LiFe: A Sociological Profile

They say birth order can significantly predict what kind of decisions you’ll make throughout your life. The oldest tend to be leaders and easily adapt to a parental role, while the middle child wants the most attention. The youngest tend to be the most coddled and thus are the most dependent as they grow up. It’s safe to say for me, as well as the rest of the majority who do not fit into this cookie cutter mold, it is a little more complicated than that. Growing up in my family, I have been the youngest to my three older half siblings (we all share the same dad). When your mother is “the stepmom”, things are twice as hard for the youngest…trust me. Right as the oldest two were moving out of the house, my mom was blessed with a medical miracle considering the fact that the doctors said there was virtually no way my mom could get pregnant again. So for about two years, I got to play the role of the middle child. Once my last older sibling moved out, all of a sudden I was the oldest. Safe to say the “typical” family contribution to my sociological profile is not typical at all.

Another significant factor contributing to my sociological makeup would have to be the 11 years I spent as an elite (I HATE that word) nationally ranked swimmer. It started the day my mom took my cousin and me in for swim lessons. I came home a member of the local swim team…not because I was some “dolphin without legs” natural…but mostly because I was one of the only kids in my age group that could stay above water in the deep end without grasping to the lane-line with that life-or-death grip. For the first half of my “career”, swimming was fun, great exercise, and secretly, my mother’s excuse to keep me off Ritalin. Once I started going certain times, breaking certain records, and qualifying for nationals, fun suddenly turned into expectation. As we all know, with enough pressure, expectation can suck the fun out of just about anything. Yet, I’m thankful for those 5am workouts before school and the 2 ½ hr practices after school. As I look back, swimming was probably the reason why I didn’t make as many of the same mistakes I observed my older siblings repeatedly make…not because I was any better, but simply because I didn’t really have the time.

Which leads me to my next contributor, time. Albert Einstein once said, “The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once”. As simplistic as that statement is, it’s implication runs much deeper. In the case of my family life, time is the key element. It is what separates me from my parents, my siblings, and in the case of five legal separations, my parents from each other over a 25year span. In my family, it’s almost natural for my parents to grow so far apart that every five years, like clock work, they get legally separated and move to different states. You can only imagine how these experiences have shaped my views on relationships and the oh-so-precious “institution” of marriage.

In spite of my unusual family upbringing, I’ve been blessed in many more ways than I can count. I’ve had the opportunity to attend both private (first) and public (scary second) schools, as well as Candy Castle (99% African American day care…I was the only Caucasian). For the first few days at Candy Castle, I was never sure why my mother resisted my constant proposals (okay crying please) to switch to the day care where the kids from my school attended. I grew to love CC because it forced me to step outside of my comfort zone, and to discover that differences, whether it is skin color or culture, were a good thing. Differences, for me, meant knowledge and lent empathy and relation to all walks of life. That’s the kind of knowledge you can’t learn from a textbook.

With an epileptic brother, a sister with systemic lupus, and a mother who is in remission from a rare form of cancer, medicine has always had an impact on my life. Not only have a witnessed medicine’s effect on my family, but on myself as well. Without getting in to it, let’s just say that for the first 13 years of my life, the ER and I shared a love/hate relationship. So I guess somewhere in between all those doctor appointments, I decided that serving people through medicine combined with my love of the sciences, being a physician was what I was meant to do. Swimming, in-state Scholarships, and the College of Charleston’s School of Science and Math (and their “connections” with MUSC) were the three main factors influencing my decision to come here. As a senior, I can honestly say I’ve loved every minute of it (yes even in the fiery pits that defines Organic Chemistry).

Looking back, it’s hard for me to say how being a part this Millennial Generation has affected my upbringing and subsequently the decisions I’ve made. I know that for my two oldest siblings, internet was not really a polished tool in their secondary education. Maybe the internet might have helped my three older siblings stay/finish college…or maybe college just wasn’t for them. I do, however, find it really interesting to watch how my sister and I have this almost innate ability to puppeteer technology without even seeing a manual. I guess I don’t realize it until I watch my parents, who’ve taught me so much about life, struggle with turning the VCR on and off.

Overall I think my sociological history is unique. It has allowed me to abolish most regret, and cherish the wonderful learning devices that are mistakes. It has allowed me to relate to many walks of life regardless of ethnicity, race, or religion. It has granted me the knowledge to realize that I am an individual as well as a member of a greater whole, and that my contributions (along with every one else’s) form a purpose to life. The journey, through the best and worst times, is figuring it out one day at a time.

What's the Deal With Skin Color?

Throughout last lecture’s discussion on Race and Ethnicity, I couldn’t help but wonder why skin color itself is the culprit of derogatory and stereotypical terminology. Blacks and whites….seriously, could we not have come up with something better? For starters, other than maybe a few rare cases of extreme Albinism, which are rare autosomal recessive disorders among themselves, no one’s skin, in the entire world, is colored white or black. It’s more like a scattered array of browns, tans, olives, and peaches. While I realize, as we discussed in class, that skin color is the first and most obvious difference we are drawn to even at a young age, it’s actually not as big of a difference as we like to let ourselves think. Skin color is primarily determined by the amount of melanin that is produced as a by-product of tyrosine amino acid metabolism. Melanocytes (melanin producing cells) are equipped to carry out this mechanism as the body’s natural defense against UV radiation. Everyone in the human race has melanocytes, which, again exempting Albinism, can and do metabolize tyrosine. Sure the range of expression is extremely varied, but our skin, on the molecular level, is comprised of the same DNA base pairs and the same amino acids. This brings me back to my question: why are we so caught up on skin color? Further more, why does the majority of our population that calls itself “white” only in order to distinguish themselves from “blacks” persist in ridiculous and often detrimental attempts at darkening their skin?

“With all the studies and surveys and research linking UV radiation with skin cancer risks, one might think the sun would have set on the good old-fashioned fake and bake. But a new study by San Diego State University public health researchers has found that not only are there still plenty of indoor tanning salons in America’s big cities, in many places there are more tanning salons than Starbucks or McDonalds” (Mapes, 2009).

Do you hear that America? It’s like we’re trading obesity and anxiety for skin cancer…

Again I digress. The current majority of the United States’ population is “white”. Therefore the majority of media, pop culture, and ads will be dominated by “whites”, and subsequently their “white” features will be idolized…right? Well kinda…but I think the better question is idolized by whom? Tyra Banks, an African American Super Model and talk show host, did a special on how some African American women aspired to be “white” through the use of chemical compounds designed to bleach the skin?!?!

So let me get this straight. In an age where cultural diversity has broken through so many ignorant barriers, we still have “whites” either subjecting themselves to ridiculous skin dyes or harmful radiation to get that sexy darker color, or we have “blacks” subjecting themselves to chemicals designed to bleach the skin?? Is the grass greener on the other side!? WELL let’s see, maybe if we spent more time embracing and appreciating how green our own grasses were, and less time trying to make our grasses as green as our neighbors, we might actually come to a mutual appreciation for the natural colors we’ve all been given. I realize how corny that sounds, but I don’t understand the sociological justification of claiming one ethnicity while aspiring to look like another. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, I think that beauty lies in the eyeS of the beholderS. I mean, I think physical beauty is whatever we, as a society of Americans red, yellow, black and white, determine it to be. To me, ethnicity and race are entirely different, but not in the same context we discussed in class. For me, I identify first and foremost as a human being, that is, a member of the human race. Ethnically, I identify to be of Germanic Caucasian decent. My skin color has nothing to do with my race, but everything to do with my ethnicity. I think in order for things like fake baking and skin bleaching to lose their popularity, we need to celebrate and equally incorporate all ethnicities in our so-called “melting pot” of a nation, and maybe then we will be able to fully identify as a human race while appreciating the amazing diversity of ethnicities with which we’ve been blessed.

Gender Benders

It’s not that I think our society’s progress is a direct result of abandoning traditional beliefs and values as much as I think our society’s progress is a movement from the simple to the more complex. In most cases progress is a good thing; it is the primary goal of many civilizations. It seems like the more we know about our world, our society, and ourselves, the more we realize how many intricate complexities rest in between our “black and white” point of view.

Personally, I think this is no more so seen than in individuals who have gender identity disorders. Perhaps not even 10-15 years ago, this group of people would be labeled as crazy along with a host of other derogatory terms. Even today, our society has certain barriers in place to confine people who step outside the defined and acceptable social parameters. The common term used for this kind of “deviant” behavior is “gender bender”. While many of the problems related to this disorder fall into the category of psychology, there still remains broader social implications that should be discussed within the realm of sociology.

Is it the environment the individual was raised in, or is it the biological make-up the person was born with that ultimately contributes to gender identity conflicts. The truth is no one really knows. Sure, studies have been done on both key arguments that provide “results”, however no one can say, as a fact, either environment or genetics causes an individual to question their sexual identity. Yet, even though there is not a definitive cause we, in the sociological perspective, can take a step outside our own world and view the impact our society has had on these people who have violated a particular personal set of social norms.

Families, schools, media, public bathrooms, locker rooms etc. all serve to reinforce the classic black and white view of men and women. Just look at how we designate the difference between and man and a woman when it comes to using the bathrooms. It’s the dress. Obviously the women within our society must relate to a faceless symbol wearing a dress more so than a man could. But is this always the case? No. Not at least with those who are confused about their gender. If, for a second, we could step outside the box and view the world as they would, we might be able to better understand how difficult and traumatizing it would be to identify the self as one sex while phenotypically displaying the properties of another.

The bottom line is this: sure our society has come along way since the 50’s. We have influential celebrities such as Boy George or Lady Gaga who cross certain sexual barriers, and despite their popularity, their personas, as a whole, are viewed with judgmental eyes. Maybe one day all of us can come together and see that this isn’t just an act or behavior…who would CHOOSE to live a life that does not correspond with their bodies’ display? As a soon to be BS in Molecular Biology, I can say with confidence that there are a multitude of genotypic variations within 46 chromosomes that can cause conflicting phenotypic expression. Disorders such as Klinefelters’ and Trisomy X are just two of many disorders that can affect how a person feels, acts, or looks sexually. But this is just scratching the surface. Although the Human Genome Project is finished, there are still a host of genes that need to be matched and coded with a specific sequence. I do not mean to propose that a person’s gender identity disorder is caused by a genetic aberration, I’m only suggesting that maybe if we were more sensitive and accepting of “gender benders” today, perhaps 5 or 10 years down the road we won’t have to look back and say wow we were so ignorant as to assume being a transgender was a choice

Graduation? No Thank You

Our latest reading, “Nickle-And-Dimed”, summarized the journey one writer took to find out what it was like to live as a member of the low-wage workforce. While her story was intriguing and stark, the shock factor, for me at least, no longer has its effect. By that I simply mean that while my generation is coddled in the arms of the world’s best medicine, technology, and advancements, there remains a parallel growth of the gap between wealth and poverty…a growth that can no longer be ignored. From my isolated “college bubble” perspective, reading about people who work two full time jobs and raise a child on 7$/hr can be objectified by blaming it on a lack of education or poor personal decisions. Yet, knowing what I now know about social reproduction, I am beginning to understand that this problem is not an individual or group problem, but is instead a major social issue. But when does this issue become real for you (fellow college people) or me? I will tell you. It becomes real when scholarship, grant, or loan money stops automatically depositing itself into your bank account. It becomes real when Ivy League graduates with 4.0’s can’t find employment in the field for which they trained so long. It becomes real when the waters of unemployment burst your perfect college bubble. Welcome to reality.

" It doesn't make any sense: They went to school for four years, and then they come out working at McDonald's and Payless. That's not what they planned” (Kessler CNN, 2009).

This was the last sentence in a 2009 CNN article about a recent college graduate who sued her alma mater because she was unable to find a job upon graduation. Granted her GPA (2.7) could have been a little better, but other than that, it seems like many current collegiate seniors are scrambling to either get into some kind of graduate school to defer loan repayment or fight like dogs for employment that is well beneath their qualifications. It’s funny how fast individual troubles turn into social issues once enough bad things happen to good people. So why is this a social issue? Frankly, because current policies serve to reinforce the mirage of success in America. When I was younger I was always told that going to college was mandatory, not only because it would help me support myself in a stable career, but also because knowledge is power and college, supposedly, provides this power. But now, much like those little processing fees that start to show up on your phone bill, those promises start to lose their integrity. A college degree alone is no longer sufficient. You can have all the knowledge you want, but if you want to make the dough you must first shell it, time, or both out in hopes that your next degree will enable you to grasp hold of that little piece of success. My only problem is, if our current economic plan exacerbates this problem at a rate faster than I can achieve a Master’s or Doctoral status, what’s next? How can I trust the promises that come with obtaining a professional degree if those made about earning a college degree faltered? But, if I settle for a job that is below my qualifications, that job may soon become a career and I may be left behind in the dust, in the world of living paycheck to paycheck.

Ask me if I want to graduate college now…no thank you. First let me see how/when this economic storm will pass.

Deviance: A Good Thing?

More often than not our society places too much emphasis on the negative aspects of social deviance. This disdain may be observed through our media’s scapegoating of various religious radicals, different sexual orientations, drug addicted celebrities, and other people or groups of people that tend to swim upstream to society’s mainstream. “We define deviance as ‘behavior which violates institutionalized expectations, that is, expectations which are shared and recognized as legitimate within a social system’” (Cohen, 1959). Why does deviance have to be a bad thing? With a better understanding of the underlying causes behind group deviance, violations of majority statutes may be seen in an entirely new light.

Paralleling Dentler and Erikson’s propositions of deviant behavior as a group maintenance tool, I believe deviance can and does have a very positive impact on society and social evolution.

1) The first thing that came to mind as I read Dentler and Erikson’s first proposition that groups “tend to induce, sustain, and permit deviant behavior”, was a sketch by comedian Dane Cook (Dentler and Erikson, 1959). So I’m not technically savvy enough to insert an audio track into this blog so I would like you to imagine the voice of Dane Cook (look him up on youtube “Dane Cook The Friend that Nobody Likes”) and listen ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl9VxVmXAxs) :

“So I'm hangin' out with all of my buddies, and uh, I realize something,

I realize something. Think of the group of people you've known

the longest in your life. Think of the group of friends you've hung out

with the most, maybe you're all here tonight.

And this is what I realized, I had an epiphany, and here it is, right here:

There is one person, in every group of friends, that nobody fu----- likes.

You basically keep them there, to hate their guts.

When that person is not around the rest of your little base camp,

your hobby, is cutting that person down.

Example: "Karen, is always a douchebag."

Every group has a Karen and she is always a bag of douche.

And when she's not around, you just look at each other and say,

"God, Karen, she's such a douchebag!".

Until she walks up, then you're like,

"Hey, what's up Kar-? Kar-. What's up

Kar-?"

There's always that one person - and I'm lookin' out and some of guys

are like "Umm, I disagree."

Well you're the person - You're the person nobody likes.” (Dane Cook)

The humor of this sketch relies on the fact that the majority of it is true. I know at least within my group of close friends, there is one individual who constantly causes fights and drama, but we keep her in our group regardless of the conscious reasons as to why. How is this a good thing? Well, take “Karen” out of the situation. Imagine what would happen if there were no individual to scapegoat. Maybe your only ties to certain other friends within that group mostly originate from a common dissatisfaction with all who is Karen. I’m not saying forming relationships on the basis of a common dislike is a good thing, but it does benefit social evolution by drawing together individuals who may have nothing else in common.

2)

Dentler and Erikson’s second proposition asserts that deviance is a way to maintain balance and equilibrium within the group. Thinking about this blog the other day, I asked my friend what our world would be like without Karen’s, shoe-bombers, or people who dress as if they were trapped in a “Back to the Future” movie. Her response was quick and expected: “We’d live in a better world.”

I’m not so sure that this is entirely true. Of course acts of terrorism or bad choices of wardrobe are never things we as a society would wish for, however, their presence further ensures that the majority will unite against, or for, whatever outlier comes across our paths. In this way, these social aberrations act as balancing mechanisms that stimulate or discourage our society’s acceptance of certain social movements and future trends.

3) The third (and I think the hardest to accept) proposition about deviance is that “groups will resist any trend toward alienation of a member whose behavior is deviant” (Dentler and Erikson, 1959). I think Dentler and Erikson make an excellent proposition here. When I think of scapegoating with the “mob mentality”, I think of chasing the Frankenstein monster with fire and pitchforks. However, in today’s and even yesterday’s world, an increasingly more formal attitude taken towards deviant members of society has been one of “assisted transformation”. Taken from history for example, may be the missionaries of Great Britain to the Indian colonies. Their goal was to unite in changing the natives’ barbaric ways into more civilized and acceptable beliefs. In today’s world we project this concept every chance we get. Dr. Phil, Oprah, Celebrity Rehab (VH-1 Reality TV Show)…these are all shows, which to some or all extent, premise themselves as being facilitators of change. No doubt Oprah and Dr. Phil help many people, but there is no denying the fact that they, as well as Celebrity Rehab, unite their audiences through the various ways they help take irregular and deviant members of society and lead them through a beautiful metamorphosis into acceptable and upstanding citizens.

Although deviant behavior may never be fully stripped of its negative connotations, perhaps now it becomes easier to see, whether it’s a “good” thing or not, the beneficial aspects it has on our current and future society.

Facebook.com: A Sociological Perspective of the Procrastinator’s Worst Nightmare

No matter how busy I am, I check it at least three times daily…and that’s nothing compared to most of my friends. Facebook.com is currently one of the most trafficked social networking sites on the Internet. Taken from the term “facebook”, which is a book a university student would receive to see whom their professors and classmates were, Facebook.com was invented as an online version of the social networking tool. In sociological terms, Facebook is an evolving amalgamation of several agents of socialization all within fingertips’ reach. For instance, I can communicate with my family and peers, as well as display what types of peer groups I’m involved in, where I work, what religion I practice etc. But these are just the basics. What’s really interesting is to study the ways in which Facebook is growing and evolving to incorporate any and all forms of socialization. I’ve been a Facebook user since its invention and I speak from experience when I say that this website is no longer just a website. Much in the same way that modern day cell phones are no longer just cell phones, but rather are pieces of technology the size of a deck of playing cards that encapsulate one’s entire life. Facebook creates a world where physical socialization is unnecessary. One can post pictures of themselves with mere acquaintances to make it appear as if they have more fun or friends than the next person. Honesty boxes, now obsolete (because of a lawsuit I think), gave the opportunity for one to submit their true feelings about a person without revealing their identity. One can post comments on their friends’ walls, post videos and pictures, engage in interactive games, join groups, and participate in surveys. There is now even a Craigslist type application called Facebook Marketplace where users can post classifieds for jobs, roommates, apartments etc. But what does all mean from a sociological standpoint and how will its continual transformation affect current and future social trends?

One of the primary areas of interest to address is privacy. I know of many cases where college athletics ban or restrict the use of the website by their athletes. Impinging on freedom of speech much? Luckily Facebook has designed a way for one to control exactly who sees what on your profile. So, as a form of impression management, with a few mouse clicks, I will modify how I appear to those few coaches, professionals, and particular family members that are my Facebook friends. In this way, impression management limits the amount of role conflicts and strain. But always watch what you say. Even with the “remove” button, whatever you say could and occasionally does become public knowledge. In fact, sites like www.failbooking.com feed off of the silly sayings and occasional slip ups that are leaked onto Facebook. Unfortunately, what you say, groups you join, or friends you have, are all sold to different companies in order to provide funding via ads on the right hand side of your home screen. I didn’t realize this until one day last semester when I noticed a strange string of advertisements beginning with “Want to hook up with hot girls ages 18-2?” and ending at “Molecular and Cell Biology Graduate School Programs.”

Another sector of sociological interest is a more detailed analysis of Facebook’s social structure, and more specifically, the connections between individuals it allows one to make. First, there is the ever so popular wallpost. It is simple, effective, and versatile in its use. Depending on whose wall I’m writing on, my wallposts may be quick, one-word inside jokes, or a paragraph of witty banter. Next, there is the more popular “comment”. This option allows one to write comments on pictures, videos, wallposts and statuses, and even though it has the same word count limitations as wallposts, they are typically not as long. Then there are “statuses”. These gives someone the opportunity to tell their friends about how they feel, what they are doing, future plans etc. For example, my current Facebook status is “Finishing my Socio blog #4, then waking up at 5 am to pack and organize my life for the four days of classes I’ll be missing due to conference…(frowning face).” Another connection Facebook can establish between individuals is the weird and awkward “poke”. Honestly, I think I have poked MAYBE 10 people throughout my Facebook career. What does it mean? Is it flirtatious? Is it a sign of hostility? Is it simply another mechanism that further eliminates the need for words and language in the socialization process between individuals? The poke reminds me of something like a series of grunts and sounds cave men and women would make before formal languages were established. Finally, there is the newer Facebook connection application that actually ciphers through certain friends whom you haven’t interacted with for a long period of time and suggests you “reconnect” with them via any of Facebook’s connection establishing tools. As if that wasn’t annoying enough, there is also the “friend suggestion” application that suggests certain people whom you may know and therefore become friends.

I don’t know. Maybe it’s me, but I find it extremely odd that the more violating Facebook becomes via its increasing penetration into my school, extracurricular, and private life, the more addicting it becomes. It’s kind of like what Walmart does to small businesses. Walmart is so cheap, addictive, and all-encompassing, that it is slowly weaning out any and all forms of small businesses, which in turn, probably severely limits the amount of social interaction we encounter as consumers.

Do I think Facebook is bad? I think that’s an unfair question. That is like asking me if I think Jaywalking is bad. It is when I’m driving, but I do it all the time when I’m walking. It will be interesting to examine how Facebook, and websites like it, further impact and change our everyday socialization processes. I am having a WALL*E-type vision, but the picture is still a little hazey…

Forms of Norms: How and Why They Change

It’s interesting to observe how the standards of behavior maintained by a society, aka norms, can change either in response to a change in the socio-political atmosphere or simply adapt to the inevitable movement toward progression.

I think it’s generally accepted as common knowledge that the majority of the US political realm is made up of the dichotomy of partisan beliefs and ideals. The media tends to accentuate this flare with shows like Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes”. My dad calls it “the pendulum”, or otherwise, the correlation between party dominance and general norms held by society. I am, by no means, stating that this is the case 100% of the time, and there do exist many exceptions. However, many times our culture’s norms are heavily influenced by whoever is in power. Typically, this generalization takes on a pendulum-like nature as it swings left to right, right to left and so on. I think the norms that are most affected by this effect are those formal norms that are stated in bills, laws, and legislation. For example, passing bills to legalize marijuana may induce the transition of stigma to acceptance. Of course there are those for which something like this would only further perpetuate their fears and concerns about the substance, but perhaps over the course of a decade or two, marijuana could be recognized as a legitimate medical treatment or even day-to-day hobby.

On the other hand, I think those informal norms and folkways are more so a product of society’s progressive movement. Perhaps defining the “cause and effect” differences between changes in formal and informal norms is difficult because it becomes a game of “the chicken or the egg”. Which came first? Despite this dilemma, and for time’s sake I will, for now, conclude that even if these movements are in some way affected by the socio-political climate, they are more a result of social evolution. Take for example the article we read on the tattoo subculture. Even though certain laws regulate who and where people can get tattoos, I think the stigma associated with them are, for the most part, independent of legislation. I know many people who personally think “tamp stamps” are unacceptable and label their wearers as trash.

Although I personally HATE referring to anyone as trash, this learned social behavior is independent of the inking procedure’s current legal status. The article further states “as tattoo artists legitimize their work as art, it seems that they in turn decrease the stigma for the consumer” (Ferguson 73, 2008). Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s not looked down upon, which is why these artists feel that they must legitimize their work.

Another example of how certain informal norms and folkways shift and change may be the example we read about exotic dancers. First I would like to note how I already possess an innate distance to the word “stripper”, however “exotic” dancer seems, to me at least, somehow more accessible. Exotic could mean a variety of things; while everyone knows what strippers do…they strip off their clothes. To get back on track, I am really drawn to the way Lewis explains “rationalizing participation in a deviant occupation” (Ferguson 134, 2008). Exotic dancing is a legal occupation, however it is viewed as a heretical form of employment. As a

result, most of these dancers justify their actions by listing money, childcare, and a lack of an education as legitimate reasons why they must participate in this setting. Does their job make these women bad people? NO WAY! However, society has placed them, just as they have other occupations, towards the bottom of the hierarchy of employment, and subsequently, despite their high incomes, their titles are tagged with negative connotation. Yet, this negative connotation isn’t permanent and remains subject to change. In fact, just the other day I saw an infomercial soliciting exotic dance workouts. By partnering health and fitness with exotic dancing moves, the stigma associated with their jobs decreases. Changes in definitions like these can and do expand the limitations of socialization described by Lewis (Ferguson 139, 2008).

I want to note that I do not claim politics and law to be the sole attributors to changes in formal norms, and likewise social progression to be the only contributor to alterations in informal norms. In fact, I think sometimes it is some combination of some or all of the above. However, it will be intriguing to note and observe how things such as cultural lag, natural catastrophes, and wars will affect current and future societal norms.