Community Service

This Friday I volunteered at a soup kitchen, called A Just Harvest in Chicago, in order to receive a few hours of community service for class. I was there from 5 to 8 and stayed a bit after to help clean up before my father would pick me up. I went with a group of students who were also in sociology. I completely put myself out of my comfort zone to volunteer on a whim. Although sociology taught me how diverse the communities are that I'm not apart of, I primarily learned to not judge individuals' intellect based upon their social class. I encountered a man who took philosophy courses at a community college who  was excited to rant to me about his epiphanies about life. Meeting this man altered my perception of the negative intellectual stigma associated with lower class individuals; for they may strive to be educated intellectually, as well as educated about the society manifesting around them.

While I was serving one man his water, he had the propensity to thank me for being there. He was the only person to do so and caught me off guard, so all I managed to do was look back at him with a smile and reply "Of course." Although I knew that volunteering at the soup kitchen was good in itself, it was important for me that the person I was helping validated that what I was doing was important and recognized.

More so than being a learning experience, volunteering at the soup kitchen inspired me to continue doing community service, for it's a moral obligation to give back to your community.

How Culture Effects Masculinity

In sociology we questioned society's ethics indicating gender roles and how this effects national tragedies.  Particularly how masculinity is associated with power, violence, and dominance, we were able to decipher the types of tragedies instigated by caucasian middle class males who were bullied and emasculated.

This unit is prevalently seen in the Boston phenomenon that occurred recently this week. Although the suspects are not identified to be caucasian, they nonetheless felt like pariahs in the American culture and were socially disconnected from American society. We often ask ourselves who would do such a thing or how deranged and neurotic individuals must be to carry out these tragedies. But perhaps sociology is much more credible than we think. Because the suspects felt disconnected from American culture, and were minorities, they perhaps felt devalued in American society. By feeling inferior, the suspects could have felt that they're voices as becoming citizens were unheard and irrelevant: thus as men in American culture they were not powerful, nor dominant enough, to be recognized. Ultimately resulting in showing their masculinity and dominance through violence in the Boston Bombing.

What I find to be the most interesting is how Boston's tragedy parallels the numerous Anarchist bombings in the 1920s (i.e Wall Street bombing 1920, Anarchist Bombings 1919). How the Sacco and Vanzetti court case eagerly criminalized and discriminated against Italians and new immigrants entering the country in the '20s parallels our national discrimination against muslims and our eagerness to pin the Boston Bombing on Muslim Terrorists due to the Iraq War.

Several decades later,  most Americans are still nationalistic and wrapped up in caucasian dominance. Although globalization is increasing and multiculturalism is taught throughout schools in the nation, Americans cannot seem to shake the elements of discrimination in our society. More importantly, Americans need to realize the damaging effects of preaching multiculturalism, yet attaining a sense of discrimination, may effect becoming citizens and the future of the country.

The Un-TV

While doing the Un-TV experiment, it became much easier to master ''doing-nothing;" and by doing nothing, I became aware of the stigma that occurs from watching TV as well as the effects it has on our lives.

The Un-TV experiment reminded me that the TV is a form of entertainment whereas I have a predetermined mentality that when I turn the TV on, I want to be entertained. Although some may argue that watching TV morphs people into zombies and essentially becomes a black-hole in reality, I believe it depends on your mindset. For instance, if you're going to the theater to watch a play, ballet, or opera you're looking to be entertained; though we tend not to morph into zombies when we watch these events. We often watch the show and seem to be drawing opinions about the characters, connecting the story line, drawing thematic conclusions, and over all analyzing the scenes before our eyes. The difference being, from watching these events and going to the movie theater and watching TV for entertainment, is that these shows are live and don't have technical events to keep us from blinking and glued to our entertainment. So why do people tend to zone-out and not think about what they're watching? Why do people become dormant when they watch TV instead of analyze the interactions among individuals?

I believe that the reason TV watching is associated with lazy couch-potatoes is because the majority of those who turn on the TV usually try to watch something to de-stress their mind, relax, have something to do while they wait, etc. Couch-potatoes aren't always necessarily looking to be entertained. While reading a book or magazine provides brain power, watching TV provides you instant relaxation by "zoning-out" with just a push of a button. Moreover, while going to the movies is associated as "doing something"--even though you're simply going out of the house to sit and do nothing--watching TV has a negative stigma, usually those who turn the TV on have trouble turning it off; while when you're at the movies, the movie you pay for only keeps you addicted to the screen for a set period of time, or when the movie is over.

Although many may make the case that TV controls our lives, or it's bad for us, or going to the movies is exactly like watching TV, I solely believe it depends on our mindset when we're entertained inside or outside of our homes. Similarly to spending hours on the internet, TV may be draining and may feel like it's sucking the minutes out of our day; though this doesn't mean that being effected by the TV is inevitable and only negative outcomes are possible. Just like most things in life, watching TV is what you make of it. Whether you want to become a lazy couch-potato or enjoy a few marathons of your favorite show, the TV is for entertainment--not to control you.

Is there such thing as too much attention?

Learning about abused feral children discovered in our generation made me understand how vital human interaction is in order for individuals to thrive. Although some may label themselves as introverts or choose to confine themselves in solitude, feral children are foreign to human affection and are left mentally, as well as physically, unfit to function in modern society. Unlike those of us who chose to distance ourselves from society, children who have been abandoned to be raised without human interaction develop differently and are denatured from human society.

Although most of us can agree that we enjoy getting attention whether it may be from preforming on stage, recognized academically, or simply complemented, these interactions influence the chemical balance in our brains that not only stimulate socialization, but help reach our fullest mental capacity. So perhaps we shouldn't condem those who thrive for attention to be pretentious because we all need human affection to mentally prosper.

This made me become more aware of how the debate between nature vs nurture may in fact be invalid, as both our environments, and the nurture process, allow us to achieve our fullest ability. Both nature and nurture work together to shape how we develop and to what extent we personally advance. Knowing that not all individuals are raised in a healthy environment, I was able to build upon the idea of sociological mindfulness; for not all individuals are given the opportunity to receive human affection and are not influenced and nurtured to the same extent.