The Social Construction of Reality — February 9, 2017

The Social Construction of Reality

The Problem of the Sociology of Knowledge

The Sociologist

An individual on the street does not normally bother about what is ‘real’ to them and about what is it they ‘know’ unless they stumble upon a dead end during some sort of problem. We then know they have taken their ‘reality’ and their ‘knowledge’ for granted, in which, the sociologist cannot do. A sociologist must question, for their job is to challenge and put into practice the very logic of their discipline.

The Problem

Today we disregard the epistemological and methodological approach on the validity of sociological reasoning. Thus, we consider sociology of knowledge to apply to the empirical discipline of sociology. We then question ‘why not theoretical?’ in order to solve our more concrete complications. One concern for this question is on the intellectual history, such as, the ideologies that were developed. Unfortunately, today theoretical thoughts or in this case ‘ideologies’ are overlooked and not so important to society. It is only some that have transcend as ‘knowledge’.

why

Societies became less concerned with theoretical interpretations.

The Importance

Whether ones reality is from a scientific, philosophical or mythological stand point it does not weaken what is ‘real’ to many individuals. The sociology of knowledge will always consider what is the ‘know’ to an individuals ‘reality’. Common-sense rather than ‘ideas’ become the focus in the sociology of knowledge and that exactly! is the ‘knowledge’ that establishes the meanings to our society.

“What is real?”

Man consciousness is determined by his social being-Marx

What is real to us depends on what is socially accepted. Thus, we give things meaning. The social world is made and made up by people. What we have not learned from our own reasoning and senses, we have learned from other individuals. In some sense, we are shaped from other people. We enforce order even when there is none. We then create an entire meaning system. One example on this is racism from race.

-Shalimar Dominguez

“The truth about ‘gaydar'” — March 25, 2017

“The truth about ‘gaydar'”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/health/gaydar-stereotypes-partner/index.html

 

The fact that this article exists in my opinion is a huge problem. The article is in short asking the question of whether or not “gaydar” exists. To me this is silly because the term “gaydar” in itself poses a plethora of issues but the fact that we live in a world that is sensitive to stereotypes and racial and gender inequality, writing an article that hints that some individuals have this power if you will of “gaydar” is horrifying. Being able to distinguish between people who hold differences is something that is very natural and something that we do every day. Being in a world that is trying to move away from racial, ethnic, and genders inequality and stereotyping articles like this are counterproductive and are arguable feeding false knowledge. If it is so necessary to write an article about whether or not people are able to distinguish between ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ and attempting to distinguish that the continuation of such a “myth” as they put it holds negative consequences, it would also be important to not use the term “gaydar” and explain why that word in itself has negative consequences. The article however goes on to use the term and in the end defend the fact that people are able to make the distinction between ‘gay’ and ‘straight’. The article in itself is feeding into the inequality that it is trying to deconstruct. What’s next? Defending racism by proving that people can distinguish individuals based on skin color?

Recognizing Writers Restrictions — March 15, 2017

Recognizing Writers Restrictions

Image result for Knowledge Funny Cartoons

 

When I was reading Christina Nadler’s article “Deterritorializing Disciplinarity: Toward An Imminent Pedagogy” I thought that the speaker in the article being Christina Nadler, sounded and spoke quite differently than the person I have been used to hearing in class. There is a decent time difference in taking the class now and the time that the article was published but after discussing the process of writing the article in class, I see why the speaker sounds so different. The fact that reviewers have such an immense say in what is said in articles and what is allowed to be said is frightening because it creates huge restrictions on knowledge. I have talked and written a lot about this in terms of literature, and a part of the article that really spoke to me was the importance of understanding canonization. When looking at historical novels that focus on ethnic groups or certain races, it is important to understand the situation of the writer and why the writer would have written that way. Just as it is important to understand why works that are included in a cannon are. The fact that writers and scholars are told or are even finding themselves in situations where they need to bend their ideas or change them completely because of the fact that if they say what they want to say they will not be read or gain any recognition but, if they change what they want to say they can get part of what they wanted to communicate out and have people think and or talk about it in some sense rather than not talk about it at all. This is why it is so important to consider and question everything that is read. Why did the writer write the way they did, what were the circumstances? Could they speak out against an idea or were there social or intellectual restrictions? Would the writers work have been published at all if they didn’t suppress and lighten some of the points that they wanted to make? Writers should not have to make that decision and those in charge of what is published or communicated in a highly accredited environment that allows ideas to be spread and recognized, should not suppress the ideas or theories of anyone. They should simply keep “wrong” or truly “irrelevant” information out. Not information that will hurt their own beliefs.

-Dominique Legros

What is real anymore? — February 12, 2017

What is real anymore?

It is interesting how news is created today especially when the adviser to the president and the president himself state that things have not happened or were not covered properly years after the fact. The knowledge of events that occur in society specifically ones like described in the article are widely covered at the time they occur and a ground base of knowledge is formed in society. But how can anyone be sure of anything when the leaders of a country question every reporter, and ever event that occurs? It is crazy to me to think that high officials are pushing people to rethink past events and question them in a way that causes people to not believe anything. Power of the media is taken away and in creating the illusion that certain events did not happen or happened in a completely different way makes people look at the news differently and question the way they see everything in relation. What is true? If high officials are saying that old truths are false and making themselves look like outsiders and therefore apologizing for presenting false accusations, how can we trust them? Who do we trust? The fact that real facts are being called “alternative facts” and that real events are being declared unnoticed or under covered in the media when in fact they were not, how does society gain real knowledge? Is what our government is telling us actually true at this point? Or is the media lying?

We Drink the Poison… — February 11, 2017