Hidden Hierarchy

In sociology classes, we would often discuss the very worst aspects of human interaction such as violence; and it would infuriate me. Even some of the more benign (but still harmful) issues such as jobs being related to appearance got me all riled up. I could not and still do not understand how people can dedicate their lives to studying humanity, find out horrible things that happens here, there, and everywhere else; and talk about them with such non-nonchalance. I get that they are there to study, not to form policy or be activists so that it is imperative that they keep their distance. I just do not believe that they can dedicate their lives to studying people and not have opinions about the very things that affect people.

This is not to be negative about my instructors, overall, I found them professional, knowledgeable, and to be good people. I am also not questioning their ability to be fair in their work. I just don't buy that they don't have opinions. Social sciences are often criticized for their lack of objectivity, but other scientists have opinions as well. The beliefs held by astronomers influenced their view of the universe such as geocentrism. The beliefs held by doctors often did and still do influence the care provided http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/article/243609/BIAS_in_Medicine.html . My point is that no matter what you study, you effect it in some way. By preforming experiments on MOLD, scientists changed how it behaved http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071 . So science has bias, but I think social sciences get an especially bad rap about it because it is harder for people to objectify results in others than in mold or stars.

Just as studying mold affected it, studying humans certainly affects them. So we have a sociological paradox: by learning about interaction we change the way we interact. I suppose the plus side of this irony is that it would keep sociologists in constant employment.

Although I find social sciences (yeah, I have a soft spot for sociology) fascinating, I would never be able to advance in those fields because I am WAY to opinionated to be professional. That, and I am not too keen on writing academically or teasing out numbers. However, I still informally practice it because I cannot help but to see the unwritten rules that govern our lives. At the end of the day, that is what sociology is all about, the informal expectations that people are held accountable to as though they were formal laws (albeit in different ways).

Recently, one of these unwritten rules has jumped out to me at work. The written rules place the board above the executive director; the ED above the: directors of each program; and each of those directors above the employees/volunteers in their areas. In the shelter there are daytime employees who do one of three things: shelter, legal, and education. The organizational chart puts those three positions as equals to each other and the night/weekend staff and volunteers and directly below the shelter director (SD). Offices in shelter are laid out in such a way that upon entering from the administrative side, you encounter 1:(SD), 2:education person, 3: night/weekend people, 4:shelter person, and 5:legal person. The SD's office is the biggest; beyond that the only difference between the other offices is that the night/weekend one has the alarm, cameras, and other stuff necessary for being there alone at night. One other difference is color. When a new person starts they get to pick the color of their office and a volunteer paints it. There is noting special about say office 2 that suits it to the needs of the education person.

Let's say that the education person were to leave, that office 2 would be open until someone else takes the position. Okay, that is not 100% true. The shelter person would take office 2, the legal person would take office 4, and the new education person would take office 5. I say this because I have seen people come and go; consistently, the newest person is put in 5 and everyone else is moved one up (in closeness to the administrative side) while leaving office 3 alone (3 has the night infrastructure). Office 1 is reserved for the SD who formally outranks the rest of us. So if shelter, education, and legal are equals (as they are officially) why is it that everyone bothers to move from their customized office when someone leaves?

It serves as a status symbol. Of the individuals of the same shift and rank; having a lower number office has always coincided with having been working here the longest. People go through all of the trouble to give up their favorite color, pack, move, all to resettle about 12ft down the hall. It is a pain and a giant hassle, but it is done faithfully. A ritual, especially an inconvenient one, must have meaning to people in order for them to participate in it voluntarially. The people in offices 4&5 have a stake in gaining a lower number because it represents a higher position.

It is worth mentioning that the lower number is not purely symbolic; since they are closer to administration, they are further from clients, less likely to hear noise, and less likely to be interrupted by client's needs. These are very real perks to have over your supposed equal. The funny thing though, is that the people in offices 2,4&5 would not hesitate to tell you that they are equals. Yet after multiple people leave and others take their positions, this pattern remains undoubtedly influenced by the unwritten rules.