The Sociological Effects of Digital Technology

For this blog, I will attempt to analyze the sociological effects the digital age had and is still having on us. First, however, I will provide a brief history lesson of the subject at hand.

It is not surprising that this issue has turned into a hot debate amongst professionals from various fields. Long before the internet and other digital tools were created, new forms of media "have always caused moral panics: the printing press, newspapers, paperbacks, and television were once denounced as threats to their consumer's brainpower and moral fiber." (Pinker, 2010)

One of the more obvious effects of digital tools, including but not limited to video games, is alienation. In Mix It Up, David Grazian explores the feeling of total flow experienced by those that are totally immersed in mediums like online games. Players who fall into this state slowly become disconnected from the real world and lose the feeling of the passing of time, which Grazian says is illustrative of the increased levels of loneliness and alienation. 

Another effect of digital environments, such as social networks, is the small degree to which someone living in the digital age has control over his or her social identity. Palfrey and Gasser, co-authors of the book Born Digital, provide an example of a 16 year old girl living in the agrarian age. If that girl wanted to change her social identity, how others view her, she could travel to a distant land and start a whole new life with a new social identity. With the rise of the digital era, however, this dramatic change has become near-impossible. If this girl was living nowadays, her social identity would probably be greatly influenced by her online interaction with family members, peers, and online friends, thanks to digital environments like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Keek, along with the other various social networks and hubs of communication that belong to the internet.

If we take a look at who exactly has access to and uses these fancy digital mediums and social networks, we notice immediately yet another effect of digital tools that we see in everyday life--social inequality. This is because the poor and those of the lower working class usually do not have access to things like social networks and online video games. As a result, their social identity is much less complex and less rich than those who are privileged enough to own and use such tools.  

  

My 8 year old brother with his Ipad

                 

My Ipad in his age

                                                                                                                  

These were, in summary, some of the sociological effects the digital age and its accompanying tools are having on us. What other effects can you think of? 

University life... Is it alienating students from their real lives?

Students at Carnegie Mellon University spend most of their time at campus studying. They aim for better grades, better degree and a better job in the future. But if we were to look deeply at their lives, they have less social lives than they use to have before university. Most of CMU students spend around 12 hours a day on campus studying!

We are living in a Capitalist world!
Their hard wok and the long hours of studying is an illustration of capitalism. Students work hard to get the best grades and to be at the top, which makes college environment a competitive environment. Furthermore, some courses are designed to create this competitive environment for the students. Some professors limit the number of student who will get A in the course to a small present of the class. No matter what the student’s grade was, only top 20% for instance will get an A. this environment have made students compete against each other rather that just being friends and partners.

Karl Marx theory of alienation has described this situation where men are disconnected from other men. Competitive environments are established to get as much value as possible from the students. But at the same time it is disconnecting students from their peers as it makes them work against each other. His theory of alienation as he claims is a result of capitalism. On a talk with Sara BA Junior she said, “Almost all business related courses are competitive,” which shows that they are living in a capitalist environment.

Alienation from family
Due to the long hours CMUQ-ers spend at the university studying they barely see their families, not only on weekdays but also on weekends. Hassan Salatt, a BA sophomore said that he goes to CMU even on weekends. He prefers to study there rather than at home because he works efficiently there. It is the fact that every one is looking for the efficiency on everything we do prove that we are in a capitalist world.

Alienation from the product
In the process of working hard to get the optimal and higher grade possible almost all students tend to restrict their work to what the professor would like to see on it. They don’t work on the things they find interesting rather than they work on what their audience (professor) wants to see. This is actually disconnecting the student from the work he produces.

Can the alienation theory holds up in all situations?
Although the alienation theory is true in most of working places, but in universities where students are allowed to do independent studies, the alienation theory can’t be true! Because in independent studies, students are allowed to choose a topic of their own with the professor they wish to work with. Their work is almost always about a topic that interests them not what their professors ask them to do.

It is true that university students are disconnecting themselves from family friends by the long hours they spend studying and it is all results of our capitalist environment. However, their work is not always alienated from them. In fact they can work on any topic they want on an independent study.

"Modern Abaya"

The culture and traditions of the Middle East are wildly different than they are in the west. Due to the majority of the Middle East being Muslim, the differences of cultural behaviors and social norms are drastic. Women in the Middle East are held under certain expectations that they’re anticipated to follow. The cultural “norm” of how a Middle Eastern woman dresses and acts is considered to be very conservative. We’re expected to be “covering” ourselves from head to toe when we’re out in public or are around men; that however is partly due to religion. Nevertheless in the Gulf, that is considered part of their tradition, and not just for religious purposes. In the Gulf women are expected to wear the Abaya. The Abaya is a loose black robe that covers the women from their neck down to their toes. The original purpose of the Abaya is to cover up the woman, and be loose enough in order to hide the shape of her body, and not attract attention to her.

In the media, Muslim Arab women are often portrayed as very conservative, veiled, and regularly, if they’re from the Gulf, wearing Abaya’s. However, what are also portrayed in the media are ideas of urbanization and modernization. In the recent years, due to the globalization and modernization theories, traditions and cultures in the Middle East are being thrown out the window. For the purposes of being “modern” and transitioning into urbanization, cultures and traditions that we once followed for essential reasons are being forgotten or drastically changed. The Abaya that was once supposed to serve the purpose of covering a woman up and concealing the shape of her body is now turned into a fashion statement. That may be due to the fact that the women here feel alienated from themselves. Marx’s theory of alienation helps us understand that. It basically states that due to the social structure and social class stratification enforced on us by society, we eventually begin to feel detached from our work, from our life activities, from ourselves, and from the people around us. We can use this theory and apply it to the situation here. Because the women are forced to wear the Abaya and look like every other woman around them, they’re beginning to feel invisible. They can’t express their personalities through fashion; they can’t stand out. This makes them feel alienated from themselves and from society, and I believe that this may be one of the reasons for the invention of the “modern Abaya”.

A variety of designers have turned the Abaya into beautifully designed dresses. I cannot deny that the art and thought put into designing those items of clothing is spectacular, but they’re not Abaya’s. Many new designers have come up with “modern Abaya” collections, a few Arab’s and a few westerners. The students of VCU in Qatar have come up with a project called the “Abaya Project” where they all contribute their beautiful designs of modern Abaya’s.

Here are some examples to demonstrate my explanations of today's modern Abaya.

The following video highlights a Modern Abaya Exhibition held in Katara’s Art Center here in Doha, displaying their beautiful designs.



I do agree that these new designs are very inventive, and can allow a woman to highlight her beauty whilst still being conservative. It allows them to express themselves and present their personalities through fashion. But going back to our original values, cultures and traditions, this is defying the purpose of the Abaya and hence defying our cultures and traditions.

Why are women obsessed with becoming thin?

The power of media boosted with the help of technological developments and has been able to shape the society and public opinion. For the past few years, media has been successful in setting their standards of beauty that the public has to unwillingly conform to. The perfect image portrayed of women in magazines, through the use of image manipulation, contributes to the societal and mental image of a beautiful woman. The problem lies in the fact that such images are usually fabrications and set unrealistic expectations.

A stereotype of skinny bodies, flawless faces, pearly teeth, fair skin tones and many more is being reflected on society. What people perceive and compare to their own appearance is strongly related to what the media advocates. Unfortunately, many people will go to extremes in order to be considered ‘normal’ or simply fit in. The media has multiple means by which they are influencing what the society should imitate. Products that are promoted come with a subliminal message that we ought to buy them in order to fulfill our insecurities and feel better about ourselves. They are alienated by society which usually ignites all those problems.

   

The media has been using subliminal messages to prompt weight loss and advertise products that almost never work. Viewers will still purchase them just so they can meet the beauty standards, which the media has established. Countless people have died as a result of extreme dieting, starving themselves in order to shed the extra pounds. There also have been many incidents of models dying due to anorexia and bulimia, risking their lives just so they can meet the requirements of modeling agencies. This issue is not only associated with models, many girls feel like having an eating disorder is completely normal and required to be able to have the perfect size. Having an eating disorder is being portrayed as normal thanks to celebrities and the way the media interprets it. Likewise it is mirrored on society as we notice many girls becoming victims of bullying because of their appearance.

The obsession with losing weight has also taken its toll on men; they too tend to have low self-esteem and self-image. Whether it was diet pills or extreme diets and workouts, men also have a stereotype that media created.





Media’s influence over public opinion should be used to endorse healthy lifestyles as well as have no specifics when it comes to beauty. Many modeling agencies started up with no special requirements when it came to weight and height. Beauty shouldn’t be limited to a certain type and the society should embrace imperfections and boost positive self-esteem with the help of the media.

   

The question is, Who benefits from creating a certain image for women and beauty that seems to unrealistic?

Because we live in such a capitalist world, where thousands of new products are introduced to the market on a daily basis, advertisements and movies tend to force these things upon society. Movies ares supposed to reflect the society however, they are shaping what everyone should dress, eat, listen to, watch, look, and live like. Those ideologies are transmitted through media outlets in an indirect way, and to our brains they reside and dwell.

I would like to end this entry with a quote from one of the one and only and the eternal goddess, Marilyn Monroe. She also believed that imperfections are beauty.

MOU-ed Over

"Football, the beautiful game, is in a world of it own and follows the mores that exist in a typical bureaucratic system."

The above quote is a lie.

Football...well, sure it is the beautiful game, but it also has high end politics that are powerful enough to bring up a nation in the eyes of the world, unite social groups, raise the players' social status to that of idols, and even bring down a community or country that takes the sport very seriously.

However, a football club is, in reality, a bureaucratic, for-profit company that sells tickets and merchandise to fans who come to watch the players who are marketed as celebrities. The clubs hold assets, with annual profits that can go as high £255.7 million as Arsenal Football Club in England reported last season. FC Barcelona of Spain, though, reported 420.2 million euros in the 2009-2010 season. They spend on the stadium, facilities, staff, players, their home and away kits, and managers. Every penny spent has to be calculated for carefully due the ridiculously high amount of risk involved.

Steve Macfarlane @ Arsenal FC (source: Flickr)

Interesting, isn't it?

So what happens when they don't spend right? Quite naturally, they report losses. In extreme cases like the Glasgow Rangers, it can even lead to bankruptcy. The footballing spirit of the community falls because hearts are broken. Ticket sales drop sharply, and players leave to save either their own careers or even to bring some much needed cash into the  club, as Kaká famously did for AC Milan back in summer of 2009. He moved to where losses and the global recession did not exist: FC Real Madrid, currently managed by the uber-popular José Mourinho.

Mourinho's case needs to be highlighted, with regard to bureaucracy. A football club is formally run by the President or Board of Directors, who make the decisions as to what manager to bring in, kits, and most of the other things I mentioned in the start of this post. Mourinho prefers to have a lot of dominance in any social grouping he is put in. It doesn't matter what the hierarchy declares he is. He likes to have things his way.

The characteristics of a bureaucracy are pretty clear cut. There is a set division of labour, authority is always hierarchal, positions are filled based on objective criteria only, every decision made is duly recorded and there are written rules.

In Real Madrid, the hierarchy and bureaucracy exist, but, at the same time, they don't really. President Florentino Pérez actually (and unnaturally for him) broke the mores of this type of stratified organization by actually giving Mourinho (a.k.a. The Special One) full rein. This way, Mou now makes larger decisions than what would normally be allowed. He also disregards Perez's warnings and defames others in press conferences if he, or his team, were attacked in anyway - that's him exercising some informal negative sanctions.

Well, yes, he does protect his players. Although, there is a sense of alienation where the President is involved. 'If you don't win, you are axed'. The players become tools for various marketing strategies for the sake of high profits in an organization where only few monopolize the power. Classic oligarchy.
Mourinho does not really seek to eliminate this, but he does not abandon the players either. He serves as a link between the two groups. In the end, the players end up weeping like girls when he decides to leave (Drogba custard, anyone?) .

This is just an example of how an organization actually works in reality.

To be very honest, wherever I look - for me, and for Mourinho - true bureaucracy is either extinct, rare, or completely non-existant. Oligarchy, however, does commonly exist in a lot of places, and certainly so at Real Madrid.

Brian Davidson of brazilfooty asks this:

"Is a little bureaucracy a good thing?"

That I don't really know. Perhaps you might have an answer for him~

McDonaldization in Your Homes!

As soon as you walk into someone’s house you could automatically get a sense of the culture. Some houses even have a particular smell that could identify where the residents are from. Walking into my friend’s house I mindlessly recognized the scent I smell in all Sudanese houses I enter. This is actually the scent of some products they use in the house that are shipped in to Qatar from Sudan. The next thing I notice is the color and brightness of the house. It’s usually white and more blunt than my house for example, which gives their space a more temporary feel. A lot of the Sudanese houses I’ve been to use white lights, in contrast to mine, where we have warmer lighting.



You get a sense that the Sudanese residents don’t really consider this house in Qatar their home. Whereas for Palestinians, who constantly struggle to live in a subculture, try to make these houses their homes. When I say subculture, I mean a smaller culture within another culture that Palestinian usually live in. Palestinians use warmer colors, a lot of carpets and really design their houses in a way to make it feel like a home to them. In my home, and a lot of Palestinian homes I’ve visited, we try to add a lot of Palestinian elements to the house as a reminder of that place we “belong to,” even if we didn’t buy these objects from Palestine.




Sudanese usually have a lot of African and tribal objects around their “temporary” house that are bought back from home, to remind them of that place that they will eventually go back to, their real home.






However, the households did have some things in common. To begin with, there was a feel of alienation, which could be defined as a state-of-being where human life is dominated by the forces of its own inventions. The houses were machine-dominated. The families weren’t connecting in conversation, but most of the family members were watching TV. While the teenagers or working children were on their laptops, connected to the Internet. Some of the younger children were playing video games.




When the mother or housemaid cooked or even made tea, they would use a kettle, microwave, gas-run oven and so on. Everyone in the house was using a machine. Some of the siblings even communicated through the use of their cell phones, instead of verbal communication. So, even if the culture is different or the dialect they use is different, whether you’re Sudanese or Palestinian you are influenced by this idea of “McDonaldization.” In sociology, McDonaldization is a process where society is increasingly run like a fast-food restaurant. This means that we’re all being influenced by the idea of rationalization and even households could be modernized some way or another. This definitely can’t sound very literal, where a household could never really be a McDonald’s. However, all homes try to be as efficient, predictable and controlled as possible. They have a set of rules to be followed, try to be as efficient as possible with time, money etc. and predictable with honesty and the open relationship everyone has with one another. With time, the children in the house and the parents start demanding more. Here, control and calculation come in, where they need to monitor the amount of things they buy and consume.