Nathaniel Nolt
Ch.1 Reading Response
Bloc 1
Ethnicity: I find ethnicity to be where the discussion starts to get interesting as this is
where we start to understand other people and their perspectives. Ethnicity is “the
cultural characteristics related to ancestry and heritage.” I have lived in a few different
countries and cultures, and I love understanding how other people think and see the
world. When I’m talking to immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants in America,
it can be interesting to hear how they perceive themselves and their relationship to their
ethnicity. How much do they live out of the culture of their ancestry or heritage, and
how much do they see themselves as a product of the culture of the place they currently
live in.
Culture: An ethnic group will have a shared set of cultural characteristics such as
nationality, history, language, religion, etc. that are adapted to, and shaped by, the
group’s context. Food is one of the most obvious cultural characteristics that people
tend to notice and enjoy about different cultures. If you travel to a different country, for
example, enjoying the local cultural foods is a common highlight of a the trip. Some of
the more abstract cultural characteristics can be more important for communication and
understanding, however. Religion, social values, family values, a person’s role in
society, and how one sees themselves are a bit more difficult to observe and
understand but play a fascinating role in connecting with others.
Segregation: is a relationship between racial-ethnic groups “minority groups live
physically separate from the dominant group by law.” This is often associated with
exploitation of the minority by the majority.
Assimilation: This is the process of a minority group losing their distinctive culture and
taking on the language and attitudes of the dominant culture. This can be done by force
or law, or it can be a process that happens voluntarily. In permissible assimilation, the
minority adopts the dominant culture in their own way and at their own speed.
Multiculturalism: Also known as pluralism, this is the most accepting intergroup
relationship between a majority and a minority culture.
Bloc 2:
Macro-level: Social scientists create theories to study people. These can be used to
quantify social structure and norms, and the social value people create to meet human
needs. Macro-level analysis analyzes large scale social arrangements or constructs.
For example, macro level analysis considers “how groups, organizations, networks,
processes, and systems influences thoughts and actions of individuals and groups.”
Nathaniel Nolt
Micro-level: In contrast, micro-level analysis studies it from the opposite direction.
Micro-level analysis studies how thinking and behavior influences the social world such
as groups, organizations, networks, processes, and systems. I found this interesting
because how do we determine what is cause and what is effect? If a belief and a
system go together, how are we to say which causes which? The book doesn’t address
this question.
Status-shifting: Status-shifting refers to the fact that people will present themselves in
different ways, present a different identity, in different social situations. The textbook
mentions formal vs informal contexts as an example. This reminds me of the difference
in image I project of myself when I’m hanging out with my guy friends doing some sort
of recreational activity vs the image I project in professional environments. The ability to
project different social statuses shows that social status is not rigidly ascribed at birth.
Ethnocentrism: Ethnocentrism refers to evaluating people and cultures from the
perspective of one’s own culture, without considering the context of the person or
cultural element being evaluated. This is easy to do as it’s the product of human nature
to primarily value ourselves and those close to us.
Otherness: Otherness is stigmatizing another group or minority as “other than” your
group, generally implying “less than.” As mentioned in the previous key word, it is
human nature to primarily focus on ourselves and those close to us. This reminds me
of Robin Dunbar, who determined that the human neocortex limits our ability to maintain
emotionally significant relationships to only about 150 people, and that’s only for the
relationship level of “casual contacts.” We care more about those we have relationships
with, so we’re going to care less about a lot of people. It’s like when you hear about a
death toll of a war or disease or whatever in a foreign country: it becomes just a
number. But if a single casual acquaintance is murdered or dies of an strange disease,
that will affect you a lot more. It’s easy for these constraints of our brain to result in the
“otherness” of other people.