cell913blog.com #68

The rise, among academics, of sociology, and the multiple ways by which group dynamics form and influence a culture has led to numerous theories, based on the relationships between ‘groups’…From https:/pressbooks. nscc.ca Nova Scotia Community College), in a piece entitled ‘Theoretical Perspectives on Gender,’ Examine gender from structural-functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspective…

We find:

Structural functionalists might look at how values and norms shape societal notions of success in the workforce, and how these established values and norms reinforce the division of labor as well as gender inequality. For functionalists, when roles are clearly established, social solidarity increases. When large numbers of women began to enter the workforce beginning in World War II, they were paid less, but the rationale for this wage was that it was a necessary cost-saving measure during wartime. When women began to collectively demand ‘equal pay for equal work’ in the 1960’s, formal norms (laws) had to be passed for this to occur. As we have seen over the past 60 years, values do not always keep up with changing norms and vice versa.

Conflict theorists influenced by the theories of Karl Marx might analyze how the bourgeoisie use the wage gap to perpetuate an unequal system, and how the wage gap is successful in keeping the working classes both divided and subject to a politically neutralizing false consciousness. Females as a minority group, are paid less so that the dominant group (men) an maintain a greater share of status and power. The United States is an advanced capitalist society, so by paying some workers less than others (and all workers less than their actual value of their labor), those at the top increase their wealth, while the workers are led to believe they too can join the bourgeoisie if they work hard.

Interactionists would likely examine how meaning is produced and negotiated in social interactions and how that meaning is then translated into wage inequality. A woman who displays certain behaviors that are generally conceived of as being appropriate for leadership (i.e., strong, opinionated, concise) might be perceived as ‘bossy’ or ‘difficult to work with,’ whereas a man depicting the same behaviors would be perceived as someone who is ready for leadership. This type of meaning- making which is heavily gendered through generational cycles of socialization, contributes to the wage gap at the microsociological level.

Britannia.com tells us:

Sociology: a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that preserve and change them. It does this by examining the dynamics of constituent parts of societies such as institutions, communities, populations and gender, racial or age groups. Sociology also studies social stratus or stratification, social movement, and social change, as well as societal disorder in the form of crime, and revolution. Social life overwhelmingly regulates the behaviour of humans largely because humans lack the instincts that guide most animal behaviour. Humans therefore depend on social institutions and organizations to inform their decisions and actions. Given the important role organizations play in influencing human action, it is sociology’s task to discover how organizations affect the behaviour of persons, how they are established, how organizations interact with one another, how they decay, and ultimately how they disappear. Among the most basic organizational structures are economic, religious, educational and political institutions, as well as more specialized institutions such as the family, the community, the military, peer groups, clubs, and volunteer associations. Sociology, as a generalizing social science, is surpassed in its breadth only by anthropology-a discipline that encompasses archeology, physical anthropology and linguistics. The broad nature of sociological inquire causes it to overlap with other social sciences such as economics, political science, psychology, geography, education and law. Sociology’s distinguishing feature is its practice of drawing on a larger societal context to explain social phenomena.

Having an academic background empty of the study of sociology, and having spent a career engaged in activities that focused on the individual, in literature, in the English classroom, as a consultant to political and entrepreneurial men and women, and later in mail delivery and theology, where the individual man, woman and child were the ‘subject’ of all of the activities and interactions that were both expected and delivered, I feel somewhat blinded by debates over, for example, Critical Race Theory, which obviously has emerged from the study of sociology, and is part of the law curriculum in many graduate schools. I also feel quite discombobulated, disconnected and dismayed in a way that I feel ‘outside’ the framework, the lens and the discoveries of sociology, and certainly the theories which emerge therefrom.

Seeking to ‘catch up’ in a minimal and superficial way, to the kind of language, perception and public discourse that swamps the airwaves, I observe that political discourse focuses on platforms, ideas, ideologies and personalities. Disconnection, my own and that of many others, as I reflect on it, however, could come in part from the public ‘ethos,’ language,’ and perceptions/attitudes/values that focus intensely on the ‘group’s needs, rights, aspirations and proposed laws.’ I have for decades, scoffed at the daily newspapers’ fixation with both education and family matters being buried in the society and/or entertainment pages and never, except in a political or cultural or language crisis or conflict. The condescension enacted and expressed in that ‘location’ have never failed to both puzzle and anger me. While laws are written, enacted and prosecuted in application to the ‘deeds’ or ‘words’ of one or more individuals, and not on ‘groups,’ and only rarely and hesitatingly, until recently, on corporations, (which in the U.S. are defined as equivalent to a human, for legal purposes. Politicians pore over polls, demographics voting patterns and projections, as do marketers, in pursuit of individuals to reach, to convince, to ‘sell to.’ And in the processes, they dig, with the aid of digital technology, and more recently Artificial Intelligence and quantum computing, into the habits, preferences, beliefs and attitudes of those prospective ‘customers,’ ‘clients,’ ‘voters,’ and ‘donors,’ or philanthropic donors.

And in the nexus between those making decisions about our lives and the mountains of data on which they base their decisions, are individuals subject to those decisions. Call it a personal bias, and not an implicit but an explicit one, but I continue to hold to the notion that the individual ‘trumps’ the group, in relevance, significance, value, and especially as a valued ‘focus’ of study. It follows that psychology, religion, education, medicine and law, all of them setting a premium value on the individual, certainly within a context, continue to warrant the large portion of our academic funding, research, creative enterprise. It follows, too, that the politicians, the marketers, the digital programmers and clearly the artificial intelligence guru’s, themselves, individual human beings, need to take extreme care not to violate the individual human being’s privacy, dignity, honour, and legitimacy by subsuming each individual into the ‘domain’ of some highly specific and nuanced ‘group.’

And, from a dominant sociological perspective, we have pharmacological companies and the medical professionals who administer their products, caring little for the side-effects of their pills, so long as those pills remediate the specific ‘symptom’ they are designed to medicate. In organizations, too, many of which have their roots in the military, the quasi-military, hierarchical structure and expectation, including norms, rules, and sanctions, based on the supposedly superior and super-ordinant needs and expectations of the organization, the individual who does not comport with, comply with or actually deviates from those rules and regulations too often is the subject of sanctions, including dismissal. And in many cases, the obligation of the organization to investigate fully the context of the ‘deviance’ is so limited, or non-existent, that the ‘individual’s story is never told or included in the decision-making. Culturally, as the critical parent archetype is so dominant, and those with power consider it their ‘responsibility’ to make sure that all organizational norms, regulations and rules are obeyed, the organization’s perceived needs frequently eclipse the individual’s story, legitimacy and rationale.

As the dominance of the sociological perspective increases, emboldened by the billions of contractual dollars that pay for their ‘studies’ by those seeking power, by those in power and by those whose job it is to sustain their organization’s stature, reputation, and dividend profits for shareholders.

This sociological perspective, perhaps unconsciously, although certainly not unconsciously from the perspective of either its scholars or its clients, is a threat to the individual human perspective. It gives emphasis, exaggeration, and even legitimacy to the thoughts, ideas, values, ethics and goals and expectations of the organization far beyond their inherent value. And while there are reasonable ‘belonging’ aspects of our lives, to adolescent teams, to workplace part-time jobs, to academic disciplines, and to religious denominations and sects, the private, personal and individual human perspectives, needs, and aspirations are potentially engulfed in the social norms….a dynamic which is considered appropriate and relevant among adolescents, and not so much among adults.

Clearly, however, fitting in to the trump cult, for example, has thwarted millions of lives of otherwise healthy, normal, self-respective men and women. Belonging to something that, itself, is an overt, deliberate, deconstructionist and iconoclastic revolutionary movement to overthrow the American democratic institutions of governance. The sense of belonging to a gang, being part of something rebellious, revolutionary, without a full grasp of the danger to their own lives, to the future of the nation and to the implications of the geopolitical landscape, just as it does to gang members on the streets of New York, or Chicago, twists, contorts and defames the lives of those wo have succumb to its seductions.

From easysociology.com in a piece entitled ‘The Sociology of Gangs,’ by Mr. Edwards, May 19, 2024, updated July 9, 2024, we read: 

Gangs have been a persistent social phenomenon, shaping and being shaped by the environments in which they exist. They are complex social organizations that often emerge in marginalized communities, where economic, social, and political factors intersect to create fertile grounds for their development….

Strain theory, developed by sociologist Robert K. Merton, posits that deviance, including gang membership, arises when individuals are unable to achieve socially approved goals through legitimate means.

Social Disorganization Theory…rooted in the work of Chicago School of Sociology, attributes gang formation to the breakdown o social institutions in communities. In neighborhoods with high levels of poverty, residential mobility, and ethnic heterogeneity, social bonds are weakened leading to a lack of community cohesion and effective social control….This theory underscores the importance of community-based interventions to strengthen social ties and reduce gang activity.

Differentiation Association Theory. Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory suggests that criminal behavior, including gang involvement, is learned https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.medavie.mobile&pcampaignid=web_sharethrough interactions with others. Individuals who associate with gang members are more likely to adopt their values and behaviors. This theory emphasizes the role of socialization and peer influence on the development of deviant behavior. It suggests that interventions aimed at disrupting these associations and providing positive role models can be effective in preventing gang involvement.

Cultural Deviance Theory posits that gang behavior is a result of individuals conforming to a subculture that deviates from mainstream societal norms. In marginalized communities, subcultures that value toughness, street smarts, and loyalty to the gang can develop. These values are often reinforced through sharehttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.medavie.mobile&pcampaignid=web_shared experiences of discrimination, poverty, and exclusion. Cultural deviance theory highlights the need to address the broader cultural and structural factors that contribute to the development of deviant cultures.

Not to dispute, disdain or even to reject the sociological, theoretical definitions and their respective applications, perceptions and emphases above, there can be little doubt that such scholarship, highly theoretical, somewhat abstract, certainly unfamiliar to many, if not all, of the prominent policy-makers, and certainly omlegislators, is contributing to the ‘divide’ that has emerged between the ‘academic effetes’ or the ‘woke crowd’, on the part of a segment of the conservative ‘right’. Debunking such sociological perspectives, as ‘far-left-liberal-danger’ says much more about the debunkers than about the scholarship.

On the other hand, today on the 100^th birthday of James Baldwin, civil rights activist, born in Harlem on this date, and from whom others have gleaned insight, wisdom and courage. Professor Eddie Glaude Jr. in his book Begin Again paean to Baldwin, quotes Baldwin’s 1963 speech at Howard University:

It is the responsibility of the Negro writer to excavate the real history of this country…We must tell the truth till we can no longer bear it.

 Speaking on Morning Joe, on MSNBC, this morning, Professor Glaude recounted a time when, in writing this book, he became blocked, unable to continue. Peering at a candle gift, in memory of Baldwin, he ‘heard’ (mystically, mythically, and imaginatively), Baldwin speaking to him: ‘You have to go inside and speak of your own pain and your own story.’(words to that effect).Glaude was responding to a question from Mike Barnacle, Do you think white people will ever come to fully understand the feelings of the black folk in this country?

And here is the nexus between the ‘social’ and the ‘personal’ that we may be in danger of missing in our public discourse. The collection, curation and interpretation of personal, private, poetic, dramatic and articulate narratives of the ‘inner life’ of individuals, their ‘stories,’ form the foundational evidence for all of the other academic, clinical, scholarly, demographic and ostensibly objective ‘theories,’ and ‘diagnoses,’ and ‘interventions,’ and ‘treatments,’ and ‘management,’ theories in which policy makers are engaged.

The risk is that the tidal wave of the academic research, separate from the private, personal, poetic narratives will continue to sideline or even to obliterate, while also ‘sacralizing’ and ‘heroizing’ the poets, visionaries, activists and artists like Baldwin.

Poets, and certainly not policy-makers or legislators and pundits, are compelled not only by Baldwin, but by their own consciences, consciousness, and imagination to summon both the courage and the commitment to ‘tell the deepest, darkest and most heinous’ of their experiences. And this commitment not only enlightens the culture generally, but more importantly ennobles and inspires others to commit their/our stories. And that courage and compassion of the writer is a gift like no other.

Theories, by definition, carry the risk of ‘glossing over’ and thereby of ‘blinding’ us to the blood, the guts, and the muscle, the sinew and the heart of our shared lives.