The other day at a gathering of people, I met a fellow sociologist. He had graduated from a school in England and studied Cultural Studies. I understood that is not a study of cultures, in the anthropological sense. It has more to do with culture in the form of media and how we are influenced by it, virtual becoming reality, things in ads becoming more real than that reality, and other such fun topics. He asked me who were the sociologists who influenced me the most. It had been so long since I had thought about that, I went blank. I tend to go blank anyway, when put on the spot. But I’ve been teaching for over 10 years now, and 5 years in the rural south. I learned to muffle my own opinions, in favor of getting students to voice theirs. Coming to the south, even moreso, as I was trained by some of the more liberal thinkers in the north at Purdue University. There were some who revolutionized my world, made me see it in a totally different light than I had seen it before. But in the classroom, the goal is not to promote one’s own theoretical view. I’ve taught social theory for the past 5 years, doing my best to highlight views of ALL theorists we study, as valid in their own right, & letting students critically think about who they agree with most. Sometimes it’s hard to keep my mouth shut. I do my best.
The only person who came to mind that evening at the gathering, was Herbert Blumer, symbolic interactionist I aligned myself with the most. He was one of those who made me switch gears in mid-air, made me look at my world in a fresh new light. People interact on the basis of the meaning they have for things. This meaning is formed in interaction. He also wrote a signature piece on race relations which social scientists still refer to today and use in their new books coming out. In fact, it is being rejuvenized. “Race as a sense of group position” is the title. The idea that nothing is inherently good or bad in itself, that everything that exists has no inherent meaning in and of itself but is formed in interaction with others, is a radical thought. As grad students, we one time visualized this by talking about a chair. A chair is just a piece of wood constructed in a certain way to achieve a certain end: having something to sit on. But then think of all the symbolism involved in something as simple as a chair. How about a throne– a king’s chair? Only a King is allowed to sit on it. Think about a board room — who sits in the end chair, and faces all those coming into the room? In Japanese style management, the person farthest from the door is the most powerful person in the room. In my office, I have my own office chair. It is a comfortable “professor’s chair” that someone placed there for me — although not newly ordered for me. The other chair in my room is for a student or other guest visiting. It is not as comfortable, is older and sits facing me, not facing the hallway. We also played little games with the idea of a chair, and questions different people would ask about a chair:
- a positivist: A chair is just a chair. There is no question about its utility or purpose.
- symbolic interactionist: What does this chair symbolize to the person sitting in it? It has no inherent meaning in & of itself.
- feminist: Has a woman ever sat in this chair?
- Conflict theorist: The more powerful in society have larger, more comfortable chairs.
- Functionalist: Chairs have a purpose because they have existed over time, and in every type of culture. What function does it serve?
These are the kind of games you play as a graduate student in sociology.
So in thinking back over who influenced me the most, I came up with some female sociologists. When I read Dorothy Smith, a lightbulb went on inside me and I knew I belonged. Dorothy Smith taught me I belonged in sociology. Suddenly, the way I saw the world, as a woman traversing back & forth across the worlds of academia and home life, made complete sense and was a valid place from which to start research. Sociology didn’t have to always remain in the abstract! It could be a practical place from which to work and analyze information, and one could start from what she knows and move on from that place, to learning about others, and comparing it back to what we know. And then I read Patricia Hill Collins (along with bell ho0ks, Angela Davis & others who were not sociologists) & I learned another perspective– another view of the margins. And I realized that there is no “one” answer, or one way to look at the world. There is no “right” answer. We each just have a different and valid view of reality, and somehow putting them all together makes up the world.
Each person I read taught me another view. Edward Said, Stuart Hall, Herbert Blumer, George Mead, Marx Durkheim Weber (we almost have to say them in one breath), WEB DuBois, Oliver Cromwell Cox, anthropologists Margaret Mead, Foucault, Clifford Geertz, psycho(logist) Freud, the Frankfort School, there is such a rich history of people I read and learned from in taking classes.
Some of my professors were published and influenced me as well: Kevin Anderson (translated Marx); Anthony Lemelle (Black male identity & sexuality); Leonard Harris (Racism, Alain Locke Harlem renaissance philosopher); Siobhan Somerville, Pat Bolinger, Jeffrey Ulmer. I can think of so many who taught me so many things. I do not think I have imparted a smidgeon of the transformative thought I was exposed to in my undergraduate and graduate school days, to my students. Part of that is the culture I find myself in. When I showed Al Gore’s film on the environment, it was met with such a resistance and description of him as the devil incarnate, I quit showing it. Teaching is always a delicate balance of exposing students to new ideas and new thought, but not alienating them completely. It depends on the culture of the place, how much is offered at a time. I am still learning the balance.
Doctor Grandma 
Leave a comment