Answea the question

Soc 305 American Society Week 1 Lecture Notes Online Fall 2020 Hi! In these first notes, I am going to try to orient you to the class and the first considerations as we would if we were in person the first week, and then offer some introductory ideas/thoughts related to the first 2 chapters. I hope you have gone over the syllabus, schedule, Discussion Board Guide and Film Reaction Guide – if you have not, stop now and read all of those over.

Each week, in addition to the text readings, there will be some notes from me. They aren’t usually very long, and their purpose is to provide some further thoughts and links to more information, as well as keep us all on track as to what is due and upcoming in the class. Also, near the end of the notes, I will discuss the film of the week, letting you know what to pay attention to or if I feel it needs introduction. You should always read the text and notes before watching the films. If I need to clarify anything, it will be addressed in the notes as well. Also, pay attention to the announcements, this is where I let you know when I post materials, and where I let you know of any changes.

This first week, the schedule is a bit different than it will be going forward, due to the mid-week start. This is in the schedule but I wanted to point it out. There are a few things due each week in this class. Assignments are always due the same days except for the 1st and 6th (midterm) weeks. I suggest printing the schedule I provided or inputting it into whatever you use to keep yourself organized. A Note About This Quarter: I changed a few of the topics and moved things around a bit this term, in reaction to the things going on in our world. I think it is very important that you all get ample time and resources to take a look at this country’s history and traditionally stated ideals in terms of democracy and economy. These things have been questioned and challenged a lot in recent times. To that end, I have taken out a couple of units in order to have the time to explore these topics. If you review the text, you will see that there is more there than we could conceivably cover in a quarter, so I always have to pick and choose a bit anyhow.

One unit I removed this term is Gender. I decided to spend more time on both Race/Ethnicity and ways of affecting change in our society, due to ongoing debates surrounding racial/ethnic inequality and protest in our society. My focus of study in graduate school was social movements, so this is a topic near to my heart and one I know well. My decision to forgo the topic of Gender was hard for me as a woman, but I know due to my studies that society can really only deal with one group’s bid for change/equality at a time. Social movements can hurt one another by competing for attention, and in reality any forward movement by any oppressed group is good for all oppressed groups. So, I feel that right now, it is the time to be studying inequalities related to race/ethnicity, and I want to honor that.

I encourage you to invest yourself in the issues in this class and engage in the conversations we have about our country. This is a safe place to express yourself and ask questions, that is a promise. This is college, and therefore you should use sound logic, be able to back your assertions, and express yourself intelligently/appropriately. But, you do not have to believe what I do or any other student. I

will defend any student’s right to express themselves, as long as they are doing so appropriately. And please, ask questions if you do not know - no shame here, only education.

A Couple of Sociology Resources:

I have fashioned this class using one of the textbook author’s (Erik Olin Wright’s) course as a guide. Dr. Wright (who actually passed away last year but his materials are still up) recorded and posted his class lectures online. I thought some of you might be interested in hearing what his class discussed and have an alternate form of information. Here is the link to his materials: https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/soc125-2018/ One other thing I wanted to offer is a glossary. You guys come from a variety of majors, which means that as a class, there is probably great variance in how much Sociology you’ve all been exposed to before this. If you are one who hasn’t taken much Sociology, below are a couple of links to glossaries of terms that may help you if you are unfamiliar. http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/introtosociology/Documents/Glossary.html http://www.webref.org/sociology/sociology.htm

Perspectives and Political Standpoints As you have or will read in the book, the authors are coming from what they call a progressive standpoint. In general, they believe that our country is founded upon good principles and a basically sound system, but it needs a lot of improvement. I think most of us would agree with the need to make things better in many ways in our country.

But, we as a citizenry are pretty divided over how to make improvements. There are those who believe that if we stop making so many laws and let the market/economy, as we established it, work in an unfettered natural state, it will work itself out. This is the vision of Laissez Faire Capitalism. The underlying thought is that the market is more capable of righting itself than the government is at controlling or stabilizing the economy. Libertarians and most Conservatives believe in this theory of the market.

On the other side, there are those who think we need a lot more government oversight of the market and other social institutions. Progressives, in general, believe that we need stronger government policies in order to protect citizens from things like corruption and bad business practices. But, progressives are not socialists, socialism revolves around the government owning parts of the private market and citizens giving the government a larger portion of our earned money to pay for various services for ourselves. Progressives want protection and stabilization based on regulation, things like stronger consumer protection laws so that corporations cannot hurt us via bad business practices.

I want to be outright and honest in that both the authors of the text and myself believe that our country needs a stronger government to achieve our social goals and values. You will read and learn, along the way, why we feel that way. But, that does not mean that you need to believe like I do. I encourage you to explore your own beliefs about how to improve our society. And as I said above, I also encourage you to express yourself honestly. Whether you are liberal, conservative,

libertarian or something else, my only expectation is to be able to back up your arguments and beliefs. You should always justify, as I will, your opinions with either some logical and sound moral arguments or with research. If you cannot, then always be honest that it is just what you think. The main thing I want to get across though, is that you will NOT be at any grade disadvantage if your beliefs do not match up with mine. I expect the same sorts of arguments and evidence from any student regardless of political orientation.

Now, if some of you aren’t well versed in political perspectives, I found this decent mini-history and overview of conservative and liberal thought. It’s an interesting read: https://web.archive.org/web/20170920073857/http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/libcons.htm Actually, I’m going to paste in the concluding list of liberalism and conservatism core values from this article, so you can take a quick look and assess for yourself how well you know what these principles are in contrast to what you might have heard outside of academia:

“In summary, liberalism has embraced several fundamental but imprecise elements. Moreover, at different points in history the liberal ideology has emphasized different aspects of its basic principles. Those elements which have appeared as fundamental to liberalism may be seen as: 1. the idea of a compact between the people and their government 2. the right of revolution if the compact is violated 3. natural rights as belonging to all people 4. faith in and support of human rational potential 5. limited powers of government 6. majority rule tempered by minority rights 7. support of change in society In summary, conservatism does contain basic beliefs and values beyond a mere mistrust of change. Certain core concepts remain throughout the long spectrum of the conservative ideology. They may be seen as: 1. high value on existing institutions as produced by custom and tradition 2. a belief in mankind's essential base and irrational nature 3. faith in some supernatural force guiding human affairs 4. acceptance of human inequality and the attending consequence of social hierarchy 5. recognition of the need for a sense of community among individuals that will bind them emotionally to their society.” Also, I found a couple of political quizzes that show you where you stand on a few different political spectrums. It’s pretty interesting, but I can’t attest to their accuracy per se. Still, I thought the description of myself was pretty on target in both of them. http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

http://www.people-press.org/typology/quiz/

Comments on this week’s topics:

I am not going to go back over what is said in the text. That would be really boring. My approach is to discuss the various parts of the text I feel need comment or additional information or perspective. So, have your books handy if possible while reading these notes to know what I’m referring to. One thing I want to say about the reading in this class, though, is that it needs your undivided attention. Both my notes and the book contain a lot of complex ideas and facts. The reading load isn’t heavy for a 300 level course in terms of pages, but I recommend reading slowly, deliberately, and without distraction. It is very important to me, and to your grade in this class, that you think about what is presented and be able to formulate your own ideas about our society. This class is not about learning a bunch of information and regurgitating it….so you can’t “phone in” the reading.

Comments on the Prologue (chapter 1): Description, Explanation and Evaluation

So, here we have the basic way that we go about assessing anything, at least in Sociology. I just

have a few things to add/emphasize here. First, as for description. I want to emphasize that finding truth is no longer a simple matter, especially in politics and social issues. The amount of historically and ideologically incorrect things I hear from sources who call themselves news or infer that they are spewing facts is astounding to me. And it’s alarming. We should not have to confirm every little thing we hear, but we do. To this end, I am going to encourage you to fact check every piece of news, etc you wish to repeat in your life (and post on the discussion board). I wanted to share some quotes from Thomas Jefferson that relate to the importance of knowledge for our society (just because he knew this long ago and I am a big Jefferson fan):

1789. "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." (to

Richard Price)

1810. "No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in its effect towards supporting free and good government." (to Hugh L.

White)

1816. "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day . . . . I believe it [human condition] susceptible of much

improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is effected." (to Dupont de

Nemours, 24 April)

1818. "If the children . . . are untaught, their ignorance and vices will in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education." (to

Joseph C. Cabell)

1820. "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true

corrective of abuses of constitutional power." (to William C. Jarvis, 28 September)

That last one is a huge point to me. I hear, usually between the lines of what is actually said, the attitude that the people (the public) aren’t smart enough to make decisions or vote intelligently quite often. It offends me and also I think that it is something we could generally fix by making sure our educational system is doing a better job, and that our sources of media are actually accountable to

truth. Here are a couple of suggestions to help you find good information and articles for your news article posts and in general. News-wise, a good source of unbiased reporting is Reuters. This news is widely regarded as being objective and unbiased, partially because it is globally produced. Here’s the link: http://www.reuters.com/ It might also be a good idea to simply look up stories about what goes on here in Canadian or British news. I find that they often report things using very different perspectives and emphasizing different points. They also have no reason, really, to use manipulative wording or “couch” the issue in a particular way since their media isn’t owned by US corporations with political ties and purposes. Here is a Forbes article with suggestions for good sources of info, with their reasoning as to how they were chosen: https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2017/02/01/10- journalism-brands-where-you-will-find-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/#5ca701f3e9b5 As well, there are a couple of organizations whose goal is to “out” media bias in reporting. One is progressive and one conservative, which is nice. I encourage you to check some of these other sources when looking into the news or issues. Here are their websites as well: http://www.fair.org/index.php http://www.aim.org/

I also encourage you all to take a moment to consider where you are getting your information. Here is a study (PEW research is legit) about who gets info from what kinds of sources and what they find, it’s actually really interesting! Spoiler alert: people who get the majority of their news from social media have, on average, lower political knowledge and are more likely to have heard conspiracy theories… https://www.journalism.org/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are- less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/

OK, onto a couple of thoughts about explanation. There really is no such thing as a neutral explanation of anything. When we explain, we have to use some kind of basis for comparison. This is especially true in discussing intangibles. For instance, if I were to say, “Geez, that guy is really a jealous boyfriend”, what do I mean by that? I am essentially saying that he’s more jealous than my or society’s “normal” level of jealousy. Well, that is highly subjective, right?

The main thing to keep in mind about the rules of society and explanation is that we explain things based upon what we think is normal. Normal, at least in part, is how closely we are following the rules of society. Therefore, our explanation of something is highly dependent on our perception of the rules and what is normal. In general, I am trying to make the point that objectivity in the discussion or even reporting of social issues and ideas is virtually impossible. Objectivity DOES exist in social research when it is done well, but how that research is reported can be very easily biased, because the reporter points out the various parts they find important about the research and do not necessary include all that was found.

Objectivity? You might ponder as well-what is the use of objectivity and where is it useful? We need it in science and in the finding of facts, that is for sure. But, how can a person be politically objective? There are so many issues in politics, in particular issues like religion and abortion, that can

never be proved or decided upon in terms of right and wrong, or even in terms of greater harm or good. For instance, making abortion totally illegal would be impractical to society by most accounts. We have tons of kids in foster care and up for adoption already and that system is strained as it is, so can you imagine how much we’d have to expand that if there was no abortion? However, those facts are not going to convince a person who is anti-abortion to change his/her mind, because being against abortion isn’t a matter of practicality, is it a matter of belief and values. There is no useful objective standpoint here at all, so we cannot always depend on the idea that if we could just find out the objective facts, we’d have agreement on solutions to social problems.

Some thoughts related to Chapter 2: Chapter 2 is essentially an introduction to the aspects of our society that will be further explored as we move through the text and class topics. Here, the author has identified some core aspects of our society and attempted to place our country in comparison to others in those aspects. We will be studying those aspects with more depth as we go on, so no need to do so at this point.

One thing I’d like to bring up here, though, is the notion that our country is a purely capitalist state. No society has ever actually been purely capitalist, ever. In a purely capitalist state, there would pretty much no regulation of the economy by the state and no social safety nets. Obviously, this isn’t the case in our country. The fact that we have a minimum wage and social security, as well as public libraries, among many other types of governmental control and benefits, prove this. There have been a lot of accusations in recent years that some politicians want to turn America into a socialist state. I just want to clarify what that would really mean. To be a socialist country means that the government not only regulates the market, but administers and controls it. In a purely socialist society, all money generated goes to the government and then it is redistributed. The government actually owns all of the companies and property and controls allocation of resources. This has also never existed, not purely.

One difference in values associated with these political systems is about equality. Most people, like myself, who believe that government regulation is necessary, think that unchecked, the market will lead to immense social inequality. For instance, imagine for a moment that we do not have any welfare or assistance for the poor. What happens to these people? Not only that, but how would the poor ever have a say in our country or a chance in our system if we didn’t have some kinds of help? A real world example here would be college. If we had no assistance for people without much money to go to college, how would they ever have a chance to realize “the American Dream?” If we live in a country where fairness and equality exist, then the underlying notion is that every person is born with a relatively equal chance of success. Without monetary support, how would a smart but poor person be able to further his/her progress towards success in a system so highly based on academic credentials?

On the other side, those who believe in an unregulated capitalist economy (laissez faire capitalism) theorize that the market will work itself out. Supply and demand will set prices to a reasonable rate and it will all work out. In my above example, the thought might be that if our society needs college grads enough, the market will infuse money into the college system to allow for more grads by making it more affordable. But, this would be unlikely to help those at the lowest rungs of economic earning. This system is generally likened to a form of Social Darwinism, where the system just allows for those who can’t compete to fall off the radar.

There are so many strains of thinking and levels to the political belief spectrum and they are easily confused because the names and terms are imprecise and often used interchangeably. But, if you

are interested in knowing more of the possible strains of thought and their categories, I suggest just looking a Wikipedia for capitalism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, conservatism, etc. This Week’s Assignments: Here is a recap of what you need to do this first week..

Film Reaction #1: “Where to Invade Next?” I saw this film when it came out, and it fits perfectly into our first unit. It is a film by Michael Moore, who has been a controversial film maker in recent years. He is, indeed, very liberal and comes from that standpoint. Unlike his other films, though, this one is pretty even handed in that it basically shows how other countries deal with a lot of social issues. Moore may present his opinion about it, and chooses what to highlight, but the facts he shows are indeed facts about the policies, laws, and attitudes in other countries. I think that the comparisons given in Chapter 2, along with the examples provided in the film, give a lot of food for thought about how we do things, and how we might do them differently. You can express your thoughts about what he discusses in your film review and on the discussion board this week. Do not forget to read over the Film Reaction Guide before writing! These are a big part of your grade, and involve more than just summarizing.

Discussion Board: Please read and follow the guidelines in the DB Guide! I’d like you to write 2 posts this week, each will be worth 5 points. In the first, introduce yourself. Tell us a bit about where you are, what you do, what you are into. Then, I’d like you to share what is most concerning to you right now in your world, what is causing you the most stress.. I know this might seem a bit personal for a class, but I truly think we can all help each other out with some understanding and empathy, and I know we are all struggling in some way, whether with the state of the world or your personal struggles. And we are mostly all more isolated than we have been, so I think creating a supportive environment online is a good thing. I hope to inspire us all to know each other a bit.

Then, in a second post, I’d like you to discuss some aspect of the typology or description of America offered by the authors in the first 2 chapters. I am looking for you to think critically about their description of the US and offer some thoughts. You don’t have to agree with the typology, and if you don’t tell us why. Possible ideas about what to address to help you focus your post: Do you agree with the 5 cores values the author is using to evaluate our society? Do you believe these are values generally held by most and therefore good tools with which to evaluate our social systems? Is there one that you feel is missing? Is there one you think isn’t really a core value?

Do you agree with the assessments of the US in the various categories within chapter 2? Do you think one aspect is over or under emphasized? You may use examples from the film to illustrate…