It is time to be socialized. Question-why we are social beings? Why do we, as a species, feel compelled to discourse about how one and has become socialized? Why is it that, we find it necessary to impart our beliefs, dreams, and ideals, that are contained from within, in what we believe is the social fabric of reality? Why is it, that we explain the way we are, as an individual, or group? Why is it, we are not contented in just being? And, why is it that, we do not understand that we simply are?
The simple answer, of course, was best put forth by the philosopher Descartes, “I think therefore, I am!” which is the first step—to realize that we exist, and that we think. To question who, what, when, why, and how allows us the ability to have introspection. As an individual, it, being engaged in social relationships, allows us the confirmation of our perceptions. As a culture, made up of individuals, realized as a group, that we recapitulate the “social contract” in belief and the confirmation of perceived reality.
In essence, we are social beings not because we chose to be, but because we have to be in order to validate the essentials of who we are, we may, at times, want to stand alone—but the endeavor of doing so is frighteningly surreal that we must have confirmation in our perspective.
This perspective of knowing is referred to as the “culture”-at-whole, or one’s society. In anthropology, the study of the human condition, for instance, has six concurrent points. According to one Dr. Robert Carlsen from the
With those definitions in hand, we see similarities of their terms, but the nuances of how they are perceived and utilized. For instance, anthropology, sociology, and political science have one essential point they agree on, in order to have a “culture” must be “shared,” thus, requiring that two (or more) persons be in attendance in order for the ideals, beliefs, values to be transmitted (shared).
The sharing, if you will, creates an opportunity for others to share their aspect of reality. In truth, the narration of perceptions helps establish the “norms,” “sanctions” (both punishments and rewards), whether it is from the aspect of politics, music, art, or controlled through the guise of social control and order.
In political science speak, this social control and order is sometimes referred to as quadrants, broken down into four separate entities: upper left (psychological inside, why I do what I do), upper right (individual behavior and appearance, what I do), lower left (cultural values and meanings, why we do what we do), and lower left (natural values and social systems, what we do what we do).[3] The bottom two quadrants are from out of the person lower left is primary social control is performed from the mass media “primarily” meaning that there is overlapping in each quadrant. While the lower right systems of control are both from the outside by cooperation and coercion, through the participation in the “social contract,” in this quadrant we are reliant on the “rule of law.” We also in this contract are reliant that the governmental institutions will not abuse its power.
In the terms of power and abuse, the mass media-at-large would have one believe that it is not part of the institutions, but more in the bottom left—a reflection of the people. Needles to say, it is one of our primary institutions in a democratic republic. In so being that, even Marshal McLuhan[4] saw mass media as the over saturation of social control of the culture. He particularly found this true of the electronic media and the commodification of consumerism. The food products and consumer goods have been “branded”[5] to be integrated in the everyday “subsistence” of American life. One such purveyor of this over saturation, consumerism, and branding is McDonalds.
McDonalds as one of the “founders” that exemplified business model for chain store, franchises, of commodification of a product, and certainly an identity. See the examples of Kmart, Target, and the current king of the hill—Walmart. In the worlds of McDonalds, most everything is about “instant gratification” of what one wants: “I want what I want when I want it” is the mantra of the American consumer. In the movie Super Size Me, the protagonist Morgan Spurlock, tries to illustrate the “addiction” of convenience to both the product—and the consumerism of the individual. Furthermore, this “convenience” (the ability to have what we want when we want it) has led us to be more of net-debtor nation[6]. Investment foreign dollars outweighs the net domestic investment. Americans personal debt is consuming yet we are spending uncontrollably, for instance, in a recent Reuters report Americans feel “swamped” and are “nervous” about their debt.[7] However, Americans willingness to accept debt has fed their need for overindulgence and created children of entitlement. As an example, in the movie Super Size Me, stated that children view more than 10,000 food and products toys advertisement.
Advertisement geared toward children in order to adjoin the parents to buy the product for their kids. This is a form of socialization, by implicit peer pressure, or reverse enculturation. The begging of mom and dad of “this is what I want” creates hyper-consumerism and entitlement. Some social critics say the root cause of this overindulgent attitude is the welfare state, education, and the lack of god in schools—including the latest reports of the lack of work ethics—“of being slackers” has led it to its coming “Fall”[8] in values, ideals, morality, and again, lack of religion.
The prestige of
For instance, in a book by Philippe Bourgois called In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio tries to make the case for crack dealers that by definition are individuals who have been marginalized socially, economically, and culturally have had negative long-term relationships with mainstream society. In his discourse, Bourgois suggests those who are perceived outside of the “norm,” shunted away deliberately and are the pariah to the culture, to the society-at-large, become marginalized and ignored. This is another form of socialization known as isolation. The social control of the culture has determined what is acceptable, and what is not: to be a drug addict and a drug dealer is deviant and considered out of the norm. Furthermore, this is defined as being “labeled” and “framed” because of the user and dealer compunction for instant gratification so that the normative can ridicule and excoriate those who fail to take initiative for their lives (also known as personal responsibility—the behavior quadrant, upper right).
In other words, their type of self-indulgence is outside the line of normalcy, even though one can make a case with all the drug advertisement on television that Americans have drug addiction problems albeit legal one because it is with prescription drugs: have a headache—take a pill (Excedrin). Have back pain—take a pill (Advil). Have a sexually transmitted disease—take a pill (Valtrex). Can’t get it up—take a pill (Viagra). So, one version of perversity is accepted, even blended within American toleration, from the political lobbyists known as “Big Pharma” (pharmaceutical) to the instant gratification of the individual to cure quickly the pain or illness that one has been suffering from. Meanwhile, the illegalities of illicit and undesired drugs are condemned.
Therefore, the one aspect of socialization affects the entirety of the “group” and illustrates how and individual can be skewered to one aspect of correction, while another could be compelled toward insurrection, because of “socioeconomic” conditions and the influence of their peers.
Earlier I made the following assertions that the society-at-whole was a confirmation of the individual—but let me add this, that the individual gives credence to the society by reaffirming, recapitulating, reenacting the values, ideals, beliefs, philosophies—and structure of the culture. By doing so, the socialization of the individual through immediate influences of their parents, who have been indoctrinated by the culture values from previous influences of their family and outside culture of their time. This is known as passing of traditions. It is also known as transmission, or better put retransmission of social instruction (values, ideals, beliefs, and of structure).
The social instruction can be termed as “culture,” which by this author preference as defined by anthropology. It allows for the encompassing “intangibility”—which adjoins that statement of culture and is shared, integrated, and connected to that culture in order to socially instruct the blueprint for survival, while obviously being learned—and is adaptable. Sociology and political science do not necessarily account for these aspects and are not ordinarily apparent within their definitions.
Human creatures can associate the definitions of the abstract, but needless to say want clarity. This can be seen in the compunction for it, the “War on Terror” as an example, shows the public cognitive dissonance of “who attacked us” versus “who is believed to have attacked us” (by the way this author will not restate the obvious—and the facts have been catalogued by history and has been “pretexted” [9] by the extremes on the both sides).
This author also asserted the nuances of the term “sharing” and that “reality is the narration of perception.” Let me further define, it also mythologizes it. Joseph Campbell, the once great storyteller and interpreter of western mythos see this as necessary to embrace, the acceptance of one’s place within the community, and the acceptance of one’s culture milestones (sweet sixteen, eighteenth birthday to mark adulthood, college, marriage, children to name a few).
Let me further state the assertions this paper makes are to challenge you—“the reader” perspectives and for you to recognize one’s identity within the examples of abstraction. I have also given grand sweeping illustrations to associate with, such as “The War on Terror,”—what emotion was attached, or felt, when read by you? This too is a form of socialization. Keywords, symbols, ideals, values—or key phrases can relate a shape of emotion. This is the quadrant of what I feel—upper left. This has been described by Sherry Ortner, an anthropologist, as summarizing and elaborating symbols as a necessary function of culture—and indeed a form of social control of how one perceives it.
For example, how one views the American flag is a summarizing symbols, it has mean that has been innately taught by the parents of how they react to it, while elaborating symbols via root metaphors (one personal myths are learned via family and social connections) and key scenarios the cultural scripts (prejudgments and stereotypes). This is what I mean, Vine Deloria Jr., was a history, law, political science professor at the
“The bottom line about information possessed by non-western peoples is that the information becomes valid only when offered by a white scholar recognized by academic establishment; in effect, the color of skin guarantees scientific objectivity” (p. 35).
But then he earlier relays the story of Immanuel Velikovsky, who published Worlds in Collision which promulgated the theory that “Earth had been subjected to several catastrophes of an extraterrestrial nature. …and based on Old Testament memories…” (p 31) was “overall’ ostracized by other scientists and academic community. In other words, he is trying hard to impart the hostility and dogma of the sciences as a way to illustrate the groupthink. This too is socialization.
In essence, these two examples, as the others are perspectives of socialization from the coercive point-of-view. A shaming mechanism or marginalization of deviance (being different), outside of the norm, ideas not readily shared within the “in-group” of culture.
To be sure the “in-group” implicates that there may be and is an “out-group.” This author can relate; as a teenager and well into adulthood I have been science fiction fanatic—a geek even. I still from time to time can be “geeked out” for the latest science fiction film. See Star Wars—pre trilogy and fantasy genre Lord of the Rings trilogy as examples. These movies are cooperative socialization and are transmitted by the bottom left—the socialization of “art” but with an exception. The science fiction nerd views the world from the outside in and considered deviant—out of the norm.
Some view the science fiction nerds, geeks, as the deviant who is lost in whimsy that they are only connected to robots, busty science fiction damsels, pristine utopias, dark dystopias, and magical elf fantasy worlds of realities. I see them, of course, as wondrous possibilities. I see them as a way transform and transcend the politic, social, and economic woes—and I see it as world centric, universe centric, view, with a twist of western-American centrism, that believes in the freedom right standards and combined with leanings of the bottom social left and bit of bottom order right. However, the social control of the bottom left and the bottom order right are too dogmatic at the extremes, and I find them too polarizing. Meaning that trying to legislate morally and behavior is nonsensical, not pragmatic, and certainly uncontrollable. Unfortunately for me, the polar extremes believe one can—and once again, I am considered deviant and a voyeur, looking into the world of normalcy of and for the extremes, of the bottom quadrants.
The bottoms, social left and order right although diametrically opposites cooperate through social control and governmental systems of the citizenry have their uses. Upon reflection however, there is one certainty—television. The electronic media’s altar and institution aids in the installation or instillation of culture is never ending; patient (after a fashion); caring not of consequences; and, is the ultimate “socializing” entity. Speaking of which, it is time to be social and turn it on. Click! Of course, McDonalds Egg McMuffin being advertised, huh—I am hungry for McGriddle though…. And so it goes this socialization...
Bibliography
Bourgois, Philippe, “In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio”
Campbell, Joseph, “The Power of Myth.” Anchor Book (1988, 1991).
Deloria, Jr., Vine, “Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact” Fulcrum Press (1997).
Lambek, Michael, editor, “A Reader in Anthropology of Religion” (Sheryl B. Ortner-- “On Key Symbols” p. 158) Blackwell Publishing (2002).
McLuhan,
Schaefer, Richard T, “Sociology: Tenth Edition” (1983, 2005-2007).
[1] Enculturation is being defined as to instill from within the familial unit” the ideas, beliefs, and religion from one’s parents and immediate social groupings (which includes close-considered friends).
[2] Acculturation is being defined as to “instill from without the familial unit” the ideas, belief, and religion from the perspective of social control, through the “rule of law, education (schools), and mass media.
[3] These perspectives are from class lectures by Professor Harv Bishop from the
[4] A social critic of mass media.
[5] “Branded” has been defined as market place familiarity with its products that its name replaces the actual name itself.
[6] Edward L Hudgins wrote a memorandum September 24, 1985 that US had move to a debtor nation. See http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/EM92.cfm
[7] In a Boston Reuters articles touches on consumers feeling of debt. See http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2006/07/20/poll_americans_nervous_about_high_levels_of_debt/.
[8] Some social critics such as Jim Nelson Black, discourses in his book “When Nations Die.” See the review at http://www.probe.org/content/view/783/91/.
[9] This is the new word for “lying.”
No comments:
Post a Comment