My Conflict with Dahrendorf.. with the little help from my friends

This is my attempt to post as sociological and intellectual of a post as possible. I guess by writing that I have already ruined the intellectual part, but nonetheless I feel this is important, significant, and urgent! Therefor there must be a post.
In Social Theory we are learning about Conflict Theory, and we focused particularly on a guy named Dahrendorf and his theory of group conflict, that focuses largely on conflict between and within groups, but also the unequal distribution of power. He believed that conflict was inherit and a basis to social life, and conflicts should be regulated rather than abolished. This is the notion that out of conflict comes social advancements and justice for groups that are otherwise marginalized.
For this I would like to take the example of the Civil Rights Movement. The conflict was created between the Blacks and Whites (I'm making this very broad, yes I know) that did not see eye to eye on treatment in society of Blacks. So MLK and the gang pretty much created conflict until the problem was addressed and laws were changed to (attempt to) resolve the problem of racial inequality. We're not there yet, but its coming along... sort of. How I see the situation was that MLK was trying, in fact, to reduce the conflict by creating agreement and overall social change in mentality. I understand Dahrendorf's perspective when he says that conflict must not be abolished, yet I also think that our of conflict comes the abolishment of conflict. Marx presented the idea of unification among the proliteriats to dismantle the bourgoiesie, and from there the people would all live unifed and in peace. So I believe that with the right type of conflict, like the civil rights activists fighting and continuing their opposition to racial inequality, the racial conflict will eventually die off. So the abolishment of conflict must neither be regulated nor abolished, because then it will give the issues that have enough momentum and meaning a chance for justice.
Second, I don't buy the whole notion that we are all inheritly different groups. I believe there was a time, long before we cared about aquiring land, power, women, money, whatever, that we eithera a) cared about our well-being as humans, regardless of appearance or b) we didn't care at all, so we left each other alone. Although the latter is more probable, I do believe there was a time in our history where we simply did not see difference in appearance and anything more than a superficial characteristic, if even that. I believe that we were made to see race and ethnicity by those who were in power and got in fights with each other. Now we've made it some sort of reality that we must both uphold and deconstruct. And we're all divided by it. So I don't think that groups, by nature, conflict with each other, but rather they've been socialized to do so.
So... all in all, Marx still wins. Its not about groups, its about those in power and taking them down. We must all unite, embrace our socialized differences, and fight the man!

I am no longer a Democrat!

These recent Senate electoral races have me so annoyed I don't even know how to explain how I feel. I grabbed a copy of the New York Times this morning, for several reasons. first, the school is handing them out for free, so why not? Second, it makes me look very socially privileged and very much like an intellectual to sit in a coffee shop with my tea and reading the New York Times, not once glancing up at the television blaring "The View." Third, print journalism is dying and I feel like I need to read up on paper as much as I can before it all dies out. To take it a sociological step farther, the function of my newspaper reading had the latent function of a very attractive, bearded young man and I exchanging a quick but suggestive glance at each other. Functional latent functions are often the most exciting.
But back to the topic! I was reading the article Election Likely to Increase Political Divide Over How to Solve Federal Deficit, where the current Republican and Democrat divide over economical policies were briefly explained and heavily criticized (yet another theme of modern American journalism). There are two problems with the bipartisan system, the two being that Republicans and Democrats just do not have any desire or knowledge as to how to work together among their differences. Second, the Democrats have become a bunch of divided wimps, and they are relying only on their majority to get anything done.
Republicans and Democrats have always had different motivations in Congress and in politics in general. However, we live in an age where there are too many social groups and even more social issues for our country to survive through a bi-party system. Republicans now have their hands too deep in corporate pockets, and their minds too stuck in pre-historic notions of organized religion to make any sort of concise, rational, responsible political decision. Democrats, on the other hand, also have their hands too deep in corporate pocket, but won't own it. Unlike the Republicans who can make strong claims against abortion, Democrats do not scream and yell enough about the lack of individual freedoms. Republicans are appealing to the public as the family-party, whereas Democrats (bless them) are coming off as political radicals, and no one in America likes a radical. That's just how that boat floats. And the two have no incentive or desire to work together to make the majority of Americans (who are moderates anyways) happy. The great divide of Republicans and Democrats is only a facade, folks. Don't buy a word of it.
Second, I'm reading here that "Democrats differ among themselves on whether to extend all the Bush tax cuts... or just those for households with annual incomes below $250,000" (pg. A18). Great, so now even the team with no backbone can't even figure out if they want legs or a back. Either way, most Democrats, along with economists, agree that "with unemployment stuck at nearly 10 percent, more stimulus spending is needed" (pg. A18), so pretty much lets hand out checks of money our government doesn't have, so we can spend the money we should be saving to pay off all the money we've already spent but don't have, so that later our grandkids can pay off that debt. All in the meantime, we won't have healthcare or Social Security. I hope everyone in my age range has started saving up for retirement, because Social Security is going to become a thing of the past.
I love America, but sometimes I just wonder how much of the majority is going to have to suffer, and how much of ourselves we are going to have to eat before we start really get some chagne going.

The End of an Era

The age of Facebook for me has come to an end. What was first intended to be just one of many mediums of communications with friends has turned into the only medium. My mind was subconsciously creating statuses based on little details that I noticed, or insignificant details about my life. Critical communications to friends no longer took place over the phone, or (gasp!) in person. Friendships were kindled over wall posts and "likes" rather than in real human contact. No longer did I hear the voices or see the faces, but my friendships were mediated through the vast meaninglessness of the internet. Photographs were posted to prove how social and knowledgeable I was, that I went to parties, that I had the luxury to travel, etc. What I was a person was reduced to a few lines on my "About Me" space, with a few lines on my favorite pastimes and musics. Based on a few clicks, people were able to (so they think) get a sense of who I was. I had let who I was be reduced to just a few links and a few words on a single page.
But my greatest motivation to deleting was my interactions with people. Facebook creates friendships as conveniences, rather than obligations. It becomes easier to tell someone you miss them or hope to see them soon over wall posts rather than actually picking up the phone, actually seeing them. I no longer had to go through the painful stage of figuring out through conversation whether men I liked had girlfriends or not. It was already presented to me. Although it was nice to not have to go through such humiliation, it created distance between people I wanted to know in general. Facebook chat became a socially acceptable medium for asking people out on dates. No one called me anymore, but would just post important things on my wall, or send me a message. Facebook just made relationships with hundreds of people convenient for me all the time, when it really didn't do me any good to know hundreds of people. i was not made a better person because I was in the know about so many people's personal lives. In fact, I believe that I am better off now as an interacting human by keeping in touch to the people who really matter. I also deleted the account for privacy reasons, but I feel that the interaction principal is the most important.
So, if you have a Facebook and you find that you are as dissatisfied with your interactions as I was, think about deleting. You feel a sense of humanity and freedom. And you learn who your real friends are!

For another viewpoint on the anti-Facebook movement, I recommend this comical read:
http://www.progressivewebdesign.ca/hst.html

"Claire, you're different"

The title of this blog is taken directly from one of my fellows classmates after I pointed out that DeBois' theory couldn't work, because I was the only White person sitting on the "Black" side of the room, which DeBois argues we would have naturally segregated ourselves into, based on social expectations. I was, again, reminded of how much better I get along with the Black community than the White. Whenever I say this to myself, I always think that its so bad as a sociologist, to place people into such rigid expectations and norms. Essentially I am stereotyping.
Yet I still hold truth in this because the American Black community has a much stronger sense of family, friendship, and community than American Whites. Honesty is important, even if no one else agrees with you. The American Black community and the French have so much in common, its like a reminder of home. Is it bad for me to separate the two? Possibly. Is it bad for me to assume that all White people are shallow and individualist? Possibly.
Thus I turn your attention not to the Black community, but the White. Whites, we're really strange. I study our habits in class, I learn about our backwards acts in history, I put up with the slightly offensive/ignorant comments in class... but let me tell you we are a strange community. First, unless we are part of some church, Greek, or country club, we completely ignore each other. We don't talk to each other when we live in the same neighborhoods. Our children play indoors in fear of some stranger coming up and snatching them away, even though the likelihood of that happening isn't much. We have completely isolated ourselves from society because we have completely inheritated this label of the "bad White" but we also don't want to mix with others. We go to church almost as a facade, yet we don't actually internalize much from any life experiences. We are concerned with ourselves and not much else.
But lets not get all upset and give up yet. Whites, we have the power, just like everyone, to be more than "that White guy/chick." A professor of mine noted that the majority (yep, thats us) are all for charity, but not so much for social justice. Why is that? Why do we continue to segragate ourselves? Yes, we can always say that the other teams are doing the same, but have we really stepped out and given anyone a sense of acceptance? Do we try too hard to falsely see similarities when we could just embrace our differences? DuBois talks about this notion of the color line, and how life chances are shapes by social outcomes of race. I'm not trying to make this a competely race-only discussion, as I realize that class and gender are also huge determinants of outcome. However, we are a society that has a strong history of racial segragation and separation. But if I have to hear "I dont' understand why we can't just all forget about race and just get along?" one more time, I'm going to scream. Whites forced people into this land. And now these same people (but not all!) live in situations we would never put ourselves into. To quote my professor "If you're poor, you're likely to be White. But if you're Black, you're likely to be poor"
Why? Whats happened Whites? What are we doing to America? We are eating ourselves from within. We are creating abitrary lines that do nothing but foster fear and hate of each other. We are not encouraging nor pioneering social equality. We must look at ourselves and realize that people can be different or the same from us, but thats not what matters. What matters is that people get the respect and dignity they deserve. Not out of pity, but out of equality.
... just sayin'