Last month at UBC, the Careers Day Fair was open for 3 days (September 30 – October 2) at the Student Union Building to provide students with more information on graduate school opportunities with representatives from a university program at a booth. The Careers Day Fair was open to everybody and there was no sign-up necessary, so students were free to walk around and explore for themselves while in the Student Union Building. A question I’d like to bring up is why would people want to participate in these kinds career oriented events?

Personally, I participated because I wanted to learn more about the opportunities that are available to me after I graduate from UBC. I am currently a third year sociology student and I am interested in what graduate school has to offer. Because I’m very new to this, I don’t know much about what graduate school is about, what I must do to get accepted and what types of students they look for and I wanted more information on this. The ultimate reason as to why I attended was because I want to further my education and to give me an upper-hand when applying for jobs in the future.

As I mentioned, I want to get into graduate school because it will give me a higher advantage in finding a career. However, once one takes my perspective out of the picture and asks in society’s point of view, there’s a larger concept that influences why I want a career in the first place. Our society that we live in values capitalism and consumerism. In order for consumerism and capitalism to keep running, jobs must be taken by people to earn a living and survive. But it is not only about survival, it is also accumulating wealth and moving into different social classes.

My individual choice in wanting to apply for graduate school, is not a pure individual choice, it is also the dependent on many outside factors, such as the structure of institutions like family, school, government, and the pressures of societal norms that influence me to make this free will decision.  Ultimately, C. Wright Mills touches upon this subject in his book, “The Sociological Imagination.” He gauges the importance of understanding one’s own experience by locating oneself in the greater perspective of things. In other words, it is an understanding of oneself in relation to society.

So, how does little me affect our society? Each individual influences society, and society influences individuals. It’s kind of like an interdependent relationship. So, for me wanting to go to graduate school, I’m influenced by society to make this decision so that I have a better chance in finding a secure job after my schooling. In addition, I influence society as I am reinforcing this notion of earning money, and inevitably capitalism itself.

At the end of the day, yes, I still want to apply for graduate school and I wanted to explore my options in Careers Day. However, even though I do consider it as an individual choice, it is also important to remember the structures that influence us to “freely” choose to do something. My challenge for you readers is to think about why you’re doing something simple and natural to you. Why are you considering going into graduate school? Why do you want to go into the workforce right after graduation? Because at the end of the day, we are still part of a larger society and we cannot separate from ourselves from it, no matter how much we would like to think everything we do is out of our free will.

References:

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

Goffman in “Asylums” aims to discuss the uneasy construction of “the Self” through the oppression of societal total institutions (mental hospital in his article). He first defines Total Institutions as “places of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed formally administrated round of life” (492, emphasis mine). When reading this, I cannot help but to notice his choice of his terminology. The presence of the words “cut off” and “enclosed” in the sentence portrays a negative implication regarding the notion of Total Institutions. His definition implies that total institutions are something set apart, pushed beyond the outskirts of societal functionality, a nucleus for absolute administration. As this definition is written right at the beginning of his article, it is clear that Goffman is attempting to grasp the notion of Total Institutions as problematic in which this type of totalitarian government envelops all thoughts, feelings and actions. In his article, he aims to pursue that one’s “Self” is undoubtedly the product of societal influences (the total institutions which strip the inhabitants away from any kind of portrayal of their true selves).

It is through this kind of identity-suffocation phenomena that the individuals are subject to the Mortification of Self, referring to the “process of ‘killing off’ the multiple selves possessed to prior to one’s entrance into the total institution and replacing them with one totalizing identity over which the person exercises little, if any, control” (492). As a result, Goffman implies that once the person is subjected within a Total Institution, the identity he or she once was will eventually erode as time progresses, intensifying the feeling of loss.

As a UBC student, I do believe that that the university is a total institution. I agree with Goffman when he states that these total institutions are “cut off” and “enclosed” when applying to UBC, in which the location of the campus is disconnected from the main cities of Greater Vancouver (such as Burnaby and Richmond). I also agree with him when he mentions that these total institutions are “formally administered round of life” (492), stated in his definition. In relation to conversing about our university campus, students are attending school under strict regulations of a campus wide government in which we must comply to. Not only subjected to students, but faculty members, office administrators and everyone else working within this circle of “residence”, is administrated under the umbrella of our UBC government, the AMS. Under circumstances in which one fails to follow the policies, consequences are put through to reinforce the established laws within the university.

Furthermore, Goffman reasons that individuals who fail to comply within the restrictions of the system are attempting to preserve their self-identity. This inability to obey to the institution’s demands represents the notion of Secondary Adjustments, in which the “individual stands apart from the role and the self that were taken for granted for him by the institution” (493). Goffman refers this means of preserving the patient’s self – identity as relying on “tearing up his mattress, if he can, or writing with feces on the wall” (500).

Goffman’s perspective is that it is through the totalitarian notion of an institution (a mental hospital), in which the patients are under continuous oppression from the authority of the hospital. Due to this, it is at this peak moment where sudden outbreaks of violence or cracks of disobedience come to light for reasons of redemption and re-identification of themselves as humans, not as patients. However, I believe that as students of UBC, it counters Goffman’s idea. Instead, I see UBC as a place of self-cultivation, not self-depletion. I cannot argue against the fact that UBC is not a total institution, but I can argue that UBC does not comply with the rules in which Goffman states in reference to patients struggling to reclaim their lost identities. UBC is a place where students come together to mindfully concentrate on their interests, to mindfully learn from academic scholars within their realm of studies, to mindfully open up their horizons to greater possibilities and to obtain unique skills (academic studies, clubs, sport teams). Therefore, UBC is a foster home which allows students to form a type of “self” through the growth of academic knowledge and personal developments. It is through this notion which the campus, in turn, forces individuals to reach out and claim their student identities. Goffman’s iteration suggests the power of the asylum which not only restricts the patients to reach out, but instead pushes the patients deeper into complete control.

Both are total institutions with power in place, but the core difference, thus, is that there is no history of loss identity for UBC students, while the imprisoned patients are individuals who have lost their past identities due to the simple entry into the absolute governance of the asylum.

From freshman year to my current status as a third year undergraduate student, I have undoubtedly grown from the very first day of school as a sophomore. These few years I have opened up my mind into numerous directions and learned countless experiences, all of which have constructed and reconstructed my identity as a whole.Therefore, Goffman’s definition of total institution leading to the withdrawal from the authentic self, is the product of the “enclosed, formally, administered round of life”. His notion can be accepted in the context of the clear power dynamics between doctor-patient relationships. However I feel that what Goffman is missing is that he generalizes much of the idea of total institutions as something empowering in all kinds of institutions. It is clear though, when thinking about UBC, that in fact not all institutions with class of elites run the same governance as total institutions. I believe that all institutions run differently. Moreover, not all are conditioned under a single definition of “Total Institution”.

References:

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and other Inmates. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.

Last month, I attended a Fashion Show for my very first time in my life. In a nutshell, the experience was interesting and I would say,  a little bit shocking. I did not have any expectations prior to the show and was extremely excited to be able to attend such a glamorous event.

Let’s start from the beginning.

I entered the venue just in time for the first show to begin. I walked towards the standing crowd which  hovered around the photographers and the VIP seats in the front row beside the bright runway. I instantly eyed an open space at the benches for me and my friend. We quickly squeezed between the sea of people , trying to get to our spots before anyone tried to take it. Just as we sat down, the lights dimmed and music started to boom the entire room. The first model appeared wearing a shiny silver suit. She strutted until the end the of runway, posed for the photographers, turned around, and walked back towards the screen. Sitting in the second row, I could see her face perfectly clear. Every model’s face I witnessed were interestingly all very similar. Caked on layers upon layers of foundation, mascara, eyeliner, eyeshadow and lipstick, it seemed to me that every model portrayed a homogenized, mainstream look. Her face was emotionless, blank, a Blasé attitude was depicted through her facial expression.

In relation to identity, the self and society, it became extremely clear to me that the true model’s identities  on the runway were veiled from the layers of makeup and the sparkling suits. The moment each person stepped onto the runway, a certain kind of portrayal was evident to the audience (that an individual who was chosen to model a particular designer’s novel collection of clothing, was solely determined based on the model’s “look”). Throughout the 20 seconds in which each model was able to struct and show the entirety of an enlightened outfit, I could feel that the individual was constantly bombarded with judgments drafted  by every attendee, however, not only commenting on the clothing design, but critiquing the model as an individual.

As the model flowed down the runway  with their signature walk, I watched the audience’s heads turn as the model passed them. People were constantly scanning the model from head to toe,  assessing their walk, their posture, their physique, their potential of showing off the pompous outfit in a right matter.

After watching a couple of models walk up the down the platform and also observing the front row fashion designers with cat eye glasses, fire red lipstick sitting upright in their seats with their lips pouting, scanning the model’s bodies, it suddenly struck me that the models were completely divorced from their true, in-born identities. Throughout the two hour event, I came to the realization that these model’s identities, or “the self” was heavily composed and produced of the exaggerated makeup, the volumous hairdo, and their extravagent outfit of today’s modernized high fashion (though some of which is debatable in aesthetic appeal, I would argue). It is through the confined space of the runway, the bold lighting on their faces, and the hundreds of people observing, that each model’s self/identity was not only controlled, but restricted within the tangible and intangible spacial dynamics. It is through the makeup, the hairdo, and the clothing that DEFINED who the model was on stage as an individual.

In retrospect, not only does it mean that your identity is shaped by the materials the model is wearing, but it is also shaped by the institutional organizations of the Fashion Show, as well as the people who were watching, observing their every move.

This inescapable concept of the “self” as the core production of others around you, is thus suggested in Smith’s 1987 The Everyday as Problematic. Smith raises the notion of “norm” in certain settings, as “teachers learn a vocabulary and analytic procedures that accomplish the classroom in the institutional mode… analyze and name the behavior of students as “appropriate” or “inappropriate”(573). What she is noting is that these ideologies provide procedures for what goes on, and as a result, provides the notion of observable -reportable within such settings (573). Therefore in relation to the fashion show, Smith’s ‘observable-reportable’ idea of the teachers relates to this type of procedure controlled by the fashion designers sitting in the front row seats. It is through the internalized process of labelling “pass” or “fail” towards the models that form the identities of these faces.

Everyone’s identities are sociall constructed by others around us. The creation of a false facade is unavoidable and real. As a UBC student, your sex, your faculty,  your major, the clubs you partake in, all define your identity. And within each aspects listed, there are social relations that develop. Professors, peers, friends and family all determine your identity as a whole. In some aspects, it controls you and takes over your identity without your consciousness.

I constantly question:  How does one enable him/herself to meander through society without feeling watched or judged? How can somone comply to a “self” when the “self” is controlled by external dynamics?

References:

Smith, Dorothy. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Lebanon, N.H: University Press of New England.

(Imagine Day)

 (IAM UBC)

This event was so inspiring because it had a lot clubs to browse, general knowledge on different faculties and departments, music, food, and free stuff like a coupon to Davids Tea and a lot of candies and pens! Despite it raining on Imagine Day it still went well and I learned a lot of interesting and new things. For ex: I didn’t know that groups like the Indonesian Society had sponsorship with Air China, so when you travel you save an extra 10%!!! The BBQ in the chemistry building was to die for, too bad I didn’t get any.. Hence not being a chemistry major. However, I did enjoy what the Arts faculty put together and how we were on schedule with bringing and catering in sandwiches and salads from Subway! That was yummy and was a nice way to meet and interact with new 1st year students and old friends. It was very nice to see how Buchanan space was almost filled with tables of presenters and posters to encourage us to sign up with their according academics. The most favorite part was seeing the faces of the 1st year students following their awesome team leaders that held signs, had face paints, logos, etc. this was totally a great way encourage them to a huge university and to welcome, let them know what and who we are, what we do and represent! “I AM UBC”

How do we connect as “I AM UBC?”, in the beginning of class we discussed and connected that we are all foreigners and are on Salish Coasts peoples territory. So with that in mind, we all must share everything together and learn and take from one another in a seeding manner. UBC has a very natural, resourceful, beautiful area that has a lot of rich history and a proud area that we all can connect to. From the perfect untouched forests, to its beaches and water UBC is US. Just being able to have the resources and the ability to learn in such a space makes UBC a sense that it is our home, our space and that we all need to stick together and support one another. Imagine day shows us just that and that its one of the days were all our colours and spirits come out to join the big family connection to UBC.

For the last five months, I have been volunteering with an organization called Pivot Legal in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) neighbourhood of Vancouver. Pivot is dedicated towards improving the lives of residents in this low-income neighbourhood by implementing social change on many levels of society.⁽¹⁾ As part of this aim, they operate a project called Megaphone, which is a micro-enterprise streetpaper which they sell to DTES residents.⁽²⁾ In turn, these “vendors” would sell Megaphone to members of the general public for a profit. During my time volunteering, one of my tasks was to manage the sale of Megaphone papers to the vendors. As such, I was able to observe this program over a prolonged period of time and gain a sense of how this micro-enterprise was able to contribute to a sense of belonging, identity, and community for residents of the DTES.

For a neighbourhood where many struggle to make ends meet, the Megaphone program provided an important source of income for the provision of basic necessities. Our vendors are generally unemployed, so this formed a significant part of their subsistence. Additionally, being able to play an active part in earning their own income (by selling papers, building relationships with customers, etc.) often cultivated a sense of pride and self-worth. I spoke to several vendors who spoke positively about being able to “run” their own micro-enterprise, how selling papers gave them something valuable to do with their time and allowed them to subvert stereotypical, discriminatory notions of the “lazy” unemployed. Thus, Megaphone was able to contribute to the perceived self-worth of DTES residents.

Megaphone also serves as a vehicle for the communal identity of the DTES. The fact that most of the contributors to this paper are residents from the DTES, including vendors themselves, means that it is a platform for airing ideas about what the DTES actually is, what living here actually means to its residents. This is reflected in countless articles, interviews, and op-eds concerned with the culture, achievements, and general self-conception of the DTES community. Through Megaphone, residents were able to cultivate and propagate a narrative that valorized the day-to-day efforts of the DTES community to survive and to fight for its own rights in wider society. In a media culture that generally views the DTES in the negative – as a problem, a dangerous place, an aesthetic blight – Megaphone is an opportunity for locals to recast their community in a better light, to form a distinct self-identity that people could feel attachment and belonging to. Examples of this include articles chronicling the fight against gentrification, the campaign against abusive landlords, communal festivities, and the organization of art and photography contests.

By providing a source of income for its vendors and by serving as a platform for the sharing of ideas, Pivot’s Megaphone program helps people in the DTES to build a positive social identity both at the individual and communal levels. It is a great example of a grassroots-level initiative that implements positive social change in a way that reflects the needs and local sensibilities of the community which it serves.

1)      “About.” Pivot Legal Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pivotlegal.org/about>.
A link to Pivot’s website describing their mission statement and work in greater detail.

2)      “Hope in Shadows.” Pivot Legal Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pivotlegal.org/hope_in_shadows>.
Refer to the “Vendor Program” section to learn more about the Megaphone project.

It is quite popular amongst qualitative feminist researchers nowadays to include so-called “positioning papers” within their research. These papers give an account of the researcher’s relationship, both personal and otherwise, to their research subject in order to increase the transparency and accountability of their research project. The reason they are included is because feminist theory believes that all knowledge begins from “standpoints” that are situated depending on a person/group’s position within society. ⁽¹⁾  From this perspective, research becomes knowledge produced from the socially situated “standpoint” of the researcher.As such, providing context about their own connection to the material (ie. what motivates them, what goals they have, how they are emotionally invested in their research) helps readers better assess the knowledge that they generate.

While my fellow classmates and I are not qualitative researchers in a formal sense, we will be doing at least some qualitative research – over the next few months, we will be recording and analyzing our observations of social life on this blog, particularly in relation to issues of social identity.⁽²⁾ Therefore, I would like to start with a small positioning paper of sorts where I will give a brief account of how I came to see the world through the lens of the social – in other words, how individual and group behaviours are shaped by norms and interactions that originate from society at large.⁽³⁾

It began with the rather unexpected discovery that I was attracted to men. In my first year at university, I happened across a football game on television – I suppose most of us would call it soccer. It is ironic because I have no interest in sports at all, yet to this day I remember that it was a Spanish team; that a goal had just been scored; that he had dark hair and tanned skin; that his shirt rode up when he leapt in exhilaration. Over the next few weeks and months, a deep sense of confusion set in – not that this desire existed, but that it was somehow lacking. Not in passion, authenticity, moral value or any of those other stereotypical notions. Rather, what it was lacking in was information – the kind that told you what you wanted, what to anticipate, and what to look for. You see, I had been attracted to girls before. Those sentiments always came with what I realized was an immense bundle of pre-packaged knowledge that told you what a boy and girl should do (hold hands, date); what wanting each other meant (having sex); what they could expect (roses, a family). Together, these strands of knowledge form a veritable guidebook that leads you through every aspect and every stage of your desire – from the awkward fumbling of first times to late-night walks in the moonlight, it tells you what to expect and how to expect it. Most importantly, it tells you what desire actually means. Without it, desire is just a sudden reaction to external stimuli, little more than a shot in the dark. And that was all I had.

Gradually, I came to realize that it made no sense if sexuality is innate, as most believe, that I should have so much knowledge available to my heterosexual inclinations and so little attached to my homosexual ones. The only plausible alternative? That society is the actual source of our sexual knowledge, that it plays a dominant role in shaping our desires. As I became increasingly conscious of this fact and as it began to infuse my worldview on an intuitive level, I gained the ability to observe my own sexual development. I was able to “track” changes over time, making note of how new experiences and ideas that I came across had an effect on my preferences and expectations. Gradually, a whole new world became available to me as I applied what I understood about my sexual identity to other aspects of social life: gender, employment, politics, etc. With the aid of coursework, I continued my avid exploration of this new lens in increasing detail – what are the ramifications of economic marginalization, of education policy, of homeless ordinances? Nowadays, I can hardly look at an issue without wondering about its social origins and what kinds of implications it might have. This is the perspective that I bring to the table – an understanding of the sociological perspective that is intimately connected to me on both personal and intellectual levels and one that I likely will not tire of exploring anytime soon.

1)      Bowell, T. “Feminist Standpoint Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-stan/#H4>.
This website offers a more in-depth explanation of feminist standpoint theory and its relationship to qualitative research and knowledge production in general.

2)      “What Is Qualitative Research?” Qualitative Research Consultants Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.qrca.org/?page=whatisqualresearch>.
A quick, easy-to-understand explanation of what qualitative research is.

3)      Flores, Laura. “What Is Social Constructionism.” Oakes College – University of Santa Cruz. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://oakes.ucsc.edu/academics/Core%20Course/oakes-core-awards-2012/laura-flores.html>.
This link explains the “sociological perspective” by using examples of social inequality from the areas of gender, sex, class, and race. It is very useful for those new to the idea of social constructionism.

Post events and ideas and reflections and experiences that you want to share!