Bryttni Pugh

Dippong

SOCY 2161

18 June 2016

Reflection Four: Personality in Society & Chapter 12

In Turners Personality in Society article, I agree with Benedicts favored personality

integrative approach that states that society contains people with most-favored personalities,

moderately favored, and deviants. Selection here is more important than molding. I interpret that

as meaning that society determines whose personalities are favorable or not (i.e. celebrities and

criminals) instead of shaping certain individuals into ones with favorable personalities. In a sense

the favored individuals have genuine personalities with selection rather than insincere personalities

that mask who they truly are; however, I believe one can mold his or her personality after selection

to please society, but the genuine personality has been rooted into the person since birth. The

qualities of celebrities are simply admirable, though, instead of favored, because celebrities or ones

with success have traits and values that differ from those shown in the public eye. This integrative

approach is odd to me why would society want to favor certain individuals and continue to

admire them even though their personalities are edited for the public? Perhaps this just makes

society function, determine social structure, and evaluate cultural values and norms. In the basic

personality structure, Kardiner states that primary institutions such as raising children and sibling

relationships are not explained by politics or popular culture. I find this interesting because the

way my brother and I communicate truly is unique, and we dont let society determine how our

type of relationship works. Ive never thought that society could influence me personally and how
I interact with friends or other groups, but society cannot interfere with my sibling relationship;

Id like to think that this is why I can be myself and open up when communicating with my brother.

Chapter twelves topic on intergroup conflict is unfortunately relatable, especially in

todays society. Of course conflict has been and will be everywhere, but the media (i.e. news and

social media) hypes up the events pertaining to conflict, making society seem progressively worse.

I see plenty of situations that include in-group identification and ethnocentrism, where one group

believes it is the centre of everything and is superior to other groups. Democrats and republicans

seem to think they are superior to one another, the Westboro Baptist Church thinks they are above

other churches and communities, and so on. The problem I see is not that these groups think highly

of themselves and identify with the group in which they take interest in or feel comfortable with

but that these groups do not treat other groups with respect; instead, they rely on insults, arguments,

and discrimination in order to get their points across and in order to seek power. I do not believe

that it is wrong for the groups to think that they are above another unless a groups values are

disrespectful and inappropriate. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church said that their god sent

the Orlando shooter into the nightclub, and they obviously feel strongly against the LGBT

community; thus, I think that this group is wrong for acting superior and should not be in any way,

especially when that group feels pride in a tragic event and is willing to discriminate and harm

others. The conflicts can worsen with an aversive event, like in the unexpected basketball loss

example where fans became involved in confrontation and open conflict.