Social Groups

As a sociologist I know a little about social groups, really only a little because they aren't my particular area of interest or expertise. However, it is interesting to take a minute now and then and look at social networks. There is some interesting research out of Harvard these days about the role of social networks in influencing health behaviors. Christakis got a lot of press a few years ago about the "spread of obesity" through social networks, his work on happiness wasn't quite as well-covered.

I have a few very distinct social networks. First, there is my family (both family of origin and destination...students can look those up). Second, is my network of professional peers. Of course, within that network there are people I would consider friends, some who are rivals, and some who are just "colleagues" (a polite term to call people you respect, but know only casually.) Within that group of peers, there are those who are in my field of study and those who are in my institution. We have very different relationships. One group knows me by my research interests, the other by my administrative roles.

I have a network of book readers, really two-one virtual, one face to face (f2f!). Some of those network members are also friends, others I see only once a month at book group. I even have a network of exercise companions, bound together by our shared experiences and sweat. There is surprisingly little overlap in these networks. I don't exercise with anyone from book group, nobody from my family is a professional colleague.

The variety of social groups to which you belong and their roles is an interesting thing to think about.

Birthdays

I've been away for awhile. Sorry to let you all down. I'm sure people have been anxiously looking for an update. Here it is.

Well, I am now 52 years old. I guess I have to admit that I am middle aged now. The current period life expectancy for white women in the United State is just about 80 years. At age 52 life expectancy is about 30 years. Of course, higher education increases both of those numbers, and these are period, not cohort estimates, so they assume no future improvements in health care. We can think of them as minimums (I hope, although the situation in Russia shows that you can't always count on that.)

Still, birthdays just aren't what they used to be. I'm not sure when that changed exactly, maybe after my 21st! I remember that turning 40 seemed somewhat relevant, but all the time I was 38 I was thinking I was almost 40, then when I was 39 I WAS almost 40, then I was 40, then at 41 and 42 I had JUST REACHED my 40s....so turning 40 was like a 5 year process. I didn't feel that way about 50 at all.

There are some interesting historical accounts of age and the meaning of age. Some historians who have studied diaries and letters of "common folk" (of course, how common were they if they were keeping diaries....) find that birthdays and age are rarely mentioned. Social life was organized around what you could do, not how old you were. If, as a man, you were able to support yourself, then you were old enough to marry. If, as a woman, you were able to bear children, then you were old enough to raise them. Our whole concept of time and age really developed with the Industrial Revolution and the concomitant arrival of public education and railroads. Suddenly age and time were more relevant. Over time, age grading become important, child labor laws developed, and educational requirements were introduced. At the same time notions of a "work day" and "retirement" were developing. Now, birthdays had relevance as they marked your movement through the age system and your access to new rights and responsibilities.

Interestingly, in some ways age now is less relevant as a marker of ability, health, or maturity. There are movements to breakdown the age graded system and replace it with one that is more flexible and matches the longer life expectancy and better health of the population.

Education and Social Class

My office at work has "adopted" a pre-K classroom in a local city school. We help with holiday parties, collect winter clothing and books, and once a week volunteers go to read in the classroom. There are about 15 4-5 year old kids in the class, all African American, from a poor and working class community. I've gone to read twice now, and I find it very difficult. I bring some of the books my boys liked when they were younger and the kids seem to enjoy the stories. It is the teachers I have issues with.

I realize that some people who read this are, or will be, teachers. As a sociologist, I certainly realize the role of the school system in the socialization process. And I'm only there for 1/2 hour, so who am I to judge? But, it seems like the teachers spend most of the 30 minutes I'm there yelling at the kids--"sit down" "sit up" "stop fidgeting" "be quiet" "don't laugh" "keep your hands in your lap"....There is a steady stream of commands. When I read, I like to ask questions--"what do you think will happen next?" "can you see the dog?". But the teachers don't want the kids to react at all, just to sit quietly. I want to just get down on the rug and let them crowd around and look at the book and climb in my lap. I can see that the teachers are afraid that if they give an inch the kids will be out of control, but it is very hard for me to see the enthusiasm and spirit of these kids quashed. No wonder they learn to dislike school. I'm sure there is another side to this, but it is hard for me to see.

Horizontal leadership

The other day our department had a visitor who talked about the "horizontal leadership" in some social movement organizations. The basic idea, I guess, is that decision making is shared and that all members have ownership of decisions and input in discussions. I can see how this, in theory, makes people feel more vested in the outcome, how it is more inclusive than the traditional "vertical leadership" model, and why it has developed as an alternative to leadership models that have marginalized groups of people. BUT, I just don't get it. I guess I'm too old, too conventional, or too authoritarian. It seems like, in the end, someone needs to be "in charge." I am totally in favor of inclusive decision making, sharing responsibility, and consensus building. BUT, doesn't somebody, in the end, have to take the lead? Who communicates decisions to others in and out of the organization? With whom do those outside of the organization direct their comments and feedback? Is the lost efficiency worth it?