Week 5 ~ Mass Media

I was on team two (the pro-mass media team), and according to my notes, team one made the following arguments

Question 2
1. Focuses on biased opinions- There is no such thing as total objectivity. Therefore, how could one expect it from the media?

2. Shows negative stereotypes- Can also demonstrate the inaccuracies of stereotypes

3. Increases materialism- Has materialism been defined as a bad thing? Materialism increases a country's economy and the global economy.

4. In some countries, the gatekeepers are the government- In such cases, people often find a way around it, like in Egypt.

5. Not everyone has access/interest- True, but if mass media is 'bad', wouldn't that be a positive thing for those who do not have access? Also, those who do have access often use it for productive or positive reasons, and to advocate for those who are disadvantaged. (Example: Egypt)

6. The dominant ideology suppresses the marginalized groups- While this is true, one must remember that there are sometimes TV channels, radio stations, online communities and so forth that serve as an outlet for the marginal groups. (Example: The Maori broadcasting agency "Te Māngai Pāho") Get more information here: http://www.tmp.govt.nz/index.html

Question 3
1. Focuses on extremes -Sometimes, extremes can be very helpful in ushering in social change. (Mass media coverage of Egyptian protests)

2. Often one-sided- This is very similar to question 2, argument 1, and I would apply the same rebuttal. However, in addition, the viewer chooses what sources they get their information from, which often exposes them to multiple sides of an issue.

3. Doesn't show the 'middle crowd'- I don't believe that is true. An example of this would be Modern Family, which depicts a family that is not considered 'typical' but has become a more common occurrence. Also, the TV show Community depicts a community college experience,  rather than the mainstream idea of attending a prestigious college/university.

Photo retrieved from http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/archives/2008/Feb/

Week 3 ~ Human Rights v. Cultural Relativism

                                         
  

In 2004, the French Government passed a bill banning obvious religious apparel in schools, such as large crosses, Jewish yarmulkes, and Muslim headscarves (Cosgrove-Mather, 2004). This can be seen as a violation of human rights, as it prevents the freedom of religion and its practices. In fact, according to the BBC, "The State Council - France's highest administrative body - warned that such a law might be unconstitutional and violate European human rights laws." ("The islamic veil," 2010).

However, when viewed through the lens of cultural relativism, the law can be seen as culturally acceptable because one French formal norm is the "separation of state and religion" which "is enshrined in law" ("The islamic veil," 2010).


Personally, I think that the norm in French culture to separate church and state is very understandable (in fact, US culture encourages such a separation). However, I do believe that the ban is still a violation of human rights. I don't think that the desire to have religion separate from the state outweighs the human right of freedom to practice religion, and that clothing that is a formal norm in a religion should be protected under such a freedom.


Find more information about the ban, and what Amnesty International thinks about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn-JBsH8rSU&feature=fvwrel



Works Cited

Cosgrove-Mather, B. (2004, March 3). France bans head scarves in school. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml 

Niqab. (2008). [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.flickr.com/photos/23515821@N02/2244343793/

The islamic veil across europe. (2010, June 15). Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5414098.stm

Week 2 ~ A Reflection

The first two weeks of sociology class have been remarkably interesting, and I have really enjoyed them. Typically, learning the "basics" of such a broad field like sociology can be dry and sometimes very boring, but learning about the fundamental theories and classical theorists has been very engaging. Mostly, I believe, because basically everything we are learning can be applied to everyday situations. Furthermore, I think that by applying it, I am understanding the theories more. I am finding that a sociological imagination is something that can be utilized very often, and that by doing so, I become a more open-minded individual.

As an example, yesterday I was watching the footage that the BBC released of an 'uncontacted' tribe in Brazil (http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/brazilphotos). While I watched it, I used my sociological imagination to think about what it would be like to be a member of the tribe and see a plane, or what 'first contact' would be like, or more importantly, if I would want to make contact or to be left alone. I also thought about operational definitions, and wondered what 'uncontacted' was defined as. It could be argued that by seeing a plane, this tribe had had 'contact' with the outside world. By utilizing the skills and information I had learned in class, I was able to think more critically about what I was watching.

After the first two weeks of class, I am excited to learn more about sociology.