In Lisa McIntyre's The Practical Skeptic, she exposes the organization and structure behind what an institution is. While reading this interesting piece she posed the question "Suppose our economy became almost entirely reliant on computers, nearly all the goods and services manufactured by robots, and most people did their jobs from home...(150)" the scale of impact, this change would have on other institutions would be enormous.
After reading about what makes an institution an institution I got thinking; why it is and will be so hard to change the social structure of our society? Growing up for me I was highly involved in the religious institution, I went to a christian elementary school and was really involved in the whole scene. However like everyone else this was not the only institution in which I belonged, I also belong in the female gender, obviously the financial (as is everyone else) and many other institutions. Every social institution that makes up our social structure and society is so highly engrained, that until recently we were trying to convince ourself's and others to believe were biological characteristics. Race, gender, and sexual identity are all ways we classify people and the way they fit into society. Remembering, "Institutions survive only if their rightness can be explained as both reasonable/logical and natural. (146)" It is very interesting to me to understand a long time from now people will be looking at our scientific research and laughing. As we do to "scientific studies" done in the past about skull shape of different races, and brain sizes of men versus women. All of the scientific data was Until we stop classifying and trying to explain the way people are in this social institution, like McIntyre explains "Children's questions about why women fish and men weave, then are not likely to be responded to with explanations about their great-grand parents preferences. (146)"
As we all know changing is going to take time... to completely restructure the Worlds social institution as we know it. However the change has already begun. Throughout our lifetimes we have seen several institutions such as gender equality, and sexual identity transform. And in this century the social institution of race. Given 200 years might be optimistic I believe with time, generations from now everything will be different. This I understand will change effect change on many other things as well such. Political, religion and other institutions, will be effected by these other changes.
So I end you with this. Why have we as a society felt the need to try and explain these highly engrained predispositions about the way our society is organized, with science and logic that doesn't even provide an accurate and reasonable explanation? When did it begin that we tried to explain the unexplainable and yet not have it questioned until now?
I too question why we explain social institutions the way we do. As the author mentions, often the answer is, "because that's just the way it is." This answer is not good enough. I think it is important to assess why things have developed in certain ways, only then can we begin to understand and change them. For example, in the past the Women's Movement has challenged many gender-discriminating social institutions and feminists studies have argued that patriarchal structures perpetrate gender inequality. In order to overcome this, it is essential that women challenge power structures and change patriarchal institutions. Yet, finding ways to address unfavorable institutions is challenging. The go-to answer would be governmental intervention, but this becomes problematic when a government tries to intervene in the private lives of its citizens by changing family code, laws, and teachings.
ReplyDeleteAs a society, we probably feel the need to try and explain questions with logic and science even though the explanations are not that accurate because we want to understand why everything is so institutionalized. I ask questions so that i have a better understanding of whether it can be applied to my daily life. I personally ask my mother questions about the religious institution and half of the time she says "just the way it is". In order for me to understand, I need to hear or read a statement that seems logical to me or can be used in a real world setting. Otherwise, i feel uncomfortable and can not accept certain norms.
ReplyDeleteI believe that questions began when humans started to interact with each other and society tried to explain the unexplained, but it is not always written on paper like in this chapter 9 by Lisa Mcintyre.
From the article, the most intriguing statement to me is "The fact that institutions are legitimized by both logic and appeals to the nature of things makes them difficult to change, because any attempt at change seems to be an attack on nature as well as logic" (146-147). This idea goes along with the right for same-sex marriages versus heterosexual marriages. People tend to oppose the idea because it goes against their beliefs and defend their view with the thought of logic and nature. For them marriage exists to stand for procreation and contrary to nature. They dismiss the meer thought of love and bonding in a relationship between two individuals. For institutions to change, it takes time and for people to understand.
I'm not quite sure that the definition of an institution presented by McIntyre is clear to everyone. Race, gender and sexual identity are not social institutions. Slavery is an institution that perpetuates racism. The archetypical family is an institution that reinforces gender binaries. McIntyre cites marriage as an institution that represses the gay rights movement. I feel like asking "why it is and will be so hard to change the social structure of our society" is blatantly evident. These institutions evolved because they work - really really well. They ensured the survival and triumph of the cultures that embraced them. Society as we know it could not exist without every single institution McIntyre mentions. Because these institutions permeate every aspect our lives changing them has proven and will continue to be immensely challenging. The best chance we have for rapid evolution of our cultural institutions is education. To achieve change we must first deconstruct the false appeals to nature and logic and the best way to accomplish this feat is through proper education. Hence Soc 101
ReplyDeleteI would also like to refute your point arguing that gender, sexual identity, and race are social institutions. These three are best explained as identity categories, whereas, McIntyre states that institutions are "an accepted constellation of roles, norms, statuses, and values that meet societal needs". I think it is imperative to differentiate the two concepts in order to fully understand institutions. Family and marriage are social institutions that seek to explain sexual orientation, reproduction, and gender roles as identities. To address your question of why the social institutions are explained as “being the way it is”, this is a learned norm that has been conditioned into our society generation after generation. You referred to the social institutions as “engrained predispositions” and this leads one to believe that they are inherent and innate. Institutions such as family, education, and religion are unquestionably engrained into our daily life and practices, but they are not biological predispositions. They are learned behavior that becomes the norm and eventually a social institution after many years in practice. The author notes the example of the differing male and female roles on a deserted island. The men weave the baskets and the women explore and fish. Even generations later they still engage in the same gender roles and behavior. This social institution resulted from the preferences of the original man and woman on the island and after years were simply explained as “the way it is”. It is important to acknowledge that not every single woman on the island preferred fishing or men loved weaving, but the social institution gave rise to gendering. Therefore, social institutions are not innate; but are rather historically contingent.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you view all of the things you listed above as social institutions. I have never viewed things like gender categories and sexual identity as institutions. Based on her definition (social norms/roles) it would seem that gender would fall under that definition. I always love reading everyone's blog post because of how differently we see the readings in terms of how they relate to our own lives. I also never realized that in the reading a social institution is "how something must be done," while routine behavior is the "way we do it." I found this very interesting because I always thought that how something "must be done" was the way I did it, but this is not always how society thinks that is how it should be done.
ReplyDeleteAdam's comment is extremely intriguing to me. I never fully understood that everything up to this point that we have learned in class can be perceived or even skewed by our different life perspectives. Its almost ironic that this class in which we are learning 'facts' are distinguished by our individual pasts and the way we have perceived certain scenarios or moments throughout our lifes. But I guess thats's the beauty of sociology.
ReplyDeleteIn a more relavant matter, I think Paul hit it on the head. Change in any matter is difficult and people are very reluctant to it. The most immense changes in history came through education and drastic measures (wars). I stay optimistic though because I believe as society matures and continues to learn from its past, people will soon become less reluctant to changing, especially if the advantages are obvious.
Adam made a very good point. We are taught how to perform certain tasks the way our elders think it should be done, the way it has always been done in the past. In our minds, the way we were taught must be the way it is always done. However, when reading that there is a difference between the way we do something and the way it should be done, it made me question the way I do certain tasks myself. I mean, clearly, there are certain tasks that we already know we perform incorrectly, but what makes us believe that the way we were taught things is right all the time? I think if this were the case, the world wouldn’t contain as much diversity as it does today. The way we do things is different for everyone, even if you do learn it the same way. I guess this makes me question if there is an actual institutionalized behavior for all to follow or if we, as individuals, have become so unique that all actions have become routine because our actions are not as identical as we think they should be or need to be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the former comments about explanation of social institutions is " just the way it is". We never call a desk "chair" because it is social norms. What's more, "Faced with a particular problem, people try a variety of things to solve their needs. Some of these work better than others. The best way becomes a pattern for subsequent generations to follow."(144) Mclntyre used the word "habitualization". But social institutions are changeable and can be historically and geographic contingent. For example, when you study abroad you will find people will do things in a different way. And we are creating new things (like iPod)which have never been seen before 500 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking of how social institutions create inequality. The reason that social institution exist is people need to unite together to achieve the same goal. The class, gender and race in on institution also has the same goal. Also, government, as a large social institution, contains the problem of corruption and overpower. Are those norms of social institutions?
After reading these comments, I must agree with Morgan and Nathan, and of course Adam for that matter. As I was reading your post, I did find your point of view interesting in how you think about social institutions. But I couldn't even disagree, because I could start to see that point of view was being intertwined in your writing. And then it made me further think about why you may see them as you do.
ReplyDeleteBut to touch on the part you mentioned "As we all know changing is going to take time... to completely restructure the Worlds social institution as we know it. However the change has already begun," I could not agree more. What immediately came to mind was the INCREDIBLE amount of acceptance our nation has given the LGBTQ community and interracial dating, if I was taking on your belief in social constitutions including gender equality and race. These both are very close to my heart, as my parents were together and they are interracial, as well as my best friend being bisexual. Them having to live in a world that did not accept them is terrifying for me to think about with all the hate and ridicule they would experience. Would I have even been born if we weren't living in our times? How different would my life be? I can't even begin to imagine.