HW 55- Independent Research

Part 1: Research Topic/ Question

For this unit, I decided to focus in on a topic that was researchable and also broad enough that my research wasn't able to prove anything about the topic. What I came up with, is the following;

Can people learn to pursue meaningful connection, or is interaction a pursuit to benefit one's self?

I thought that this question was good enough to start researching, so I found a couple of sources related to the question I asked.

------------------------------

Part 2: Research and source analysis


Source #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

This source was interesting to me because it discussed a part of my topic I didn't think about when I initially asked my question. The idea of interaction not as a topic, but a part of a larger human pursuit to move higher through the social ranks is far more broad a concept than I imagined my topic was related to. When I initially thought about my question I envisioned I was going to look at "social climbing". In my search for a source on that, I discovered this link to "social mobility". Social mobility is about following the path of a person, family, nation or race as their control over power fluctuates in a global society.

This is why I believe my topic is only a small part of social mobility. People who act in the interest of becoming socially elevated, are attempting to mobilize themselves and ensure a higher societal rank for their family. Becoming socially accepted is a small part of personal mobilization, and is accompanied by economic capital and cultural capital.


Source #2: http://socialmediarockstar.com/what-is-social-climbing

This source was helpful in defining and clarifying my thoughts and realizations about people who I know act as "social climbers". People who act in the interest of self benefit work in very recognizable steps. They create a strong core group of people who they can use as a base for branching out into various other social groups. For example, if I have a core group of 5 friends, and those 5 friends have other friends and other core groups, than I become connected to all of those people.

Business people try and play off of their peers in a cutthroat rat-race to the top of the corporate ladder. The entire intent of social climbing is to elevate yourself at any cost. Often times this requires putting others down to clear them out of your way. In this sense, social climbing is a really pathological practice, because you have to think with the mentality, that people are all just assets which can be used to your advantage. Making people seem like assets is dehumanizing and immoral, but nonetheless, an essential component of achieving success in a capitalist society.

In a world where appearances are quickly taking over as the primary mode of determining someone's worth or value, the average person is more concerned with being more socially accepted and sociable, than being a person with validity. In the world of social climbing, people don't need actual talent or skill, but those who actually end up succeeding actually can back up what they say, and really deliver on what they say they can do.

Source #3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
Source #4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)
Source #5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital

These three sources that I have listed above are three parts, or pieces which make up the requirements to achieving social mobility. For personal mobility, you need to possess economic capital, cultural capital, and social capital. What these three things boil down to, is that you need to have money, intellect, and personality/ connections.

In business, those at the top of the business ladder posses the economic capital. These people are the buyers and investors who companies are dependent on in order to get started and become successful. Cultural capital is more about having intelligence and savvy in order to manage a company, and innovate enough as to become more dominant in a marketplace. People with cultural capital are always in demand by those who possess economic capital. Finally, social capital, which has the most debatable value out of the three types of capital, is also the most interesting and relatable to my question.

People who have interesting or engaging personalities, naturally have an ability to attract other people. These people create social webs, and groups. This human tendency is the cause of what is known today as the practice of networking. People who "network" are trying to meet other people, and connect various individuals for the purpose of strengthening their own image. The value of a talent for connecting people lies in the fact that companies find immense market value in such connected groups of people. This is why you have occupations like "club promoters" who try to hype up a club by getting lots of people to fill it up each night, thus creating an image for a club of being a hotspot.

Source #6: http://www.advancementproject.org/

This source was key to supporting my counter argument that interactions are not solely about benefiting the self. Organizations like this directly contradict and negate the intent of social climbers. Working collaboratively to accomplish a goal for the bettering of many other people's lives is what non for profit organizations like Advancement Project were intended to achieve.

The goal of Advancement Project, is to attain funding for good schools, community improvement, and stressing the importance of participation in the political system by people of color. This is an organization based in California that operates mainly in Los Angeles and Sacramento, but has offices based in Washington D.C. The goals are to provide African Americans, Hispanics, and minority groups with better equipment and materials to achieve socioeconomic equality in America.

I think that by looking at the relationship between interaction for the purpose of self benefit (social climbing), and interaction for the purpose of helping benefit others (non-for-profit organizations), I have touched on a deeper issue. This issue is that people who are concerned about society as a whole, are charitable, and for the most part kind people. People who are all about building themselves up, tend to create these divisions in racial, economic and social groups while becoming super wealthy. When people see the world as a place to contribute, we move closer to an equal community, without billionaires, and without massive poverty. When people see the world as a place to manipulate and use for their own gain, is when we become a "me first" society all about appearances, and not about validity.

My conclusion is that most of our interaction is based off of self interest. People often do participate in activities which give back to their community, but this usually isn't people's top priority. The way most people (including myself admittedly) think, is that they must first improve themselves, or achieve success themselves before they can help others. The real dedication to acting on behalf of others only comes when you take a profession, or dedicate yourself to a cause other than yourself.