SmartPhones: Bringing People Together or Splitting Them Apart?!

While the purpose of smartphones was to bring people together through email, chat, SMS and phone calls all on one device, the split they created among their users is getting wider each day. You would see advertisements for any newly established smartphone company that attacks the existing successful one. For example, this is an Apple mac advertisement making fun of Microsoft’s PC in 2009 even before smartphones get that popular:

Then suddenly Samsung started to get popular with their smartphones so they had to tackle the already established Apple iPhone. In this 2012 ad Samsung makes a mockery of iPhone fans waiting, in a long queue, for the release of the brand new iPhone.

Here is another video made by Samsung. Notice the part when he says "Some Smartphones are smarter than others".

With Samsung establishment in the field of smartphones, it has created its own fans, who started hating Apple and calling them “Sheep” or "iSheep". While on the other side Apple fans called Samsung fans “Copy Cats” or "Copy bots". The situation escalated, with the Apple-Samsung judicial fights over patents. This has split the two fans entirely and each side viewing itself superior over the other.

Nokia with its Microsoft Software couldn’t leave the Apple-Samsung fight without making use of it, to regain its popularity once more. In this ad Microsoft and Nokia make a mockery of Apple and Samsung fans.

Now let’s look on smartphone fans in three different Sociological perspectives:

According to the Functionalist Approach Samsung and Apple fans can be seen as the only way to achieve stability and order in the smartphone industry. At the end people can argue that these Samsung-Apple fights serve to help the audience understand the differences between the two products and not get fooled by the media. Therefore, it’s a positive thing.

In this functionalist perspective, Samsung fans gather collectively around their Android totem while the apple fans around the Apple totem. Behind the Apple and Android totems, fans collectively effervesce as they feel a shared feeling of identity in which they experience waves of emotions, a sense of unity and togetherness each behind his favorite logo. Some people feel the pride in wearing shirts that have their company’s totem on, or place their Apple stickers on their cars’ glass. Some other people speak about the advantages and disadvantages on each of the two popular phones of Samsung or Apple of the time and convince others about the best phone in their perspective. Therefore, each community started having its own way of looks and speech to recognize them from the other.

From an Apple fans’ perspective they view Samsung as an out-group which is a group toward which members of the in-group (Apple) feel a sense of separation, opposition, or hatred. Likewise for Samsung who identify Android followers as their in-group while apple fans as out-groups. Samsung and Apple fans despite their lack of physical proximity to one another still feel a sense of belonging each to his community whether its Apple or Samsung. This is what is defined by Grazian in his book “mix it up” as an “Imagined Community”.

According to the critical approach, the fame of Samsung and Apple reflect and reinforce the economic and cultural approach of mass media industry. Samsung and Apple can be defined as the dominant group in smartphones meaning that they are the group with the greatest power, the most privileges, and the highest social status. Statistics show that the Android and Apple market alone control 75.6% of the smartphone industry, so its normal to see Apple and Android fans (or Apple and Samsung fans, since Samsung is the most known Android smartphone).

In this approach one could call the huge firms the Bourgeoisie who are small group of modern capitalists who own the means of production, while the company’s fans as Proletariat who are a large group of population who use Samsung and Apple products and are influenced by their ideas.

However, it is important to acknowledge the awareness some people have when they choose their phones. For example, in these videos are interviews with two Texas A&M University at Qatar students studying Electrical and Computer Engineering like me. They look more into the technical specs than the producing company. (Excuse my tilted videos)

This takes us nicely to the interaction theory which states that culture is created, diffused and consumed among small groups of individuals. Many people buy the iPhone because they see their friends use the iPhones. Many others buy a Samsung phone because they received a word of mouth in their social network that it has higher technical specs. It’s not necessarily that the company intended to divide the consumers. It could be that the small micro-level interactions created the split that expanded and large firms took advantage over them.

My dear reader, while no one is sure which theory of the three sociological perspectives (functionalist, critical, or interaction) explains the realistic situation. It is up to you to choose the ones that make u happy and answer your questions. Certainly one can argue that all the three are bundled together. But which was the the theory that explains the Genesis of the Apple-Samsung conflict?!

Criticism Through Humor

Once again, Sociology gives me a chance to look at our society and culture from a different perspective. However, this time I will base my sociological analysis on Maz Jobrani’s comedy show that took place at the W hotel this Saturday.
In class, we discussed cultural criminology as a way to explore the ways in which “otherness” is socially constructed in films. We also learnt that the presence of outgroups create solidarity amongst ingroups such as Middle Easterners. This is where the main stereotype of Arabs and Muslims are introduced. They have been stereotyped as the “other” throughput history and still are by today. By doing so, the stereotypes of Middle Easterners have played a huge role on forming the public sense of whom and what is the “other” to the West.



Cinematic stereotype images of Arabs are a response to political and social events. However, it is also present within the notion of humor and comics. Throughout history, comics have been a reflection of social, political and cultural attitudes we have within our communities. Through humor, the viewing audience gets to accept racial stereotypes. This is because humor rarely offends the audience, as it is addressed in an informal, inoffensive, funny and harmless way.

Maz Jobrani is an Iranian-American stand-up comedian, whom bases most of his racial and satirical comics on the Arabs, Asians and Persians in the Middle East. For instance, at one point, on the behalf of all Iranians, he thanked one of the Pakistani audiences for how Pakistan’s problems have taken over the news industry and changed the focus of the news from Iran to Pakistan. At another point of the show, Jobrani criticized England’s colonial power in the Middle East. This was when he said, “you can’t let them in, and they’ll take over. They did it to India. Hello, we own it now.” Again, we get to see how Jobrani tackles political and social stereotypes by using humor. By doing so, he allows the audience to acknowledge the situations and stereotypes of the certain group of race, and laugh at the way they are understood by the majority. This could possibly be where the concept of counter culture comes in. By counter culture, I mean the group of people whose values and norms are at odds with the social mainstream.




Most stereotypes are a direct reflection to political events, such as 9/11 and the political state the Middle East is in at the moment. We could possibly say that stereotypes in the entertainment sector are all part of cultural fear. By cultural fear, I mean the exaggerated threats made through the media and the public’s mind that are designed to achieve political goals. I feel like nearly everything in sociology goes back to Karl Marx’s famous quote, “the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class because they control the mental means of production.” In other words, the elite use mass media and social events to maintain this social stratification. In this case, white people have been the elite amongst other races.

The Reel Bad America

I’m not sure if it’s the fact that I’m a journalist, or just that I grew up around so many Hollywood movies, that I never really thought of the details portrayed in movies. To the smallest of details, like the race of the extras used for background shots that we don’t think we even notice, directors shoot a scene placing everything into place, as if they’re drawing an image.
Ingroups and outgroups really affect the characters in movies, and basically decide on who is portrayed as the good/bad guy in movies. This happens for many reasons, but one of the main reasons is that the presence of an outgroup, or an enemy, creates solidarity and unity for ingroups. When I say outgroup, I mean a group which is founded on hatred or opposition from an ingroup, which is a group with which people strongly identify particularly when that attachment is made. Basically, an outgroup is what sociologists call “The Other” in movies. Those are the people who don’t belong and shouldn’t necessarily belong, like the alienated, unwanted, enemies.



Usually, Arabs are portrayed as “The Other” in Hollywood movies. This is could be done by placing no subtitles on the Arabic “terrorists,” like they’re aliens who we shouldn’t even get and are deserted in a desert somewhere with all their money and belly dancer women.
Watching the movie Amreeka really left me thinking of all these things. When I see movies like that, the first thing I think of is how much I could relate to the theme of the movie.


When I stepped back and looked at it from a sociological perspective, I realized how much it tried to implement all this messages through the way it was shot. It was obvious that the outgroup portrayed in this movie was Israel, who was automatically every viewers disliked character in the movie. This happened because of the scenes placed in the movie, which were basically scenes of them at the borders, acting like ignorant authority, who were just restricting a nice mother and her little boy from entering a city that they belong to.
In this movie, America was portrayed differently that it would be in a Hollywood movie. It was not the most powerful, free country in the world. However, here we also see some Americans as ignorant beings who judge everyone on unrelated matters. Some of the boy’s classmates would call him Osama, or a member of “Qaeda,” based on his race, regardless of the fact that he is not Iraqi or even Muslim.
I found this as a very interesting way of socializing a culture, based on the movies people see even as kids. Even for me, an Arab Muslim, I am a lot more aware of what terrorism is and differentiating that from Islam and Jihad. The biggest reason for this is the media and movies I was exposed to in the past 21 years.

A Sociological look at the Brazil vs. Egypt Friendly Match at Al-Rayyan Stadium

After driving at snail speed in the midst of traffic on the road to Al Rayyan Stadium in Doha last Monday, I walked a considerable distance from my car to the stadium’s entrance. On my way to the actual stadium, I came across a few things besides screaming fan groups with painted faces and floating flags, and people trying to sell merchandise (flags, snacks, lights etc.). First, I come across stand-by police cars, and security officials waiting at the outer gate of the stadium parking lot. And what I didn’t expect to see is a line of security officials on horses (more like cavalry), perfectly aligned and still, and ready to be summoned at any moment. The number of spectators in the stadium that night was announced to be over 25,000 people. When there is such a large mass of people, there needs to be some sort of control.





Without some form of social control, there is a possible threat that too many people will deviate from the norms that regulate accepted and suitable behavior. To ensure that no people deviate from these norms and expectations, security officials inside and all around the stadium keep a diligent eye and sanction anyone who even attempts any mild deviant behavior like aggressive talk between two opposing groups (Brazilian fans and Egyptian fans) trying to vandalize property or sneak in without a ticket, or sit somewhere that is unauthorized to you.




Next, I reach the security screening of spectators, similar to an airport manual check-up that doesn’t include walking through a detector system. This is where I noticed strict gender segregation: female security employees checked women and young children in a separate section and men (including young boys if they were accompanied by a male adult) went to another section where they were screened my male officials. People tried to rush past without getting checked, but security guards at both ends of the separate sections pulled them back. Officials at the entrances told women to go to the women’s section, and men to go to the male section, constantly monitoring the flow of people to ensure conformity to the rules. Failure to conform these rules might result in formal sanctions – which are, according to Joan Ferrante, expressions of disapproval or approval supported by official laws, policies, rules that dictate how people should be punished or rewarded for specific behavior.



Finally after ticket processing, I was directed to the gate number that leads to the section my seat is in. More security meets people heading towards the gate entrance, and security staff and personnel open the door to the fenced area where my seat is located, and I am ushered to the seat number printed on my ticket. The view is unlike what I usually see on my television screen at home. No matter how “HD” you get with the broadcast of any game, this is different. This is the “real” experience. You get to absorb the game and the reactions of everyone around you; cheering fans, the excitement, the anticipation, and the thrill of the game.





In the area close to where I was sitting, there were a lot of families with young children, older children, and even infants, carried on parents’ shoulders. Many believe that there is so much more to football than a game of set tactics, skill and rules. Sociology would call part of that added meaning and “effect” the process of socialization. These children are socialized at a very young age, through experiencing watching a game, cheering for their team, and their country, to value the game, and their national team, and participate in this experience that shows belonging to a group, pride of belonging to that group, and the importance of support for that group. They develop a sense of self, a sense of the group they belong to and the ways of that group, and the way of society. Joan Ferrante defines games as “structured organized activities that usually involve more than one person and a number of constraints, such as established roles, rules, time, place and outcome,” (p. 96).




The players on both the Brazilian and Egyptian national teams were probably exposed to the game at a very young age, where they developed a system of expected behavior in the football game stage. This system is called the generalized other, (Ferrante, p. 96) It shapes and defines meanings, behaviors, and perspectives that go beyond those participating in the game. These expected rules, behaviors, and meanings were already pre-established by people before the players even started learning the game.




At a young age, the players learn more than just passing the ball, and scoring goals, they learn to see things from a particular perspective. By performing their roles (striker, defender, goalkeeper, mid-fielder), in a shared activity, with a common goal, and interacting with each other to achieve that goal, the players learn to anticipate other peoples’ moves, their views, and their expectations of how to behave.




The game can result in the creation of ingroups and outgroups. The Egyptian team for example is a group in which its members feel a strong sense of belonging, and in many different cases when playing against a particular team, they share a strong sense of opposition for that team, that goes beyond the sense of competition in the game in itself. Similarly, the same concept can expand to all the Egyptians and Egyptian fans in the audience. To the Egyptians, the Brazilian team can be regarded as the outgroup (the group towards which the ingroup – the Egyptian team, feel opposition). The Egyptians in this case is the ingroup, and Brazilians the outgroup. In another sense, the Brazilians in the stadium could feel a strong sense of separateness towards the Egyptians and hence, the Egyptians in this case is the outgroup, and Brazilians the ingroup.




There are many past incidents where ingroups and outgroups clashed during a game in a stadium, and outside a stadium all around the world. Luckily, at this game, the horses at the front gates didn’t have to charge, and neither did the fans around me. I thoroughly enjoyed the match, and all the surrounding spectators and fans showing support for their team in many different ways; singing songs, cheering (with a combination of drumming on seats, apparently an Egyptian specialty), painted faces, waving flags, funny wigs, and not a favorite of mine – the screeching loud cheering horns that echo in your ear drums till the end of the night.