It's your choice. (But not really.)

Habitus is the mental or cognitive structure in which people deal with the social world. It's like a filter in which we perceive and experience life. A habitus is acquired as a result of a long term position in the social world and is influenced by your social class, your economic classification, your religion/faith, your ethnicity, the clubs and organizations that you belong to, and a million other things. If habitus is created by society and is largely influenced and maintained by society, do we really have freedom? Bourdieu would say yes. But when asked if society structures our choices Bourdieu would also say yes. So do you agree with him? Can you explain what this means? The answer was in our texts, but what does it mean to YOU?

How Pure Are Your Relationships?

At first this may sound like a misnomer. Giddens says that intimate relationships “in modernity are … characterized by ‘pure relationships.’ Individuals participate in these relationships in order to obtain self satisfaction. These relationships “occur purely for the sake of the relationship. Relationships today are pursued and maintained on the basis personal needs, and individual's propensity or desire to fulfill these modern needs. Prior to the onset of modernity, the frivolous friendships we enjoy in society today were unheard of. People were so busy just barely surviving that there was no time to have friends for the fun of it. The only non-family friends people had were those who’s relationships could assist in providing help in times of need. Giddens defines relational purity as the practical obtainment or satisfaction of the selfish personal needs of individuals.
Do you feel that your some of your current relationships in society are “pure”?

Nuclear Risks

The world capitalist economy differentiates between the people who are more or less at risk depending on each person’s economic resources. However, Giddens’ explains globalized risks, such as nuclear war or pollution, have equal consequences for humanity since people will suffer the same massive impact,"The possibility of nuclear war, ecological calamity, uncontainable population explosion, the collapse of global economy exchange, and other potential global catastrophes provide an unnerving horizon of dangers for everyone…globalised risks…do not respect divisions between regions of the world" (Giddens, 1990 as cited in Appelrouth & Edles, 2008, p.779). Giddens’ idea is questionable since economic and technological resources could differentiate who is better prepared to confront a nuclear war or an environmental crisis. The world is divided between the powerful or 'West' countries -which hold more economic and technological resources- and the less powerful or 'East' countries. Thus, the risks that a nuclear war entails are bigger for 'East' than for 'West' countries.
Does Humanity share equal nuclear risks?

The Juarez Short-term Social Problem?

As we all know in Ciudad Juarez the murder of many young women has been occurring for years now. It is a very sensitive issue that makes headlines but yet at times people may be hesitant to discuss it. It is my firm belief that in order to shed light on these terrible acts it must be open to discussion so we may find a solution. And with that in mind…
It has been suggested that one of the positives stemming from the maquiladora industry coming to the US-Mexico border has been the freedom that female maquiladora workers have been able to acquire from having the ability to earn their own living and not having to entirely depend on men for their sustenance. According to Chafetz, when women living in a certain social environment (ie patriarchal in nature) get greater levels of resources short-term social problems may arise (Allan, 2006:295).
When the acts of “femicide” came to the world’s attention an explanation that was thrown around was that of the degradation of traditional values that was being produced by the liberating effects maquiladora work was having on its female workforce (Wright, 2006). The once traditionally-minded woman was now a fun-seeking person who put herself at risk by not staying at home.
Looking to Chafetz’ ideas, do you believe that the “emancipating” effects that supposedly the factory work (and income) has had on the maquiladora female worker be part of what is causing the murders? (I do not in anyway imply that the women have taken on a libertine life because of the “freedom” work has provided and that that is why they are now becoming targets for violence.) As Chafetz (Allan, 2006) suggests, do you believe that a “short-term imbalance” caused by the presence of women in the border workforce be a factor contributing to the murders?

Allan,K. 2007. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Wright, Melissa W.(2006).Disposable Women and Other Myths of Global
Capitalism.New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Successful/unsuccessful total institutions

In Asylums, Erving Goffman discusses the nature of total institutions. They strip away individuality and "unfavorable" qualities and replace those qualities with uniformity and other "favorable" qualities. According to Goffman, this stripping of individuality may have negative affects than those desired, rejection rather than conformity.

Military institutions seem to be relatively successful as total institutions. On the other hand, the prison system in America is generally considered to be overcrowded and full of repeat offenders, which would suggest that the systems are largely unsuccessful as total institutions. What qualities separate these institutions that might explain their relative success and failure?

The Commodification of Emotions in the World

Although Arlie Rosell Hochschild mentions that in the commodification of emotions are interwoven factors such as class, race, and gender, she falls short in including social factors that might affect the world-wide population. On the other hand, Mills (2003) mentions a more ample range of factors related with gender in the global labor force, “Gender inequalities represent one dynamic within a global labor force that is also segmented by class, ethnicity and race, nationality and region, among other factors” (42). Therefore, if the analysis of the commodification of emotions includes factors such as ethnicity, nationality, and race, that helps one understand how the commodification of emotions works outside and within the U.S. borders. For instance, capitalist strategies try to reach cheaper wage labor by going beyond borders, so there are U.S. call centers which both operate in India and use cheap Indian labor to give service to U.S. consumers.

But, how does the commodification of emotions work in these types of international scenarios? and Which types of emotions do Indians have to learn or to unlearn in order to give service to citizens from other countries?

Mills, Mary Beth. “Gender and Inequality in the Global Labor Force.” Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 32 (2003), pp. 41-62

Jihad and Critical Theory

When I first began the readings on Critical Theory, I did not see a connection with terrorism or terror groups, my area of focus. As I continued to read, however, I remembered a book by Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld (1995). While Barber uses McWorld to describe globalization more than the general aspects found in Critical Theory, it applies because it speaks to the global spread of consumerism and, as Critical Theory might describe, the dehumanization of the individual on a global scale. Barber describes McWorld thusly, “I have identified McWorld with crucial developments made possible by innovations in technology and communications… In a way, however, McWorld is merely the natural culmination of a modernization process – some would call it Westernization – that has gone on since the Renaissance birth of modern science and the accompanying paradigm of knowledge constructed as power,” (Barber, 1995). He goes on to argue that Jihad is an “attempt to recapture a world that existed prior to cosmopolitan capitalism,” (Barber, 1995). In this way, I feel I can apply Critical Theory to argue that the Islamic Jihad against the Western world is one way in which human beings rebel against the social systems which seeks to repress individuality. However, there is a complication in this assumption. The social systems which exist within the world of Islamic fundamentalists are also repressive of the individual.

In what other ways has the global spread of capitalism catered to Critical Theory?

Barber, Benjamin R. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy. Random
House Inc. New York, NY.