([D_O~
Now, That's Just WRONG!
SOC.102, INTRO TO ETHICS & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
[ Instructor: Jenna L. Soard]
"Ethical relativism insists that there is no right or wrong, but that such evaluative terms must be understood relative to a culture, a society, or even an individual." (Mosser, 2010) Relativism has its merits and that societies are made up of groups of individuals, no two of which are exactly alike, physically, mentally or emotionally means that there will always be some level of validity available to the relativistic view. No two people (individually as well as culturally) are exactly alike yet no man is an island. The actions of one person or people will inevitably affect a nearby person or people in some fashion, so, in the case of probable ethical ramifications, there must be some moral machinery in play that will counter the seeming randomness of various cultural moralities. But are there certain acts that can be considered categorically wrong in all cases, in each culture, in every ethical view? In Lenn Goodman's "Some Moral Minima", a list of such categorically wrong offenses is suggested, as follows: (1) genocide, politically induced famine, and germ warfare; (2) terrorism, hostage taking, and child warriors; (3) slavery, polygamy, and incest; and (4) rape and female genital cutting. (Goodman, 2010)
The answer [to why this list of wrongs is so wrong] lies in the intent, not just the scale of the crime. (Goodman, 2010) With the exceptions of perhaps polygamy and incest, each of these criminal endeavors takes from their victims either the quality of or the totality of their lives. Incest is the only of the listed taboos that can be committed without the previous knowledge of the parties involved yet and still it is the offspring who suffer the most from incestuous relations, their rights impinged upon before they are even born. Polygamy is legally practicable even in the United States (Mormons do it as a point of religious right) and Goodman considers it a "crime" against women because, "In polygamous societies women become acquisitions-displays of wealth or status, objects of enjoyment, means of reproduction, providers of childcare and domestic labor." (Goodman, 2010) That both incestuous and polygamous relationships can and have been entered into with the full knowledge and consent of all parties involved, yet without the willful detriment of any parties not involved in mind, separates both from my personal estimation of acts that are categorically wrong. On the one hand, that it is possible that a couple could be together, get married and even have children together without any prior knowledge of their being cousins, siblings or even of common ancestry (mother/son, father/daughter) is a fact. The possibility exists because such things have actually happened before, so that excludes (in my mind) any inclusion into the list of categorical wrong doing. If Cousin Bob and Cousin Sue meet at college, date, fall in love and are legally married, live together and have kids only to discover they are first cousins after seven years together they were engaged in absolutely no wrong doing until they discovered otherwise. As for any polygamist, even on a societal level, if they're mature enough to enter into a marital relationship of any sort then they're old enough to decide the right or wrong of the matter if they're ethical enough to consider the ramifications of marriage in the first place.
As for the rest of Goodman's list: Genocide, Politically Induced Famine, Germ Warfare, Terrorism, Hostage Taking, Child Warriors, Slavery, Rape and Female Genital Cutting, these are all crimes that are committed against other, often unwitting and unwilling victims. In an effort to simplify matters for the sake of discussion I will further clarify the crimes by separating this list into two groups: Individual Wrongs and Societal Wrongs. The Individual Wrongs in Goodman's list are those that can be (though not necessarily always are) enacted against a single victim at a time: Hostage Taking, Child Warriors, Rape and Genital Cutting. In his definition of rape as a sexual act, Goodman states that "Rape is exploitative, objectifying, and, yes, again violative." (Goodman, 2010) The same can be said for Hostage Taking as a form of abduction, Child Warriors as a form of forced child labor and genital cutting as a form of enforced mutilation. Each of these acts is an extreme version of a lesser crime and, that there are lesser versions is reason enough to consider any and all of these acts categorically wrong in their extremity, if for no other reason. All of these crimes are exploitative, in that they are committed in the interests of abusing some feature of their victims to the sole gain of the perpetrator at large. They objectify their victims in that those against whom said crimes are perpetrated are viewed as nothing more than that: objects to be used and discarded at the perpetrators discretion, regardless of any humanity said victims must in actuality possess. In effect, said crimes are, in all cases, violative in that there is absolutely no good intent what-so-ever towards the victims nor is there any decent outcome available to them. What gain has a rape victim after the fact? How does a child warrior prosper? How much do hostages get paid? To what benefit is the victim in the wake of having had their genitals mutilated?
And in the case of Goodman's Societal Crimes: Genocide, Politically Induced Famine, Germ Warfare and Slavery, these are crimes that are truly considerable as wrong on the strength of the scale as well as the intent of the crimes themselves. We're talking about eliminating and/or objectifying people on mass scales here. Anyone who disagrees with the classification of any of these crimes as heinous, atrocious or just plain wrong must be considering the use of one of these acts on some level, i.e. if they can think of any reason why any one of these acts could be viable as a worthwhile endeavor then they must have reason to believe they would perpetrate such acts themselves. Only a criminal mind would agree that the extermination of an entire people, other human beings, to be a conscionable act under any circumstances. Any government that is guilty of starving its own people for whatever reason is universally frowned upon, even if no one really does anything overt about the situation. Governments around the world have long since signed agreements that the uses of germ, biological and even nuclear warfare are crimes against humanity. Very few countries openly allow slavery of any form.
All of these crimes, Individual or Societal, are (or should be) rightfully considered categorically wrong on the strength of the fact there is always the cross of Human Rights to be born. In that case, if there are human rights to be considered then there must be human wrongs against which said rights must be balanced. These wrongs have to be quantified if we, as human beings, are to come to any clear definition as to what standards we all should and will be held to. We live in a world where women are raped and mutilated every day. Children are given guns, strapped to bombs, doped out of their minds on drugs and thrown into live combat like tin soldiers. Diseased packages are dropped into civilian populated areas in order to weaken already war ridden resistances. Families, communities and entire nations are brutally starved so that totalitarian governments can stay in power, enforcing unfair politics and vicious, self serving propaganda. We live in a world where the constant haranguing of one societies ethical values and mores over another has resulted in a near constant stalemate of finger-pointing, rhetorical vitriol and endlessly useless bickering over who is right and who is in error. Nothing is getting done to stop the constant trampling of the human rights that everyone agrees we all should have and hold as one human race...
...and that's just wrong!
Works Cited
Goodman, L. (2010). Some Moral Minima. The Good Society , p. 8.
Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics & Social Responsibility. (S. Wainwright, Ed.) San Diego, California, 92128., United States: Bridgepoint Education.
((Q,O~
[1]. Hyper Realism: Sociological Perspectives of Media in Modern Society
Mass Media is a vast social tool by which society communicates through a huge array of mediums, especially in today's technologically driven social environment. There are a number of opinions by which social scientists can study Mass Media in efforts to understand the vast impact the institution has and is having on our world in modern times. Each sociological perspective, while approaching the matter from a variety of standpoints, is ultimately studying a common effect that Mass Media is having on the social world abroad, the effects of Hyper-Realism. The French philosopher and social theorist, Jean Baudillard (1929-2007) first described hyper-reality as a state of Mass Consciousness "...in which entertainment, information, and communication technologies provide experiences more intense and involving than the scenes of banal everyday life, as well as the codes and models that structure everyday life. The realm of the hyper-real (e.g., media simulations of reality, Disneyland and amusement parks, malls and consumer fantasylands, TV sports, and other excursions into ideal worlds) is more real than real, whereby the models, images, and codes of the hyper-real come to control thought and behavior." (Kellner, Apr. 22, 2005; revised Mar. 7, 2007). It is this state of ultimate social consciousness that all sociological perspectives refer to in their ultimate yet diverse postulations. That Mass Media dictates much of what society sees and hears of the world at large is heavily influenced by the hyper-real aspect that is inevitably conveyed through every available medium of communication. From comic books to radio, television to the internet, big budget movies, video billboards, colorful advertisements on the paintjobs of flashy vehicles and even the cell phones that are carried in the pockets of many, the hyper-reality proliferated by Mass Media inundates nearly every aspect of our lives. The focus of this paper is geared towards three sociological perspectives (Functionalism, Conflict Theory and Interactionism) and their differing viewpoints of how Mass Media impacts society overall and including their ultimate examination of the hyperrealism that all Mass Media projects.
The Functionalist Perspective
From the functionalist stand point, Mass Media is viewed as a vast mechanism through which society communicates on many different levels. Mass Media is used to broaden minds through educational outlets, entertain via broadcasting of enjoyable or engaging content and to promote consumption via advertisement of goods and or services abroad. The functionalist also studies Mass Media as an agent of socialization and enforcer of societal norms. Mass Media's usefulness as a tool towards the establishment of how citizens of any given society interact, the conferral of status within the social structure and as a means of setting trends and social norms within the public consciousness is studied in depth by the Functionalist Sociologist.
Functionalism is similar to other sociological stands in its approach to Mass Media in that it views the establishment as a system by which groups of people interact, communicate and use information to further the survival of society as a whole. Entertainment is one means by which Mass Media brings together a large number of individuals through a vast array of differing outlets. Sports events, sit coms, dramatic series and the advertising that promotes all of these venues serve as diverse means by which many opinions about life otherwise is perceived. The mass consciousness ultimately interacts beyond the scope of said venues dependent upon views largely formed by proxy of the situations understood in Mass Media. Celebrities find their existences transformed by the "lime-light", most aspects of their lives being under constant scrutiny by the public eye through use of the institution of Mass Media. The Mass Media provides an often relentless look into otherwise obscure areas of social life with the advent of Reality TV and social networking mediums such as Facebook, YouTube and MySpace. The functionalist stand views Mass Media as a "trend setter", a deciding factor in the establishment of social mores and norms through the power the institutions ability to convey messages as to how people should or should not act to the viewing public at large.
Unlike Conflict theory, Functionalism focuses equally on the benefits of Mass Media to society as well as what dysfunctions may arise from the institutions abuse. Though the Functionalist view shares a similar stand with Interactionism; Functionalism studies the effects that Hyper-reality has upon society on a larger, or Macro-scale. Functionalism shows that individuals use Mass Media to interact with the wider community around them, educate their peers and themselves and as means of entertainment and self-expression. An example of the functional component of mass media operating in society's best interests in through the broadcasting of educational content. Arguably the most profound example of this aspect of Mass Media in recent history is the premier of Sesame Street on public Television in 1966. According to many knowledgeable sources, Sesame Street has not only shaped the lives of audiences within the scope of its local broadcasting area but around the world in a multitude of languages and cultures (Childrens Television Workshop, 1990). The functionalist view also takes in account what negative effects Mass Media has on the public. Examples of these dysfunctional elements are Mass Medias tendency to over emphasize socially tragic events such as the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 and the huge overage of media attention given to the terrorist attacks on New York, September 11th, 2001. Other dysfunctional aspects of Mass Media include the inordinate amount of depictions of violence and gratuitous sex on TV and other means of broadcasting which results in a narcotizing dysfunction or desensitization effect on the audience abroad.
The Functionalist view of Mass Media also studies how Mass Media is used by societies to further the progress of civilization via participation and consumption. Advertising is the life's blood of Mass Media. Everything from air fresheners to Xerox machines, cars, travel packages and fast food chains use Mass Media to sell their products to a readily available public. Political organizations and individuals vying for positions in government also use the institution to disseminate their platforms and views to audiences who in turn make their decisions based upon what they see of their chosen candidates on TV, the radio and the internet. Very few areas of society do not use some form of mass media. The functionalist view takes into account the vast proliferation of media and its accessibility by many individuals in global society. Through this wide usage in its variety of forms Society as a whole benefits from the educational, entertainment and even practical customs that Mass Media has to offer.
The functionalist views the effects of the hyperrealism that mass media projects by its ability to entertain, educate and promote a general sense of "being in the know" about the broad variety of subject matters distributed via the institution as conducive towards societal stability, overall. Hyperrealism in Mass Media is useful as a tool of establishing societal values by providing highly visible role models who act in ways comparable to how and what society views as acceptable. Status within the societal view is often conferred by the assignation of standing based on hyper-real depictions such as popular television shows, massively broadcast sporting events and the representation of controversial social issues abroad such as coverage of natural disasters and warfare. Functionalism also takes into account the dysfunctional aspects of the hyperrealism in mass media by addressing its desensitizing effect upon society. In the functionalist view Hyperrealism in mass media is the means by which the institution can and does facilitate cohesion and societal development.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory sees Mass Media from its negative aspects, pointing out the divergent adverse effects that the institution has on society. The conflict theorist will concentrate his study of Mass Media upon the various disunions that inevitably arise as a result of Mass Medias' proliferation throughout society. Though contrary in its approach to describing the institution in relation to other sociological theories, Conflict theory encompasses the range of adverse effects that Mass Media has on society at large in the context of said adversity's usefulness in furthering society's ultimate benefaction via struggle, dysfunction and competition. The primary difference between the Conflict theorists' approach to Mass Media, as opposed to the Functionalist and Interactionism, lies in its essentially negative hypothetical stance. The conflict theorist is interested in the fact that Mass Media promotes division of class by placing celebrities in vaunted positions of social power as opposed to the relatively obscure and "work-a-day" existence of the majority of the social audience. Conflict theorists generally view social change within Mass Media as being indicative of a great deal of power in the hands of a few self-serving interests. Emphasizing the adverse effects that Mass Media has in its proliferation throughout society via the term Dominant Ideology (Schaefer, 2010), Conflict theorist points out the racial, class and sexual stratification that is promoted by Mass Media's power being wielded largely by wealthy white males who hold the majority of the controlling positions in the Mass Media occupational structure.
Individuals in control of the information being presented by Mass Media have an inordinate amount of power over the social consciousness. They choose what information is presented to the public, when (if ever) that information is released and how it is presented. Via the processes of gatekeeping and media monitoring (Schaefer, 2010) these powerful few utilize the hyper-realistic power of the Mass Media to present wide reaching issues in a consumer oriented and production biased manner. Stereotypical views of certain racial, religious and class demographics are also promoted in mass media to the influential detriment of media hungry audiences abroad. That black athletes' are better at certain sports than other racial prospects or that Hispanic men are usually affiliated with street gangs and domestic violence are but a couple of media enforced stereotypes. Such generalizations in the media tend to reinforce unfair depictions of individuals abroad regardless of their individual differences within the group. Political figures are also represented via their financial ability to flood the airways with expensive advertising as opposed to those who are not rich enough to present their own views to the contrary.
The conflict theorist acknowledges the power of hyperrealism to cause conflict in society. By studying the way images portrayed on TV, on the radio and across the internet are received by society at large, the tendency of the establishment to control content and promote class stratification via gatekeeping and monitoring and the very real division of the mass media "Haves" and "Have not's" by addressing the perils of the Digital Divide in developed vs. developing societies has been readily established in academic circles.
Interactionism
The Interaction theorist would look at how Mass Media is disseminated and used by small groups in order to get a better picture of its daily effects upon greater society. Most people carry cell phones and text messaging has become a staid means of communication that rivals simply calling a friend and talking to them. The interaction theorist would study this phenomenon in an attempt to discover why cell phone users prefer this form of communication and how it benefits cellphone users as a whole. Interaction theory shares aspects of scientific inquiry with Functionalism in that it derives its hypotheses from observing the interactions of groups in relation to the greater whole of society. Similarities between Conflict theory and Interactionism can be found in the method of approach, in that both theories study group interactions from within the institution of Mass Media via scientific inquiry. Unlike its counterparts, Interactionism is a chiefly microcosmic study of Mass Media, concerned with how certain, specific groups within the scope of Mass Media interacts with the greater whole of society while the Functionalist and Conflict theorists generally take the macrocosmic stance.
Interactionism examines Mass Media from the microcosmic level to see how it shapes daily social behavior. Cell phone use, social networking on the internet, watching television programming and even listening to music on the radio in vehicles are small group interactions that are areas of interest to the interaction theorist. By observing the ways in which people interact while sharing common interests in Mass Media, interactionism extols the benefits of social networking between specific groups. Interactionism also differs from other sociological perspectives in that the focus of the discipline is geared more towards the Audience rather than Mass Media as purveyor of information. Semiotics is the study of the usage and perception of symbols in language as well as Mass Media and thus is a factor that Interactionism takes into account as far as the study of how audiences interact with the institution at large.
The depiction of a tasty sandwich being what is bought at the store as opposed to the actual sandwich itself, the image of a family having an incredible time at the theme park rather than the actual vacation and the power that these images, as opposed to the actual products themselves, have to influence audiences to buy is of extreme interest to the interaction theorist. In turn, the very real amount of power that the audience members now wield in their ability to control what they see of the Mass Media as well as what they wish to show of themselves is considered.
Reality vs. the Hyper Real
Sociological perspectives all examine Mass Media's effects on society by looking at socially relevant situations through the lenses of sociological imagination. Sociological imagination is that common awareness that "allows all people (not just sociologists) to comprehend the links between our immediate, personal social settings and the remote, impersonal social world that surrounds and helps to shape us." (Schaefer, 2010). Mass Media touches the social imagination in every audience it reaches by using hyperrealism to enhance the images it projects. Though the different sociological perspectives all approach their divergent theories about how Mass Media influences and society at large from dissimilar and often conflicting standpoints, ultimately they all are studying the effects of hyperrealism. When the functionalist points to the unifying, organic elements that are indicative of Mass Medias power to further societal cohesion, it is those unifying elements that are enhanced by hyperrealism. The conflict theorist sees the negative aspects of Mass Media and how those aspects influence society causing conflict, strife and general dissolution within the social structure. Those negative aspects are enhanced by Mass Medias proliferation of hyper-real images and ideals. The interactionism perspective studies how select groups interact and react to Mass Media's use of symbols to manipulate public opinions on a daily basis. These symbols are the hyper-real representations that influence society.
In conclusion, that the use of sociological imagination is a common practice that spans not only all forms of sociological study but can be utilized by the layman to understand the workings of society, it stands to reason that Mass Media in turn uses this very same power of imagination (in the form of hyperrealism) to sell that big, juicy sandwich on the TV commercial or promote the next big fight on cable next weekend. The depiction of the black gang banger shooting it out with the dashing white police hero and the Mass Media's promotion of such stereotypical imagery is indicative of that same power of hyperrealism, used in a negative fashion. The power of the internet and its ability to put the influence of the hyper-real in the hands of the audience via social networking is very potent and very real. Hyperrealism is, in effect the essence of the functional aspect that causes the conflict which is in turn examined for its interaction within society overall. In the hyper-real realms of Mass Media, for all who are watching and are concerned, what you see is what you get.
Works Cited
Childrens Television Workshop. (1990, Oct.). ERIC (Education Resources Information Center). Retrieved Nov. 2010, from ERIC (Education Resources Information Center): http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED340498.pdf
Kellner, D. (Apr. 22, 2005; revised Mar. 7, 2007). Jean Baudrillard (Biographical Entry). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Schaefer, R. T. (2010). Sociology: A Brief Introduction 8th Edition. McGraw, Hill.