This post calls for some RED ink.

        Etzioni defines the old age problem that we are facing as “an exit from an entrapping dilemma: how to maintain both social order and personal autonomy in one and the same society…how to construct a society that protects its members from one another-from civil war to violent crime…”  I guess I am not one hundred percent sure what I make of other theorists who have also made comments about this old age problem, such as Parsons, Marx, and Freud.  My opinions would align most likely with Freud, who believes that order does not come without cost in a society.  I believe this and support this completely.  Chaos is what makes life happen, and it is a product of order.  Order causes chaos in a way, and I guess one would ask how is this possible?  Harmony can only last so long in a world that is constantly changing.  From harmony comes disequilibrium, hence order to chaos.  Freud also points out that people in society cannot be fully socialized, meaning they cannot fully be immersed in society.  I could be interpreting this incorrectly (someone correct me if I am wrong), but I believe he means that people are not totally honest and they often keep parts of themselves to themselves, which is selfish.  To me, being totally socialized would mean to not hold back and to tear down ones walls.  However, let us all think about this…is it even possible not to build invisible walls to protect ones dignity? Secrets? I may be totally off my rocker on this one, however my interpretation of his words resonates with me.  I agree with this above Parsons and Marx because it is real to me and it is something I can actually see in people, myself included.  The reason I do not agree with Parsons is because he takes the “rainbows and butterflies approach”.  Optimism is good, however it is not realistic in the society we live in.  One belief that sticks out to me in the part where he believes in shared values in a society.  Let’s face it, if we al shared the same values we would not be engaging in wars, arguments, and chaos would be a rarity.  As for Marx, I believe he is too far left on the subject saying that social order is a false conception.  This is a bold statement that has not be adequately backed from what I read in the article.  I may sound completely out of my mind with my opinions and outlook, however there you go people.  This is how I feel.

BLT's, Social Capital, American Society, and Wine (lots of wine)...

            As I sat down for lunch with Erik Olin Wright, Joel Rogers, and James DeFillipis I thought to myself: Are our values the same?  Do my opinions correlate with theirs?  Is what I think important?  These three questions were those I thought of when I read the two articles, “American Society: How it Really Works” and “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development”.  My answer to my own questions was yes, and this is because I am a member of society whose amendments grant me the power to think, feel, and express what I please.

            As I asked Wright to pass the salt, I remembered the burning question I had the entire time I was reading his article (and by the way, it is very annoying when all you can think about is one question the ENTIRE time.)  The question was simply this: Do inequalities reinforce equilibrium in the United States?  As Wright and Rogers choked down their BLT’s, they answered my question as I had hoped they would.  “Well, being the fair share men that we believe we are, we think that inequality is needed to maintain a sense of equilibrium for a couple of reasons.  For one, if everyone had the everything people would no longer try their best or strive for more.  Our country thrives off of competition economically, socially, and spiritually.  If there was no competition, the institutions that have held us together for so long (and the institutions that have almost destroyed us, I thought) would be meaningless.  Secondly, redistribution of wealth is a folly.  Due to this, no one can ever be equal.  Lastly, equilibrium is brought by change and if inequality did not exist, then having change amongst society would be nearly impossible because no one would want to change anything for fear that they would not be equal to their companion.”  I was overjoyed to hear that what I thought resonated with them as well.  For me, I believe that if you work hard, do your share, and are moral you will succeed.  However, success is in the eyes of the beholder, which is where I believe inequality sets in.  Success is measured differently, therefore causing disequilibrium.

            Not wanting DeFillipis to feel left out, I asked him to pass me the salt again (damn, there goes my cholesterol…) and I proposed the question that I had wanted to have the answer to: Do you think that the concept of social capital will ever be solidly understood by everyone?  Or do you believe it will forever be a debated concept.  He paused before answering, just as I had before asking the question due to the fact that it is a difficult one to answer.  Then finally after sipping his Merlot and biting into his sandwich he answered, “Lauren, social capital is a concept that will forever be vaguely understood because it is a circumstantial concept.  What I mean by this is that as times change, the concept and understanding of social capital will change as well.  People will value something now that they will not value twenty years from now.  Putnam uses the example of bowling leagues as ways to build social capital.  Well that is a great way if you are seventy years old and can’t hold your liquor.  Social capital now in our time may be achieved by having a group of people, say from knitting club or a summer job, go out for a couple cocktails.  This is a bridging and bonding experience, which many theorists have pointed out will boost social capital.  But you must understand, twenty years from now there will be another way to go about social capital and how to achieve it.”  Satisfied with his answer, I began to think of ways that I could gain a more concrete concept of social capital.  However, before I even began to ponder that I asked for another glass of wine…J

Elmira Politics Effects on a Historical Cause: Anti-Slavery

            Before this blog post assignment, I had never really looked into the history of politics surrounding the city of Elmira.  According to Joyce M. Tice who created the website Tri-Counties Genealogy and History, Elmira was had a very strong anti-slavery sentiment, was home to several abolitionists, and also was part of the Underground Railroad.  Funding for anti-slavery movements was largely popular in Chemung County, particularly the city of Elmira.  I honestly had no idea about any of this.  I think that in history, Elmira became a very close-knit community because they bridged and bonded over anti-slavery sentiments.  Politics can either unite people or tear them apart, but I believe in this case the politics brought the city of Elmira together.

            Tice also mentioned the founder of Elmira College, Simeon Benjamin, financially backed the anti-slavery movement in the Southern Tier.  He was the wealthiest man in the county at the time, and according to Tice he put his money towards a good cause.  Many other wealthy men like Benjamin also helped in the cause to either promote anti-slavery or actively help slaves.  Some men would warn slaves that pro-slavery individuals knew their whereabouts, helping them flee to places such as Canada.  Others would give funds to slaves to go and make a life for themselves as well as their families.  The wealthy folk of Elmira actually did a lot for the anti-slavery cause, most reports of good doings rather than bad.

            Reverend Henry Ward Beecher speaks about the New York Anti-Slavery society, which was a band of New Yorker’s who were in favor of anti-slavery and made strides to make their purpose a reality.  Beecher states that New York states believes that all men were born equal and should remain equal, and that he wished to counter the South on this issue.  From his lecture, I took that he believes that their dreams will only become a reality if they stick together and fight for a common cause despite their backgrounds.  This to me sounded a lot like bridging and bonding because people from different or similar backgrounds are coming together to fight for a common cause or something they all care about.  Beecher also speaks on behalf of the churches in New York saying how they arouse whereas Southern churches subdue, causing Southerners to care less about a cause.  Especially in New York, Beecher makes the statement that in the North communities are structured around first, family and second the township and because of this New York is extremely adamant in the anti-slavery movement.

            To make sense of this, I would have to say that politics had a huge influence in Elmira as well as New York state as a whole.  Politically in history, Elmira played a huge role in important anti-slavery movements, such as the Underground Railroad.  From this point in history to the present, I believe that the sense of community there once was has sadly diminished.  There is no political cause that everyone largely cares about, therefor limited bridging and bonding occurs.  People are strangers and do not care for the well-being of their townspeople to the extent they once did.  However, I believe if a cause were to come into their lives that they largely cared about, politics would bring back the sense of community once again.

References:

Address by Rev Henry,Ward Beecher. (1855, Jan 17). ANTI-SLAVERY LECTURES. New York Daily Times (1851-1857). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.elmira.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/95884047?accountid=10728

http://www.joycetice.com/undergrou/ckfeb04.htm

To properly discuss my hometown, I will have to use the MacTavish article for evalutation.  In the article, River Terrace Mobile Home Park is described in two way: it has a very good sense of community and then on the other hand it is a very isolated place to live.  It is hard for me to agree with just one and this is why…well, where my actual house with is more of a sense of isolation, but the town where I have grown up, played sports, gone to school, etc is what I consider my community and that would align well with the first argument: the tightness and welcoming sense you get from a small community is one of a kind. 

         Now that the confusion is out of the way, I live in a rural area about 5 miles from the Canadian border called Alexandria Bay.  It is a river town on the St. Lawrence River and is absolutely beautiful.  The houses are close together and everything is within walking distance.  The sense of community, especially social capital, is amazing.  Going to the grocery store, for example, could be an hour affair when you went to go get a gallon of milk.  Everyone knows everyone, so people are constantly catching up on life and the gossip in the aisles of our shopping market The Big M.  How my town is set up makes it easy for people to go around to stores, meet up with friends, and be close to the action at all times.  I think that this helps maintain our high social capital because the community is in such tight quarters that you are almost forced to know your neighbors. 

         The only limiting factor would be that people from the outskirts of Alexandria Bay, such as Redwood (where I live) and Plessis, are not “in the loop” at all times because we do not live right in town.  We all go to school together though, so all of the villages are interconnected in that way.  We all participate on the same sports teams, committees, and musical events therefore all having the same “community experiences”.

         Aside from social capital, the layout of our town provides for many village wide activities that bring us closer together.  Since our community is so small and tight-knit, we have an annual village wide rummage sale, which brings all the surrounding communities that make up our river community together for an afternoon.  People converse and buy each others items increasing capital amongst them.  Also, we have a week and two weekends of Pirates Weekend, which is filled with activities for children and adults.  Many activities are held in the center of town, local bars, and on the beautiful river as well.  There are mock pirate invasions, magic show with pirates, and also many drink specials at the bars.  These are just two of the many ways my community promotes close ties.

         Needless to say, I love my community and have had the best experience growing up in such a supportive, close knit town.

Lauren vs Boyd: Clashing Opinions

Overall, Danah Boyd’s article “Streams of Content, Limited Attention” is something I do not agree with.  I think because I am living in this time of constant technology that I do not see a problem with it.  I believe it is a good thing to constantly know what is going on with out peers, heroes, and government.  With that being said, Boyd thinks that this shift from broadcast to network is a disaster and that we are consuming garbage instead of what is actually important.  Well, who is she to label what stimulates us and our minds garbage?  To us that could be food for the soul, and from a personal standpoint it is.

            Getting into the article, at first glance I thought I agreed with her as she explained this far-fetched idea of Web 2.0 and how glorious it would be.  Sure, I think that it would be awesome to live in a constant world of technology, which is so respects we do now, but not as she explained it.  I agreed with her picture of Web 2.0 only because I am in awe when it comes to technology and the new knowledge it brings to the table.  Her idea of “flow” was genius because we thrive on the flow of information and how we consume gossip, news, and messages from chat rooms.

            But, as I kept reading I started to believe she was actually cynical and on the opposing side of the argument of the “flow” of technology.  Her four core issues is when I began to seriously disagree because I feel as though the aspects she is putting down about technology is what is so great about it.  In her paragraph about democratization, Boyd said that we are not paying attention to the important aspects in our world, but only what we see as important.  I think that what we pay attention to is what is important to us as individuals.  Who wants to read things that we don’t care about?  Certainly not me.

            Also, she said that what stimulates our minds is not a good thing.  Why?  I feel like if my mind is being stimulated and I am interested in what I am looking at, then what is the problem?  I set time aside to look at what interests me aside from schoolwork and school related things.  My brain needs time to enjoy a couple hours of what Boyd would probably consider garbage.

            Boyd says that she believes that we live in the world we create and we cannot see past that.  Yes, I agree with that however I do not see that in a negative way the way Boyd sees it.  I think that who we talk to online and what we look at is a reflection of us.  So why would we do anything different?  That may be a close-minded statement, but I am not saying that I am not for doing something different.  We all fall into comfort zones and it is very hard to come out of it. 

            She ends with saying that what is happening is both exciting and terrifying, but that is like with anything else.  Life is both exciting and terrifying.  It is important to take the good with the bad because everything is like that.  However, I believe that technology is helping us in ways that nothing else could help us in.