If you have a question from class readings or lecture, or questions about any aspect of society, feel free to e-mail them to me and I will add them to this list. If you have questions about the requirements for classes, please look at your syllabus.

Weekly Ruminations on Readings

1. If two white males were in a group of primarily black males, would their recognition of each other and greeting be different? Would the black males still have a high rate of recognition?

2. In the essay, "The Managed Heart," there are several "ideal" characteristics a stewardess should have. These traits seem contradictory; is it possible to truly possess them all, or is it more of an act?

If women are suppose to be more in touch with their feelings and be respectable and polite. Why are not more women acknowledging those that walk past them than men? Is how we greet others in society changed? Is it change for the good or bad?

Is there an age that we reach where we start to become embarrassed? Is there ever a point in our lives that we stop becoming embarrassed?

1) Is the idea of flight attendants doing emotional work the same as the idea that adolescent girls have to do emotional work to satisfy the feeling norm that they should always be in love? We talked last week about the idea that adolescent girls, by doing emotional work to satisfy that norm, would eventually have trouble recognizing their true feelings. Would the same be true for flight attendants doing emotional work? Is that why there is a high rate of flight attendants seeing sex therapists and having alcohol, drug, depression, and sleep problems?

2) The article about greetings reminds me of conversations I've had with guys about the differences between nodding up and nodding down and other forms of greeting that females don't engage in as much as males. I guess this isn't a question so much as a comment. I feel like this article could provoke a really interesting discussion, especially getting some comments from the men in the class.

1.) If performing acknowledgment rituals are so important in defining who we are in our everyday lives, why is there so much variability when it comes to performing them? If they really are as important as the reading implies, why isn't there more consistency in using them?

2.) If someone has been exposed to the feeling of embarrassment alarmingly often, would it be possible for that person to become desensitized to the notion of it? Could the feeling of embarrassment, in and of itself, be considered a regular role in someone's everyday life?

If acknowledgment language is designated through shared experiences, would the media be considered a modern influence on cultural greetings? Many people use movie/ tv quotes to use as greetings between friends and also as something in common with strangers who recognize the line.

Is embarrassment a learned trait? Or is it just a reaction to the violation of breaking the expected norms? Do we act embarrassed in certain situations because we have learned that we are supposed to be embarrassed? Is it possible to not be embarrassed by choice as in "Fake it 'til you make it?"

Is Goffman's theory relevant also for the purposes of politial theory and political sociology? For instance, does he say anything about the mobilisation for collective action or technics of changing political attitudes?

On page 171 the book says, "social identities are more more important for dominated groups..." When I first read this I disagreed because all groups have acknowledgment rituals, even in high school cliques there are rituals. Then I realized it said MORE important and I thought harder. Depending on the type of group, the interaction could be a "safe passage" like the bottom of the page says (an example would be gay people) but on the other hand, most gangs are extremely weary about who they open up to and who they let in and it could be extremely dangerous. I think there are way more factors than just looking at the fact that they are dominated.

First off, I'm extremely surprised at the amount of training it takes to me a stewardess. It is through that strict training that they were able to fully identify with the group and how lonely of a life being a stewardess can be. That occurs in other types of groups such as gang initiation and so forth.

After reading the section about "interactive greetings," I was questioning whether or not tattoos would fall in this category? I feel that people get tattoos to either symbolize or represent something. Maybe these tattoos could be used to connect people when they greet? Could it be that a tattoo changes the immediate response/reaction of a person when first meeting someone?

Another thought, I was wondering if you could give examples of what Pate meant when he talked about applying "social psychological perspectives?" Does that have to do with an inital meeting, or is it something applied throughout the whole process?

Lastly, I was also just wondering if you could maybe clarify what's involved in "impression management?" Is it something that people try to focus on, or is it more so a natural behavior-like thing?

I thought the "Acknowledgment Rituals" was really interesting. It's something that a person is not fully aware of. For most people, and according to Pate, white americans not saying hi to a stranger is normal. Personally, I don't feel like it's necessary to say something because there are many people on campus and most of them are unfamiliar. There is also the chance of communicating the wrong message, especially if the greeting is to the opposite sex. If a guy smiles or winks, I believe it's an attraction, not just friendliness. It's a different matter when a person sees someone they don't want to see but you know you should acknowledge them, and in that 5 seconds of seeing them and passing them, you go through the process of wondering if you should smile, say hi, or stop to talk just to be nice.

I cannot really comment on Pate's research on african americans because they are a minority here in Eau Claire but I do see that they are more likely to say hi if they don't know someone, or at least it seems that way. It's hard to say why that is. It does depend on the situation because if a person is used to communicating with people they don't know and then they move to a city where no one really acknowledges each other, that person would probably stop greeting people after a while. Even if a person sits right next to me at the library, I will look to see who it is but most likely, I will not smile or say anything. I have actually moved to another spot because someone was sitting too close to me. I need space to study alone otherwise I am too aware of the other person and it's a distraction. In that way, it was gender (the person by me was male) and the situation that caused me to not acknowledge but actually move away.

On Page 169
When it is referencing to African American males and greetings and mentions the word phenomenon, although doesn't make a concrete reason for that word. What is meant by phenomenon in that specific context?

I found Pate's Acknowledgement Rituals article fascinating. I found it very interesting that African American males had the highest percentage group of people who acknowledged eachother on the street. I found it interesting that one of the students interviewed said that the reason the black community feels the need to acknowledge eachother is because they've been knocked down so far they need to pick one another up. I never thought about who in a certain group acknowledges other strangers but once I read the article I realized it was a very revealing topic to research.

Gross and Stone identify embarrassment as a failue in one of the following three categories: "inappropriate identity, loss of poise or disturbance of the assumptions persons make about one another in social transactions," (p. 186). How does this explain the embarrassment an individual feels after tripping, falling down, etc. in an empty parking lot? We have all been in the situation. You trip over your feet, bags go flying, maybe a shoe has fallen off. The first thing everyone does is look around to see if anyone else has witnessed this embarrassing event. One could argue if another witnessed the accident your identity has been destroyed or you have lost poise, thus you would be embarrassed. But why then are you still embarrassed if no one is around?

1. In the article about acknowledgement rituals, I don't clearly understand the connections between gender, race, and vulernability. It mentions that gender may have an influence on the "trust" we encounter before making the decision to greet a stranger. However, I don't really think it is that gender specific; instead, I think it is the people who are offering you a comfortable look (for example smiling, eye contact..) that induce vulnerability, despite race or gender.

2. In the article relating embarrassment to role requirements, I found it interesting how the author tied identity to embarassment. It says that embarassment can be avoided in two ways, but what does it mean when it describes adjunct roles, reserve identities, and relict identities as incongruent with the dominant role performance?

In Carl Pate's acknowledgement article, do young black men still acknowledge older men of another race?

Does this change either parties perception of the other?

Weekly Ruminations on Readings

I know I asked about this before in soc. 321, but the farganis reading for this week is really confusing me. On page 138 it talks about the "I" and "me" and an example is given of a ball dropping and something about how we remember the path of the ball and we predict where it is going as it passes. Also on 138 it gives another example of a scientist trying to solve a problem with certain data calling for certain responses. I think I understand the ideas behind the "I" and the "me" pretty well, but I just don't see how they apply to these examples given. Could you go over these in class when we go through the readings?

1) I am confused about Mead's concepts of "I" and "me". What are some examples of how this would actually play out for an individual in society?

2) Marx, Durkheim, and Weber were all macro theorists, but symbolic interactionism is more about micro theory. Is that partly due to the fact that symbolic interactionism is social psychology, not just strictly sociology?

It sounds like Mead's "I" and "me" distinction is literal, that is, that the subject-object distinction is a fact about the nature of being human. This idea would be opposed to the idea that the subject-object distinction is merely "interpretation" as Nietzsche would put it. Thomas's theorem is relevant in that it is "that which is seen as real, will be real in its consequences"(Erger Lecture 10/6/08). This suggests a pragmatic view of truth so whether the "I" "me" distinction is literal or metaphorical is not important, but the fact that it appears real as it plays a role in how we see and experience reality. Such a view looks different than the following summary provided by Farganis. To posit that it is "the dialogue between the 'I' and the 'me' is what caused the social self to emerge,"(Farganis 133), stating "caused" which means that the subject-object distinction is fundamental, or at least primary to the secondary social self. "Caused" sounds more fact-of-the-matter than the less strict pragmatic view of truth. (Perhaps it is not less strict, but has a different emphasis, one on value and utility as opposed to the pure science of it). Is this a misread of dear old Mead?

Furthermore, his direction of causality appears to be either backwards or mistaken in which there is simply a fundamental co-relation between our dialogue and social self. In other words, neither caused the other but rather they coexist. On the other hand, it could just be backwards. Consider that it is the involvement with other people that led to the dialogue between the 'I' and 'me'. The fact that we are social creatures is what made our language reflect the type of reality we experience. Again, perhaps Mead would not think this "truth" distinction is important because the pragmatic implications of either theory provide very similar results. This is unclear. But, if his direction of causality is better than the two alternatives I have proposed, what is it about the pragmatic implications that make it a better theory?

His view leaves the gap open to how the "I" and the "me" came about in the first place, whereas the other ideas I provided give a better explanation to why we have the distinction. It is better because Mead's direction of causality is not consistent with the idea that such a self is socially constructed. It would have already had to have been there to be a force which caused the emergence of the social self. On the other hand, if it is the social self which naturally assumed such language, then the social self must have already existed. This can be easily explained by the fact that we are born of others, are made from others. So why does Mead think that the social self emerged from a dialogue? I am not saying that Mead doesn't understand how babies are made, I am simply wondering why he thinks the direction of causality is 'dialogue' to 'social self' and not vice versa or the third option which is some thing like a bi-conditional, i.e.
'dialogue' < -- >' 'social self.

I found Blumer's analysis of Mead's idea of symbolic interaction very interesting. Before reading Mead's ideas, I had never really thought about how much acting and interaction takes place between two people in a particular situation. How analyzing another's actions directly affects your own actions, all in a split seconds time. Mead's ideas about making indications to oneself to create meaning and direct actions was also interesting.

If a symbolic interactionist views society as continually being recreated and sustained as humans construct reality through interaction, does that include symbols? Meaning are new symbols constantly being created as society changes?

I am a student, friend, sister, daughter, and probably more. The thing is, I am pretty much the same person I am with my friends, parents, and siblings. I am random, outgoing and friendly. But as a student, I am very quiet and never talk in the classroom. Why is that?

Is it frequent that the "I" and the "Me" match up in feelings? For example, if the I is feeling a certain way, is it often that the Me will feel the same way, and feel that society will accept that feeling?

In Ritzer page 372, Goffman briefly describes "impression management" as controlling they way individuals act around others so that they will be accepted. Isn't this the same concept of conformity, acting in a certain manner so that others will be more accepting towards you? Goffman goes on to say that individuals are at risk for disturbance of their performance, so the individual then feels that they have to control the audience. How is this different from conformity if it is not the same concept?