Dorothy Smith's Bifurcation of consciousness theory is one that I think is still very relevant. This theory is something I really like because of the fact that she tells things how it is. She realizes how distorted some sociologists views are because they are not out there experiencing things. She recognizes that in order to truly understand the things happening in the real world we need to be out there experiencing it. I think this is largely because everything is viewed differently in each persons eyes. The film we watched in class was a great example of bifurcation. The guys on the streets selling books were passionate about there work and were good at what they were doing. They also viewed their work as very beneficial to the community and it kept them away from stealing and going to jail. Others like the man who had a business job complained that they were unfair competition. He also made it seem like no one could possibly like living on the streets and living the lives they lived. In reality the guys on the streets loved what they were doing and felt like they had a very rewarding job. This shows that things can very easily be viewed differently based on each individual. All people are different and we all like different things and this is why I believe Dorothy Smith's bifurcation of consciousness is so relevant today. It takes a smart person to recognize that we cannot continue to only view things through the white mans eyes. When she was talking about her theory she said that she believes female sociologists will understand things in a completely different way than male sociologists will. I completely agree with her we all view different things as being important to us and females are able to give a different perspective to things. One thing that I think is really important that goes along with the bifurcation of consciousness is stereotyping people. I personally think that many stereotypes occur because we like to judge people before we actually know the situation that the person is in. From the film we watched in class there is a perfect example of a stereotype that occurs because of not actually understanding the individuals situations. A stereotype in our society is that homeless people are all lazy and don't work. Clearly from the film we watched in class the homeless people were hard working and actually loved to work. We often turn our head to reality because we look down on certain things that people do. Just because some individuals don't consider what these men were doing as work, doesn't mean that it isn't true work. In Dorothy Smiths eyes she said her along with other woman would be able to recognize and appreciate some things that males often turn their heads to. Just from hearing about her in class and reading about her, I also realized how quick we are to judge people before we are actually in the same situation as them. This is why she criticizes other sociologists so much because they often just sit back, yet they still have opinions about things when they may not know exactly what is happening in society in individuals eyes. One thing this class made me think about was the book Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. This book was about how the author Barbara Ehrenreich actually went out in society and worked low wage jobs to see if it was possible to get by in America making minimum wage. I kept thinking about this book because she actually showed that she cared enough to go out into the community and experience what many Americans experience every day. Until you get out and experience things that others go through you truly cant put yourself in their situation.
This is a book I read in a college class that honestly is one of my favorite books. I also found it to be something that I felt fit really well with Dorothy Smith's bifurcation of consciousness theory. In this book as I said above Barbara Ehrenreich showed that she was willing to go out in society and face the problems that others face. I respect that she was willing to not just sit back and say that minimum wage is to low and a big problem in society she actually went out and proved that it was a problem.
Basically, all or the vast majority of explanations are some was biased, even if a tiny bit, which makes sense as how context is gained by inclusion into the “group”. The only real non biased form of sociology that I can tell is straight statistics. But with that there is no context, and it’s difficult to value as important.
ReplyDeleteI wonder though, is the context of the person or group that is examined most important or the context of what is perceived by those in observation more important?