Itching the Surface

According the dry statistical sociological views people are looked at as numbers and general trends that occur in a certain population in a certain area within a certain demographic. This outlook, where our entire persona can be described by a couple of numbers and words scared me. I was a little hesitant to believe in the data because I'm a firm believer in individualized personalities. Just because we have a certain amount of money, live in a certain neighborhood, or live by a certain code does not mean we are the same as the other person that may have the same experiences situations we have. When it comes down to it J.T, from Gang Leader for a Day by Suhir Venkatesh, said it best when he said "You shoudn't go around asking them silly-ass questions... You need to understand how young people live on the street." Macrosociology can only take the general conceptions soo far. If macro sociology was true and absolute then shouldn't all of Stevenson generally have the same outlook on life? Shouldn't we all dress the same, think the same, and act the same? It's entirely untrue. Their are still groups and "cliques" (as much as that word is overly used) that preside within the walls of Stevenson. Each have their own social construction where they can reside peacefully within. And further within those groups there are individuals each with their own experiences and ideas that can't be grouped in by any trends.

I've moved around a lot and often had to break down ,what I now know as my social construction. When I first moved into a school, I was forced to be open to all groups willing to be accepted by any so that I could feel comfortable. However, after adapting to a familiar setting i grew more uncomfortable for me to step out. I've become less willing to step out of my comfort zone to be willing to interact with all others because i have this general conception of everything and everyone. I feel as if I know who is what, who they hang out with and what they do on the weekends. I no longer wish to handle situations in interactions and actually learning about different people at school because I depend on my generalizations. I no longer have a blank slate which forces me to interact and truly be open.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that in order to be truly open one needs to deal in the interactions between individuals in order to understand the sociology of a population. Having these generalizations with vague and cold questions never gets anywhere and often leads to descrimination. Had Venkatesh just lived in broad conceptions of those gangs and dealt with them in facts and numbers, he probably wouldn't encounter the kind of kinship he felt with JT against all macrosociological trends.