SumBlog 11

Giddens compares the then current state of our society between the description of postmodernity and radicalized modernity. He uses some of Max Weber’s ideas in that as society advances “the bonds of rationality are drawn tighter and tighter, imprisoning us in a featureless cage of bureaucratic routine.” (p.367). I understand this because I can see the same thing happen as you grow up and advance through school. As a young kid you’re running wild but as you get older and move up in school; cliques and crowds and in groups form and there’s less individuality. Which actually while just writing that, helped me understand the next part of the reading I didn’t understand. Giddens said that Weber’s characterization of bureaucracy is inadequate and that “Rather than tending inevitably towards rigidity, organizations produce areas of autonomy and spontaneity – which are often less easy to achieve in smaller groups.” (p.368). I didn’t get this because I figured if you’re in a smaller group than it would be easier to keep tabs on each other. Using the same example of kids in school, for me I saw that when people found their smaller segregated groups that they were comfortable with, they could be more themselves because they felt safe around the ones they were with. I know my example isn’t a perfect match to what he’s talking about but it helps me relate. An uncommon relationship he mentioned later on was the one between intimacy and abstract systems, specifically “Money, for example, can be spent to purchase the expert services of a psychologist who guides the individual in an exploration of the inner universe of the intimate and the personal.” (p.369) and he brings this up in the mention of how we are encouraged more and more in a modernized society to exchange intimacy for impersonality.

 

 

Sum Blog 10

Thick and thin descriptions as an idea of Gilbert Ryle are the classifications of depth intended as a result of someone’s action to another person or nobody in particular. He uses an encompassing example of two boys winking their eyelids. To one boy the wink is voluntary but to the other, his wink is an involuntary twitch. The thin description is found easiest in the person’s perception who’s observing the two boys action by still frame. You cannot negotiate the motive of either action. This limited background gives us our thin description. As we know more about the situation we can start to thicken up our descriptions. Going further you can ask if they are “twitching, winking, parodying, rehearsing” (p.289) etc. Of society this example can be used to show “the piled up structures of inference and implication” (p.289) that we have created of our society.

Clifford Geertz states that to study a society you must look at “the first instance” (p.289). You have to understand the base that everything is built on before you can evaluate and start making assumptions for other actions. I think of this as a very large math problem. Say overall there are 20 steps between the start and finish, if you make a mistake on one number then not only will the final result be wrong but every step after will be skewed accordingly.

A favorite part of his explanation was a quote he included from Ward Goodenough that says a society’s culture “consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable by its members.” (p.290), this is where we get our understanding and motive for our winks. Whether they are voluntary to imply something to another person, to mock another person, to practice for when you see another person. It all contributes to the thicker description. When we can understand the definition of one action it helps us build the rest.

  A simple picture of figuring out what's behind it all.

Sum Blog Ocho

                 It’s all around us; it’s our daily life, our interactions. But how do we act? Why do we act that way? Would you argue your actions are independent of the situational norms and true to the very center of your being? Whether you think they are or aren’t, there are strong arguments expressed by Erving Goffman that says your actions are de facto influenced by the situation you’re in.

                “The individual as a character performed” (p.256) Erving holds the idea of individuals as performers that act in ways to maintain their reputation of however they desire to be perceived. But he says they are performing in a moral world and as performers they aren’t concerned with the moral issue of the realization of the action but only in the actions perception, depicting the intention of the performer. That the performer might act well enough to convince their audience, they too, share with society “a single definition of the situation” (p.257). Whether or not the action is credited or discredited, it is a concern to the performer because the requirement of a performance by a character is inorganic to the self. “Nothing real or actual can happen to the performer” (p.257) because the performer isn’t real, it all goes away with the specific situation that evoked it and the only thing left is the reputation that the self wants others to see it embodies, whether it does or doesn’t. It all comes down to how convincing the impression was/is.

                The self is you, as you were born, but as you grow up you grow up as a product. A product of all the experiences and interactions you’ve had throughout your life to date. You grow up developing your ideal-self; you base this off of everything you’ve seen/felt/experienced etc. everything you’ve liked and disliked about all of it.  “The machinery of self-production sometimes breaks down, exposing its components.” (p.257). This simply recognizes and exhibits how people try to adapt to norms. They hatch what they think to be adequate productions, but as it falls apart the performer’s insecurities are revealed consequently revealing the synthetic natured performance of response.

                So returning to the question of whether or not you consider your actions to be truly idiosyncratic, think about the times you feel insecure. Are there a few or many? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5xo4NFRaS0

@1:12- those names aren't real (first or last is made up with first or last of real name)

@1:35- that's not a real trick and they only have 5 rounds before the finals.

I think the couple at :50 is joking the whole thing but they're pretty funny.