Ambition on "F L E E K"

Not only are my eyebrows, outfit or attitude on fleek but so is my ambition. I have been preaching all about being independent and standing on your own two feet and making your own coin- well I took my own words and I used it. I've been on this "self discovering" trip and I've met a new partner. I call him Ambition.

 

But what do I mean when I say I met a new partner ?

Ever woken up hungry in the middle of the night ? well that's me every morning, but in this case I'm not hungry for food... but hungry for success , more success , more greatness.

 

But being ambitious comes with a very high cost. You'll have late nights and really early morning. You will have associates and very few friends. People won't understand you , so being misunderstood becomes a regular thing. Being single might end up being a forever thing unless you lucky enough to find someone who understands your lifestyle and the cherry on top - people will want you to do good, but never better then them.

So being on my ' Grind' has taught me four important lessons:

1. The road to being independent is lonely
2. Your outlook on life changes drastically
3. Making future plans becomes of high priority
4. Never forget God

I truly respect females that's constantly on their grind' , hustling their way to the top. Its not an easy road but the rewards is so worth it.

YEAH WE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GROUPS NOW. SO WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF GROUPS?

In the article 'what groups are and what makes a group different than just a collection of strangers', we looked at some definitions offered by theorist on what a group is. having now looked at these definitions we can begin to conceptualize the concept of referring to an aggregation of individuals as a group. in this post we shall be looking at some types of groups found in society which some theorist in their group studies have identified.
   Groups come in a variety of shapes and sizes and perform functions that are vast and varied. it is noteworthy to thus acknowledge the differences among them as well as their similarities. Forsyth(2009) considered four basic types of groups identified by theorist, though he stated that these are just samples of the many types of groups proposed by theorist.

Primary Groups:  "these are relatively small personally meaningful groups that are highly unified"Forsyth, 2009. in these groups, the members feel so involved and part of the fabric that they feel like they belong to something larger than themselves. this is where groups like family, friends and tight-knit peer groups fall under. as we continue looking at the different groups try and conceptualize your membership in these groups in your life and you will spot some of these characteristics identified by theorist. Forsyth further explained that primary groups are characterized by face to face interaction, solidarity, high levels of member to group interdependence and identification.
Charles Cooley(1909) believed such groups serve as the primary source of socialization for members by shaping their attitudes, values and social orientation. these groups are the first a person joins because of the important roles they play in their members lives. Cooley explained that these groups take care of its members, protects them from harm and cares for them in illness. according to Cooley, the most important function these groups perform is creating a bridge between the individual and society at large. we sometimes join these groups involuntarily(i don't think any one chooses to be born into a family).

Social Groups: Forsyth explained that social groups are small groups of moderate duration and permeability. they are characterized by steady levels of interaction among members over an extended period of time, often in goal focused situations. examples of such groups found in society include co-workers, expeditions, fraternities, sport teams, study groups, task forces among others.

Collectives: these are groups that have been identified by theorist as aggregation of individuals that form spontaneously and last only a brief period of time. their boundaries are permeable. examples of such groups include Audiences, Crowds, Mobs, Supporters in a stadium etc.

Categories: these are aggregations of individuals who are similar to one another in some way, this could be by gender, ethnicity, religion or nationality. examples of such groups include Nigerian citizens, Newyorkers, Asian-Americans, Physicians etc.

     these are just some groups among others which have been identified by theorist doing group studies in various social science fields. so now you know some types of groups individuals belong to in society.

WHAT A GROUP MEANS AND WHAT MAKES A GROUP DIFFERENT THAN JUST A COLLECTION OF STRANGERS.

So the reason for that "almost sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster movie" name is because addressing the concept of groups in relation to its importance in the social science field is a relatively new branch of the social science. text in this field specifically are sparse as studies carried on groups and their dynamics are usually documented in research findings. studies carried out on groups dynamics has benefited some related social science fields like sociology, social psychology, clinical psychology etc. the million dollar or naira(okay or rand too)question at this point in time now is What is a group? lets start with some definitions of groups by some theorist:

"A group can range from small collectives like dyads(a group entailing just two individuals) and triads to mobs crowds and congregations" Simmel, 1902.
"groups tend to be relatively small in size on the average, they range from two to seven members" Mullen, 1987.
"a group is a collection of individuals who have relations to one another" Cartwright & Zander, 1968.
"a group is a social unit which consist of a number of individuals who stand in (more or less) definite status and role relationships to one another" Sherif & Sherrif, 1956.

       looking at the different definitions given by the different theorist we can deduce that a group firstly takes two or more individuals to constitute. there has to also be some kind of relationship among them to be considered a group. we can also deduce that theorist are not of one mind when it comes to defining groups, some stress the importance of communication between members, others highlight the key role played by mutual dependence. lets try and look at the groups we are part of;our family, friends, spouses, "baes" etc. you should sense that there has to be some sort of structure binding the relations in the group or we might as well all be strangers to each other. this structure is what Forsyth identified as the complex of roles, norms and inter-member relations that organizes a group. roles specify the general behaviour expected of people who occupy different positions within the group. norms are consensual standard that describe what behaviours should and should not be performed in a given context. it basically shapes group members interaction. a group should have an amount of cohesion for it to hold firm and survive the long run of course. like in physics the molecular integrity of matter is known as cohesiveness. when a matter is cohesive, the particles that constitute it bond together so tightly that they resist any competing attractions. a groups cohesion thus will require a solid structure. now you must be thinking is a congregation of people in a soccer stadium a group? Donald campbell answered that with entitavity which he described as the extent to which an assemblage of individuals is percieved to be a group rather than n aggregation of independent, unrelated individuals. for example if you see a family in a park you could almost immediately assume them to be a group due to how your perceive the groups cohesion. on the other hand you might not be so quick to refer to  congregation of individuals watching a football match in a stadium as a group because there doesnt appear to be a modicum of cohesiveness. some researchers however identify this large congregations as groups which some refer to as collectives. at this point in time i am sure you have learnt a thing or two about groups that you didnt know before. well that's the whole point of this post, so thank you for your time and in the next post we shall look at some types of groups found in society.

WHO DO WE PUT THE BLAME ON? WHO GETS THE CREDIT?....THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ATTRIBUTION.

Adesuwa had just been awarded for her excellence in the regional high school examinations as the best graduating student. With a beaming smile she mounted the podium and leaned towards the microphone to give her speech to the anticipating crowd of family, friends, well wishers and colleagues. having already rehearsed her speech about a hundred times, she delivered it finally "i want to thank God first and foremost for his mercies" she started " i also want to thank my parents, whose support and love made it possible for me to be here, i am one truly blessed individual. finally i would like to acknowledge the presence of my wonderful teachers whose time and effort spent on me paid off because i am hardworking and dedicated...." she finished her speech and was drowned in the resounding applause as she trudged proudly back to her to her sit. somewhere at the back of the crowd sat Bosco with a forlorn and resigned look on his face "i should be the one collecting that award" he thought to himself "if i hadn't partied so much, now i am wishing i had gotten a lamp for the load shedding...." he continued as he sat downcast absorbed in his thoughts.

Attribution can simply be understood as the process of attributing 'something' to a reason. this reason could either be individual or situational. in our everyday living, we constantly have to make decisions among alternatives in order to get through the day. sometimes we set goals and meet them or maybe fail to meet them. we then attribute our success or failure to a cause or a reason. in psychology, attribution theorist argue that the underlying process of attempting to understand the word around us is universal, pervasive and predictable. so attribution theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and how it relates to their thinking and behaviour. these theories however lean more towards a logical empirical approach(research is carried out in labs by experiments). some 'dude' named Fritz Heider(1958) was the first to propose a pyschological theory of attribution. in a basic synopsis, attribution theorist propose that any behaviour can be viewed as an effect that has some cause we attribute, this can be internal or external attributes. this attribute however influence the meaning of the behaviour and how we might respond to it.
       Theorist have identified two types of attributions which include external(situational) attribution and internal(dispositional) attribution. There are stages in the attribution process, first the person must perceive or observe the behaviour(....so funke cant understand why Justin has been lying so quitely beside her "what is he thinking" she thought to herself..), then the person must believe that the behaviour was intentionally performed( "he is probably so tired from work, or maybe he is hungry and doesn't want to disturb me" she continued thinking as she watched Justin just lie still there), finally the person must determine if they believe the other individual was forced to perform the behaviour(this is where it is attributed to situation, like Funke attributing Justin's fatigue to his work) or not(in which case the cause is attributed to the other person).

Now lets look at some attribution principles. firstly the Locus of Control means the extent to which we believe we have control over events, it can either be internal(i control) or external (society controls). secondly there is stability which is best understood by looking at Weiner's original attribution model. 

Weiner focused his attribution theory on achievement(Weiner, 1974). he identified ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck as the most important factors affecting attributions for achievement. there is a strong relationship between self concept and achievement. Weiner (1980) states "causal attributions determine affective reactions to success and failure; high achievers tend to attribute success to internal factors and attribute failure to external factors while low achievers tend to attribute success to external factors and attribute failure to internal factors(refer back to the story at the beginning of this post for better understanding).   

    This is just the surface of attribution theory, but i am sure you have learnt a thing or two about what it is all about. the pyschological theories employed are ofcourse positivist in their approach to addressing the issue of attribution, but theories and research done in this field has helped researchers in other social science field aside psychology have an understanding of attribution.

DIFFERENT ISNT ALWAYS DEVIANT! SOME THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DIVERSITY

                    The concept of diversity might come across as a tricky one at first glance. Perhaps that is simply because it is. I am one of those sociologist who isn’t so into the positivist approach to addressing social issues. I believe individuals interpret reality based on the meanings attributed to the different symbols in society. so my thinking is guided mainly along the interpretivist school of thought.

           Okay enough big words have been thrown around, what is diversity and how is it relevant to society? Well let’s start with the basics and define diversity; According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary of English, diversity is the quality of having many different forms, types, ideas etc. it is also defined as the state of having individuals of different races and cultures in a group or organization. So how does that which is diverse get to be seen as deviant? My best answer to this is embedded in the my belief that the world view or paradigm which guides the values of a given culture or group perhaps, influences largely how diversity can either be seen as different or deviant. So what does deviance mean and what is its relation to diversity? The Merriam-Webster dictionary of English defines that which is deviant to be different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct. Robert Merton a functionalist, in his theory of anomie explains; diverse behaviour can become deviant from the moment in which there is a state of anomie or relatively a setting which includes a contradiction between what is socially acceptable and the means by which it can be attained, prevails. Even in cases where diverse behaviour fully reflects the norm (not infringing on a moral or legal order). From the instance it gets stigmatized as abnormal or non-conformist, it becomes what Merton calls anomie.

In Merton's typology he argues that deviance stems from the structure of society, he departs from the functionalist position of value consensus i.e every member of society share the same values.he explains that due to stratification in society such as difference in class positions, people don't have the same chances of realizing this shared values. this situation according to Merton is what creates deviance. now lets apply Merton's functionalist approach to our society(i will be considering the Nigerian society). firstly i would like to note that in working with Merton's theory i have taken an holistic and positivist approach so there might be some generalizations, but it will all come together when i explain the reason why i choose not to adopt this approach in addressing the concept of diversity. in the Nigerian society the goal of success is largely measured by wealth and material success(remember i am taking an holistic approach so i am assuming there are shared values amongst Nigerians). and the accepted ways of achieving this success could be through education, talent, hardwork, drive, ambition and determination. the problem however with thinking along this axis as Merton pointed out is there is always the tendency for individuals to 'reject the rules of the games' and strive to attain success by any means necessary. I know the first thing that flew into your mind is "G-boys" or internet fraudsters for those who don't understand Nigerian slangs. You are correct to thing along that line of course because as much as the Nigerian society frowns on Internet Fraud as a criminal act, a successful G-boy isn't likely to be tagged a criminal but rather a successful member of society. this according to Merton's typology is called Innovation; this response rejects the normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means, always questionable and criminal. now lets look at all those "over-sabi" in society, those people who conform to both society goal of success and the means of getting them. this individuals are called conformist in Mertons theory(we can throw all those Lawyers and Doctors in here, you can also add that boy that keeps coming first place in every examination here too). now those people who just because they don't want to be deviant, "play it safe", are called ritualist by Merton. they are usually found in the lower middle class of society and they tend to hold on to safe routines and institutional norms. they are generally not ambitious so you they hardly have an upward social mobility in society. then there are the retreatist; this people just abandon both the goals and means and become asocial( disturb them at your own risk). this applies to the outcast, tramps, drug addicts, chronic drunkards, psychotics etc. Finally rebellion involves the rejection of both the success goals and the institutionalized means and  replaces them with different goals and means. lets look at how some of these classifications of individuals in Merton's typology look like in society.

CONFORMIST

RITUALIST

RETREATIST

REBELS

looking at the retreatist and rebels, would you consider them normal? if your answer is no then you have thus categorized them as deviant based on your idea that everyone has the same definition of what is normal. this is where i depart is explaining why diversity should not be seen as deviant but different. when diversity is considered from a micro-sociological lens and emphasis is placed on social action and individuals interpretation of society, then one begins to see why a diverse situation should not be considered deviant, because that which is considered diverse might have maintained a state which from its inception is different from the one which values are used in judging. for example if in a group of 5 people, 4 individuals like coffee and the last individual prefers hot chocolate, if the individual who prefers hot chocolate is to be judged by the shared values of the other individuals who like coffee then he would be considered deviant. but if the other four individuals accept the fact that the 'hot chocolate loving' individual has his own values and norms that guides him then he wouldn't be  considered deviant but simply different. Berger & Luckman (1966) explained that micro sociological currents mainly focus on social relations and the means by which individuals exchange meanings; it is thus by moving in this direction of micro reflections that we can identify some elements that allow us to place the concept of diversity within sociological theory. Given that our attention is on individuals and their relationships with ‘the others’. If we consider the social practices of construction and attribution of meaning, we see how social action becomes an element that in some way imposes change within the social structure. Individual and collective behaviours create the constituents of society,

   In conclusion, there are various dimensions of diversity in society today which people generally tend to stereotype as sometimes deviant, that's why issues of racism, sexism, ageism etc, all these issues can be reduced in society if we move from a structural way of thinking and lean towards accepting that every individual in the world is different and we all construct reality based on our experiences. so what is normal for me isn't necessarily going to be normal for you because not only does socialization play a big role in ones perception of the world, no two people think the same way. so if there is anything you should take from this post (its time for moral lesson o!), its the fact that one should learn to tolerate diversity in society because if a fish was judged by its ability to climb a tree, it would probably think its a failure all its life.  

    

COMMUNICATION ( A MICRO-SOCIOLOGICAL OUTLOOK ON THE CONCEPT)

                        According to Emilio Gardini, the birth of the discipline of sociology came along with society’s effort to respond to changes in advanced western modernity. Sociology as an academic discipline is a social science course which basically involves the study social behavior, social structure; its development, institutions and its organization. Within sociological study one can choose to take a Macro outlook in addressing issues or a micro outlook. So what is the difference between these two lenses and how is this even relevant to communication? Well Macro theorist in sociology view the society has having a structure and depending on whether you are a functionalist, conflict theorist or Marxist, you address issues in society with that thought. Macro theorist view society as outside of the individual’s perception with strong emphasis on determinism. Micro sociology on the other hand, involves the construction of meaning that is socially relevant within society in social action and collective behavior. Here individuals are believed to construct the meanings that they attribute to facts and events through social relations. Also when looking at society with this lens, the school of thought one adopts influences how one considers society. The constructionist and symbolic interactionist acknowledge a structure but emphasis is placed on meaning and interpretations. Phenomenology on the other hand focus more on experiences, senses, and consciousness of individual, this school of thought does not acknowledge the presence of a structure. Now coming back to the issue at hand, I have decided to take a micro-sociological viewpoint because I am considering the concept of communication in terms of how individuals in society interpret and give meaning to things. for example, if I am to communicate to a group of individuals in a seminar presentation, when I am addressing the group in a language, I believe that the people am addressing must understand what it is I am saying and thus be able to give meaning to my words. this emphasis on interpretations and meanings is what categorizes this post in a micro sociological lens. 

The concept of communication has become a fascinating one for me recently due to readings I have come across and also some very enlightening class discussions. If I ask anyone right now to define communication the first thing that is likely to come to mind will be the exchange of information or maybe not in those exact words but along similar axis. That is of course correct thinking as the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information, Or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else. From the above definitions, communication can be seen to be a social act in the sense that it involves more than one individual. Although some people (notice how I said ‘some’) might believe that communication is done solely through speech, that is only just one medium of communication amongst others. Individuals can also communicate through facial expressions (my mother’s famous “don’t eat that food” look comes to mind), gestures, pointing/using hands, writing (remember how we were all such good love letter composers before texting, abbreviations and smileys ruined it), drawing, touching, the list seems endless. Now for this to be possible i.e. for communication to occur, the individuals involved will have to understand each other, this means both have to understand the language being used. Sight, hearing , reading skills, ability to recognize information, memory to recall and understand information all come into play. my fascination for communication stems mainly from how this concept shapes our world. in the socialization process of a child, the parents try and shape the reasoning of their child by communicating to them (say "mama" c'mon! say "mama"). we have to communicate with other individuals daily to get through our routines. I wouldn't be writing this post if it wasn't meant to communicate something to you. In looking at Tajfel's social identity theory which postulates that individuals construction of self is based on group membership, communication can also be seen as key in ones construction of self. to break this down and make it more understandable, ask yourself this question. who am I? you might start defining yourself as a Christian, an honest individual, a freak perhaps, a bank manager, a literate individual, a father, a sister, a wife etc. all these can only occur due to your interaction with other individuals which thus allows your to categorize yourself in a social grouping based on shared meanings with others. so if I say I am a Christian or a Man, I do so on the basis that you should understand the meaning attributed to those words, and also my meaning which I attribute to those words stems from how I was socialized. at this point in time you should now understand my fascination with the concept of communication. finally I believe individuals attribute meaning to what is socially relevant to them, this is why the Urhuobo people in the mid-western region of Nigeria have multiple names for Yam (due to its significance in their society, like its use in marriage practices) and the French people have no word for the same crop. Similarly the French have multiple names for various flowers(due to the significance attached to them, for example if I want to woo a lady in France, I could buy her a rose flower), while the Bini people in Nigeria have just one word for all flowers (so the rose might not be such a good idea for a Bini lady). 

in a basic synopsis, communication when viewed from a micro-sociological lens involves addressing the concept in terms of its significance in social action and also how individuals attribute meaning to and interpret the words or means used in the process.   

"You will reap the fruits of your Labour "

From peace price winners and publishing pioneers to fashion designers. Teenage girls are the ones to watch. 

Meet three teenagers from different back grounds but who share the same interest at heart : a Dream 

Thandiwe Chama

Age : 18

She hails from Zambia where she's currently acing Education activism & reform. She's the 2007 International Children's Peace Prize winner who at age 9 , led 60 children on a walk to find another school when theirs closed down. She also champion HIV/Aids awareness and education rights for children.

Cecilia Cassini

Age: 15

This fashion designer hails from the United States. Being 15 & designing outfits for celebrities like Taylor Swift & Sofia Vergara is a everyday thing for Cecilia. 

Malala Yousafzai

Age : 17

From the beautiful land of Pakistan ,Malala has become a well known young activist fighting for Equal education & rights. She's the Co-Author of her Autobiography , " I am Malala :The girl who stood up for Education and was shot by the Taliban ". Almost loosing her life , Malala believes that "They can only shoot a body ; they cannot shoot my dreams. My dreams are living.

What is your dream & what are you doing to make it come true ?