The Project So Far

1/10/2011
Today in class we spoke about asking the right questions both in the field as well in our field journals. I like the idea of starting each journal entry (or journal thought) with a question. Today’s question is: where is my project now? So far in my project I’ve made the switch from doing an all encompassing “how do young rugby players construct masculinity” to a slightly more specific, “what do rugby coaches purport to teach their players, and what lessons are the players learning, and how do these relate to gender?” I think this might be a better approach because it seems like it lends itself to being grounded in theory (though the previous question also did that), which will help me in my analysis, but it will also give me something to judge by. I can interview the coach and have specific things to look for in the players. So far in my preparation I have read some excerpts from books on historical rugby and colonization and masculinity, sports and masculinity, children and gender play, and an article on misogyny and rugby. I have also checked out a book from the library about masculinities by R.W. Connell, who is said to be one of the leading scholars on masculinity. I hope by reading this book I can get a more thorough grounding in theory so I can set a framework for the kind of questions to ask as well as things to look for on my study. After reading this book (or portions thereof) I then want to start into some of the recent articles (if there are any) in sports and rugby or sports that are comparable in physicality. From this I can start my lit review and funnel appropriately. Sorry, this is probably too much information, but I like to have a plan.

1/14/2011
I sometimes (or perhaps all the time) find it difficult to wrap my head around theory and/or the philosophy of science. Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t like it. In fact, I think theory is my favorite part of sociology, and I like thinking of different topics and analyzing them under different theoretical perspectives, as a kind-of recreational theorizing activity. However, what I have always found difficult is finding “my” theory. What ideology do I subscribe to? This difficulty not only pertains to our discussion on positivism, naturalism, and relativism, but also to my research.
When we talk about positivism in class I can definitely feel like it is “wrong.” It is not the way to see the world. I don’t think the world is one way that can by systematically understood. The world isn’t rational like that. It’s confusing. It’s chaotic. It’s beautiful. It’s ugly. And it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Everything is continuously changing, affecting things, being affected by things, and recreating meaning. However, there is that seductive lie we discussed in class. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a way to make sense of the world that was always right, and always discovered truth? Is that what statistics is? Are statistics just damned lies (I ask this question in this way simply because I love to say “damn.” Don’t judge me.)? I guess they don’t have to be, so long as we consider what theory they are operating under. For example, if we recognize that someone is collecting data from a Weberian perspective, then we can assume that the data are Truth, in that perspective. I guess. I suppose I don’t really know. Then the move from positivism happened. I liked the idea of naturalism as regionalized positivism. In fact, that is the only way that I can understand this school of thought clearly, so I guess I’ll leave it at that. Now for relativism. I’m not sure that I completely understand this perspective. I guess the best way for me to deal with this is to equate it with phenomenology (a theory that I am not sure I completely understand either). From what I learned of phenomenology, it states that whatever one person thinks is true makes it true for that person. For example: If I think that gender is one hundred percent socialized, that makes it true for how I see the world and live my life. This may be the dummied down version of phenomenology, but it is all I have to go on. So, relativism is saying that there are multiple truths? Or only some relativists would say this? I guess I’m reiterating the question that Christin had in class today. How do we find one hundred percent Truth in today’s world, or is the most we can say, “This is the viewpoint that I am coming from, and based on this viewpoint, this is the truth that I have found.”? I guess that this last statement is where I am. I can’t tell you with certainty how the social world works. I can tell you what I believe and what makes sense for me. I can collect reliable data that supports my beliefs, but I don’t know that I can say with certainty what the Truth is.
Now, let’s deal with how this whole discussion relates to my project. Currently I am trying to find a theory in which to situate my project. My mentor has directed me to a scholar that she thinks will be most beneficial, and I do plan on reading some of her work, but first I am writing this, and then I will read some, and then maybe I will come back to what I have learned in this entry, or possibly the next. Anyway, I want to find my theory before I start any other search for literature so that I can have something to go off of and rate the literature I find against it. However, I guess I am concerned that my personal beliefs about gender won’t match up with whatever theory I find. If that makes sense. I guess right here, right now I will list some of my ontological assumptions about gender, so that when I am reading theory, I will have something to judge by. I believe that gender is:
• both inherent and socialized.
• I believe that the male and female sexes are not opposites, but compliments, but that we are socialized to think they are opposites, which is how many gender ideologies are formed.
• I do not believe that sameness and equality are the same thing (this thought is easier to explain mathematically, rather than in words, so I’m sorry if that is confusing). Rather, I think that two things can be equal, while still not being the same. This holds true for gender.
The last assertion, I think, is why I am passionate about studying gender. I want to live in a world where people live peacefully, happily, and equally. However, how can we achieve this world along gender lines? How can we treat both sexes equally if they are not the same? I want to study gender in order to figure this out somewhat. I am studying how rugby influences the creation of masculinity in order to gain a better understanding masculinity in our society, so that maybe one day I will be able to understand how to treat both sexes equally, if not the same.