Archives: Student Identity

Sociological Imagination and Analyzing the Struggles of a UBC Student.

Life of a university student, more specifically a UBC student, surely comes with a number of difficulties that would get us thinking: What did we do to end up here? As students, we get so caught up by our own troubles, that we don’t consider their historical and biographical context. In other words,  we don’t really understand how our problems can have an effect on the society that surrounds us. We usually think that our personal problems only affect us individually, yet there is actually a connection between our issues and the framework of society.

In his article “The Promise of Sociology”, C. Wright Mills introduces the concept know as the Sociological Imagination,  a non-individualistic way to look at our personal problems in a much larger scale. Sociological Imagination shows us the distinction between a “personal trouble” and a “public issue” and helps us identify the relationship between our own individual troubles and problems that are on a larger scale.

Imagine a  UBC student who is under a financial struggle to pay for his education. Let’s call him Bart. Bart is pursuing his university education in UBC as a business student in Sauder and, due to not being financially able to afford schooling himself, is being funded with student loans. He then eventually faces student debt after completing his degree, and is stressed with having to earn the money he needs to repay his student loans. This would be known as a personal trouble, because the issue he is facing exists within himself.

Now, how can we view Bart’s problem on a larger scale? He surely wouldn’t be the only person facing financial troubles in university, let alone facing student debt. As a public social issue, having a large amount of students facing debt would affect the student community within the university and could possibly lead to changes in tuition costs or a change in the number of students attending UBC. Student loans and student debt can be seen as public issues because of how they extend beyond an individual’s personal problem, helping us understand the structure of society and how it can be amended.

The recent protest that occurred outside the Koerner library regarding fairness in tuition and housing process is an example of how public issues can change the structure of society. Because of proposed increases in tuition costs and residence contracts, students demanded lower costs in order to make their university experience much more fair and affordable for them. By protesting and expressing their outrage for the increase in housing and tuition costs, students are using their voices to promote change in the current social order. It is also worth thinking about how each student has their own personal troubles that are financial, which contributes to the amount of students financially struggling because of the high tuition and housing costs. Each student would have their own personal reasons to be involved in the protest, and with the amount of students who appeared outside the library to oppose the status quo, it is clear that the increase in tuition and housing costs is a public social issue that calls for change within the university system at UBC.

The use of Sociological Imagination is a helpful tool that we can use to analyze aspects of our lives and of those around us. In addition, it can help us understand why events such as the protest against increased costs take place and the issues that are to be addressed. By thinking about the relationship between personal troubles and public issues, we will be able to realize how the things that happen to us can affect the structure of the society we live in.

 

References:

Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No commentsAdd a comment

Meanwhile at the Frat’s: TFM’s and Identity

423661_10151055386096334_353483907_n

The Greek system (fraternities and sororities) is a massive North American college institution with strong ties to UBC.  Beta house located at Wesbrook Mall, was kind enough to allow me to spend some time visiting the house, getting to know their members, traditions and culture.  I began my investigation by attending a preliminary RUSH event, which consisted of current members meeting and touring potential recruits around the house.  My primary purpose was to build some rapport with the Beta Brothers and get to know their culture as a frat and see what such a collective identity looks like. One of the defining features of the fraternity system which I think most of its appeal to outsiders originates from, is the relationship between tradition and secrecy.  Much of the recruitment, initiation and governing traditions of Beta function only through a collective code of confidentiality.  While the brothers were very open and anxious to chat and teach me about their history and culture certain questions are never given a straight answer. However what I believe sets fraternities apart from other campus groups is language.  There is such a decisive and exclusive vocabulary within the house, I found myself constantly asking for clarification.  The whole Greek system in general works on a specified vocabulary, as well as the Beta brothers specifically use their own unique plethora of slang terms.  However while the language can easily work to alienate outsiders they held very little reservations on getting me up to speed on some of their favourite words and phrases.  What I found particularly interesting was that while their language worked to set them apart from other groups it also worked to establish their identity and provide them with a space to respond to the ever present negative frat stigma. Total Frat Move according to urbandictionary.com is an expression “used in response or to describe an action of a male who exudes all things fraternity”.  Beta house specifically described TFM’s as a response to the negative stereotypes and stigma that they feel is undeservingly projected onto them.  This stigma they feel is justified, by the greater student population, solely based on their membership to the Greek system.  If you are at a loss for an image of stereotypical frat guy, please watch Jimmy Tatro’s YouTube video.  As one brother explained to me that he could not even begin a conversation with a girl without her immediately assuming he was only speaking to her having premeditated their night would end in bed.  This was revealed to me with much frustration and even as a sort of plea.  The boys were constantly referring to me as “the snitch” or “investigator”, even though I reassured them that while the underlying purpose of my presence was for a class project I primarily had a general interest in what frat culture looked like from the inside.  There was a definitely a hint of defensiveness regarding my presence. While testosterone levels in the house are high and the language utilized is full of acronyms and exclusive slang, you could not help but admit there was a definite self-deprecating sense of humour  in everything they did.  They are far more self-aware of their stigma, then they think people realize.   They explained that as opposed to doing everything in their power to reverse this “douchey” stereotype they chose to exemplify it.  This exemplification of the frat boy stereotype is accomplished by TFM-ing.  Instead of just going to gym in tank tops with their pre-work out in hand and keep it to themselves like any other tank top wearing gym going frat boy would do, they make a game of it.  One frat brother explained to me that sometimes they’ll set up a bench press in the front yard and have guys “work out” as people walk past on their way to class or getting off the bus.  The brothers revel in the exasperated expressions, the eye rolling, and snickering they receive from onlookers.  Simply put, they find it hilarious, less out of how ridiculous they are actually acting but hilarious in the fact that people think they’re taking themselves seriously.  Such activities bring the boys together in a sort of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality, or at least that helps validate the behaviour on the surface.  They’d rather spend their energy giving people the fuel they want as opposed to fighting against a deeply engrained reputation. BETA house gathers a lot of their identity from playing along with what everyone thinks about them.  To quote Goffman, “it is this against something that the self  can emerge.”  The BETA brothers to an extent have flipped this on its head.  It is a sort of acceptance of people’s assumptions and the exaggeration of what people want frat guys to be that has driven BETA’s common identity.  The find camaraderie  in being the butt of people’s jokes.  Total frat moves give them the self awareness to see what other people assume.

 

KC

References: Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.

Read 1 CommentAdd a comment

This, I know, I am Not… But what am I? – Goffman’s explanation of how individuals define themselves

As a sociology major, I find myself constantly asking questions about myself, and the things I do. What do I identify with as an individual, and how do I fit in with others? Why do I fit in with certain individuals better than others? How do we figure out who we are amongst all of the other individuals around us? Are we all different? What qualities do we share? What social situations do I feel comfortable in, and which are out of my comfort zone?

Recently I came across a quote, which has inspired even more questions to flow through my mind. The quote can be found in “Asylums,” by Erving Goffman, and it highlights yet another way of thinking about individuals in society. His definition of individuals is as follows…

“A stance-taking entity, a something that takes a position somewhere between identification with an organization and opposition to it, and is ready at the slightest pressure to regain its balance by shifting its involvement in either direction. It is thus against something that the self can emerge…” (502)

One idea that I find myself constantly returning to is an exercise that my SOCI100 Prof used, which was meant to promote us to think sociologically about our environment. He asked us to think about a line up for something, like a Starbucks, and the different social cues that surround it. This prompted me to realize that I have always been fascinated with observing people following (or breaking) social cues and interacting with their environment. I have often found myself ‘people watching’ at Starbucks, and elsewhere. This exercise really got me thinking about all the sociological thoughts that I have, but had never identified them as such prior to taking my first sociology course.

Returning back to the Goffman quote, I had previously never contemplated the idea of defining myself against something I am not. After considering this idea, however, I realized that I am able to apply it to my Starbucks adventures. The Goffman quote prompted me to rethink some of the questions I have previously asked myself about line-ups. Why do I choose to be polite and follow the social cues that tell me I should wait my turn? I feel confident in saying that I am a fairly polite individual, but how did I come to identify myself as such?

This leads me to the main purpose of this post, which is to discuss how individuals in society approach situations, and how the decisions we make in these situations can define how we are seen in society, and how we identify ourselves. How each individual’s socialization guides them through their daily decisions.

More specifically I want to talk about UBC Clubs Days, and how individuals decide which clubs they are interested in, and which to avoid. Some of the behaviour students exhibited highlights the relevance of Goffman’s definition of individuals to the daily life of a UBC student.

This year I had the opportunity to “table” for two clubs on Clubs Days, one academically inclined, and one socially inclined. It was interesting to see how some individuals would scoff at the thought of joining an academic club, whilst others were uninterested with the idea of joining a club that wouldn’t benefit them on their resumes. I heard many statements beginning with “I am not”… “I’m not really interested in a social club,” “I’m not really looking for extra work outside class.” Which, in my head, translated into “I am not whatever your club is,” which leads us back go Goffman. These individuals defined themselves against what my clubs had to offer, but this is only one clue into the complexity that is each individual I interacted with during Clubs Days. All I know about those who passed off my clubs is one thing that they are NOT, but I have no idea what they ARE. Why are they not interested in my clubs? Is it because they truly do not want to have a social life? Or is it because they have been socialized to see social clubs a certain way?

…And do they budge in Starbucks line-ups?

I AM interested in my  academic club, but at the same time, I AM NOT interested in focusing solely on my studies when I am faced with so many amazing social opportunities. I line up at Starbucks for fear of being known as that one rude chick that budges because this, I know, I am not. But what AM I? I am polite because I don’t budge… I am a sociology major because I clicked the SSC button… but what else?

References:

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.

No commentsAdd a comment

A Critical Response to a UBC Event: Meeting at the Feminist Club

In this blog post, I will be doing a critical response of the second general meeting I attended at the Feminist Club (I missed the first general meeting but luckily I made it to the second!). This is the first year the Feminist Club will be operating as they are a newly formed club on the UBC campus. The club’s application was admitted late by UBC’s Alma Matter Society (AMS), so unfortunately they were not able to get a booth open to promote their club at some of the promotional events happening on campus at the beginning of the year that were open to clubs (i.e. Imagine Day, Clubs Day). Fortunately, I happened to come across it on my Facebook newsfeed and followed up with “liking” them on Facebook to get the details of how to get involved and lend my support to them.

The meeting took place in a study room at a library on campus. When I walked in, quite a few people turned to the door to say, “Hi!” Everyone sat in chairs around some tables in a circle formation, so I went to join them. Very soon after, the meeting started. The student leading the meeting led a round-table discussion to introduce everyone to one another. We went around the circle of students saying our name and an area of interest we have within the broad topic of feminism that we hoped to explore through the club. Some recurring themes were brought up:

(1)    Feminism had become a “dirty word” and, while we recognized this was a large issue, we wanted to tackle it through the club.

(2)    Ridged gendered boundaries for masculinity and femininity were harmful for all and we hoped to address them.

(3)    We wanted to make feminism accessible to the public in a language that they could understand and not be intimidated by in order to get more people to enter the conversation.

Of course, there were more issues brought up in the meeting, but those three themes were brought up frequently. There are about 15 people at the meeting (myself included) and, looking around the room, I could not help but notice that there were only 4 men at the meeting—the other attendees were women. It was also hard to ignore that we were all had privileged backgrounds. We were all students who had gone on to post-secondary education at one of the country’s top-ranking universities. We had all sought out the club in order to be there—after all, the club had not been able to promote itself in the same way other clubs at UBC had had the opportunity to at the popular Imagine Day and Clubs Day events. That we sought out the club as we did, spoke further to our privileged backgrounds: we had some knowledge of what feminism was because we had many resources available to us to learn and we were able to lend our free time to go to a club meeting.

Feminism is important as a systematic broad-based movement, but certainly individuals who “the patriarchy” effects the most drastically are those from less privileged backgrounds, those who did not have so many resources available to them, and those who might not be so economically well-endowed as to have free time off work to be actively seeking out a group to talk about feminism or to attend a club meeting. Of course, I definitely recognize that it is important to empower feminists to speak out and perhaps the club could function as a “support group” of sorts for existing self-identified feminists on UBC’s campus to gain confidence in speaking amongst themselves about issues important to the feminist cause. However, as for the three recurring themes we spoke about during the meeting, it would be more fruitful to open the club to a wider populace. The recurring three themes spoke to the necessity of a larger public dialogue and so it would make sense that this would need to include a wider dynamic of individuals from perhaps less privileged backgrounds.

Michael Kimmel (2008) writes about fraternities being developed to create a “white man’s space” with the introduction of women, immigrants, and freed blacks onto university campuses in North America. Kimmel explains that fraternities were created as a space that white males could “get away” to in order to separate themselves from the new additions to their campuses. Certainly Kimmel addresses a very loaded subject, but I believe a club like the Feminist Club has wrongly-garnered a “privileged woman’s space” status—which would explain the lack of male presence at the club meeting. Although the club attendees do not want to “get away” from others on campus like the fraternity example highlights, club non-attendees can very easily frame them as wanting to.

Jewkes and Murcott (1996) offer a perspective on community and belonging that can help us understand the differing perspectives that insiders and outsiders may have on the same club. They explain that “community members’ perceptions of sharing are central to the delineation of [community] boundaries” (Jewkes & Murcott, 1996, p. 555). Club attendees are able to create an atmosphere of community amongst themselves as they share their thoughts and experiences relating to feminism, but club non-attendees do not have this basis of sharing to draw on—thus club non-attendees are easily able to revert to making assumptions of the club attendees through their apparent positionality. Smith (2005) defines positionality in terms of ‘standpoint’. The standpoint of current club attendees is a privileged, university-educated one and so non-attendees can revert to making snap judgements about the club by making assumptions of the attendees’ positionality and recognize it as a space for the privileged and the university-educated.

Thus, the challenge then becomes one of trying to bridge the gap between club attendees and club non-attendees who may have different perceptions on what the club is because of their respective insider and outsider positions. That being said, I really enjoyed attending the meeting and meeting some of the other attendees. It was a very welcoming atmosphere! During the roundtable discussion, I brought up the issue of inaccessibility that the feminism conversation tends to have in the public sphere outside the privileged setting of the university. Others agreed with me and we had a brief conversation about how we could bridge that university-public gap in the conversation. We tossed around the idea of having some seminars open to the public in various locations around the city that are not on campus. The club leader wanted me to talk with her further about ideas we could implement together. I am very much up for this challenge and can’t wait to see where we will go from here!

 

References

Jewkes, R., & Murcott, A. (1996). Meanings of Community. Social Science and Medicine, 43(4), 555-563.

Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Toronto, Canada: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.

Smith, D. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A sociology for people. Lanham, MD: Rowman AltaMira

 

No commentsAdd a comment