Socialization v. Change

I am in sociology right now, and there are so many topics that could fill my blog that I've begun to write down particularly intriguing topics in a notebook to think more about later. So, a lot of posts will probably stem from that class. My prof would be so proud.

The process of socialization is the process by which we learn, accept and internalize social norms. Socialization is what teaches us that it's gross to pick your nose; first we learn that it is disgusting in all circumstances, then we learn that it is gross in public. It is the process of us accepting a set of "norms" of a given culture, society or group. When people join the military, they are re-socialized in the total institution that controls everything about their lives. They learn the new norm, and they internalize it.

Resocialization is usually done voluntarily, like in the military, but it can still be difficult. Accepting a different way of thinking, or processing, of living life can't come easily. Think about the formation of our country; they wanted power to rest in the people, but it was a revolutionary concept. The notion that there would be multiple branches that would somehow balance each other and would represent the changing will of the People. They feared the uneducated masses. They had no real reference for the type of government that was established. It was scary, and it took the entire country a long time to fully accept this government. Even now, there is debate over issues of federal versus state power. The process of accepting a new way of functioning, the context in which people would participate politically, the entire environment and structure of power... they wanted the change but it did not come easily.

Think about democratization in the Middle East. We think our form of government is the best for arguably legitimate reasons, and we are trying to set up a "modern" government in a matter of a few years that took our nation many to accept. The process of socialization takes more time than that. Not to mention the fact that if people do not want to change, they do not willingly internalize the resocialization!

So, what's the difference between change and socialization? Most obviously, change can be limited to a few things within a society whereas socialization is all-encompassing.

But, I think any form of change can require socialization.

When you get a driver's license, the way you act in a car needs to completely change. You can't sleep, and you start paying more attention to the things outside of the car. It revolutionizes that section of your life, your life inside a car when you are driving. When you get into an ensemble you have to internalize rehearsal schedules and conducting styles, and you have to adjust to a different group of people. When you go to college (arguably a total institution if you live on campus and eat in dining services), you have to accept being by yourself, learn to resolve differences with a roommate, and discover a whole new way to live life (eating based on a DS schedule, for example).

I think the main difference between change and socialization is that you don't have to like both. You can like one, the other, or neither. Some people like to experience new things, but they might not like to stay submerged in that new thing (traveling, for example). I, on the other hand, don't always like the process of adjusting to new things, but I find them fascinating. I can incorporate new technology, events and twists of life into my daily routine if I get past the awkward phase of resocialization. (Even though it's only resocialization in a small area of life, which technically isn't even resocialization.) I put myself in new situations as much as I can to try and get over the awkwardness of "the new," but I know that I can have that lack of comfort.

Think about the impact that accepting the concept of socialization v. change could have. It would not longer be "the past versus the future" in politics, relationships, or life. We could acknowledge that there's an awkward phase of adjusting to something new, and that phase is perfectly legitimate. We don't have to force 100% right now, because we know we'll get there eventually. As long as we keep moving towards a better _____, the size of the steps won't make or break the journey.

What Doesn't Kill Us...

It's 2 a.m., and while I should be going to bed, I know I won't be able to sleep. I've been thinking about the old saying "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger."

Is it really true?

Yes, life is hard, and we can endure more difficult times after we are put through something hard.

We learn how to ride a bike after we fall down a few times. We learn how to study after we fail a test or two. We learn how to be a better friend after we lose some of the best ones we've ever had.

We learn how to live after breakups that feel like someone put our hearts through a food processor.

But are we really better people because we go through all of life's trials?

We can learn to fear bikes if we fall too many times. We can learn to hate a particular subject or school all together if we always fail.

We can learn patience when dealing with frustrating coworkers or classmates, but we can also learn to judge. We can learn to understand when faced with people drastically different than ourselves, but we can also learn to hate and to fear. We can learn to love again, but we can also learn to hide our hearts.

Just because someone gets through a life filled with challenges does not mean that he or she is a better person for it. If it did, then why are there cycles where the abused becomes the abuser? Where the judged becomes judgmental?

Right here you might be expecting a conclusion like "so, make sure you take the best from the trials of life. Be a better person because of it." But that's not what I'm saying. While a part of our reactions is just that--OUR reactions, or the way we choose to respond to a stimulus--I don't think it is entirely our choice. If we could control what we learn, feel and experience, then life wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer it, but if we could control even a single thing--ourselves--then many of the problems of life wouldn't even be issues.

What if we wouldn't have jumped to conclusions and ruined a friendship, judged someone we just met, said something without thinking... you name it. (Obviously issues like abuse are different, but for the sake of my tangent, just stay with me).

The thing is, if we can't control the way we act, how could we possibly be expected to control the way we respond?

I'm not sure, but I know we are all responsible for our actions. If a woman comes home to her husband in bed with another woman and shoots them both, the fact that she was ticked-off is not a defense. She should have controlled her desire, and because she didn't she is held responsible.

In a much less visible way, we are also responsible for our emotional responses to the stimulus that is life.

One way to control personal responses, a way that I think is more common than we admit, is to limit the amount we allow ourselves to feel. Think about it: if I am told that "I have a good attitude" through it all, how am I supposed to respond when I have emotional, frustrated, and even hateful thoughts? If I've been told that "I'm always so positive," how should I relate to myself when I can't even touch positivity with a 39 1/2 foot pole? I do not allow myself to experience these emotions, at least in part. We can feel some of it, because that's normal, but we are given an allotted "grieving" or "angry" period, and we are expected to move on and pull ourselves up by the boot-straps. In doing this, I think we lose a little bit of what it is to be human.

I'm not saying we need to let our emotions run wild or toss all social contract to the wind, but what if we allowed each other to actually feel for however long it was necessary?

What if 5 years later we were reminded of "it," and instead of lying to ourselves about how we've "moved on," we allowed ourselves to feel whatever that emotion is?

What if we realized that isolation and a frozen heart could actually be a response to "what doesn't kill us"?

Imagine what society would look like if we stopped trying to tell people that "they'll be fine," "it's okay," and "you're so strong" when they really need to be mad or cry or complain.

I think there would be less hearts held together by band-aids and more hearts actually healing.

A "Logical" Mind? Really?

I was just looking at my blog (don't we all just look at our own pages and think about what could be better or changed?), and I read what I decided to title it. It hit me. "A logical and developing mind." Really? I'd say that I don't, as is common with most people, think in logical patterns.

Right now I'm taking Patterns of Reasoning, which is basically a logic class, and we've learned logical forms and what makes a logically sound argument (among other things). I definitely do not think in logical patterns, in fact, I'd venture to say that I think in rather illogical patterns. I'm not just saying that I do not usually think in the logic forms we use in class, but I'm wondering if it is at all possible to think logically.

Take this example:

I think about my life. I think about myself as a person--the inner-workings and motivations that make me do what I do-- and I think about how I think. Yet, in all of that contemplation, most of it is driven by who I want to be or the emotion of the situation I am in. Not that I see this at the time, but it is pretty evident looking back. I don't necessarily need to think about x-y-or-z, because I can rationalize whatever I bring to the table.

So, I wonder if other people must be driven by emotion too. I'm not talking about high school drama with overly emotional "OMG he's, like, totally being stupid." I'm talking about inner emotional desires like the being accepted, loved, feeling valuable and strong, and being self-sufficient.

The say that history is written by the victor, so do we reinterpret our pasts?

Do we create stories that got us here, like a little testimony to how far we've come, even if there's not much to tell? Or is it simply forgetfulness? Or are those stories real because their implications are real, regardless of the fact that they might not be totally correct? In believing or creating these stories, doing so do we lose or find ourselves?

Can a conclusion ever really be reached?