Assignment: The text defines, describes, and explains Aggregates,
Categories, Primary Groups, Secondary Groups, Voluntary Associations,
In-groups, out-groups, Reference Groups, and Social Networks. . With the rise of Facebook, myspace, Linkedin,
texting and other such electronic communities these groups have gone through
change and now need to be redefined or drop out of use. Select 3 of these groups and redefine these
groups and give examples of your definition. Also, the text discusses three
types of leaders. How do you see these
leaders being played out on the internet?
I got a 45/45 n this one. It must have been pretty good.
Redefining Social
Groups and Assessing Leadership Styles on the Internet
In our textbook Cooley defines
primary groups as, those characterized by intimate face- to- face association
and cooperation (Henslin, 2011). With
the rise in instant messaging, e-mail, web forums and social networking sites
on the Internet I think his definition needs revision. How could he have
foreseen these new leaps in technology in 1909? People do have intimate face to
face relationships over the Internet using instant messaging, e-mail, web
forums and social networking sites. They don’t have to meet face- to- face to
become intimate. Social dating websites like Match.com are a good example. I
think an updated definition would be using the term person- to- person. So we
could say, those characterized by intimate person- to- person association and
cooperation instead of face- to- face.
Also in our textbook it says, an
aggregate consists of people who temporarily share the same physical space but
who do not see themselves as belonging together (Henslin, 2011). As with Cooley’s definition earlier, the
definition of aggregate leaves out the Internet. What about people on the
Internet watching a live video broadcast or people joining a chat session? Instead
of saying “physical space” we could broaden that to say “physical or virtual
space”. I think that adding the term “virtual” gives us a better definition for
today. An example of an aggregate would be people who join a Tweet to see what
their favorite athlete is saying or people who just happen to be viewing the
same YouTube video.
In our textbook the term social
network is defined as people who are linked together (Henslin, 2011). It
defines a social network including family, friends, acquaintances, people at
work and school, and “friends of friends.” It doesn’t mention people who are
linked together over the Internet or who have joined a social networking site
like Facebook or Twitter. Now that the Internet is so widely used in our
society and at the forefront of almost everything we do, I think we should
specifically mention it. It sounds as though the old definition is using old
ideas or concepts. I think a better definition of social network would include
social networking sites. So in addition
to family, friends, acquaintances, people at work and school, and “friends of
friends” we could add users on social networking websites. I have a social
network of people on Facebook and Twitter. After all, Facebook and Twitter are
called social networks (Nations).
Our text discusses three leadership
styles and each is played out on the Internet by various people, organizations
and countries. The authoritarian style is seen when countries (governments)
block Internet usage. For instance,
China blocked Twitter and hundreds of thousands of other sites (MacKinnon,
2010). It’s common for dictatorships and
socialist regimes to block what they don’t want their people to see. I can see an
authoritarian style of leadership being played out in our schools and libraries.
The school administrators and library officials have put in place software to
block or filter certain Internet websites and the users don’t have any choice
in the matter. Spam could be seen as another authoritarian style on the
Internet. Spammers send out millions of e-mails to unwitting people.
The democratic style can be seen
when users voluntarily block websites that are offensive to them. There is free
software available that can do this automatically and filter out the offensive
sites even before a user is connected to one. I think another example is users
having the ability to opt out of e-mail newsletters and advertisements. Legitimate businesses that advertise using
e-mail don’t want to be seen as spammers. Also, good social networking websites
give users a choice of security or anonymity. Users can choose a level of
security which determines who is able to view their personal information and
postings.
I agree with others that the Internet
in itself is seen as laissez- faire capitalism, because there isn’t much control
over it and governments are letting things alone (Zombiehero213, 2010). In our
own country state sales tax is usually not collected across state lines. I can
buy a product in Utah and not pay any sales tax. We don’t see special Internet taxes or fees
imposed by governments either. I don’t have to pay a separate fee or special
tax to view a website in another country. People worldwide can buy and sell on
E-bay freely. There’s no government regulation on online auctions. Our existing
federal and state laws still do exist so you can’t sell automatic machine guns
on E-bay, but for the most part the government goes unseen.
References
Henslin, J. (2011). Essentials
of sociology: a down-to-earth approach. (Ninth ed., p. 112, 116). Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.coursesmart.com/9780205841141
MacKinnon, R. (2010, October
11-12). Networked authoritarianism in china and beyond: implications for global internet
freedom. Retrieved from http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6349/MacKinnon_Libtech.pdf
Nations, D. (n.d.). What is
social networking?. Retrieved from http://webtrends.about.com/od/socialnetworking/a/social-network.htm
Zombiehero213. (2010, March 23).
The internet is laissez-faire [Web log message]. Retrieved
from
http://zombiehero213.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/the-internet-is-laissez-faire/
No comments:
Post a Comment