A True, First Person Account

I thought that I would tell you about a little book that I picked up at the Goodwill the other day. Brent and I went to find Halloween costumes, and ended up spending the whole time with our heads tilted sideways in the book section reading the titles.
One of the 10 books that I ended up buying was called:
The Real World of Fairies: A true, first person account
by Dora van Gelder
I googled the title and came up with this image from a revised version. You will note that the word 'true' was taken out of the title, but my version, published in 1988, still said true.
My copy is also acid green with a pink and orange fairy on the cover, mid-hop.
This book is exactly what it sounds like, only maybe a little bit stranger. According to the back of the book, the author Dora van Gelder, "...grew up pretty much alone on her father's plantation in Java, where her only playmates were the flower and shrub fairies."
In case you hadn't gathered this already, the lady is insane. In her book, van Gelder describes interactions she has had with fairies, as well as with angels (angels, you guys, angels) who are in charge of the fairies. She also describes all the types of fairies in the world, here is a short list and description:
Earth fairies: split up into surface creatures (tree spirits, mountain fairies, the common garden fairy) and under the surface creatures (rock spirits which are like tree spirits but much less intelligent, and gnomes).
Water fairies: 3 main kinds- Water Babies who live on the surface of the ocean and in bays and look like fat, human babies, Fairies of the Middle Deeps who live on the high seas, are 5-7 feet tall, blue-black in color and look like Russian wolf-hounds (no lie, you guys, it says that), and a third kind, un-named, who lives in the 'great depths of the ocean' and look like great gorillas covered in dark blue fur. Gelding says they are hostile to humans, so watch out for these!
RUSSIAN WOLF-HOUND

Fire fairies: 2 kinds- small ones who are 2 feet high and that look like just a foggy outline, and big ones who are 14 feet tall, live in volcanoes and who Ms. van Gelder calls "salamanders".

There are many more types of fairies and descriptions of fairies but I just wanted you to understand the nature of this book. It was published by 'The Theosophical Publishing House'.

According to Wikipedia, Theosophy is a doctrine of religious philosophy and metaphysics. This is their symbol:

I went to the publisher's website (http://www.questbooks.net/) and found a list of some of their other top sellers:
Grammar for the Soul: How a Mere Comma Can Make Your Day,
Yoga of Time Travel; How the Mind Can Defeat Time,
The Healing Powers of Tone and Chant, and
Sacred Space, Sacred Sound; The Acoustic Mysteries of Holy Places.

A Few Things

Hey guys.

I just wanted to tell you about a few interesting things I've learned lately. I'm wondering which areas of Sociology you're most interested in hearing about, so that I don't bore you talking about only Urban Soc or something when you really want to be hearing neat things about Social Movements or Criminology.
Let me know which of these you find interesting. In this first part, here’s a little Urban Soc and Criminal Justice. Social Stratification, Criminology, Social Movements, and Sociology of Religion to come.

Social Conflict and Criminal Justice class:
This came up while discussing conformity: "Because people pay attention to the views of those they know, different groups can converge on dramatically and sometimes amusingly different actions and beliefs. 'Many Germans believe that drinking water after eating cherries is deadly; they also believe that putting ice in soft drinks is unhealthy.'" I found this interesting because Luke said in his blog (http://entzaubert.blogspot.com/) that he found it weird that no where in Berlin could he get an ice cube. Perhaps this is why!

ALSO: If a Republican judge is sitting on the bench with two other Republican judges, she is VERY likely to vote along conservative lines. The same goes for a Democrat with other Democrats. Sunstein calls this 'ideological amplification'.
However, a single Democrat sitting with two Republicans is more likely to vote like a Republican, and vice versa. This is called 'ideological dampening'.

Now, Pay attention, because this is where it gets weird!
We actually did the experiment that is outlined in Sunstein's book in my Social Justice class today.

A student was given a mock-court case and asked to decide the defendant's punishment on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most severe. According to response, the student was put into a group with other students. "When a majority of individuals...initially favored little punishment, the student-jury's verdict showed a 'leniency shift,' meaning a verdict that was systematically lower than the median rating of the individual members before they started to talk." (Sunstein, pp5)
Sunstein goes on to say that when the majority of individuals initially favored strong punishment, the group produced a 'severity shift'.
"When members of a group are outraged, they end up still more outraged as a result of talking to one another."
The mock-jurors ended up giving a harsher punishment than any of them thought was fit using their individual value system.

Do any of you guys have an idea about what causes this? I have a few, but I'm interested to hear what you think!

Urban Sociology class:
An economic ghetto (also know as a 'slum') has a lot to offer people, according to my teacher. He says some of the opportunities that slum's offer are:
Anonymity: they're good to get lost in if you're a criminal
Economy: some people who aren't very poor live in ghettos to save money
Easy access to vices: drug addicts, alcoholics and gamblers can live cheaply and enjoy themselves
Humanitarian opportunities: you can run a soup kitchen, minister to the poor etc.
So basically, not just poor people live in slums. People who could live elsewhere choose to live in them because of their great opportunities.

He also said that researches have done studies and found the same level of resident satisfaction in these ghettos as with people who live in suburbs. These communities are very functional, and the people that reside in them all know each other. They just gather around the soup kitchen, instead of working class neighbors who gather round the bar, and middle class neighbors who gather in that special room they that no one but company is allowed in with the plastic on the furniture, and the upper class who gather round the country club.

The Capitalist Bourgeoisie Trying to Block Proles from the Rocks and Stocks

In Statistics class today (the one part of social research I HATE) my teacher showed a video.


I thought it was pretty funny, but most of the kids in my class were way too cool to laugh. I love it when people take sort of nerdy, academic things and make them fun.

I was inspired to write my own lyrics to 'Give it to Me' by Timbaland. In case you aren't familiar with the song, Nelly Furtado, Justin Timberlake and Timbaland all sing a verse. In my new and improved Sociology version, the verses are sung by the father's of modern sociology, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber respectively. For example, where Nelly had sung, "I'm a supermodel and mami, si mami," Marx now sings, "I've shaped Socialists and Commies, yeah Commies." How awesome does that sound? So, as soon as I can find a just instrumental version of that song, I will record it and post it on here.

Smoking in Public

Here's a little something that I learned in class the other day that I thought you guys might find interesting.
We are reading a book called, "Why Societies Need Dissent" by Cass R. Sunstein. It's really very interesting, I recommend it.
Sunstein talks about two experiments at the beginning of his book, by Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram. I'm sure you guys are familiar with these experiments but just in case you're not, here's a link to read about them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Seriously guys, if you don't know about these experiments read about them, they're way interesting and also a little terrifying.

I want to discuss conformity's importance in regard to the law.
You guys, some laws are effective even when never enforced. To use an example from Sunstein: smoking in public places.
Apparently, practically no police departments ever issue citations about smoking in public places. This is a law that is rarely, if ever, enforced. So why-oh-why do people obey it? This can't be explained with criminal justice's usual crime/punishment explanation!!
Here's Sunstein's explanation: The law expresses the majority's opinion. Thus with especially visible crimes, such as smoking in public, the majority is very likely to voice their opinion and shame the perpetrator. The law isn't self-enforcing, the majority of people enforce the law over the minority!
Imagine for a second, seeing someone park in a handicapped spot who isn't handicapped. I, for one, might give them dirty looks, and try and talk loudly to friends about how I hoped that no one ACTUALLY handicapped came along because they would be screwed! People are less likely to park in handicapped spots because they are afraid of public shaming, then because they are afraid of a ticket.
As illustrated by the Milgram and Asch experiments, people desperately want to be accepted by their peers, even to the point of doing what goes against their belief system and intelligence. So, visible crimes that go against public opinion are most likely to be self-enforcing.

One more thing, there was a study done on the citizens of Minnesota regarding tax payment. "When people were told of the risk of punishment, levels were unaffected. When people were told that taxes are used for important goods and services,... compliance levels remained unaffected. But when citizens were told that over 90% of people fully comply with the tax laws, compliance increased. Apparently, those who violate the law are ashamed to learn that their conduct is worse than the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens." -Sunstein

Isn't that crazy? People want to fit in so much, it makes them not break laws, even non-visible ones. This keeps reminding me of The Emperor's New Clothes. People will go along with just about anything if everyone else is too.

Minorities and Crime

Someone on campus got robbed last night. The University administration sent out an e-mail to all of the students saying to be on the look-out for two black men wearing certain clothes, because that was the description the victims gave of the robbers.

I was with my boyfriend when I got the e-mail. I read it to him, and we proceeded to discuss the fact that it was two black males who had committed the robbery. I guess it stuck out to both of us because we go to a Midwestern university where the African American population is very small.

I said that I wasn't surprised that it was two black men. Now hopefully you guys know me better than to assume I was being racist. Because, you guys, I wasn't. Sociology has provided us with the foundation for Criminology, which can help explain this phenomenon while being SUPER interesting.

If I may, let me give you a few reasons why it makes more sense for African Americans to have committed this robbery on my Midwestern University campus.

First I'll turn to one of the founding fathers of Sociology, Mr. Emile Durkheim.

He has an in-depth theory but let's just talk about what relates to the topic at hand. Durkheim believed that human beings control their criminalistic urges because of connection to social groups and institutions. He belived that this connection created, "a moral conscience and discipline."
To Durkheim, criminals are those without social ties. Social ties ---> morals---> crime/lack of crime.
Considering this, one could understand that minorities might not have as many social ties to the community and university as the majority. Because of the separation and lack of social ties that it is easy to feel when surrounded by individuals unlike yourself, Durkheim might say that it is to be expected for minorities at a mostly white University to commit more crimes because they don't feel the moral connectedness to the immediate society.

There are many more theories which I could discuss to contribute to the phenomenon of minorities and crime rate, but I'll just talk about one of the most interesting.
The second theory I feel like mentioning is Labeling Theory. Labeling Theory is "the linguistic tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from norms." The problem with majorities labeling minorities as deviant is that it occasionally makes the minority take on the characteristics of a deviant because of the label he was given, in sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Labeling Theory looks something like this (by the way, don't forget that deviance isn't necessarily crime):
Deviant Act--> Social Reaction --> Negative Label --> Degradation Ceremonies --> Self- labeling--> Deviance Subculture Forms--> Deviance Amplification --> Secondary Deviance.

Frequently, after individuals self-label and begin to view themselves as bad, they move on to committing actual crimes, instead of just committing behaviors viewed by the majority as deviant, such as loitering or skateboarding.
Being a minority at a mostly white University can lead to a negative label, even without any initial deviant act. With enough reinforcement, the minority can actually begin to believe they are bad, and then the cycle continues from there, culminating in crime.

Interesting stuff, huh? There is nothing inherently more criminal about African Americans, or any other race. Minorities, no matter what their race, are more likely to be criminals.

What's your major?

Hey there.
One of the things that I love about sociology is that everywhere you look, you find it. Practically every time something happens that involves people, there's sociology, begging to help us analyze the situation.
While I think this is AWESOME, believe it or not you guys, some people find my love of sociology annoying (boyfriend, friends, classmates, people I ride with on the bus). This used to bug me, but it's ok because now I have YOU to talk to about it!

So anyway, a few weekends ago my roommates invited some guys who live in our apartment complex over to play beer-pong. Even though I had school the next morning, I had to partake you guys, because I'm a social scientist and this situation might have needed analyzing!

Ok so, I'm watching these guys play beer pong and no one is really talking so it's extremely awkward. I decide to try and break the awkward ice and try and think of something to say. Finally I come up with, "Who's winning this game?"
OMG you guys, one of the kids turns to me like I have just asked the most stupid question in the history of the WORLD, and says to me with a sneer, "What's your major?"

Now, I hope that you guys can see what he was insinuating with this comment. If it's been awhile since you've been in college, let me remind you of some things. In University, there are 'smart' majors, and 'dumb' majors. Unfortunately, majors like psychology, elementary education, sociology, and a various assortment of other liberal arts type majors are considered 'dumb' majors because people don't view them as challenging or selective.

This kid was insinuating that I must have a 'dumb' major, because I had just asked a dumb question. I almost flipped you guys.
But then, there was sociology, making the situation interesting instead of infuriating.
I began thinking about Blau and Duncan's research on Occupational Prestige, where they came up with an equation to rank occupations by prestige (income x education = prestige). At the top of the list are things like: lawyer, chemist, and medical technician, and at the bottom: bill collector, telephone solicitor, and janitor.

It is obvious that in the sociological organism that is a college campus, students and professors have our own rankings of prestige by major. How do we determine what is prestigious or not? Are we all in consensus on the ranking of these majors? Do we have a special esteem for our own major, thinking it the most difficult or prestigious?
You guys, I began to think all of these things! Obnoxious jerk forgotten, I began to get really excited. The next day I talked to a few of my professors and next semester I'm doing a study of students at my school to try and develop an equation for Major(ial?) Prestige.

It will be a lot of work, but it will be super interesting. So, there you have it guys. Sociology is always there, and always interesting. But SERIOUSLY, I should have killed that guy.