The Truth About Tobacco

By now we have all seen at least one public service announcement from TheTruth.com. The organization has aired anti-smoking commercials for over a decade, and their advertisements generally target tobacco companies, and show them in a less-than-becoming light. For example, one PSA describes "Big Tobacco" almost as a hunter, looking for its next target to put its lethal cross-hairs on:

If we were to look at The Truth Campaign through a functionalist lens, we first have to understand what functionalists concern themselves with. Functionalists look at social problems, institutions, or other social structures and determine their "function," or what they are trying to achieve. Taking the The Truth Campaign, for example, the function of Truth is to promote public health by decreasing the rate of smoking. The decrease of smoking is also the manifest function, or the intended function, of the Truth campaign. In this regard, the campaign has been successful: the rate of smoking has decreased by 15 percent from 1997, the time Truth was formed, to 2004. Of course, causation is nearly impossible to prove, but at the very least there is a correlation. In this way, the campaign is functional: it is fulfilling its niche in the social milieu.

However, if we look at the manifest functions of anti-smoking commercials, we must also look at the latent functions, or the unintended functions. The most predominant, at least in my eyes, is less quantifiable than such an easily-published decrease in smoking rate. It is the effect of villainizing those who do smoke: you cannot smoke within twenty-five feet of a public building (we don't want you here); you are contributing to the funds of companies that are responsible for nearly 500,000 deaths a year in the U.S. alone. That is quite the burden to carry. As a person who has chose to enjoy cigarettes, at least for the time being, it is impossible not to experience the ostracizing effects of the anti-smoking mindset: glares, downcast eyes, questioning remarks, exclamatory facts about death, or the ever-simple, "You cannot smoke here," all attributes to it. I'm not saying second-hand some cannot be detrimental to those who do not chose it for themselves, but the fact that a certain amount of otherization seems undeniable: smokers are latently being made villains.

Whether or not a negative latent function means that the system of public health policies (i.e. The Truth Campaign), means it is dysfunctional, I am not sure. Indeed, the latent function could possibly be declared beneficial to some parties such as states, who are able to levy increasing cigarette taxes (302.5 cents per pack in Washington, as compared to 17.0 cents per pack in Missouri). It seems logical that a state would be able to put in place a higher cigarette tax the more the activity was demonized, but perhaps that is a little to "Conflict Theory-like" for a post about functionalism as it relates to anti-smoking commercials.

To end this rather abruptly, and perhaps prematurely, anti-smoking commercials seem to be functional in their pursuit: they play a part in decreasing smoking rates throughout the United States. As with anything there will always be an argument for why something could possibly be bad, in this case demonizing citizens who chose to smoke, but it is neither up to me or within my power to decide whether the cost outweighs the benefits - perhaps the two are incomparable and require two different paradigms to weight.

Sources:

Marc Kaufman (2007, November 5) The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801094.html

The Associated Press (2011, September 7) The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/07brfs-SMOKINGRATED_BRF.html

No Author Listed (2011, March 21) Center for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

No Author, (2011, March) Federation of Tax Administration. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarette.pdf

The Big A

The big "A" ... The scarlet letter, a woman walks the streets feeling as though her letter is showing. Her heart is broken, but her mind is free. Should she feel shunned by society for what she has done? Or great relief knowing she did the right thing for herself? Today in society, this letter no longer stands for Adultery... It stands for Abortion. We all know that if Bill Clinton had participated in allowing a personal abortion instead of having a personal affair, he would've been burned at the stake by the public! But which is really worse??

When people think abortion, they think murder, the taking of an innocent soul and life. This is known as a conflict perspective theory: The view of a society is seen and accepted as a normal conflict socially. For Example: People tend to battle over things they don’t agree on, such as goals and values, concerning precious resources and are driven by power. In this case, they are fighting for the value of their personal morals and social beliefs.

In 1988 there was a survey taken in 27 different countries, asking why women seek abortion. The biggest reason they found was, that the women could not afford a child, or more children. That they were unable to support a child or simply wanted to wait for a later time in life, so they could afford to provide the proper care and schooling.

{Fact: More than 40% of all fertile women will have an abortion in their lifetime.} The most common type of women known to get an abortion is either younger, white, unmarried, poor, or they are over the age of 40. (ie.emedicineheath)

Before 1973, all abortions performed by doctors in the US were illegal unless they were proven dangerous to the health of the mother. In 1973 a woman named Jane Roe had found herself pregnant and single. She wanted the right to have a safe abortion done by a doctor, for she could not afford to travel to where it was legal. She fought for the rights of abortion for herself and all women in America. She won, giving women everywhere in America the power to decide for themselves. This was a huge part of women’s rights! They were given the power of the decision over their own bodies. Many see this as a bad thing but on the other side, it allowed pregnancy to be planned and a planned child can be a bigger gift to a woman. Although it's been 38 years now since the decision, it's still one of the biggest social debates on table today!

This has been a touchy subject weighing heavily on the minds of law makers and the public for decades. Abortion is going to happen whether it's legal or not. The difference lies in the methods used. In the medieval times, a mixture of herbs was given to fore the body to kill and expel the fetus. Unfortunately this method also often shut down the females organs causing death to the mother as well. Luckily technology has changed and such torture isn’t necessary. These days in areas where abortions are illegal in medical practice, or a teen is afraid to ask for help, they often choose to use much more drastic measures, such as hitting their stomach or ingesting harmful toxins. These methods usually don’t work and have devastating effects, physically and mentally to the mother and child (if they survive). Fact: About 1 in every 8 pregnancy related deaths in the world are caused by unsafe abortions. So when law makers consider making abortion illegal, are they saving a life? Or are they taking one?



http://www.mariestopes.org/documents/publications/cries_whispers_untold_stories_of_unsafe_abortion.pdf



References:

• http://www.afterabortion.com/social.html

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Safety

• http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm

• http://www.mariestopes.org/documents/cries%20&%20whispers%20-%20untold%20stories%20of%20unsafe%20abortion.pdf

Conflict Theory and Lady Gaga

In today’s world sometimes it is hard to tell why celebrities are doing what they are doing. Does anyone even care? Unfortunately, yes. With social mediums like Facebook and Twitter blowing up everyday people like us can easily follow and obsess over celebrities we don’t even know and probably will never meet. These celebrities have so much influence they have the power to make something popular or unpopular with one “tweet”. From a conflict theorist’s point of view, this is the bourgeoisie exerting its power and control over the proletariat; the bourgeoisie being the small group of people with wealth and power and the proletariat being the rest of society being exploited by the bourgeoisie. I am going to use Lady Gaga as an example of one person in the celebrity industry that makes a lot of money off of society and her fans.

Karl Marx is the founder of conflict theory. He saw the horrors of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and watched as peasants were taken advantage of by their employers. Marx focused his theory on the idea that society is based on class conflict. These days sociologists have broadened that definition. Many sociologists see conflict theory as a small group with lots of power or wealth exploiting or influencing another group with less resources. Opposing interests can be seen throughout society on small and large scales. Lady Gaga is large scale. She has a huge amount of influence over her fan base and young people everywhere. I don’t want to offend anyone by saying that Lady Gaga is an absolute sell-out, but I am analyzing her for the purposes of explaining conflict theory and therefore see her through the lens of doing unnecessary things for profit.

“Gaga is well-recognized for her outre’ sense of style as a recording artist, in fashion, in performance, and in her music videos” states her website. She uses all of these outlets to influence people. With her crazy outfits and I-don’t-want-to-see-this-but-I-can’t-look-away music videos she is making a statement to her audience. All of her over the top antics create talk about her, which has made her famous, which in turn influences her audience to like what she likes and believe what she believes. She makes money off of all of her work because she has created an enterprise and continues to expand. I would say all of her crazy stunts are marketing techniques to get attention. One website about the mass media and popular culture says that “marketing strategies make popular culture a business”. I agree with that statement and think that Gaga is the perfect example. She does crazy things and puts out intriguing videos and wears meat dresses to get anyone’s attention, good or bad. Then once she has all of this talk built up around her she has power. According to Gaga’s website she is on the Forbes’ list of “The World’s Most Powerful Celebrities” and she is also ranked at number seven on their “100 most Powerful Women” list. Also, she is included in Time’s “The 2010 Time 100” list of the most influential people in the world.

Gaga has the power and influence to control her audience. In this case Gaga is the bourgeoisie and her audience is the proletariat. She influences the proletariat’s spending habits, feelings, fashion decisions, and even their ideals and political thoughts. She might not have bad intentions but she is certainly manipulating the world around her.

In case you haven’t seen any of her videos or outfits here are a few examples of the things she does to perpetuate her celebrity status:

Citations:

"Exploration Two: Mass Media and Popular Culture." Media Studies. N.p., n.d. 
     Web. 18 Sept. 2011. <http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/ 
     media20revision/unit1/lesson2/lesson2.html>.\

Henslin, James. Essentials of Sociology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2007. Print.

"Info, Bio." Lady Gaga Official Site. Streamline Records, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 
     2011. <http://www.ladygaga.com/default.aspx>.

http://youtu.be/wV1FrqwZyKw

http://freddyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Lady_Gaga_Meat_Dress.jpg

Video Game Violence

Violent video games have become one of the most popular types of games played today.  Someone can take one the role of a soldier or a mass murderer from their living room, and never feel any of the consequences of taking the life of another. A perfect game to demonstrate this ability would be Grand Theft Auto. See a car you like? Steal it. Someone you don't like? Shoot him. A cop in your way? Blow him up.  And, think nothing of it. The game has sold over 30 million copies worldwide and, of course, it is just supposed to be a fun game.  However, there are a select few that have turned peoples view of the games into breeders of death and destruction.

When we look at this issue, values, norms, and sanctions all play a large role. These terms are related in meaning. Values are the standards by which people define what is desirable, undesirable, good, bad, etc. Norms are expectations and rules/ways of behavior that reflect and enforce values.  Sanctions are the expressions of approval or disapproval given to people for upholding or violating norms. 

Now, I think we can all agree that video games really are played for entertainment, and nothing more.  However, in 2003, Devin Moore (18 years old, at the time) was guilty of a triple homicide of three Alabama policemen. After being in detention for stealing a car, he took the pistol of one of the officers and used it to shoot them all. What is to blame? Well, attorneys say it's because he played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months. "[He] was trained to do what he did. He was given a murder simulator," said Attorney Jack Thompson.  The real question is, was it really the game's fault?

We have to examine Moore's values as a person. After playing that game, did his values of what is good and bad really change due to what he was able to do on the video game?  Did he really think because he can sit in front of his TV and do that, that he could go out in real life and suffer no consequences?  Moore never had any criminal record and was probably raised to understand the norms and sanctions of today's society.  The problem is, while playing Grand Theft Auto, he never experienced any real negative sanctions for the mass murder of cops. Yes, he was probably killed or arrested multiple times on the game, but what do you have to do when that happens?  Just reload the game.  It's that simple.  Moore could have taken that to mean that he could basically do the same thing in real life. These norms, or expectations of how to behave, in the game were now the norms this kid lived by, and he paid for it. In 2005, Moore got probably the largest negative sanction one can receive: the death penalty.

Do I think Grand Theft Auto is to blame for this guy's mistakes?  Not necessarily.  However, I can definitely understand why many people believe that. A multi-million dollar lawsuit was filed against the makers of Grand Theft Auto because of these events, once again claiming that the game was to blame for the kids killing spree. What do you think? Was he raised poorly and/or going through life events that put him over the top? Or is the game responsible, even if just partly?

Sources:

Leung, Rebecca. "Can A Video Game Lead To Murder? - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml

Surette, Tim. "Judge Sentences Gamer to Death - News at GameSpot." GameSpot Is Your Go-to Source for Video Game News, Reviews, and Entertainment. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135335.html.

Henslin, James M. Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2007. Print.

Observing Discrimination in Retail Auto Sales Through the Prism of Symbolic Interactionism

Every discipline has theoretical basis for discussion and communication amongst its members.  The military uses Clausewitz or Jomini to discuss Western military thought and Mao or Sun-Tzu to discuss Eastern military thought.   Sociologists likewise use three theoretical perspectives to describe and explain the complex dynamics that exists in society: symbolic interactionism, functional analysis and conflict theory.  This blog post draws upon a recent experience of my daughter entering the retail auto market to illustrate the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism to better understand the dynamics involved in her experience.

On 24 Aug my daughter had the misfortune of being hit at an intersection, by a woman trying to beat the yellow light, as my daughter was waiting to make a left turn.  After the insurance company assessed the damages, my daughter found herself as one of the newest entrants into the new car marketplace.  After extensive research to determine what she wanted, she narrowed her options down to three models and began visiting dealerships to test drive and make the final selection.  At 29, my daughter was not a novice in the car shopping process as this would be her third such purchase.

She went to a local Ford dealership, found a salesman and asked to see and test drive the Ford Escape.  She indicated she wanted to see both new and any used models they may have.  He first showed her the Ford Focus, told her about its features and mentioned that insurance companies would give her a good deal on insurance for drivers under twenty-five.  She thanked him for the compliment, but informed him that she was beyond twenty-five and once again expressed her desire to see the Ford Escape.  He then proceeded to take her to the Ford Flex and once again reiterated the under twenty-five insurance discount.  Again she reiterated her age and desire to see and test drive the Escape, but rather than showing her the Escape, he showed her several other models.  Frustrated and annoyed, she departed the dealership after an hour-and-a-half without ever seeing the model she desired.

She recounted her ordeal to me that evening, and several days later, I accompanied her to the same dealership—albeit with a different salesman.  Although I was merely a silent companion on the visit, she was shown the Ford Escape, allowed to test drive the one she desired and was given a fair expectation what the actual sales price would be from the sticker price.  To finish my daughter’s saga, she found another dealership that had an Escape with the right color and features, secured a prearranged price (at $299 above invoice), arranged for her loan at a bank other than the Ford Credit at the dealership and bought the car—again with me as the silent companion.

Although my daughter’s experience was an individual experience, discrimination in the new car market at dealerships is an ongoing target of research and anecdotal observation.  Peter Blumberg wrote in the NY Times: "Women are scared to death of buying a car because the process can be intimidating,...In the showroom you generally deal with men, and some can talk down to women as if they’re interested only in color. Negotiations can be grinding. Couples often find that salespeople address mostly the man (Blumberg 1-2).”  Ian Ayres, a law professor, studied how gender and race affected price negotiations in new car sales and found discrimination against white women, black women and black men in prices quoted during the price negotiations.  He published his findings in Harvard Law Review in 1991 then expanded his study along with the assistance of a research fellow Peter Siegelman and confirmed the earlier results in 1995.

Car shopping and negotiating the final sales price is an example of two people interacting to agree on the value of the car which process also includes an assessment by each participant of the other participant.  This process of using symbols, values or labels to shape our interactions is an example of symbolic interactionism which states that the individual interactions within a society are defined by the values, or labels, we use to define all aspects of our society and the deference we either give or receive from others.  In the U.S. we rise at the entrance of the President, state governor or the playing of the national anthem similarly military members rise at the entrance of a senior commander or general.  As a society, there may or may not be a consensus on the labels certain groups used during interactions.  In some social circles it is considered good manners for a man to open doors for a woman or to offer his seat to a woman in situations such a crowded public transportation, however, certain groups may object to such chivalrous acts due to the implied label being placed on women by such actions.  Likewise the values can be reinforced through our social integration and by the social institutions we experience in life.  A two-year old gets time out for disrespecting a parent, the adolescent gets grounded or back handed for the same infraction, disrespecting a police officer or a judge in court can bring the sanctions of being arrested or jailed for contempt of court.

In the case of my daughter’s experience, the first salesman apparently valued my daughter as being indecisive and unsure about her expressed preference for her new car and used that value to show her vehicles he felt were appropriate for the value he placed on her.  My daughter, who places a high value on avoiding contention, repeatedly reiterated her preference and the irrelevance of some of his observations regarding different models but never confronted him on his discriminatory practice—she just found a convenient excuse to leave the interaction.  My presence, even as a silent companion, can be seen as having altered the assessed value of my daughter’s preference.  Although we never did reengage with the first salesman my daughter encountered, the salesmen we did encounter probably observed and accepted the high value I placed on my daughter being treated fairly and ensured their conduct was inline with that value.

The decision by my daughter to seek a prearranged price is inline with her high value on avoiding contention and what Blumberg describes as the grind of price negotiations.  This high value on avoiding the contention and grind of price negotiations is shared among a large portion of U.S. society and was one aspect to the popularity of the now defunct Saturn dealerships with their no haggle pricing (even though such prices included a significant markup over dealer invoice).  Car Max has adopted a similar pricing strategy to disarm the fears associated with price haggling (Blumberg 3). 

Ultimately, my daughter consummated the purchase at a cost coincidental to the value she placed on the vehicle.  Her purchase now impacts the value referred to as her self-esteem, the care and handling of her new car as well as the label of fair or discriminatory that she places on the dealerships she interacted with.

Discrimination by one societal group towards another societal group could be described using symbolic interactionism as one group placing a lesser value on the other group.  This lower value then defines the deference given and expected by the advantaged group in its interactions with the disadvantaged group and trumps any accomplishments of the disadvantaged group by automatically degrading the value of those accomplishments.  It can also be used to erroneously predict the disadvantaged group’s reduced potential for future accomplishments.  It is by its nature self-destructive since it denies the preferred group the contributions and benefits of the disadvantaged group.  In the case of my daughter, the first salesman denied himself and his dealership the profits of the my daughter’s purchase.

The key question to be studied is: why would elements of society, in this case car retailers, inject a discriminatory value into their interactions that in the end is self-destructive?

Citations

Ayres, Ian.  “Fair Driving: Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Car Negotiations.”  Harvard Law Review 104.4 (1991): 817-872.

Ayres, Ian and Siegleman, Peter.  “Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car.”  American Economic Review 85.3 (1995): 304-321.

Blumberg, George P. “To Sell a Car That Women Love, It Helps if Women Sell It.”  New York Times 26 Oct. 2005, nytimes.com ed.: 1-4.

Teen Drinking

Teen drinking is unfortunately very common in our society today. It is causing stress on our undeveloped minds and putting so many teens in the hospital or even worse, in their grave.

When teen drinking is introduced to a crowd it is easy for many to fall under the peer pressure of others. Most teen’s brains aren't developed enough to make a mature decision about drinking. Often times it's not until they land themselves in the hospital that they realize what they are doing to their brain.

Neuroscientist Susan Tapert of the University of California, San Diego compared the brain scan of teens that drink heavily with the scans of teens that don't and discovered damaged nerve tissue in the brains of the teens that drank. The researchers believe “this damage negatively affects attention span in boys, and girls' ability to comprehend and interpret visual information.”

I'm going to diagnose this social issue using a functionalism approach. Functionalism is the study of people or groups as a whole working together to create one part. Schools aren’t educating students well enough on the causes of teen drinking. Therefore there is a flaw in the system also known as dysfunctional, when the group is not producing the correct outcome (less underage drinking).

How can we fix this issue in society? Me, still being a teen myself, feel like schools don’t spend enough time educating youth on the consequences of teen drinking. I think we touched on it a bit in 8^th grade health class, but I really haven’t heard much about it since. To create a decline in teen alcohol abuse, we need to make a larger awareness in society about the issue. We need to educate teens better and create more after school programs for teens to get involved in to keep their minds focused on other things; more important things like sports and education.

This video says it all...

Driving: A Symbol of America

          The United States is widely known as an automotive capital of the world. It is a part of the American culture to drive a car. It is a right-of-passage to get your drivers license at 16. A symbolic interactionist might even say driving a car is a symbol of our culture. A symbol is “a word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex [amount] of associated meanings and [is] perceived as having inherent value.” The way we communicate with, for example, Europe is through our knowledge of each other’s transportation. Americans think of Europe as the place with lots of trains and Europeans think of America as the place with all the cars and freeways, each of which are believed due to the symbols our cultures try to present to the world.

            In Germany this past summer a friend of mine was studying to get her drivers license. When I heard this I assumed she had to do what we do here, take Drivers Ed and take the permit test, then take drivers training and learn to drive for 6 months. Finally when you turn 16 you take the final driving test and get your license all for under 50 dollars. I was surprised to find out it is much more difficult to get a license in Europe. You have to be 18, first of all, and you have to take an intensive driving course that can take up to 2 months to complete. If you complete it with the accompanying training and driving course and you pass, you take the test, otherwise you have to start from the beginning again. The whole process costs around 1 to 2 thousand euros and is instilled in European Union country. Although the process is long, it still seems like driving is still not as important to Europeans as a main source of transportation, its not quite a symbol of their culture. It is much easier for an American to get a drivers license and thus there are more drivers on the roads. If Europe wanted more drivers wouldn’t they want to make it easier to get a license?  

            In Europe, cars are still a part of the culture, especially in Germany with famous car companies like Volkswagon and Mercedes-Benz, but we see more people taking other modes of transportation like the bikes, trains, or buses. Making cars may be a symbol of some parts of Europe, but driving is not. According to Nation Master.com there are 765 cars per 100 people, where as there are 500-600 cars per 100 people in some European countries. It’s not quite as ingrained in their culture to drive everywhere or own a car, like it is in the US, so there is less of a necessity for cars. In fact, when you go to a town in Germany or Italy the roads are more like extras to the city than a central part of the cities infrastructure. Here in Utah, however, we have streets that were built wide enough to fit oxen and wagons. These streets were built as an integral part of the city. It’s the same in big cities like New York and San Francisco. The streets were built first, than the rest of the city and culture around them.

            Today we see a lot more bikes and public transportation in the US, even our train system works pretty well. Most of the cars we see on our streets are outsourced from countries like Japan, Germany, and the UK and we have seen less and less Fords and Chevrolets, so are cars still a symbol of our culture? Have other countries taken to cars as an important part of their culture more than the US has in recent years?

Citations-

"Symbol." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 20 Sep. 2011.

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/symbol>.

"Motor vehicles by country, United Nations World Statistics Pocketbook and Statistical Yearbook." 20 Sep 2011, 22:33 UTC. <http://www.NationMaster.com/graph/tra_mot_veh-transportation-motor-vehicles >. 

Technology to the Heart (Blog Post #1)

Structural functionalism is "a theoretical orientation that views society as a system of interdependent parts whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the system." A structural functionalist will often see society as a structure with interconnected parts, much like an organism. Often sociologists or students studying structural functionalism will associate this theory with a functioning organism and their respective systems. An example would be if a human has heart disease, the body will not be functioning correctly. The heart will have to work harder, breathing may become difficult and an individual may feel weak or nausea. We can apply this theory to many topics such as teen pregnancy, drug use and the use of technology.

I think we can all agree that technology plays a huge role in our everyday lives. Comparing technology to structural functionalism by saying that technology is the like the heart of the human body, with veins leading to the organ systems of the body. Once technology/the heart begins to fail (individuals become too dependent) things like the human voice becomes lost and the ability to function without technology becomes evident. Many will agree that the purpose of technology was to increase global communication, provide a place for individuals or groups to publish opinions and provide research articles/journals for students and professionals. Technology today has become even more efficient with video games becoming more realistic and a cell phone being the must have device. But has society created individuals young adults and teens of this generation to be too dependent on these readily available resources?

The result is that many individuals who use the Internet and other technologies lose a certain amount of ability to function in the real world. Many become too dependent upon the Internet, cellular devices and computers. When posed with a situation in which none of these are available, may not know how to resolve the situation. We are also becoming so used to being able to email, text or post comments around the world, teens and adults are losing the ability to communicate vocally.

Technology today is essential to students, professors and other professionals to continue to progress in society. Yet at times we have become to dependent upon it. Students should not forget the library as a source or the elderly because they are last true forms of auditory technology if you will. But lest we forgot that the most basic and fundamental thing we have as humans is our voice and we cannot let that be lost because of the accessibility and ease of technology.

References:

Reeley, Jr. , George Stanley. "The Impact of External, Socially Synthetic Forces, such as Mass Media, Video." Essays in Education. 19. (2007): 12-19. Web. 19 Sep. 2011. <http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol192007/reeley%20revised.pdf>.

"functionalism." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 19 Sep. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionalism>.

When Positive and Negative Sanctions Go Wrong

It is safe to say that our society has certain rules that govern our way of behavior. Do something positive like make the winning touchdown in a big game, and you receive cheers, chest bumps and a spotlight on the local news. Do something wrong, however, and you get quite the opposite reaction. Have you ever wondered what these invisible expectations and rules are that seem to hold each of us to a societal standard? I can explain that the rules that govern our society are based on a concept called norms and sanctions. Its philosophy states that when you perform positively, rewards or fair reactions are received from societal peers. These can be head nods, smiles, acceptance into a society, etc. If you perform something contrary to the norm in society, you reap a negative sanction by society. These include expressions of disapproval, varying from frowns to negative words and beyond.

I want to illustrate this concept by a story I found particularly astounding on CNN’s website a few months ago. It’s a true story about Kirk Murphy, who grew up in the 70’s. He had the typical family- a mother who stayed at home, a father who worked, and two siblings close to his age. It seemed they had a picture perfect family. But then, his mother started noting Kirk performing actions contrary to the social norms for boys his age. His mother said “Well, I was becoming a little concerned, I guess, when he was playing with dolls and stuff…It just bothered me that maybe he was picking up maybe too many feminine traits." (CNN)

It wasn’t long before this concerned her so much she sought the help of a local psychologist she had seen on television. Based on a TV commercial that was promoting a study at UCLA, parents were warned that if you had children doing “things” like Kirk, you should bring them in for “help”. That help turned out to be intensive re-conditioning therapy, the thought being that if they “nipped it in the bud, these children would lead normal lives.” Throughout this therapy, Kirk was given either masculine or feminine toys to play with. The therapist, George Rekers, told Kirk’s mother to ignore him when he played with girl toys like dolls and dresses, and compliment him when he played with manly toys such as tractors and guns. (sound familiar? It’s a spitting image of positive and negative sanctions). At home, the family relied on the same methods, often beating Kirk with a belt if he didn’t conform to masculine behavior in play and mannerisms. His siblings remember the beatings being so harsh, they are still haunted by his screams today. The parents both claim George Rekers encouraged the beatings and stand adamantly by this statement. Personally, I find it hard to imagine beating my child for their differences and then blaming it on physician’s orders.

Anyhow, fast forward to present day. This psychologist, Rekers built a successful, well-known career based of his study of pre-gay children. Kirk was his “Star Pupil” in many of his papers because he conformed to the treatment so beautifully. All seemed well, as Kirk wasn’t gay and the therapy was deemed a total success. The world went on revolving until, tragically, Kirk killed himself at the age of 38. No note was left, but many who knew Kirk said he was never quite the same since therapy. He was depressed and miserable (and who wouldn’t be!) Ironically, Less than a month after this story aired, George Rekers was caught coming back from a vacation in Europe with a male escort he had purchased at a well-known homosexual site called rentaboy.com. For all our society’s rules emphasized through positive and negative sanctions, we sure seemed to have missed the point. Perhaps we should stop trying to make everyone embrace miserable conformity and lead happy lives, even if they are contrary to the norms we subconsciously embrace.