E.B. du Bois
Since we are reading some du Bois for today, I thought I would point you in the direction of this blog by Amy Hillier at UPenn. Hillier is less interested in du Bois as a theorist than as an empirical sociologist, who sought to map the social structure of African Americans living in areas of Philadelphia during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Take a look!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
A Different Definition for a Paradigm Shift
I thought it was very interesting the way that Abbot analyzes Kuhn's definition of a paradigm shift in this weeks reading Methods of Discovery. In chapter three, on page 89 is where I'm talking about. He gives an example of a paradigm in the 2nd paragraph, "it means tearing the old building down and building a new one with the leftovers, the anomolies, and some new materials". so not only can one build off of old studies, but the mistakes and errors can be used to build new ideas as well. This is what he describes as a paradigm shift. I know that i was very confused on what a paradigm meant, but i think that this definition and the rest of the page really helps interpret the meaning in a much easier way than the other readings have done for me.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Owning a prius as conspicuous consumption
Here is the link to the article about owning a Prius that I mentioned last night. Enjoy!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
car stereotypes
I found this article about cars and I thought it went well with our discussion of stereotypes that are associated with cars. Take a look and see if you have some of the same stereotypes.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)