# data[].attributes.body
Well, I am a psychology major, and this sociology class is a requirement to transfer to CSU Stanislaus. I plan to transfer and finish my Psychology major and also become a double major with Biology, then I'll enter a Master's program for Biology! Hopefully, I can finish my goal and be proud of my accomplishments!

:-D

# data[].attributes.body
Thur; Aug 28, 2025

Henslin: What is Sociology?  (8-19)

In the second chapter, “What is Sociology?,” James M. Henslin defines sociology as the study of society and human behavior within groups. He also drills into you that sociology is very broad, since it focuses on every part of human behavior, which can lead to beautiful prospects or dreadful outcomes. At the beginning of the chapter, it hits us with a reality that applies to 2025: new technology and our ability to overlook minor aspects of our lives. “We subject our contemporary world to the constant probings of the instruments and machines we have developed to extend our senses” (Henslin 9). In this case, these machines would be our phones or even AI! Given how easy it is to understand its functions, it's no surprise our phones have become an easier way to obtain information, but in doing so, it has become a window to an ample place of multiple niches anyone can get sucked into and waste their time. Nonetheless, nowadays I see on the internet jokes about disrespecting robots, because at the speed humanity is going, robots will be a normality. It's a coping mechanism, I think, to the idea that machines would be smart enough to be considered part of society; it's a speculation and a joke, but even in the chapter, they exclaim their awe and horror towards such innovations (in their case, space exploration). Furthermore, in the chapter, Henslin contrasts sociology with other social sciences such as anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, and history. Explaining how each one would study juvenile delinquency. Distinguishing sociology as a discipline that looks at it broadly: examining the social structure (like class, institutions & norms) and interactions.

# data[].attributes.headline
JCB Chapter 1: Jeans/Discovering Sociology

# data[].attributes.subject
JCB Chapter 1: Jeans/Discovering Sociology

# data[].attributes.body
The relationship between capitalism and identity is clear in the way jeans are marketed. For example, Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle commercial drew controversy for implying that her “genes” (and by extension her whiteness and sex appeal) were superior and central to the brand’s image. The fact that her ad reached unintended audiences, such as younger boys, shows how consumer capitalism targets desire and attention in ways that don’t always match the product’s stated message. In contrast, Katseye’s collaboration with Gap focused on diversity, fashion, and community; their ad showcased identity through group performance and style rather than exclusivity. This connects to what the text explains: “Sociology pushes us, and also trains us to explore connections between our individual lives and broader social factors—that is, to develop a sociological imagination (Johnston, Cairns, & Baumann, 2017)” Both ads show how individual identities are shaped and manipulated through capitalism; whether through sex appeal or inclusivity. By making viewers, myself included, feel the need to buy jeans even when we already own enough.

# data[].attributes.body
I’ve come to realize that it's really tough to make topics for a book that has no instructions for it. Nonetheless, I’ll discuss important words, ideas, or topics brought up by the text and see how this goes.

In the book Down to Earth Sociology, chapter one, the reader is told about the excitement of sociology. People often think sociology is just about obvious things (like race, class, religion, etc.), which everyone knows about from everyday life. Sociology is about discovering deeper patterns and hidden meanings behind what looks familiar. The author, Berger, gives the reader an imaginary example of this idea through a Southern classroom discussing racism:“Indeed, it may be that they are much more familiar with the minutiae of this system than he is. They are quite bored as a result. It seems to them that he is only using more pretentious words to describe what they already know.” The students themselves see it as boring and uninteresting, but the teacher knows how to recapture their attention. Berger explains how the instructor would correlate the topic to another culture like India, thus making students comprehend it through a different outlook. Causing a sort of culture shock through the eyes of sociology! It can be relevant to my eyes as well, given that I came to the US when I was in fifth grade. The first culture shock I remember was ice cream on soda; what a crazy combination. Second, having AC in every classroom is almost insane! I remember how my mother would poke fun at how smelly the classrooms would be after recess because there was only a small fan in the classrooms in Tijuana. Another silly one would be Santa Claus; I never heard of the guy until I was in my first English class and some classmate mentioned him. Poor kid, I told him he doesn't exist because I felt embarrassed, I didn't even know who he was.

# data[].attributes.body
“The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals.” (p. 22) C. Wright Mills

Summary: Our personal troubles come from public issues that have been shaped by history.

Connected Issue: Student loans

I am a student right now; I was in an accelerated program in my high school, SECA, here in Stockton. I was really proud of myself when I opened the mail and UC Davis had accepted me to enter in the fall of 2022. I was scared for one thing only: student loans. Everyone understands how stressful it is to just try to obtain the money for rent, now having to pay for books and tuition at a UC! Sometimes I feel ashamed I didn't take the offer, but I look at myself now and realize that I am where I am meant to be. Nonetheless, taking away the sappiness, the issue of student debt for students who barely understand finances is something I wonder about: Why do loans target young students? How did they even become so mainstream? What is the history of them being connected to college? Makes me wonder if it's done on purpose so poorer students feel scared of even trying to obtain a better education and thus go up the economic ladder.

# data[].attributes.headline
JCB: The first thing I bought was … : (P.26)

# data[].attributes.subject
JCB: The first thing I bought was … : (P.26)

# data[].attributes.body
My first purchase was a second-hand Princess Tiana Disney doll. I felt very proud to obtain the money since it took me a LONG time. I still remember how much money it was: 15 pesos. Yeah, right now I am in the US and I wouldn’t bat an eye at that amount, given 15 pesos is like one dollar; but when I was a kid, I wasn't here in Stockton, I was in Tijuana, and 15 pesos could help you get a whole pound of tortillas for the week. I remember it taking almost a month to acquire the whole amount. I even remember how I began to “invest” this money for my goal. I was walking from school with my mom and my sister, most likely drinking either Jamaica or Horchata (Our mom always brought a sweet drink after classes), and I spotted the most beautiful doll ever! My favorite princess! Tiana from princess and the frog! It was in those markets where people put whatever they don't need for extra money, in my how town, these people would be out selling every Tuesday and Thursday. So every week, I’d talk to the lady and say, please don’t sell her! I’ll buy it next week! Thank goodness my dad agreed to give me five pesos every week if I did my chores. In the end, I bought her! She may not have had any clothes, and she was dirty, but she was perfect for me. I drew her some clothes with paper and green markers! And I played with her for a long time.

Sociological imagination:

Social location

Age: I was around 8-10 years old, so princess movies were a bit hit.

Gender: given Disney always has an intended audience, it’s obvious this type of movie and merchandise would appeal to younger viewers. I specifically loved how her outfit looked regal while incorporating swamp decor.

Class: lower class (in Mexico); I think the movie barely came out or was already out for three or two years, so there were multiple girls who’ve had Tiana inspired princess parties. I was invited by one and was super jealous. I only got a dubalin for my birthday, instead of dressing up as my favorite princess like the birthday girl.

# data[].attributes.headline
(JCB) Record your purchases for a day, or even better, for a week. Write down when you bought the item, where it was from, and how you felt making this purchase (e.g. Was it stressful? Annoying? Pleasurable? Uneventful?). Make note of anything you consumed that you produced yourself. Think about how each commodity you buy connects you to others. How does it involve social and economic relationships?

# data[].attributes.subject
(JCB) Record your purchases for a day, or even better, for a week. Write down when you bought the item, where it was from, and how you felt making this purchase (e.g. Was it stressful? Annoying? Pleasurable? Uneventful?). Make note of anything you consumed that you produced yourself. Think about how each commodity you buy connects you to others. How does it involve social and economic relationships?

# data[].attributes.body
Mon 8/25

Bookstore Takis, cheese & beef jerky : $7.58

Emotion: I knew I was getting a bad deal with this because I was sure I could get the same thing in the Dollar store for 3 dollars. However, I felt woozy from not eating and felt feverish, so I needed to eat something quick, and this is my go to snack. I would have loved adding a kiwi strawberry snapple, but it would have added it to $10. Making it $10, I had no way to excuse that type of spending when my mom had told me, had made Agua Fresca (which I was excited to drink cold).

Tue 8/26

Refill on my car: $50

Emotion: I mean, I had no choice, my class began at 8:30 AM in Mountain house and I barely had enough on my tank to take me to the gas store haha. Nonetheless, it felt a bit of a pain but it was a moment for me to realize it was necessary for my education. My goal starts with money taken from my bank account haha.

Wed 8/27

Nothing Bought

Emotion: This whole month I’ve been trying to not eat out as much or buy snacks, since I need to transfer to Sac State soon, and I need as much money saved as I can for materials etc. Nonetheless, I am sure this week it won’t be as crazy as the other months where I felt like a disappointment for eating out almost everyday.

Thur 8/28

Head&Shoulders, Handsoup Large, VapoRub, Conditioner, Shampoo, Body Soap: $48.32

McDonalds Five-Dollar Meal: $5.46

Emotion: I mean, it wasn’t so bad, since it was for my family. I felt sad that I went to Walmart by myself and had to look around for this. Most of the time it was a family occurrence, where everyone had to come and just look around for a bit and enjoy some family quality time. I guess I missed those times, so I did something I always wanted to do that my family did not allow me all the time. I bought McDonalds AFTER the Walmart trip! That’s right! It was so fun and also depressing that I had no one to share such an experience with, but I felt contempt with this day. Plus the Spicy chicken sandwich hit the spot with the tangy BBQ.

Fri 8/28

Nothing Bought

Sat 8/29

Pozole: $6

Emotion: I wasn’t by myself this time! My family invited me to the church’s festival. It was really loud but the sense of community was felt. My parents told me they could pay for my meal but I declined, I’d rather they use it on my siblings (they wanted a LOT of sweets haha classic). Anyway, the food portion was enough for me to excuse this expense. On the other hand, the taste wasn’t as good as I expected so part of me regretted the dish altogether. No worries though, I just added some chili oil and lemon and it was all good.

Sun 8/30

Nothing bought

# data[].attributes.headline
JCB: Chapter 2- Food/Culture|| Your daily diet: Think about your diet and write down all the food you eat on a particular day. How would you describe your diet at an empirical level? How would you evaluate it at a normative level? What kinds of responsibilities do you have, and do you think other actors have, that shape your individual choices?

# data[].attributes.subject
JCB: Chapter 2- Food/Culture|| Your daily diet: Think about your diet and write down all the food you eat on a particular day. How would you describe your diet at an empirical level? How would you evaluate it at a normative level? What kinds of responsibilities do you have, and do you think other actors have, that shape your individual choices?

# data[].attributes.body
Today I didn’t eat anything for most of the day. I was busy with school and work, so I just pushed through without food. Around 3 PM my head started hurting and I felt really light-headed, so I grabbed two Hi-Chews. Luckily, since I go to and also work at my college, I was able to grab a burrito and a soda, which was basically my first real meal of the day. I felt kind of bad about how I had been eating, but I was also just hungry, so I ate it anyway. When I got home around 6 PM, I went to the store and picked up snacks: two mini Cheeto bags, three Ferrero Rochers, and a bag of gummies for four dollars. That’s what I ended up eating for the rest of the night.

At an empirical level, my diet today was mostly candy and snacks with just one actual meal. The food I ate was really high in sugar and not balanced at all. I could tell because I had low energy and a headache earlier in the day.

At a normative level, I know this isn’t a healthy way to eat. It’s not giving my body the nutrition it needs. At the same time, it shows some of the pressures I feel. Society tells me that eating less makes me more accepted because it makes me smaller, but at the same time, food is also about comfort and connection for me. Eating with other people, trying food at school, or just having snacks to share makes me feel part of a community, even if it’s not always “healthy” food.

When it comes to responsibility, I know I should be taking better care of myself and eating in a way that gives me more energy. But there are other factors that shape what I eat too: my schedule, how cheap snacks are compared to healthy food, and the messages I’ve absorbed about body image. My college also plays a role because it gives me access to food I might not otherwise have. So while it looks like these are “individual choices,” they’re actually influenced a lot by my environment and the people around me.

# data[].attributes.body
The reading explains that culture is basically everything that shapes the way people live, think, and act. You notice it most when you see someone from a different culture; like in their clothes, jewelry, speech, or gestures. Culture can be material (things like buildings, art, clothes, and food) or nonmaterial (beliefs, values, behaviors, and ways of thinking). Sociologists focus more on the nonmaterial side because it shapes how we see the world and make decisions.

The tricky part is that we don’t usually notice our own culture because it feels so normal and automatic, like breathing. The text even says, “The last thing a fish would ever notice would be water. So it is with us: Except for unusual circumstances, the effects of our own culture generally remain imperceptible to us.” This means we assume our way is just “natural” until something challenges it.

Sometimes, this clash can cause culture shock; when the rules of another culture feel so different from what we grew up with that it’s uncomfortable or confusing. The author gave the example of buying tickets: in the U.S., people line up first come, first served, but in some parts of northern Africa, the pushiest people (and those with the longest arms) get tickets first. For the author, this was upsetting because it went against his expectations of fairness.

The main point is that culture is everywhere; it influences how we think, how we act, how we treat others, and even the things we take for granted. It’s learned, shared, and shapes our reality, even when we don’t realize it.

# data[].attributes.body
Clifford Geertz argued that culture is not a set of rules or customs we observe from a distance, but instead “webs of significance” and where we stay all our lives. This perspective coincides with today’s readings on the emphasis of nonverbal communication as a culturally learned and a deeply embedded system. Just as Geertz viewed culture as inescapable, the text shows how bodily gestures, eye contact, and spatial behavior function as a silent, ever-present language that shows how individuals relate to themselves, to others, and to their communities. For example, the author states that “regional, class, and ethnic patterns of body behavior are also learned in childhood and persist throughout life” (Hall, 2007), suggesting that even our smallest gestures are culturally intertwined. Coming back to Geertz’s ideas that we must interpret symbols in context to understand a society, the text emphasizes that “nonverbal communications signal to members of your own group what kind of person you are, how you feel about others… and how you’ll fit into and work in a group.” Both perspectives reveal that culture is not bound to rituals or grand symbols; it stays in the everyday behavior, from how we stand, to how we smile to how close we choose to sit. In this way, culture is everywhere, not just in words, but in the body of the people themselves.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 118-134: Sympathy in Everyday life By Candace Clark 

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 118-134: Sympathy in Everyday life By Candace Clark 

# data[].attributes.body
Candace Clark basically says that sympathy isn’t just some automatic feeling we hand out: it’s more like a resource that’s managed and traded almost like currency. We keep these little “sympathy accounts” with people, where we build credit by caring for them and use that credit when we need support ourselves. Close friends and family usually get more than acquaintances. But sympathy also comes with rules: people expect you to notice and ask about their struggles and to show you care in how you talk or act. The catch is that these accounts aren’t unlimited, they can run dry if someone asks for too much, or even get shut down if they’re caught exaggerating or faking need. And since everyone’s always kind of watching who deserves sympathy, how much you get depends a lot on culture, trust, and whether people see you as worthy of it. Furthermore, in the beginning of the chapter Clark asks, “Do you owe people sympathy?” and honestly, I think the answer is yes; but only if it’s mutual. Clark explains that “credit is more freely given to an intimate than to an acquaintance, even before accounts have been settled,” which to me means that sympathy isn’t just random kindness, it’s about give and take. We all want community, and part of that is sharing emotions back and forth. Clark even says “a given sympathy account or margin…is continually negotiated and may be increased, decreased, replenished, or used up entirely,” which feels super true in online spaces. On the side of the internet I’m on, people are quick to show sympathy, but at the same time they remind each other to protect themselves and be selfish, because like Clark warns, “the foremost rule of sympathy etiquette is not to falsely manipulate others’ sympathy by pretending to need it” (Clark, 2007). So yeah, I’d say we do owe sympathy, but not to just anyone: it has to go both ways.

# data[].attributes.headline
JCB: C2 || Contrasting Durkheimian and Marxist perspectives: Think of a food that serves as a totem in your own life. What rituals surround this food, and what meaning does it hold for your sense of belonging to a particular social group? Now consider this same food through a Marxist lens of commodity fetishism. If you pulled back the curtain of this commodity, what material contexts, relationships, and practices might you find that have been concealed?

# data[].attributes.subject
JCB: C2 || Contrasting Durkheimian and Marxist perspectives: Think of a food that serves as a totem in your own life. What rituals surround this food, and what meaning does it hold for your sense of belonging to a particular social group? Now consider this same food through a Marxist lens of commodity fetishism. If you pulled back the curtain of this commodity, what material contexts, relationships, and practices might you find that have been concealed?

# data[].attributes.body
I would say my favorite food, or the dish I wait “patiently” for the whole year, is pozole. Yeah, I could just go to a restaurant on a weekend and eat it (given the meal takes days to prepare, pozole is on the menu only on the weekends), but the homemade taste is better anticipated from a family member than a restaurant. This is why pozole is usually made on big holidays, and what better holiday than Christmas! A big plate of pozole with its chili oil on the side, a hearty squeeze of a lemon, and tostadas to give it a nice crunch. I know this is a very Mexican dish, and most people out of the loop would give a stink eye to the dish, I would too if it smelled anything like menudo (I hate menudo), but you just got to know to till you try it. So yeah, pozole is kind of my “totem” food. It’s not just something to eat; it’s tied up with family, holidays, and the whole vibe of Christmas. The whole ritual of waiting for it, seeing it come together, and loading it up with chili oil, lemon, and tostadas: that’s the part that makes it special. It’s not really about the taste alone; it’s about belonging and being part of that family moment. The food becomes sacred because it connects us to each other.

But if I look at pozole with a Marxist lens, things shift. Pozole feels homemade and comforting, but there’s a whole hidden system behind it. The corn, the pork, and the spices don’t just magically show up in the kitchen. Someone is out there working the fields for low wages or raising animals under industrial farming conditions. The chiles or corn might even be imported through trade systems that mostly benefit big companies instead of small farmers. So while I’m enjoying this “special family meal,” I’m also kind of ignoring the labor, exploitation, and inequality that made it possible. That’s commodity fetishism; all I see is the delicious bowl of pozole and the family tradition, not the social and economic realities that went into it.

# data[].attributes.headline
JCB: C2 || Sociology Outside the Classroom || Breaking the norm:

# data[].attributes.subject
JCB: C2 || Sociology Outside the Classroom || Breaking the norm:

# data[].attributes.body
For this activity, instead of doing it myself, I thought about a current social trend that fits the idea of “breaking a food norm.” At In-N-Out, people sometimes wait for the order number 67 to come up and then yell, cheer, or make a scene about it. Normally, waiting for your food is a quiet and polite activity, you pick up your tray and leave. Screaming about the number 67 violates that social norm.

Setting: In-N-Out, surrounded by mostly college students and families.

Norm violation: Screaming loudly and making a big deal about the order number “67.”

Reactions: From what I’ve seen in a video, the reactions were mixed. The college crowd laughed and joined in; it was fun for them and they clearly saw it as part of a playful group ritual. But not everyone felt that way. An older man looked annoyed, and a family with kids seemed uncomfortable. The kids looked excited and laughed along, but the parents looked more judgmental.

Did people respond as expected? Yes. I expected younger people to treat it as funny and lighthearted, while older people might see it as disruptive or even immature.

Sanctions: The “sanctions” here weren’t official, like getting kicked out, but more subtle; disapproving looks, eye rolls, and clear signs of annoyance from some customers.

Different context: In a college setting, especially late at night or during a social outing, this act would probably be seen as completely normal or even encouraged. But in a family-oriented or formal setting, it comes off as disruptive and out of place.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) 29-47: Doing Fieldwork Among the Yanomamo by Napoleon A. Chagnon 

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) 29-47: Doing Fieldwork Among the Yanomamo by Napoleon A. Chagnon 

# data[].attributes.body
In lecture 3, we dwelled on different research methods and their tradeoffs: “surveys for breadth, ethnography for depth, analysis for scope.” What stood out for me most was “thick description” (Geertz). Using concrete details to bring the reader into the setting. Ethnography is less about data points and more about lived experiences, and Napoleon Chagnon’s fieldwork among the Yanomamo is almost a textbook case of this. Changnon doesn’t just tell us that mutual knowledge matters he describes being woken at night by men barging into his hut demanding food, or gagging at the smell of unwashed bodies. Those sensory details (the heat, the smell, the chaos of duels and insults) are exactly what we mean by thick description: “as if the reader was there with you.” However, his work also highlights the complexity of operationalization. In theory, his goal was simple: collect genealogies to map kinship. In practice, the “measure” of a name was far from straightforward. Cultural taboos didn’t allow saying certain names, and informants gave him false ones for fun. He realized he had to rethink how to “measure” kinship. As our lecture notes put it: “Research is less a cookbook and more like art; you choose the shades you’ll paint with.” Finally, Chagnon’s reliance on Rerebawa and Kaobawa highlights both the strengths and risks of qualitative research. Like our “coffee shop ethnography” assignment, his insights depended on close observation and trust built over time. But unlike us, he faced real intimidation, theft, and even threats of violence. In that sense, his fieldwork shows both the promise and peril of culture-in-action.

Real life Analysis: Coming from an Immigrant family I experienced different environments throughout my life. When I moved to the United States at a young age, it was easier for me to absorb learning not just English words, but how my peers used them (the tone, the jokes, the cultural references). Like Chagnon struggling with Yanomamö kinship terms, I struggled with the cultural vocabulary of being an American kid: what Santa Claus meant in December, why Thanksgiving mattered in November. Through observation, trial, and error, I built what Geertz would call a ‘thick description’ of American life.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) 63-72: Would you Hire and Ex-Convict by Devah Pager 

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) 63-72: Would you Hire and Ex-Convict by Devah Pager 

# data[].attributes.body
One thing that really stood out to me from the readings was how different research methods can uncover hidden truths about culture and inequality. In Lecture 1, we talked about how sociologists use different tools (like surveys, experiments, interviews, and ethnography) to study social life. Each has its pros and cons, but what method you choose really shapes the kind of story you’re able to tell. For example, in the Yanomamö account, the researcher uses ethnography and participant observation, which lets him capture the little details and personalities within the community. The way he describes Rerebawa as “the most genuine and the most devoted to his culture’s ways and values” shows how ethnography gives us that deeper, more personal perspective. Pager’s study on race and criminal records, on the other hand, shows the strength of experiments. By sending matched pairs of applicants to jobs, she kept everything the same except race and criminal record. That way, she could see the actual impact of stigma. The findings were pretty shocking: “A criminal record thereby reduces the likelihood of a callback by 50%.” Even worse, Black non-offenders did worse than whites with records, since “the effect of a criminal record is thus 40% larger for Blacks than for whites.” This kind of bias wouldn’t show up in a survey, because people don’t always admit their prejudice but experiments make it visible.

Outside Sources: There was a time I wondered about people incarcerated who would be freed in their old age. Imagine someone who did something extremely damaging and had a sentence that kept them locked up until they were elderly. What are the chances that, once released, they could really incorporate themselves back into society without major drawbacks? And what are the chances that, instead of trying to adapt, they might just prefer to go back to jail; a place they know and are familiar with?

# data[].attributes.body
The appendix talks about how sociological research isn’t just about following strict steps, but more about understanding people and the world around us. It explains that a true experiment needs both an experimental and a control group, plus random assignment, because “random assignment is crucial… other factors should be randomly distributed across groups” (Methods lecture, Mersmann). But in sociology, it’s hard to do real experiments since “we can’t randomly assign people to sex, race, age, education, or income” (Methods lecture, Mersmann). Instead, sociologists often use other methods like surveys, which are affordable but can have low response rates, and interviews, which “produce the deep, rich qualities of people’s lives” (Methods lecture, Mersmann). Another method is ethnography, which means “writing about a people, you go and watch them” (Methods lecture, Mersmann). Good ethnography needs “thick description” (Methods lecture, Mersmann), meaning you capture details, emotions, and context to show what life is really like for the people you study.

Real life Analysis: A good real-life example of what I learned from the appendix is the Milgram experiment. It studied how people follow orders from someone in charge, even when it goes against their morals. It really shows how experiments work in sociology since it had control and experimental groups, and people were randomly assigned to their roles. The main thing being measured was obedience, while other factors were kept the same. It also connects to operationalization because Milgram turned the idea of “obedience” into something you could actually see and measure; how far someone would go when told to shock another person. It makes me think about reliability and validity too, because even though the results were consistent, it’s hard to say if people would act the same way in real life.

# data[].attributes.body
I step into Empresso, the coffee shop right next to my college, craving something fresh, maybe a salad. As I look around, what do I see? Someone already eating the exact one I was thinking of. A chicken salad, dressing on the side. He’s a guy in his late thirties, wearing glasses, looking like he’s trying to take a quick break from work or homework, chewing slowly as if really enjoying it. Honestly, he gave me the idea,  I decide I’ll do the same… ranch on the side. When I walk up to the counter, the girl at the register looks around my age, early twenties, with warm cinnamon skin and a tired look in her eyes. Morning shift maybe? Or just life being life, either way, I get it. I order my salad and decide to try a chocolate drink, inspired by a woman and her son sitting nearby who were sipping something that looked sugar-filled, in a good way. I find a table and sit down, taking in the space. There’s a woman sitting a few tables away, maybe in her late forties. She’s got the kind of face that reminds me of my grandma; kind, focused, and calm. She’s speaking Spanish softly into her phone, and I think, ah, she’s Hispanic…nice. Across from her, the mother and son I saw earlier are still eating, completely absorbed in their sandwiches (which honestly make me second-guess my salad choice for a second). The son, who looks around my age, watches something on his phone and keeps showing it to his mom. She looks half-interested, half just humoring him; I can totally picture myself being like that someday if I have a son. Before I can get too lost in people-watching, my name gets called, my order’s ready. Way faster than I expected. As I walk to pick it up, I notice a young guy around my age standing toward the back, kind of pacing. He keeps glancing around nervously, biting his nails. For a second, I think he might be related to the older woman nearby (maybe her son or grandson) but then she asks him if something’s wrong, and his face lights up like he’s been caught. Turns out, he wasn’t related to her at all. He’d just been waiting for his order for a while but was too shy to ask about it. Honestly, I can relate. Behind me, there’s a big clean window that shows the street outside; sunlight spilling in, a bus stop right across the way. A worker steps off the bus, tired but calm, while another man waits to board. He seems to be struggling a bit, his leg stiff, a walker by his side. The worker steps back down to help him, unfolding the ramp so he can get on more easily. I smile. How nice.

A few minutes in and a couple walks in; or are they sisters? For a second, I can’t really tell. They move close, chatting quietly, until the taller woman reaches out and lightly touches the other’s hip. Ah, okay. They’re together. There’s something sweet about the way they move, like they’re in their own world. They order their food and, just like the shy young guy from earlier, head straight to the back of the shop, sitting in that same tucked-away corner. Makes me wonder why for a second.

I glance back at the woman and her son near me. They’re packing up, getting ready to leave, and for a moment I wish I’d brought my mom here too. She’d probably enjoy this place. Then that somehow makes me think of presents, oh no, Christmas. I am stressed now.

# data[].attributes.body
On JCB’s appendix, page 402, the text states that “Through advertising, firms promote particular kinds of images with intended meaning for consumers.” It brings up the example of Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola, noting how many students can’t actually tell the difference between their tastes. The chapter focuses on understanding what people think through data and the science that sociology provides.That sentence, though, made me think about something that happened recently, the picture of Pepsi’s chair. It was released earlier this year, around the time when everything with ICE was going on. At first, I thought, oh great, a chair! How interesting. But it wasn’t just that. One could argue that the company created the ad to commemorate Bad Bunny’s new album “DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS (DTMF).” On the album cover, there’s a simple white plastic chair, an image that feels like a tribute to Hispanic families, since that chair seems to appear at every family gathering. I have fond memories of that chair too; falling asleep in it even when the party was two decibels above the acceptable limit, or watching my aunt fall backward when hers broke. That memory still makes me laugh. So even if I can’t really tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, that image gave me a sense of nostalgia and pride. Even if the advertisement wasn’t intentionally made that way, it still connected to something meaningful for me. And considering that the ad appeared in such an uncertain time here in the U.S. (when people were scared to even step outside), it almost felt comforting. That simple chair reminded me of home, family, and togetherness, even in a time when everything felt distant.

# data[].attributes.headline
*JCB: CH10 | Branding/ The self and Social Interaction 

# data[].attributes.subject
*JCB: CH10 | Branding/ The self and Social Interaction 

# data[].attributes.body
In chapter 10, the author talks about how we “shop for a self” in modern consumer culture, meaning that we build our identities through what we buy and how we present ourselves. In traditional societies, people’s roles were more fixed and based on family, religion, or social position, but now we have to constantly figure out “what to do, how to act, who to be” (JCB, p285). This connects to the sociological idea that “the self develops through social interaction,” and that interaction involves the “exchange of symbols, meanings, and intentions” (Self Lecture, Mersmann). Sociologist Anthony Giddens describes this as the “reflexive project of the self,” where we create our identities through daily choices, especially through the lifestyles we choose: like how someone might live a “green lifestyle” by biking or eating organic food (JBC, p286). These decisions reflect the nurture side of identity because, as explained by our lecture, “your biology is like the foundation of the house… and then we can build almost any kind of house we want on top of that” (Self Lecture, Mersmann). All these little consumer decisions help form a sense of who we are, but at the same time, this freedom can feel overwhelming. The reading calls it a “treadmill of consumption” because we keep buying to define ourselves but never feel fully satisfied (JCB, p288). Russell Belk’s idea of the “extended self” adds that our possessions literally become part of who we are; some objects, like childhood toys or family heirlooms, hold strong emotional meaning. Losing or giving them up can feel like losing part of ourselves (JCB, p289). Even small items, like a frayed armchair or a collection of comic books, carry memories and help shape identity. Collecting, according to Belk, gives people “control of a little world” and helps them feel stable in an uncertain culture.

Real Life Analysis: The rise and decline of Labubus really shows how consumer trends tie into identity and social meaning. They were a big deal not even a few months back (I can still hear their theme song now). They became popular for their cute but kind of gremlin-looking face. From an outsider’s view, most of the people buying them were young women trying to join in on the trend. I won’t lie, I almost bought one too. But why? According to Anthony Giddens, it’s because we use things like this to “construct our identities” and shape how we want to be seen (JCB, p288). In my case, I think I wanted to buy one because the people who had them seemed to share a certain look, and I figured if I bought one too, I’d be part of that group; basically, I’d be cool like them. This connects to the idea that “the self develops through social interaction” (Self Lecture, Mersmann) since trends like this are about belonging and shared meaning. Thank goodness I didn’t buy one though: it was almost sixty dollars for a single toy! And now, just a few months later, people are finding them in thrift stores. That quick fall in popularity really shows how fast consumer trends can fade and how our sense of “cool” is always shifting.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) 135-146: Goffman, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) 135-146: Goffman, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life

# data[].attributes.body
Goffman’s reading really shows how much of our daily life revolves around the way we present ourselves to others. He explains that “when an individual enters the presence of others, they commonly seek to acquire information about him,” meaning that people are constantly evaluating and interpreting each other’s behavior to understand who they’re dealing with.Kinda scary for an internet butcher continue; This isn’t random, it’s how people figure out “what he will expect of them and what they may expect of him.” We act in certain ways to follow through those expectations, whether we realize it or not. Goffman also mentions that others look for clues in our “conduct and appearance,” applying past experiences or even “untested stereotypes” to fill in what they don’t know about us. What’s interesting is how limited this process is: since people can’t see our “true” thoughts or feelings directly, they rely on what he calls the “expressions that he gives” and the “expressions that he gives off.” Those two types of communication shape how others see us. This connects closely to what JCB describes in Branding Goods, Branding the Self, where “brands comprise the tools for the creation of self” (JCB, p.291). Just like Goffman’s idea of performance, our brand choices act as symbols we use to manage the impressions others form of us. The reading also adds that a brand is “the total constellation of meanings, feelings, perceptions, beliefs, and goodwill attributed to any market offering displaying a particular sign” (JCB, p.291). Meaning, what we buy and wear communicates social messages before we even speak. Both Goffman and JCB show how self-presentation is a social act; we use clues, signs, and brands to send signals about who we are and how we want to be perceived. As JCB points out, “brands are one of the main sources of meaning in contemporary consumer culture” (JCB, p.293), which shows Goffman’s argument that identity is something performed.

Real Life Analysis:

I am definitely guilty of that expectation of others that Goffman talks about. A good example would be a friend of mine from work. There’s this student who comes in every day and always sits by himself. He wears what I’d describe as a “mother-who-buys-all-her-son’s-clothes-from-Walmart-to-save-money” outfit, always brings plastic bags for his food and materials, and talks mostly about crushes or K-pop. My first impression was that he was a young high schooler who maybe got into Delta through a special program or was a freshman who wasn’t that serious about school yet. Because of how he dressed and acted, I also assumed he was poor. But when I actually got to know him, I learned that he’s 26 years old, just short, and his mom (a nurse) gives him an allowance. He just doesn’t drive and is a little naive, but not at all in the way I imagined. Now I consider him one of my best buddies; almost like a younger brother haha. Looking back, I can see how my initial assumptions were based on the “information” Goffman describes: his clothes, behavior, and appearance all shaped the impression I formed before really knowing him. Once I interacted with him more, that image completely changed.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) p249-264: Thompson, Handling the Stigma of Handling the Dead

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) p249-264: Thompson, Handling the Stigma of Handling the Dead

# data[].attributes.body
This reading shows how people in jobs that make others uncomfortable, like morticians and funeral directors, find ways to make their work sound and feel less harsh. Instead of using words like “dead” or “corpse,” they say things such as “eternal slumber” or “remains.” Changing the language helps take away some of the negative feelings people have toward their job and makes it sound more respectful. It also shifts attention from death itself to caring for the families who are grieving. Since “the family is usually referred to as the primary agent of socialization” (Self Lecture, Mersmann), it makes sense that even in death-related work, these professionals try to act in ways that comfort families because that’s what society teaches is “appropriate” care. The section about role distance explains how workers in tough jobs separate their emotions from their work so they can keep doing it without breaking down. This connects to Mead’s idea that “there is the I, which is the self as subject, and the Me, which is the self as object” (Self Lecture, Mersmann). In this case, the “I” might want to react emotionally, but the “Me” knows how to stay professional. Over time, as “human beings develop the ability to take the role of many others in many situations” (Self Lecture, Mersmann), funeral directors learn to balance both sides of themselves; the emotional human side and the detached worker side. Overall, the reading shows how the words people use and the way they act can really change how a job is seen and how they deal with the pressure that comes with it.

Real Life Analysis: Symbolic redefinition is when people change how something is seen by giving it new meaning or framing it in a different way. It helps reshape how others understand a role, situation, or behavior. In my job at the front desk, symbolic redefinition shows up in the way I have to present myself. I need to keep a calm face, smile, and explain things clearly, even when I can’t fix a problem because of certain limits. Acting this way redefines my role from just a worker to someone who provides reassurance and guidance. As a catechist, symbolic redefinition happens in how I balance my energy with the kids. Working with third to fifth graders means I have to be lively and expressive so they stay engaged, but not so over-the-top that they feel like they’re being treated like babies. It’s also important not to act like their friend, since that can blur lines and make lessons harder to follow. Around my friends, though, there’s no need for that kind of framing: I can be shy, goofy, loud, or annoying, and they’ll still understand me. In each setting, I adjust how I act and what I show, using symbolic redefinition to fit what’s expected and keep things running smoothly.

# data[].attributes.body
There’s this popular snippet from American Psycho that goes:

Woman: “Do you want a bite?”

Bateman: “I’m on a diet but thank you.”

Woman: “You don’t need to lose any weight. You’re kidding, right? You look great, very fit.”

Bateman: “You can always look thinner, look better.”

This short exchange captures exactly what Patrick Bateman’s world is built on  (constant performance and superficial perfection). Bateman spends most of his life trying to look successful and impressive to others. Everything he does, from his appearance to his speech, is part of an act to make people see him in a certain way. As Goffman explains, “Sometimes the individual will act in a thoroughly calculating manner, expressing himself in a given way solely in order to give the kind of impression to others that is likely to evoke from them a specific response he is concerned to obtain” (Goffman, 1959). Bateman’s life is ruled by this kind of calculated self-presentation. Over time, though, he becomes lost in his own act. Goffman also notes that “Sometimes the individual will be calculating in his activity but be relatively unaware that this is the case” (Goffman, 1959). Bateman performs so constantly that he forgets there’s nothing real behind it. When his mask slips and his violent side comes out, it shows how empty his “performance” truly is and how little of a real self he has left (Goffman, 1959). Goffman’s ideas suggest that while Bateman’s performance is extreme, it’s also a distorted mirror of ordinary social behavior. We all adjust how we act depending on who’s watching.

# data[].attributes.headline
*JCB: CH 5 | Shopping/ Social Order | The Micro and Macro Stories of our Stuff 

# data[].attributes.subject
*JCB: CH 5 | Shopping/ Social Order | The Micro and Macro Stories of our Stuff 

# data[].attributes.body
My music box that plays “Baby Mine” from Dumbo is one of my favorite thing because it holds both emotional and cultural meaning. On a micro level, it connects to my personal memories (it’s sentimental, comforting, and reminds me of childhood care). But on a macro level, it also fits into the consumer culture that gives everyday objects symbolic value. As the textbook explains, “shopping presents a bit of a puzzle. On the one hand, shopping is a major leisure activity enjoyed by millions of people” (Ballantine, Roberts & Korgen, 2019). Buying or receiving something like a Disney-themed music box shows how shopping isn’t just about getting things we need, but about emotion and identity. The book also notes that shopping is “deeply aspirational, allowing us to pursue the fantasy of an idealized life” (Ballantine, Roberts & Korgen, 2019). My music box reflects that fantasy; it represents a soft, innocent idea of comfort and childhood that Disney has sold for generations. And, as sociologist Sharon Zukin writes, “A shopper’s life isn’t easy. Our choices of stores, and choices of products, often contradict our ideals”  (Ballantine, Roberts & Korgen, 2019). I know my music box is a mass-produced product, but it feels deeply personal. It’s a small example of how our emotions and identities are tied to the things we buy and the larger consumer culture that shapes what those things mean. It also makes me want to get more music boxes. It’s strange because, on one hand, I know I’m spending the money I work hard to earn, but on the other, I feel like collecting these little boxes with lullabies from my childhood would be adorable and meaningful for my future children. This shows how shopping can feel both emotional and aspirational. My WANT to collect them is shaped by that same fantasy of creating comfort and meaning through my shopping receipts.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) 269-276: Meyer, If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? 

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) 269-276: Meyer, If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? 

# data[].attributes.body
Stanley Milgram was a social psychologist who wanted to understand why people obey authority, even when it means hurting others. At first, he thought maybe Germans were just more obedient because of something in their character. As the text says, “Milgram set out to test the thesis that Germans have a basic character flaw… a readiness to obey authority without question” (Meyer, 2014). But when he ran his experiment in the U.S., he found that Americans were also willing to follow orders, even if it meant causing pain. Milgram said, “We Americans are an obedient people; not blindly obedient, and not blissfully obedient, just obedient” (Meyer, 2014). In his experiment, he set up a fake situation where people thought they were shocking someone for giving wrong answers. They continued to press the button, even when they were made aware that the person on the other end was experiencing severe discomfort. As Meyer writes, “There is something of the theater director in Milgram… every line rehearsed, every prop carefully selected, and everybody an actor except one person” (Meyer, 2014). His study showed that obedience isn’t just about culture: It’s something most people are capable of when faced with authority.

Real-life analysis:

I’ve noticed in my own life that when you act confident and take the lead, people are more likely to follow you, even if you’re not totally sure of yourself. Since I was young, I’ve been more introverted and usually avoided being in charge. But at work, I’ve had moments where I needed to step up and speak with authority. What I’ve learned is that most people don’t really know what they’re doing either, and the saying “act like you know what you’re doing” really is true. It reminds me of Milgram’s experiment, where people followed the experimenter simply because he acted confident and authoritative. One example was during a job day at my college, when we were asked to set up a monitor for a visiting specialist. I honestly had no idea what I was doing: it was honestly  SO confusing. But that day, I decided to act confident. The person I was with actually had the right idea, but I said, “Hmm, does it seem right though?” because I wanted to sound sure of myself. They ended up doubting their plan and stopped. I still feel bad about it, and think about it regularly; but it made me realize how easily confidence can influence others.

# data[].attributes.headline
*Required entry: JCB |Shopping for "we-ness"

# data[].attributes.subject
*Required entry: JCB |Shopping for "we-ness"

# data[].attributes.body
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve always struggled with confidence, and I know a lot of it comes from my self-esteem. I have this image of how I want to look, and a few semesters ago I decided to start dressing “better.” What did that mean for me? Wearing crop tops. They were really popular, and my friend and coworker wore them all the time. She was confident, fun, and had that “camp counselor” vibe, relaxed but assertive, and I wanted to be like that. I even thought about dyeing my hair blonde just to match her energy. Lately, this has evolved into wanting to look more “chic,” with fitted blouses, mini skirts, matching heels and purses, a perfect blowout, and clean makeup. From a sociological point of view, this connects to what the textbook calls “shopping for we-ness,” or the idea that buying certain items helps people feel part of a social group. Shopping isn’t only about finding deals, “consumers want to get a good deal, but they also go shopping to experience something new and pleasurable” (Ballantine, Roberts & Korgen, 2019). Dressing a certain way helps express who we are and where we fit in, since “consumption is powerfully linked to our identity, the story we tell about who we are, both to others and to ourselves” (Ballantine, Roberts & Korgen, 2019). In my case, I wasn’t just shopping for clothes: I was buying into a feeling of confidence and belonging. This also connects to what sociologists call social solidarity, the sense of unity and shared identity that comes from belonging to a group. “A sense of ‘we-ness’ or connection with others is what sociologists refer to as social solidarity” (Ballantine, Roberts & Korgen, 2019). For me, trying to dress like my friend was a small way of building that connection, of feeling like part of something larger than myself. In the end, it didn’t even make me feel like I was this ideal version of myself. I just felt fake and insecure: like a pig trying to wear makeup, as people say nowadays.

# data[].attributes.body
Whenever I go into a dressing room to try on clothes, I feel a familiar wave of embarrassment  like I just want to hide. My body doesn’t look the way I wish it did, and my face feels worse. The phrase that always pops into my head is that old saying I once saw online: “putting lipstick on a pig.” It’s an American idiom that’s been around since at least the 1980s, meaning you can dress something up, but you can’t change its true nature. It became popular again in the 2000s, often used in politics or as a joke online. To me, it perfectly sums up what it feels like to try to buy or wear something that’s supposed to make you look “better” when, deep down, you still feel like the same person underneath just dressed up, but not really changed. That feeling connects to what sociologists call the performative side of shopping, how we don’t just buy things to meet a need, but to present a version of ourselves that feels acceptable. Introducing Sociology explains that “consumption is powerfully linked to our identity; the story we tell about who we are, both to others and to ourselves” (Ballantine, Roberts & Korgen, 2019). In that way, trying on clothes isn’t just about finding something that fits, it’s about trying to fit in. The book also notes that “consumers are often motivated to buy certain products to fit in with a particular social group,” which explains why even a dressing room can feel like a stage, a place where you’re performing who you wish you were. Still, beneath all of that is a kind of frustration, that in between how we want to be seen and how we actually feel. Juliet Schor calls this the “competitive treadmill of consumption,” where people constantly compare themselves to others and try to keep up. My own discomfort reflects that cycle: the mirror in a dressing room doesn’t just show what I look like, it reflects the pressure to look a certain way. Thus,, “putting lipstick on a pig” isn’t really about ugliness, it's about how hard it is to feel enough in a culture that keeps telling you you’re not.

# data[].attributes.headline
*JCB: CH 3 | Fast Food/Work and Economy

# data[].attributes.subject
*JCB: CH 3 | Fast Food/Work and Economy

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 3 focuses on the workers behind the fast-food counter instead of the consumers in front of it. It explores how global capitalism shapes their experiences through low wages, unstable schedules, and limited opportunities. The chapter introduces sociological ideas like wage labor, alienation, class, and ideology, showing how corporations control workers’ time and effort for profit. The text points out that while people worry about ingredients or prices, few consider the people preparing the food. Many workers live with erratic schedules and job insecurity, where, as the book explains, “Scheduling is not simply an inconvenience for workers, but an important factor in corporate profitability.” These working conditions have led to organizing efforts such as the Fight for $15 movement, which became one of the largest protests by low-wage workers in U.S. history. The chapter also connects individual struggles to global systems. It explains Karl Marx’s idea that under capitalism, workers are often alienated because the products they make benefit their employers more than themselves. Fast-food work reflects this imbalance, where CEOs earn thousands a day while employees survive on minimum wage. The book reminds readers that “While paid employment is crucial for most people’s survival, work also generates much more than a paycheck.” Finally, the chapter looks at how globalization and government policy shape inequality. Despite these challenges, labor movements continue to grow. The Fight for $15 campaign and other worker protests show how collective action can push back against corporate power and demand fair treatment.

Real-Life Analysis:

My dad used to work at a fast-food chain as a dishwasher. He didn’t have the requirements for a higher position at the time, but he took the job to support our family and keep us afloat. I remember he barely had rest days with Sunday being the only time he could breathe. When he came home from work, he was exhausted and stressed, which sometimes made him short-tempered with us kids. Every day felt tense, like we were all on edge. He would tell stories about the workplace: how miserable everyone was and how certain managers abused their authority just to stay on top. Since my dad worked in the back, he got the worst of it: constant pressure, disrespect, and no appreciation for his effort. This connects to what the chapter explains about the fast-food industry being “organized around the ideal of efficiency,” which often leaves workers alienated and overworked. My dad’s experience shows how low-wage labor doesn’t just affect the worker, but the whole family. It’s also a reminder that the struggles mentioned in the text (low pay, unpredictable hours, and management power) aren’t theoretical ideas; they’re real conditions that shape people’s lives every day.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) 411-424: Ehrenreich, Nickeled and Dimed

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) 411-424: Ehrenreich, Nickeled and Dimed

# data[].attributes.body
In Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich leaves behind her comfortable life “for a plunge into the low-wage workforce,” taking on the identity of a divorced homemaker looking for minimum-wage work. Her experience reveals how difficult it is to survive when “low-wage work is not a solution to poverty and possibly not even to homelessness.” This mirrors what Introducing Sociology explains about the fast-food industry, where workers face “long shifts and unpredictable schedules, low wages and lack of job security.” Ehrenreich’s frustration at earning $7 an hour while struggling to afford basic housing connects to Marx’s idea of wage labor and alienation, where workers are exploited for efficiency and stripped of stability. As the text notes, “the median wage was $8.69 an hour, where only 13% of fast-food jobs provide benefits,” showing how little progress has been made since Ehrenreich’s investigation. Both works expose the harsh reality that behind every cheap meal or service is someone working exhausting hours just to survive. Would I survive with that kind of money? Absolutely not. I have to help my family, pay for bills, gas, food, and even my books and tuition. It’s hard to imagine living on that wage and still staying afloat it makes me realize how unfair it is that so many people have to. This connects to how families struggling on low wages might depend on fast food or low-quality groceries, which can lead to disordered eating patterns (overeating, under-eating, or guilt around food). For a child, growing up in that kind of environment can distort their relationship with eating, especially when food becomes tied to stress, scarcity, or shame. It shows how class and health are deeply connected; poverty isn’t just economic, it’s physical and emotional too.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) 497-507: Leidner, Over the Counter at McDonald’s 

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) 497-507: Leidner, Over the Counter at McDonald’s 

# data[].attributes.body
The reading focuses on how McDonald’s built its global success by turning food service into a science of efficiency and sameness. Every part of the process from how fries are scooped to how ketchup is dispensed; is done to ensure speed and consistency. The company promises the same taste, cleanliness, and service everywhere, using technology and strict control to make sure workers perform tasks exactly as designed. Employees are trained not just to make food quickly, but also to act cheerful and polite, creating what the book calls “the McDonald’s experience.” This image of friendliness and uniformity has helped the company grow massively, even as it pays most workers minimum wage and offers little to no benefits. Many employees are teenagers, older adults, or people looking for part-time work, drawn in by the promise of flexibility even though the jobs are repetitive, tightly managed, and rarely enough to live on. This idea of fast, cheap satisfaction is shown perfectly in The Founder, the movie about how McDonald’s began. There’s a scene where a man looks over at a crowd eating burgers and fries and decides to order. He’s shocked when his food is handed to him almost instantly. “Don’t I need to warm it up?” he asks, confused. The workers smile and say, “No, you can eat it now.” He looks around, amazed, saying, “But I just ordered!” and they simply nod. What about the silverware? “You don’t need any!” they tell him. He sits down, eats the food, and enjoys every bite. That scene shows what made McDonald’s revolutionary: fast, predictable food that felt modern and convenient. But underneath that cheerful efficiency is the reality described in the reading: workers following precise routines under constant supervision, earning just enough to get by, and customers consuming products made to be identical everywhere.

# data[].attributes.headline
*(H) 535-546: Wishard, Caught Between the Ages 

# data[].attributes.subject
*(H) 535-546: Wishard, Caught Between the Ages 

# data[].attributes.body
The reading talks about how we’re living in a time of huge change a shift between two eras. It starts by describing powerful images that represent both the best and worst parts of being human, like the moon landing, cloning, computers, and the 9/11 attacks. These moments show how much technology and global events have shaped modern life. The author explains that we’ve entered a new kind of world; one that’s faster, more connected, and more global than ever before. Globalization isn’t just about money or trade; it’s about how countries and cultures are becoming linked together. Nations are starting to share ideas about democracy, human rights, education, and equality. Western values and lifestyles have spread across the world, and that’s changed how people think about freedom and opportunity. But not everyone sees it as positive, some cultures see it as America pushing its way of life onto others, which creates tension and resistance. In the end, the author believes we’re at a turning point in human history. Technology and globalization have changed everything about how we communicate, work, and see ourselves. Even though this change brings a lot of uncertainty, the author is hopeful that people have the creativity and strength to adapt and make the future better.

Real life Analysis:

I’ve been kind of obsessed with Joseon Korea lately, and I couldn’t help but imagine how a noble from that era would react to the modern world we live in today. Back then, Joseon was very isolated (even called the “hermit nation”) and had a strict social hierarchy where only the noble class held real power. If one of them suddenly saw today’s world, they’d probably panic and be completely overwhelmed. Things we take for granted now, like talking to anyone no matter their social status or messaging someone across the world in seconds, would seem unreal or even sacred to them. That’s what globalization feels like in a way,  it’s this massive, fast connection between people, ideas, and cultures that past societies could never have imagined. For a Joseon noble, the idea that peasants and kings could both use the same internet, speak directly, and even learn from one another would flip their entire worldview upside down. It shows just how far humanity has come: from being isolated and divided by class or country to being part of one global conversation. Even me talking about it shows that. I’m not Korean, but I had the curiosity to learn about their history, and that curiosity came from the kind of cultural access globalization gives us.

# data[].attributes.headline
*Required entry: JCB p. 79 | Corporate Ideologies

# data[].attributes.subject
*Required entry: JCB p. 79 | Corporate Ideologies

# data[].attributes.body
A brand that almost everyone I know uses (including me) is Amazon. It’s not just a store anymore; it’s part of everyday life. Amazon kind of teaches people what to expect from the world: fast service, quick results, and constant access to anything we want. It’s made convenience feel like something we deserve instead of a luxury. That message is ideological because it shapes how we think about time and work. Amazon promotes the idea that faster is always better, and that being productive all the time is normal. But that same mindset can hurt workers,  people expect them to move quickly and never slow down. After a while, this idea starts to feel “normal,” even if it’s not really fair. At this point, Amazon’s way of doing things feels like common sense. Everyone says “I’ll just order it on Amazon” without thinking twice. It’s changed how we shop, how we think about patience, and even how we value time.

# data[].attributes.headline
*Required entry: JCB p.79 Fight for $15

# data[].attributes.subject
*Required entry: JCB p.79 Fight for $15

# data[].attributes.body
I think the Fight for $15 campaign is really important. Everyone deserves enough money to live comfortably, especially people working in fast food. Those jobs can be stressful, exhausting, and full of difficult customers, and workers deserve a fair wage for what they go through. As chapter 3 in introducing sociology points out, “low-wage work is not a solution to poverty and possibly not even to homelessness,” which shows that the current pay system doesn’t let workers actually live  it just keeps them surviving. A $15 minimum wage would help people cover basic needs like rent, food, and transportation; things that should never be considered a luxury. I also think supporting unionization is important. When workers have a voice, they can fight for better conditions and fair treatment. One way people could encourage this is by realizing that life is unpredictable: anyone could end up working in fast food one day. If more people understood that, they’d be more likely to support fair wages and respect for those jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
“From a time of relatively slow change, to change at an exponential rate.” From the chapter Caught Between Ages, this line stood out to me because of how true it is, everything around us changes so quickly that what feels modern today becomes outdated tomorrow. A great way to visualize this is in the movie Night at the Museum. There’s a scene where the exhibits come to life and are completely fascinated by the night guard’s modern objects; a flashlight, keys that make metal clinking sounds, even his cell phone. To them, these are strange and almost magical tools, things that don’t fit within their old understanding of the world. But to him, they’re ordinary, almost boring. That scene shows how fast human progress moves and how it can create a gap between people (or even generations) who see the same thing in totally different ways. What’s funny is that now, even his technology seems old; the flip phones and gadgets in the movie would probably make us laugh. It’s a reminder that we’re all “caught between ages,” always standing somewhere between the past we recognize and the future that’s already arriving faster than we expect.

Example:

There’s a funny but meaningful scene where the Genghis Khan exhibit keeps trying to attack the night guard. At first, he’s terrified and totally unprepared. But instead of giving up, he does something that shows how much our world has evolved: he goes on the internet to research how to deal with Khan. He finds out that Khan enjoyed magicians, so the next night he comes back with magic tricks to impress him.

# data[].attributes.headline
***(H) Chapter 4: 376-382: The Uses of Poverty | By Herbert  J. Gans

# data[].attributes.subject
***(H) Chapter 4: 376-382: The Uses of Poverty | By Herbert  J. Gans

# data[].attributes.body
In The Functions of Poverty, Herbert Gans explains that poverty continues to exist because it benefits the rest of society in several ways. He argues that the poor perform necessary but unwanted jobs; the “dirty work” that keeps everything running, like farming, food service, and hospital labor. As Gans puts it, “the existence of poverty ensures that society’s ‘dirty work’ will be done.” The poor also help sustain the economy by buying secondhand goods and paying higher portions of their income in taxes, which indirectly supports more affluent groups. Poverty, in this sense, isn’t just a personal failure; it’s built into how the system works.

Gans also points out that poverty serves social and political functions. Society often blames or stereotypes the poor as “lazy” or “dishonest,” which allows others to feel morally superior and reinforces traditional values like hard work and thrift. The poor are also more likely to be punished for deviant acts and lack the power to challenge how they are portrayed. This creates a sense of order where the poor are used as examples of what happens if one “fails” to follow society’s rules, making poverty a tool for social control rather than just an economic condition.

These ideas connect closely to Karl Marx’s view of class struggle and capitalism. As discussed in lecture, Marx saw the working class (the proletariat) as essential to maintaining the wealth and comfort of the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) (Lecture Class, Mersmann). Gans’s argument reflects this by showing how poverty sustains the system that exploits it. Both thinkers suggest that inequality is not an accident but a requirement for capitalism to function, kept in place through labor, ideology, and the belief that hardship is the fault of the individual rather than the structure itself.

Real-Life Analysis:

The idea that “if you work hard, you will succeed” is something we hear all the time, but it doesn’t always play out that way. Persistence does help, but life can still throw barriers that make it hard to move forward. For example, my friend (we’ll call them B) and I both work hard; we both juggle jobs and school at Delta College. The difference is that B, who is queer and trans, was disowned by their parents and has faced housing insecurity. Meanwhile, I’ve been fortunate enough to stay at home, work, study, and help my family without worrying about rent. We’re both putting in effort, but the challenges we face are very different.

This connects directly to what Gans explains about the “functions of poverty.” Society often blames individuals for their struggles, assuming laziness or bad choices, but poverty and hardship are shaped by social structures. B’s situation isn’t the result of a lack of effort; it’s a mix of family rejection, discrimination, and limited safety nets. Like Gans said, society benefits from keeping certain groups struggling; their cheap labor and lack of stability keep systems running smoothly. Yet, those same people are judged as if their position is entirely their fault. From a Marxist view (Lecture Class, Mersmann), this shows how inequality is built into the system itself. The working class (people like B and me) keeps the economy going, while the wealth and stability we create flow upward. Marx would call this the tension between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Even stereotypes about “working harder” function like ideology: they keep people from seeing that some obstacles aren’t personal, they’re structural. Still, like Gans mentioned, these struggles can sometimes inspire people to push back, work harder, or dream of something better, even within an unfair system.

# data[].attributes.headline
***(H) 383-394: Moving Up From the Working Class | By Morris & Grimes

# data[].attributes.subject
***(H) 383-394: Moving Up From the Working Class | By Morris & Grimes

# data[].attributes.body
The reading explains that class differences in the U.S. go beyond just how much money someone makes. Under “Economic Capital,” it describes how working-class people experience a wide range of financial stability; some never felt deprived, others struggled with things like hand-me-down clothes or smaller meals. One participant shared, “I became aware of income differences… around the fifth grade. Another child asked me why I wore the same thing to school every day.” These moments highlight how inequality is noticed early and shapes how people see themselves and their place in society.

Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital appears when the reading shows that values, habits, and knowledge passed down by families help maintain social class over time. Working-class parents often encouraged education but focused on discipline and obedience, teaching their children to “fit in” and follow authority rather than challenge it. Middle-class parents, on the other hand, were more involved with teachers and expected their kids to actively use education to move upward. This reflects how cultural knowledge and social cues (knowing how to “speak the language” of success) can matter just as much as money in determining opportunity (Lecture Class, Mersmann).

The final section, “Pursuit of the American Dream,” shows how working-class families internalized the belief that anyone can succeed with enough effort. Yet, as Weber and Marx both warned, structural limits make that dream unequal from the start. Kids from wealthier families have more access to information, networks, and resources, while working-class kids often can’t “see” the same paths. This connects directly to Weber’s idea of socioeconomic status, a blend of income, prestige, and power, and to the lecture’s reminder that the U.S. isn’t a pure meritocracy. Hard work helps, but class background still shapes how far it can take you.

Real Life Analysis:

This is purely hypothetical, but I think being from a lower class shapes the way we see ourselves and what we chase after. From the moment we become aware of wealth differences (like realizing some kids had nicer clothes or more toys) we start developing an image of what we think success or “fitting in” looks like. The reading on economic and cultural capital shows how class isn’t just about money, but about the values and expectations we grow up with. When we recognize we don’t have the same access or status as others, we might start craving what we believe symbolizes that higher class. In my case, that might be wanting things like Dior makeup, Coach bags, or Miu Miu heels, not because I need them, but because they represent being seen a certain way (a chic, It girl haha).

This connects to our earlier identity module, where we talked about how people form an image of us the moment they see us. Often, that image isn’t even accurate, but we still feel pressured to meet it. The reading mentions how children became aware of “income differences” early on, like when one student noticed others asking why they wore the same clothes every day. That awareness shapes how we perform identity and self-worth. Similarly, Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital (Lecture Class, Mersmann) helps explain this; learning to dress, speak, or act in ways that signal belonging to a higher class can feel like a survival skill.

In a way, these habits can carry into adulthood. Maybe that’s why shopping addictions or material obsessions form, not out of vanity, but as a learned response to class expectations. Wanting expensive things can become a way of saying, “I belong,” or “I’ve made it,” even when the structure of inequality stays the same. It’s a quiet example of how economic and cultural pressures shape identity; and how our need to be seen a certain way can trace back to early experiences with class difference.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading about consumption made me realize how much of what we buy comes from the way we were raised to fit into certain social roles. The book explains that “consumption is important not just to economic class, but also to its cultural and social dimensions” (p. 86). This ties directly to what Mead says about the “generalized other,” since we learn early on to imagine what “people in general would think” (lecture 2, Mersmann). So when people copy high-status trends or brands, they’re really responding to that internal voice (the Me) that wants to fit in with the wider expectations of society.

Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital also connects to Mead’s theory. The text says cultural capital includes the “knowledge and skills that are highly valued in a particular culture” (p. 87). We don’t magically gain that knowledge; we learn it through agents of socialization. For example, the lecture reminds us that “the family is usually referred to as the primary agent of socialization” (lecture 2, Mersmann). A middle-class kid might grow up being taught how to order at a fancy restaurant or how to talk in an interview, while someone from a different background might not be exposed to those habits. Because of that, class differences show up not only in income, but in the small everyday behaviors we learned as kids.

The chapter’s idea of “upscale emulation” (p. 85) also fits with Mead’s “I” and “Me.” The “I” might want a simple, cheap coffee but the “Me,” shaped by media and peers, might push us to want the “right” drink, clothes, or brands so we don’t stand out. The lecture says that peers are powerful because “people behave like the group they want to be a part of” (lecture 2, Mersmann). And mass media makes this even stronger: it shapes our values and expectations, sometimes without us noticing. So when people stretch their budgets to keep up with trends, it isn’t random; It’s a mix of class-based consumption habits from the text and the social pressure learned through family, peers, and the generalized other.

Real Life Analysis:

I’ve seen this play out a lot on TikTok. There’s a certain look people get when they’re only doing a trend because they think it’ll make them seem cooler or more popular. You can tell in the way they pose, the way they talk, and the confidence they show on camera; like they’re trying to prove something. A perfect example is the Starbucks teddy-bear glass trend from early–mid November. People woke up at sunrise just to buy the cups, posted them immediately, and got tons of views. But once the hype died down at the end of November, the confidence in their posts dropped too. Their videos didn’t get the same attention, and you could see them scrambling to attach themselves to the next big trend. This connects to the textbook’s point that people use consumption to “send a message about who we are, where we think we belong, and how we think we are different from others” (p. 83). And it also reflects Mead’s idea of the “generalized other,” because these TikTok users are acting based on what they think “people in general would think” of them (lecture 2, Mersmann). Their online behavior becomes less about enjoying something, and more about trying to fit into whatever their audience will approve of.

# data[].attributes.headline
395-406: Steven Higley || The U.S. Upper Class

# data[].attributes.subject
395-406: Steven Higley || The U.S. Upper Class

# data[].attributes.body
One thing that stood out to me from Higley’s pages is how tightly connected the American upper class is. He explains that they show “class solidarity” because they believe they “share a common fate,” which shapes who they consider equals and how they act politically (Higley). This immediately connects to what Mersmann said about the generalized other, how we internalize what “people like us” think (lecture 2, Mersmann). For the upper class, that “people like us” is literally curated through systems like the Social Register, which Higley says exists to decide who is “in” and who is “out.” It basically teaches upper-class people the boundaries of their group from a young age.

The second part that stood out is how upper-class kids are raised in a completely separate world. Higley explains how the upper class separates itself “from birth to death,” using elite maternity hospitals, prep schools, Ivy League universities, and debutante balls to socialize kids into the same lifestyle (Higley). This fits directly with the lecture’s point that family is the primary agent of socialization, teaching children values and norms before anyone else (lecture 2, Mersmann). And when Higley talks about prep schools acting as “family surrogates,” it lines up with the lecture’s idea that other agents (like schools) continue shaping identity through both official lessons and hidden expectations (lecture 2, Mersmann).

Finally, Higley points out that the traditional upper class has been overwhelmingly “white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant,” and that even wealthy newcomers can’t easily enter because they weren’t “properly socialized” into that culture (Higley). This strongly connects with Mead’s idea of the I and Me, where the “Me” is formed by how others see you (lecture 2, Mersmann). In this case, no matter how rich someone becomes, the upper-class “generalized other” still sees them as an outsider. Higley’s discussion shows how identity, status, and belonging are taught, reproduced, and protected over generations.

Real Life Analysis:

It’s become really noticeable how people have started romanticizing what they call “old money elegance” again. It’s not just in movies like Parasite, Knives Out, or Saltburn (which I’ll talk about in another Padlet). It shows up in trends and even fashion styles. To me, it feels like a lot of people are trying as hard as they can to fit into this image of what they think rich, powerful people look like. And of course, people idolize that lifestyle: it represents less struggle, more stability, more chances to chase goals. But as Higley points out, real upper-class circles aren’t something you can just walk into. He literally explains that these groups use things like the Social Register to decide who is “in” and who is “out,” making sure outsiders never fully enter their world (Higley). So even if people on TikTok dress like “old money,” someone richer will always place them in the “other” category. And honestly… it’s worth asking why now. Maybe it’s speculation, but I can’t help noticing that this trend shows up right when the world feels like it’s shifting more conservative again. Whenever things feel unstable (economically, politically, socially) people often look backward for comfort. The “old money” aesthetic gives a vibe of stability, tradition, and order, even if that world shut out everyone who wasn’t already inside. Higley makes it clear that upper-class boundaries are designed to stay closed, no matter how much someone imitates the look (Higley). So these trends feel less like admiration and more like people trying to hold onto something solid in a time that feels unpredictable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Required Entry: "Wealth Inequality in the United States"

# data[].attributes.subject
Required Entry: "Wealth Inequality in the United States"

# data[].attributes.body
The video on wealth inequality shows a big gap between what Americans think the wealth distribution looks like and what they believe would be fair. Most people in the study assumed the U.S. had an uneven but somewhat reasonable spread of wealth, and 92% agreed on an ideal where the rich still have more but everyone can live decently. When the video compares this to reality (using 100 people and $54 trillion), the difference is dramatic. The bottom 40% have almost nothing, the middle class is barely above them, and the top 1% owns 40% of all wealth. This lines up with what was mentioned in the lecture about how beliefs can get “in really, really deep” (Lecture, Mersmann). Many people don’t realize how unequal things truly are because, “systems can produce unfair outcomes, even though nobody’s being prejudiced” (Lecture, Mersmann).

The video also shows how inequality has grown over time. In 1976, the richest 1% earned about 9% of national income, but now they earn almost a quarter, and they own half of all stocks and investments. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% owns just 0.5%, which the video describes as “scraping by.” This connects to Mersmann’s point that discrimination can be built into systems, not just individual attitudes. He explained that even if everyone woke up tomorrow with no prejudice, “we would continue to live in a highly discriminatory society for decades” because of these structures (Lecture, Mersmann). The video ends by asking whether a CEO really works 380 times harder than an average worker a question that lines up with the lecture’s idea to rethink what we consider fair or earned.

Real life Analysis:

A clear real-life example of this inequality shows up in schools. When I lived in a “better neighborhood” with my family (for a short time because of problems with our home) the school in that area had amazing facilities: lots of updated computers, two playgrounds, clean classrooms, and plenty of teachers. Later, when we had to move to a cheaper apartment downtown, the differences were immediate and honestly pretty shocking. The school there had fewer computers, broken windows, not enough teachers, and felt much less taken care of. And, just like the patterns the video and lecture talk about, the wealthier school was mostly white students and teachers, while the downtown school was far more diverse. This lines up with what Professor Mersmann explained about structural discrimination; how systems can produce unequal outcomes “even though nobody’s being prejudiced” (Lecture, Mersmann).

# data[].attributes.body
The movie Parasite is a clear example of extreme wealth inequality and how two families can live in the same city but in completely different worlds. The Kim family lives in a cramped basement apartment, struggling to find stable work and barely able to afford basic needs. In contrast, the Park family lives in a huge, modern house with endless resources, private tutors, and opportunities the Kims could never imagine. When the Kims begin working for the Parks by pretending to be unrelated professionals, the film shows how the wealthy often benefit from the labor of the poor without ever really seeing their struggles.

Another powerful scene in Parasite that highlights inequality is the rain sequence. For the wealthy Park family, the rain is treated like a relaxing luxury: the parents watch TV, laugh together, and even comment on how “gorgeous” the sound of the rain is, almost like ASMR. Their son plays calmly with his toys in a warm, safe home. But at the exact same moment, the Kim family is fighting to keep the water from flooding their entire basement apartment. The rain pours through the windows, the sewer backs up, and the family ends up huddled on top of the toilet as the water rises higher and higher. The next morning, the wealthy mother, sitting in the back seat with perfect hair and a nice coat, casually says, “The rain was such a blessing,” not realizing the destruction it caused. She even makes a disgusted face at the smell of the poor father driving her, showing how disconnected she is from what the rain actually meant for people with fewer resources. This contrast perfectly shows how the same event can be an inconvenience or even a pleasure for the wealthy, but an emergency for families who live with constant instability.

# data[].attributes.body
Sports may seem like simple games, but sociologically they reveal a lot about how people form groups, build connections, and draw boundaries. Knowing about sports  (even casually) helps people interact with coworkers, classmates, and strangers, creating what sociologists call bridging social capital. At the same time, being a fan of a particular team strengthens ties within a community and reinforces a shared identity, producing bonding social capital. These dynamics mirror the broader social processes discussed in the race lecture, where group belonging and insider/outsider boundaries are socially constructed rather than natural facts (lecture race, Mersmann). Just like racial categories shift across time and place, sports fandom creates flexible but meaningful distinctions that tell people who is “one of us” and who isn’t.

Sports also offer a powerful lens for understanding race and challenging essentialist explanations of athletic ability. Historical examples (such as Jewish dominance in early basketball or the contemporary association between African Americans and the sport) show that participation and success often reflect social context rather than biological traits. This aligns with the race lecture’s central point that race is socially constructed and not rooted in genetics (lecture race, Mersmann). Just as census categories and racial boundaries change over decades, the perceived “natural” link between certain groups and certain sports shifts with social conditions like access, resources, and opportunity. Studying sports therefore helps illuminate larger social patterns around race, inequality, and the values societies claim to prize, such as merit, fairness, and competition.

Real life Analysis:

A clear real-life example of racial inequality in something more deadly than sports but in healthcare; the case of Mercedes Wells, a Black woman from Indiana who was discharged from a hospital while actually in active labor. She went to Franciscan Health Crown Point with contractions about a minute apart, but a nurse told her she wasn’t ready and sent her home without a doctor even checking her. Only eight minutes after leaving, she gave birth in her truck on the side of the road, and later needed treatment for serious bleeding. The hospital fired the staff involved and admitted they hadn’t listened to her. Situations like this show how Black women’s symptoms are often dismissed or taken less seriously, which lines up with what we discussed in the race lecture: race may be socially constructed, but it still shapes how people are treated in very real ways, including in moments that affect their health and safety (lecture race, Mersmann).

# data[].attributes.headline
(JCB) Chapter 12: Music/Racism and Cultural Appropriation

# data[].attributes.subject
(JCB) Chapter 12: Music/Racism and Cultural Appropriation

# data[].attributes.body
Music isn’t something we need for survival, but it’s everywhere and deeply meaningful in people’s lives. Sociologists see it as art, as a product we consume, and as a tool for expressing identity or resisting oppression. This chapter explains how subcultures (especially hip-hop) use music to challenge mainstream values and expose social inequalities. Hip-hop’s influence on style, language, and ideas of “cool” mirrors how subcultures operate in opposition to the dominant culture, much like the lecture described how minority groups navigate power structures. As Mersmann noted, “nothing more clearly affirms one’s social group membership than tastes” (Lecture Race, Mersmann), and music works the same way: it signals who we are and what we stand for.

The reading also connects hip-hop to larger systems of racism, including school discipline, policing, and the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Understanding these structures lines up with the lecture’s discussion of patterns of racial inequality (whether through genocide, segregation, or assimilation) because racism shapes the material conditions that produced hip-hop in the first place. Early conscious rap called out these inequalities directly, similar to how the lecture emphasized that “districts and neighborhoods are as segregated today as they were in the 1950s” (Lecture Race, Mersmann). Hip-hop voices pushed back against that reality. But as hip-hop expanded into mainstream culture, it also became a commodity, raising questions about white privilege, especially when white audiences and artists benefit from a genre built out of resistance to oppression. This mirrors Mersmann’s point that cultural practices are often taken up by dominant groups even when “everything that’s not tomato becomes similar to tomato” through assimilation (Lecture Race, Mersmann).

Real life Analysis:

A clear example of how race shapes cultural experience today is the way different young people are treated when engaging with hip-hop style. A white teen wearing baggy streetwear or rapping for fun won’t be policed or stereotyped the same way Black youth are. Even if they dress the same, white teens are far less likely to be viewed as “dangerous” or “suspicious,” which illustrates how white privilege operates in everyday life. This connects directly to the chapter’s point about how hip-hop emerged from the lived struggles of Black and Latino youth, and also to Mersmann’s lecture discussion about how dominant groups often adopt minority cultural practices without experiencing the oppression behind them (Lecture Race, Mersmann).

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 360-368: Showing My Color By  Clarence Page 

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 360-368: Showing My Color By  Clarence Page 

# data[].attributes.body
The author reflects on growing up Black in mid-20th-century America, first encountering open segregation as a child visiting Alabama and seeing “white” and “colored” water fountains. Even in the North, where there were no signs, there were still unwritten rules that kept Black people out of certain spaces like pools, amusement parks, and workplaces (Lecture race, Mersmann). These early experiences helped the author see that Black and white people often lived in “parallel realities,” sharing the same country but not the same treatment or opportunities. The phrase “showing your color” became a warning in Black communities not to act in ways that might confirm negative stereotypes, creating pressure to hide emotions and stay “cool,” which connects to how prejudice and discrimination shape people’s behavior and self-presentation (Lecture race, Mersmann).

As the author grew older, they struggled with identity, sometimes feeling “not Black enough” for some Black people and never “white enough” for white people. Even though civil rights gains opened doors and made it legally possible for Black people to go more places, new social pressures replaced old ones: Black people telling them how to be “properly Black” and white people insisting on being “color-blind” (Lecture race, Mersmann). Now living in an integrated suburb, the author still feels caught between expectations from all sides and frustrated by how hard it is to “get past race” in a society where prejudice and structural discrimination are still present, even if they’re less overt than in the Jim Crow era (Lecture race, Mersmann).

Real-life Analysis:

When I was younger and living in Mexico, I once pointed out a Black man by saying, “Mira a ese negrito,” which to me was just a descriptive word I’d always heard. My parents quickly corrected me, saying not to call someone “black man” because it was rude and that Black people were “usually angry,” and advised me instead to call him “chocolatito.” Looking back, I can see how this moment was an example of how prejudices get taught very early, even from people who think they’re being polite or protective. My parents weren’t trying to be hateful, but they were still passing on beliefs about Black people being dangerous or easily angered, which is exactly what the lecture talked about; how prejudices get “in deep” long before we realize what we’ve absorbed (Lecture race, Mersmann). Even the switch from “negrito” to “chocolatito,” meant to sound nicer, still reinforces the idea that Black identity is something sensitive or shameful to name directly.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 369-375: The Racist Mind By Raphael Ezekiel 

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 369-375: The Racist Mind By Raphael Ezekiel 

# data[].attributes.body
In The Racist Mind, Raphael Ezekiel explains that most white Americans don’t think much about being white, the same way “we do not know who discovered water, but we do know it was not a fish.” White identity usually feels invisible unless there’s crisis or tension, but militant white racists live in a constant sense of crisis. They see racial differences everywhere and assume race must be a biological truth instead of a social system; something the lecture also warns against, noting that “the system is discriminatory, even though nobody’s being prejudiced” (Lecture Race, Mersmann). Ezekiel argues that extremist groups don’t invent new beliefs from scratch; they simply sharpen and exaggerate ideas many white Americans hold quietly, especially in times of economic fear. This connects to Mersmann’s point that when the economy gets worse, “prejudice and discrimination go up,” making people more vulnerable to racist explanations (Lecture Race, Mersmann).

Ezekiel also describes spending years interviewing white supremacists and attending their rallies while openly stating that he is Jewish and anti-racist. At one event, people initially treat him casually, but once word spreads he’s Jewish, the atmosphere shifts into open hostility: men shouting slurs, threatening him, and warning him to “move along.” He later realizes he underestimated how deeply these men lived in fear and conspiracy thinking, especially their belief that Jews secretly control society. The experience mirrors what the lecture says about how stereotypes and media narratives reinforce racist thinking: “stereotypical portrayals…play right into individual racism” (Lecture Race, Mersmann). Ezekiel’s story shows how personal encounters, economic anxiety, and long-held cultural stereotypes all combine to shape what he calls the “racist mind.”

Real life Analysis:

Something from The Racist Mind that connected with my life is the idea that most white Americans don’t notice being white “like a fish not noticing water.” I’ve had small moments where that suddenly becomes visible, especially when my mom comments on my lighter skin, blonde hair, or eye color. She’s darker-skinned herself, and whenever I talk about my body she’ll say how “beautiful” my skin tone is or how she wishes she had it. I never think about my skin because it’s just mine, but her reactions remind me that being “white passing” is treated as something more valued. It made me think about what the lecture said: how “the system is discriminatory even though nobody’s being prejudiced” (Lecture Race, Mersmann). My mom isn’t trying to be racist; she’s internalizing a bigger cultural message that lighter skin is preferable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Required entry: Ask yourself and Others…

# data[].attributes.subject
Required entry: Ask yourself and Others…

# data[].attributes.body
RJ

1. Filipino

2. Ancestry, cultural background.

3. From my family. Early labeled as just ‘Asian,’ be good at math or quiet.

4. Try not to assume too quickly.

5. People usually guess I’m Asian, but they don’t always guess Filipino specifically.

Brandon Echeverry

1. White. Technically ⅓ Mexican and ⅔ white. People treat me white.

2. My grandma shared Mexican culture through dishes.

3. kept getting treated like I was just white. use both identities depending on the contex. The earliest messages I got was that the world will racialize you differently than how you understand yourself.

4. I try not to assume. knows firsthand how inaccurate assumptions can be.

5. They never guess the Mexican part. People assume one thing easily.

Patricia Lamar

1. White mostly. Usual European mix?

2. Know because that’s what my family carries. it’s the one society has placed her in.

3. noticing as a child most people who looked like her so got treated a certain way. Got older and started working with all kinds of people, became very aware of how much privilege is built into that.

4.  Once assumed a coworker was white because she had a very English last name and pale skin. It turned out she was Choctaw and Colombian.

5. Sometimes they pair it with assumptions about age: ‘older white lady.’ comes with its own stereotypes now.

America Chavez

1. Mexican

2. Born from Mexican parents. she’s sure.

3. School. When filling documents .

4. Looking  at them (identifying) and then talking to them.

5. Questioning me. When I went to the apartment of one of my friends, someone asked me if I was Filipina.

Ruby Vasques

1. I am latina.

2. Based on my parents and culture.

3. Kindergarten in Mexico. Stereotyped as a Filipina.

4. By looking at their features.

5. Idk. From my black hair and almond eyes, but usually people get it wrong.

My own:

Race is a system of classification that groups people based on perceived physical traits like skin color, facial features, or hair texture. It’s really a framework societies use to make sense of human differences. Across all the interviews, one theme appeared consistently: Race is partly what you know about yourself and partly what other people decide about you.

# data[].attributes.body
“I work like a dog day and night… and I can’t even use the same bathroom as everyone else!”

There’s a scene in Hidden Figures (which became very popular in social media) where Katherine finally snaps after holding everything in for so long. She’s soaking wet from the rain, exhausted, and she tells her boss that she works day and night, doing complicated math that helps send astronauts into space; yet she still has to run half a mile just to use the “colored” bathroom. She explains how she can’t drink coffee from the same pot, can’t use the same bathroom, can’t even stand in the same places as her white coworkers. It’s this moment where all her frustration spills out, and you can see how unfair and humiliating the rules were. It’s emotional because she never wanted pity, she just wanted to be treated like everyone else.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 161-172 On Becoming Male By Henslin 

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 161-172 On Becoming Male By Henslin 

# data[].attributes.body
In On Becoming Male, Henslin explains that while we are born with a biological sex, our sense of being masculine or feminine is something we learn from those around us. This aligns with the lecture’s idea that gender is how you’re expected to behave once someone has placed you in a sex category (Lecture Sex, Mersmann). From the moment a baby is labeled “boy” or “girl,” parents, relatives, and even strangers begin treating the child according to cultural expectations rather than biological necessity. These expectations shape how children are dressed, spoken to, and encouraged to behave. For boys, this often means being wrapped in blue, dressed in “sturdy” clothing, and shielded from anything culturally coded as feminine; even though these rules are socially constructed and historically unstable. Parents may not explicitly teach gender, but their subtle cues (correcting strangers who mistake the baby’s sex or rejecting clothing that looks “too feminine”) communicate powerful messages about what boys are supposed to be like. As the lecture puts it, gender norms feel natural because they are taught so early and so consistently (Lecture Sex, Mersmann).

This early gender instruction continues through toys, play, and everyday interactions. Boys are frequently given toys associated with strength, action, and even aggression (trucks, tools, superheroes, or toy weapons) while behaviors like loudness or rough play are excused with the familiar phrase “boys will be boys.” These reactions reinforce the belief that such behaviors are biologically natural rather than socially encouraged. The lecture emphasizes that sex may be loosely biological, but gender is entirely about the social expectations layered onto those bodies (Lecture Sex, Mersmann). Through thousands of small interactions like these, children absorb the cultural script for what counts as “masculine.” Henslin suggests that this ongoing socialization process shapes not only how boys act as children but also the kinds of roles they grow into as adults; demonstrating how deeply gender norms operate in everyday life.

Real life Analysis:

Growing up in my Catholic, conservative Hispanic family (where most of the household consisted of women) I witnessed firsthand how gender is enforced long before children understand the rules. I remember my brother at around seven years old proudly drawing a family portrait in which he colored himself wearing a pink shirt. Instead of celebrating his creativity, my father reacted with anger, insisting that something as simple as a pink shirt could “make him” homosexual or cause him to start playing with dolls, as if those interests were dangerous. Now that my brother is thirteen, this policing has only intensified. If he shows interest in anything coded as “feminine”(like knitting) it is shut down immediately, reminding him that certain hobbies, colors, and behaviors are off-limits simply because he was assigned male at birth. Experiences like this demonstrate how powerful gender socialization can be: it doesn’t just guide children, it restricts them, shaping what they feel allowed to enjoy, express, or even become in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
In Eder’s account of girls’ peer groups, we see how intensely middle-school culture teaches girls to prioritize appearance as part of their gender training. At Woodview Middle School, cheerleading becomes the central stage where this lesson is enforced. Coaches and judges evaluate not only technique but “sparkle,” a category that includes smiling, neatness, weight, and overall attractiveness. This links directly to the lecture’s idea that gender is how you’re expected to behave once a sex category has been assigned to you (Lecture Sex, Mersmann). Girls are expected to be clean, cheerful, cute, and composed, even while performing physically punishing stunts. Smiling through pain, keeping hair perfect during flips, and being judged on their bodies teaches them that femininity means being pleasant and put-together at all times, no matter the effort or discomfort. The message is clear: success depends not only on what they can do, but on how well they can perform culturally approved femininity.

This emphasis on appearance doesn’t end in the gym; it shapes the entire peer culture surrounding the girls. Boys reinforce narrow gender expectations by ranking girls based on looks, especially their developing bodies, signaling that girls’ value is tied to visual appeal. According to the lecture, gender rules are maintained through constant social feedback, approval when girls “do femininity right” and judgment when they don’t (Lecture Sex, Mersmann). Girls internalize the awareness that they are being watched, evaluated, and compared, which fuels jealousy, insecurity, and competition among them. Instead of exploring their abilities, interests, or identities, many redirect their energy toward meeting external demands for attractiveness. Henslin shows how these early experiences teach girls that appearance functions as a kind of social currency, shaping friendships, opportunities, and even their sense of self as they grow up.

Real life analysis:

When I compare the expectations placed on women today to those from less than a century ago, it’s striking how much has changed, and how much still hasn’t. Not long ago, a “proper woman” was expected to be obedient, soft-spoken, responsible for the children, and dependent on a husband for money and social status. Women who talked back, worked outside the home, or pursued independence were often seen as unfeminine or rebellious. Today, many of those restrictions have loosened: women can open bank accounts, run businesses, choose their friendships, and build lives outside traditional domestic roles. Modern women are expected to be independent and ambitious, yet still nurturing, attractive, and “put-together.” It’s amazing to see how far women have come, but also unsettling that these changes aren’t embraced everywhere.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H)180-191: Sexuality and Gender By Thorne & Luria

# data[].attributes.subject
(H)180-191: Sexuality and Gender By Thorne & Luria

# data[].attributes.body
In “Sexuality and Gender in Children’s Daily Worlds,” Barrie Thorne and Zella Luria show how fourth- and fifth-grade children create everyday gender boundaries by organizing their friendships, activities, and even their seating arrangements into same-sex groups. Girls gravitate toward small, intimate circles focused on cooperation and “being nice,” while boys form bigger groups centered on sports, rule-testing, and physical play. This mirrors what the lecture emphasizes: gender isn’t something we’re born with; it’s something we’re taught and shaped into (Lecture sex, Mersmann). Just as newborns are described differently based on gender, children in middle childhood also have their behaviors filtered through gendered expectations. These patterns are not natural tendencies but early forms of gender socialization, where kids learn the “appropriate” roles, emotions, and behaviors for boys and girls long before they can choose them independently (Lecture sex, Mersmann).

Thorne and Luria also argue that these daily interactions prepare children for the more explicit gender and sexual expectations of adolescence. Even though boys and girls mostly remain separate, the rare moments when they do interact often involve teasing or “sexual” language used to draw boundaries between groups especially by boys, who rely on rule-breaking and taboo words to show dominance and create excitement. This aligns with the lecture’s observation that boys are taught to think, compete, and control, while girls are taught to feel and maintain relationships (Lecture sex, Mersmann). In this way, children’s play becomes a rehearsal space for the adult gender “scripts” they will later occupy. Girls practice empathy and relational closeness, while boys practice independence, hierarchy, and even a performance of emotional restriction because, as the lecture notes, “to be a ‘real man,’ boys are taught not to feel — except maybe rage” (Lecture sex, Mersmann). Ultimately, both the reading and the lecture show that gender roles are not natural facts but lessons learned through everyday social interactions, from toys and emotions to teasing and play.

Real life Analysis:

A real-life example that matches what Thorne and Luria describe is how boys in my school would tease girls whenever we all ended up in the same space. They’d use silly “crush” jokes or dirty words to get a reaction. At the time it just seemed like normal kid behavior, but now I see it fits the lecture’s point that boys are taught to be loud, bold, and to hide real feelings (Lecture sex, Mersmann). The teasing wasn’t random, it was a way for boys to show off and keep that boundary between “boys’ space” and “girls’ space.”

# data[].attributes.headline
(H)192-198: But What Do You Mean? By Tannen

# data[].attributes.subject
(H)192-198: But What Do You Mean? By Tannen

# data[].attributes.body
Deborah Tannen’s “But What Do You Mean?” explains how men and women often misunderstand each other because they use conversation differently. She shows that everyday talk isn’t just about words, it works like a social ritual. Women often speak in ways meant to protect feelings and maintain balance, while men try to avoid appearing weak or subordinate. This connects to the lecture’s point that girls are taught to center emotion and empathy from an early age, while boys are pushed toward logic and control(Lecture sex, Mersmann). Because of this early training, things like apologies, thank-yous, and casual comments get misread. A woman may apologize simply to keep the interaction smooth, while a man may hear it as her accepting blame. Meanwhile, a man may offer straightforward criticism thinking he’s being direct, but a woman might hear it as unnecessarily sharp, a mismatch created long before adulthood.

Tannen also shows how these communication differences can create real problems at work. Women may sound less confident because they soften their statements or apologize more, even when they fully know what they’re doing. Men, on the other hand, may come across as blunt or detached without intending to. The lecture helps explain why these patterns exist: girls are socialized to maintain harmony, while boys learn to compete and assert themselves (Lecture sex, Mersmann). None of these habits are “good” or “bad” they’re simply products of how each gender is raised. Tannen’s point is that noticing these patterns can help people interpret each other more fairly instead of assuming disrespect or insecurity where none was meant.

Real life Analysis:

A real-life example that connects to Tannen’s ideas is how, in classrooms or group projects, I’ve noticed women sometimes soften their statements with phrases like “I might be wrong, but…” even when they’re actually right. Guys usually give their answers more directly, which makes them sound more confident. Tannen explains how this difference isn’t about ability, it’s about the communication habits each gender learns. Another example I’ve seen is how some women (including me) have a kind of Valley accent and speak confidently, but the way it sounds can get judged harshly especially in male-dominated spaces. Even if a woman knows exactly what she’s talking about, the tone or style of her voice can make men assume she’s unsure or not serious. This fits Tannen’s point that conversational style gets misread as personality or competence, when really, it’s just a different way of speaking shaped by gender socialization.

# data[].attributes.headline
(JCB) Chapter 7: Toys/Gender, Sex and Sexuality

# data[].attributes.subject
(JCB) Chapter 7: Toys/Gender, Sex and Sexuality

# data[].attributes.body
Children’s early experiences with toys show how much gender is something we learn, not something we’re born knowing. The textbook gives an example with Zoe’s mom, who calls her two-month-old daughter a “girly girl” just because she prefers a pink toy. This fits with what the lecture explains: adults start placing kids into gender “boxes” almost immediately, long before kids can form their own likes or dislikes (Lecture sex, Mersmann). These early labels also come from bigger social pressures. Sociologist Christine Williams found that parents and kids often choose toys that follow traditional gender roles simply because that’s what everyone expects. And when we learn that pink used to be a boys’ color, it becomes clear that these ideas are not natural they change over time. All of this shows that what looks like “natural” preference is really shaped by the messages children get from the world around them.

Since gender is learned, kids “do gender” through their daily interactions, especially through the toys they play with and the reactions they get from adults and peers. The textbook points out that gender isn’t just who we are; it’s something we practice because certain behaviors are praised while others are discouraged. This connects to the lecture, which explains how boys and girls are pushed to stay inside their gender “boxes,” and stepping outside those boxes often brings teasing or judgment, like boys being called “sissies” for crying or girls being labeled “butch” for being tough (Lecture sex, Mersmann). Toys also help shape these ideas: boys are encouraged toward action and competition, while girls are steered toward caring and appearance-focused play. Even though these patterns may seem natural, both the lecture and the textbook make it clear they come from socialization. Kids learn what is expected of them as “boys” or “girls,” and over time these expectations start to feel normal. This shows how early (and how strongly) society shapes how children understand gender.

Real life Analysis:

In real life, adults often treat the exact same behavior differently depending on whether a child is a boy or a girl. For example, when a young boy climbs on furniture or runs around loudly, adults usually describe him as “adventurous,” “energetic,” or “fearless.” But when a young girl behaves the same way, adults are more likely to tell her to “be careful,” “slow down,” or “act like a lady.” This everyday pattern shows how gender expectations are taught long before children understand them.

# data[].attributes.headline
(JCB) Chapter 11:
Beauty/Ideology and Intersectionality

# data[].attributes.subject
(JCB) Chapter 11:
Beauty/Ideology and Intersectionality

# data[].attributes.body
Ideas about beauty might seem personal, but the textbook shows that they are actually shaped by culture and the media around us. When you search the word “beauty” online, most of the images that appear are of thin, young, white women, usually wearing makeup. This matches what the lecture explains about how femininity is strongly tied to appearance in our society, where women are expected to be “thin, attractive, sexy, but not too sexy” (Lecture sex, Mersmann). These expectations are so common that many people start to believe they are natural, even though beauty standards have changed many times throughout history. In some cultures, larger bodies are seen as beautiful, while in North America and Europe thinness is praised. Because beauty standards shift depending on time and place, the textbook makes it clear that what counts as “beautiful” is something society teaches us, not something we’re born knowing.

The chapter also explains how beauty standards can create real pressure and inequality, especially for women and people of color. Our culture often connects beauty with whiteness and youth, which leads many people to feel like they don’t measure up. Lupita Nyong’o’s story about wishing for lighter skin as a child highlights how these beauty messages can shape someone’s self-esteem. This links to the lecture’s point that femininity comes with intense expectations about looking perfect and being judged for appearance more than men are (Lecture sex, Mersmann). At the same time, the text shows that people are starting to challenge these narrow standards. Campaigns like #UnfairandLovely push back against the idea that only light skin or one body type is beautiful. This reminds us that beauty standards may be socially constructed, but they can change when people question them and promote more inclusive ideas of what beauty can look like.

Real life analysis:

A lot of these ideas about beauty also showed up in my own life when I was younger. I remember feeling confident and unstoppable as a kid, but that started to change once I began watching certain movies and shows. For example, I clearly remember watching Transformers when I was about nine, and there was a scene where a woman was extremely sexualized. At the time, I didn’t have the words for it, but I remember feeling uncomfortable and even annoyed. Looking back now, I realize it was because I was already comparing myself to her, even though I was just a child. That moment made me feel like beauty had a very specific “look,” and that I had to match it.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H)341-348:  The importance of being Beautiful By Sidney Katz

# data[].attributes.subject
(H)341-348:  The importance of being Beautiful By Sidney Katz

# data[].attributes.body
In “The Importance of Being Beautiful,” Sidney Katz explains that physical appearance plays a much bigger role in our lives than most people want to admit. He describes how society ranks people in many ways, and attractiveness becomes one of the strongest factors in those rankings. Katz points out that good-looking people are often treated better in school, at work, and even in everyday interactions. This connects to the lecture idea that “language and media create a reality where some people are automatically seen as more valuable than others” (Lecture Sex, Mersmann). Because of the “halo effect,” others assume attractive people are kinder, smarter, and more trustworthy. Meanwhile, people who are seen as unattractive face the opposite; what the lecture described as being treated like they are “less powerful” simply because of how society labels them (Lecture Sex, Mersmann).

Katz shows this through several studies, including one where adults judged children’s behavior differently based only on their looks. Attractive children were described as well-behaved even when they misbehaved, while less attractive children were labeled as problems. This mirrors the lecture point that “words and perceptions shape how we see the world,” and that people often don’t realize how strong these biases are (Lecture Sex, Mersmann). Katz also gives real-life examples of adults being judged unfairly, such as a beautiful woman being assumed innocent during a theft investigation because she “couldn’t possibly be bad.” This reflects the lecture idea that “the media teaches us who seems trustworthy, who seems competent, and who seems important,” even when those beliefs aren’t based on reality (Lecture Sex, Mersmann). Through these examples, Katz shows that beauty gives people unfair advantages, and being unattractive leads to harsher judgment in many areas of life.

Real Life Analysis:

A real-life example that supports Katz’s point is how attractiveness affects hiring. Studies have shown that good-looking people are more likely to get job interviews and better starting pay, even when their qualifications are the same as everyone else’s. Employers often assume attractive applicants are more confident, capable, or friendly, even though those assumptions have nothing to do with actual skills. This connects directly to Katz’s idea of the “halo effect,” where people judge someone’s whole personality based on appearance. It shows that beauty doesn’t just help socially, it can also unfairly shape someone’s career and future.

# data[].attributes.headline
Extra Padlet: What does a scientist look like? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Extra Padlet: What does a scientist look like? 

# data[].attributes.body
“gender is how you’re expected to behave once a sex category has been assigned to you.” (Lecture sex, Mersmann).

I want to finish with “good news.”

Researchers have found encouraging news about how kids picture scientists today. In the article “What does a scientist look like? Children are drawing women more than ever before”from Science.org, a large meta-analysis of nearly 21,000 drawings showed a major shift in how children imagine scientists. In the earliest studies from the 1960s and 70s, less than 1%of kids drew a woman as a scientist. But in more recent decades, that number rose to about 28%, showing that children are now much more likely to see women as part of the scientific world.

Many people explained that this shift makes sense because kids today grow up seeing more female scientists in shows and media. One example that came up a lot was Johnny Test, where the two red-haired twin sisters are brilliant young scientists who invent things, run experiments, and often drive the adventures in the show. Since the series was really popular, plenty of kids watched these characters solving problems and being creative, which helped make the idea of a “woman scientist” feel normal and exciting. This kind of representation can shape how children think, so it’s not surprising that more of them now draw scientists who look like the girls they see on screen.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 518-534: Women in the Military By Laura L. Miller 

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 518-534: Women in the Military By Laura L. Miller 

# data[].attributes.body
In “Women in the Military,” Laura L. Miller explains how rapid social change affects people in different ways, especially when it challenges long-held beliefs. The women’s movement opened doors that had been closed for generations, much like how our lecture described the “glass ceiling,” where “women rise to a certain level…and then they get stuck there” (Lecture sex, Mersmann). Miller looks at how male soldiers react when women enter jobs that used to be all-male and finds that some men use subtle forms of resistance to hold onto their power. This mirrors the lecture idea that when privileged groups feel challenged, they may try to protect what they’re used to even if it means limiting others’ opportunities.

Miller also introduces the idea of gender harassment, which is different from sexual harassment. Instead of unwanted sexual attention, gender harassment is meant to enforce old gender roles or punish people for stepping outside them. This lines up with the lecture’s point that society often assumes “women are going to prioritize their families,” while men are viewed as the ones who “give everything to the company” (Lecture sex, Mersmann). In the military, this can show up as men saying women shouldn’t do certain jobs, making comments to undermine them, or refusing to follow orders from a female superior. Many Army women report that this kind of harassment is even more common than sexual harassment and just as disruptive. Miller’s research (paired with lecture ideas about patriarchy and gender expectations) shows how deeply these assumptions still shape military culture.

Real Life Analysis:

Miller’s article shows that when things start to change, the people who were comfortable with the old way often feel threatened. In the military, some men didn’t like women entering jobs that used to be all-male because it felt like their space and their power were being challenged. This same thing happens in real life outside the military. When women or minority groups join fields where they were once excluded, some people react negatively, not because the newcomers can’t do the job, but because the change makes them uncomfortable.

# data[].attributes.body
When I walked into the toy store, the gender divide was obvious right away. One aisle was filled with pink and purple boxes, dolls, play kitchens, and toys focused on beauty or caregiving. The opposite aisle used colors like blue, black, and red and was full of action figures, cars, building sets, and toy weapons. I could easily tell who each toy was “meant” for just by the packaging and the themes. Even without signs saying “boys” or “girls,” the colors and designs basically did that job on their own.

When I tried to find gender-neutral toys, they were usually in the middle or mixed sections. These were things like board games, puzzles, art supplies, and science kits; toys you can use with friends or family. I also noticed that the colors for these toys were different: mostly blues, greens, yellows, and reds instead of the extreme pink vs. dark blue separation. It stood out to me that the more neutral the toy, the more it relied on shared activities rather than stereotypes about what boys or girls should like.

Another thing I noticed, even outside the toy store, is how certain toy lines clearly separate “girl” and “boy” versions of the same idea. A good example is Shopkins versus Grossery Gang. Shopkins are small, cute collectibles with bright colors, big eyelashes, and friendly expressions, clearly marketed toward girls. Grossery Gang, on the other hand, takes the same basic concept (tiny collectible figures) but makes them gross, messy, and kind of chaotic, which is aimed at boys. The picture of the popcorn characters shows this difference really clearly: the Shopkins version is cute and smiling, while the Grossery Gang version is exaggerated, grimy, and designed to look “gross.” Seeing this makes it obvious how early companies start teaching kids what is “for girls” and what is “for boys,” even when the toys themselves are basically the same idea.

# data[].attributes.body
From the Fashion Nova images I analyzed, almost all the models shown were women, with only one man appearing in the entire set. The models reflected some racial diversity, mainly including Black, Latina, and White women, though no East Asian or South Asian models were shown. Most skin tones ranged from light to medium, with a few deeper tones represented. Across the images, all the models had similar body types (thin with no visible body fat) showing a very narrow version of beauty.

Overall, the images suggest that Fashion Nova promotes a specific beauty ideal: young, glamorous, slim, and feminine. While the brand does include some racial variety, the lack of body diversity and the focus on one main type of woman show that the website highlights a very limited standard of beauty. This suggests that, even with some diversity in appearance, the brand still centers one main look when selling fashion and influencing what “beauty” is supposed to mean.

# data[].attributes.headline
(JCB) Chapter 8: White Wedding/Marriage and the Family

# data[].attributes.subject
(JCB) Chapter 8: White Wedding/Marriage and the Family

# data[].attributes.body
The chapter “White Wedding/Marriage and the Family” shows that when people say they “dream of marriage,” they often really mean they dream of a wedding. The big white wedding (with a fancy dress, a diamond ring, and a big party) has become a powerful cultural ideal shared across race and class. Students in the book can describe their dream weddings in detail even if they are not in relationships, which shows how deeply the wedding script becomes part of our expectations. This connects to the lecture’s point that “marriage is really, really important” in our cultural understanding of what a family is (Lecture Family, Mersmann). Even though the dream wedding is expensive and hard to reach, especially in a time of income inequality, it remains strongly tied to ideas of legitimacy and social acceptance, just like the lecture explains when noting that children of unmarried parents were historically labeled “illegitimate” because marriage defined what counted as a “real” family (Lecture Family, Mersmann).

The reading also ties the white wedding to gender expectations, showing how the traditional nuclear family (dad who works, mom who stays home) is often treated as the ideal, even though the lecture makes clear that this model “made up the majority of families only from the mid-50s through the early 1960s” and today represents “only about 6% of families in the United States” (Lecture Family, Mersmann). Weddings help reproduce these ideas by presenting heterosexual partnerships with clear masculine and feminine roles. The lecture strengthens this point by noting that people often assume “one of them must be the man and one must be the woman” in same-sex couples, even though same-sex relationships tend to be more equitable (Lecture Family, Mersmann). Together, the textbook and lecture show how cultural expectations about weddings and families are socially constructed, constantly changing, and shaped by gender norms rather than natural or universal truths.

Real life analysis:

A real-life example of the white wedding ideal comes from weddings always sen through social media. Weddings hosted in palaces, large gardens, even museums. Venues with elaborate flowers (even ones that weren’t in season) and a long, brightly lit walkway designed so the bride could make a dramatic entrance. Dresses huge princess-style gowns that sparkled under the lights, which fits the cultural message that “your wedding day is your day, you are the princess.” What’s interesting is that when people have simple or modest weddings, they often get mocked online or recreated as a joke, which shows how strong the pressure is to follow the extravagant, princess-like wedding script.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 425-431: The American Family By Stephanie Coontz

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 425-431: The American Family By Stephanie Coontz

# data[].attributes.body
In “The American Family,” Stephanie Coontz explains that many people today believe marriage and family life are getting worse. She describes how some think families are “falling apart” and compare today’s struggles to an imagined perfect past. But the lecture supports Coontz’s point by reminding us that families have always been shaped by society and its changes. As the lecture states, “the idea of family is socially constructed… it varies from time to time, place to place” (Lecture Family, Mersmann). This helps show that the “good old days” weren’t actually perfect, they were just different. Coontz also argues that people forget how much inequality and hardship existed in earlier decades. The lecture also points out that families are affected by their social positions, noting that “what family you were born into… has a huge impact on where you end up in the stratification system” (Lecture Family, Mersmann). This supports her idea that past family life wasn’t automatically easier or happier.

Coontz also shows that many problems people worry about today (like drug use, youth violence, or family conflict) were present long ago too. Meanwhile, the lecture explains that every society sets rules and expectations for families, such as through the incest taboo, which “helps regulate who you can have sex with or who you can marry” (Lecture Family, Mersmann). This shows that family norms have always been controlled and debated, not just in modern times. Coontz argues that today’s families are not collapsing, they’re simply changing. This connects to the lecture’s point that “families help create and strengthen the web of society” (Lecture Family, Mersmann), meaning family structures adapt as society changes. Understanding this makes it easier to see that families today are not worse; they’re just facing different challenges than families in the past.

Real Life Analysis:

In real life, we can still see how old gender roles affect families today. Even though women now have more freedom and can work, vote, and be independent, many families still expect moms to do most of the cooking, cleaning, and childcare. This connects to Coontz’s point that the past wasn’t as perfect as people remember, because women were under a lot of pressure and often felt stressed or unhappy. The lecture also shows that families are shaped by society, so old beliefs don’t disappear overnight. When couples argue about chores or when moms feel overwhelmed trying to do everything, it shows that past gender expectations are still influencing modern family life.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I’ve absolutely fantasized about my future wedding, and the ideas I have are usually extravagant, dramatic, and visually over the top. I spend a lot of time on social media (honestly, probably too much), and because of that my “wedding imagination” has been shaped less by traditional family expectations and more by TikTok aesthetics, viral videos, and highly produced wedding content. My friends joke that I’m “brainrotted,” and honestly they aren’t wrong; platforms like TikTok have definitely trained me to think in visuals, transitions, and spectacle; Because of that influence, my imagined wedding is huge: a massive cathedral-like venue filled with sparkles, floral arches, and theatrical lighting. I picture myself in a gown as dramatic as a princess dress (big skirt, long veil, glitter everywhere) and walking down a long aisle while a violin version of “Salvatore” by Lana Del Rey plays. The ceremony itself would feel almost mythical: choir vocals echoing in a grand space, everything choreographed in shades of white. It’s essentially the scale and fantasy of the Chinese luxury wedding venues I see online, which look straight out of a dream.

At the same time, I’m aware that this fantasy doesn’t align neatly with my actual social location. I’m a lesbian, so the traditional church ceremony I imagine isn’t realistically accessible to me, both because of religious norms and because queer weddings still aren’t universally accepted. I’m also Mexican American and from a working-class background, which means the kind of six-figure “white wedding” that goes viral online is far beyond anything my family could afford. Class plays a huge role: the media sells the fantasy of the perfect, extravagant wedding, but the reality is that these displays are tied to wealth and often to a very specific, white, upper-class image of marriage.

# data[].attributes.body
Crazy Rich Asians follows Rachel Chu, a Chinese American professor, who travels to Singapore with her boyfriend Nick Young for his best friend’s wedding. She quickly learns that Nick’s family is extremely wealthy and part of a powerful social circle. Throughout the movie, Rachel has to deal with issues of class differences, family expectations, and cultural traditions. The story shows how relationships can be shaped not only by love but also by money, status, and the opinions of relatives, things that still influence many marriages today.

The wedding scene in Crazy Rich Asians is famous for being huge and unbelievably beautiful. The bride walks down an aisle that looks like a glowing river, with soft lights, flowers, and music that make the whole room feel magical. It almost looks like something out of a dream or a fantasy TikTok edit. This connects to the lecture’s idea that our culture teaches us to expect romance to feel “cinematic,” like when “your eyes lock and the whole room disappears” (Lecture Family, Mersmann). The scene also shows how weddings today are often performances (carefully created to look perfect) just like the lecture explained when talking about people presenting a “best version” of themselves early in relationships (Lecture Family, Mersmann). The movie makes the wedding look flawless, but it also reminds us that this kind of romantic display is shaped by wealth, media, and social expectations, not by the everyday reality of marriage.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H)277-286: Eating Your Friends is the Hardest By F-227,” By James M. Henslin

# data[].attributes.subject
(H)277-286: Eating Your Friends is the Hardest By F-227,” By James M. Henslin

# data[].attributes.body
In “Eating Your Friends Is the Hardest: The Survivors of the F-227,” James M. Henslin explains how our ideas of right and wrong come from the cultures we grow up in. He reminds us that almost every society sees eating human flesh as deeply wrong, which makes what the crash survivors faced feel even more extreme. The lecture supports this idea by explaining that “deviance is socially constructed; what counts as deviant behavior is going to vary from time to time, place to place, culture to culture” (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). Henslin describes how the 1972 Fairchild F-227 crash left the young men stranded in the Andes with almost no food, freezing temperatures, and no rescue in sight. As conditions got worse, they slowly realized that the only way to survive was to eat the bodies of friends who had died in the crash.

Henslin also shows how the survivors tried to reshape what they believed so they could live with this choice. One young man argued that the bodies were now just meat and that the soul was gone, and others said that God wanted them to survive and had “provided these bodies so we can live.” This fits with what the lecture says about how “deviance clarifies moral boundaries;” People decide where the line is and when it can shift (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). The group created new norms together, talking for hours, making pacts, and trying to support each other through something they all felt was horrible. The lecture also states that deviance can “promote social unity, it brings people together who aren’t deviant”(Lecture Deviance, Mersmann), which is exactly what happened here. Even though the act itself was taboo, the survivors stayed connected and worked as a group to make the decision that ultimately kept them alive.

Real Life Analysis:

When hurricanes, earthquakes, or wildfires hit, people sometimes break laws or norms just to stay alive. For example, someone might take food or water from a closed store because waiting for permission could mean starving. In normal life, that would be considered stealing, but in an emergency most people understand that survival comes first. When the situation changes, the meaning of the act changes too. Just like the survivors on the mountain, people in disasters aren’t trying to be bad; they are trying to survive in conditions where the usual rules no longer work.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 315-321: ThePathology of Imprisonment By Philip G. Zimbardo

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 315-321: ThePathology of Imprisonment By Philip G. Zimbardo

# data[].attributes.body
In “The Pathology of Imprisonment,” Philip G. Zimbardo argues that violence in prisons isn’t just caused by “bad” prisoners or “sadistic” guards, but by the social structure of the prison itself. His use of a prisoner’s letter describing months of solitary confinement, beatings, and being treated “as if I were a dog,” shows how the environment can create deep anger and hopelessness. This connects directly to the lecture’s point that “the only way you get social change, is if you have people who are willing to be deviant” (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann), because the prisoner explains he is labeled “incorrigible” not for new crimes but for refusing to accept abuse. The lecture also explains how labels shape people’s lives: “Once you get the label, all the behavior that comes afterward gets interpreted in terms of that label”(Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). Zimbardo’s prisoner shows this clearly, he is seen not as a person resisting mistreatment, but simply as a “troublemaker,” illustrating how the prison environment turns labels into powerful tools of control.

Real Life Analysis:

Zimbardo’s findings can be seen in places like nursing homes, military training units, or group homes where staff or leaders have a lot of control and the people under them have very little power. In these settings, good people can slowly start to act in harsh or uncaring ways because the environment encourages it, not because they are naturally cruel. When workers feel stressed, understaffed, or unchecked, they may slip into “guard-like” behavior being strict, ignoring people’s needs, or even abusing their authority. At the same time, those being cared for can become passive or afraid, similar to how the prisoners in the experiment gave up trying to resist.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H)322-334: On Being Sane in Insane Places By David L. Rosenhan

# data[].attributes.subject
(H)322-334: On Being Sane in Insane Places By David L. Rosenhan

# data[].attributes.body
In “On Being Sane in Insane Places,” David L. Rosenhan questions whether we can truly tell who is sane and who is insane. He explains that people may lose their freedom not only for breaking written laws but also for breaking unspoken social rules about what “normal” is supposed to look like. Rosenhan challenges the assumption that sanity is obvious, reminding readers that even experts often disagree about psychiatric labels. As the lecture notes, once someone receives a diagnosis, “everything they do gets interpreted in terms of that label” (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). Different cultures define “normal” in different ways, and even the meanings of terms like “mental illness” are debated. Rosenhan argues that the real issue is whether signs of mental illness come from the person or from the expectations of the observers around them. The lecture frames this as a key idea of labeling theory, noting that “secondary deviance is what happens after the label sticks” (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann), and Rosenhan’s article asks whether this labeling process is driving psychiatric judgments more than actual symptoms.

To explore this, Rosenhan sent eight “pseudopatients”: people with no serious psychiatric history, into twelve psychiatric hospitals, where they behaved normally after admission. He wanted to see whether staff would recognize their sanity or whether the hospital environment would shape how their behavior was viewed. The lecture highlights the power of this situation, explaining that in Rosenhan’s findings, “normal behaviors like taking notes were reinterpreted as symptoms, such as ‘compulsive writing behavior’” (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). If none of the pseudopatients were identified as sane, Rosenhan argued, this would show that psychiatric diagnoses reveal more about the environment and the label than the person. This matches the lecture’s description of how “once the label is applied, everything afterward confirms the label” (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). By comparing the pseudopatients’ experiences to these broader ideas, Rosenhan demonstrates how strongly institutions and labels shape what we see (and what we think we see) when judging sanity and insanity.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 470-480: Police Accounts of Normal Force By Jennifer Hunt

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 470-480: Police Accounts of Normal Force By Jennifer Hunt

# data[].attributes.body
“41 Police Accounts of Normal Force” by Jennifer Hunt describes how police officers learn what counts as “normal” use of force. Hunt opens with stories from her own experiences, showing how officers sometimes act violently or threaten violence in ways that seem routine to them. She explains that police work involves many tasks where force might be needed, and that officers often see certain actions as normal even if the public or courts might see them as excessive. Her research, based on months of observing officers on the job, focuses on how police decide what kind of force is legal, normal, or unacceptable. This connects to ideas from the lecture, such as how “the norms and the laws in our society are created to benefit the elite” and how certain behaviors become labeled as deviant depending on who is doing them (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). The lecture also points out that society often accepts harsh or coercive actions if they seem necessary to protect social order, which helps explain why some police actions come to be viewed as routine instead of extreme.

Hunt also describes how new recruits learn to use force by watching veteran officers. At the police academy, recruits are taught clear rules about when force is allowed, but once they go out on the street, they face an informal system where stronger force is seen as necessary for gaining respect. This mirrors the lecture’s discussion of total institutions, where “formal rules guide your behavior” but “your daily life is monitored” in ways that teach you how you’re really expected to act (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann). Rookies must learn quickly what counts as acceptable force, because officers who hesitate risk being labeled unreliable similar to how the lecture explains that institutions reward those who follow expectations and punish those who don’t. Women face additional pressure, since they are often assumed to be weaker and must “act more aggressively” to be taken seriously. Overall, Hunt shows how police culture teaches officers not just how to use force, but how to understand it as normal reflecting the lecture’s idea that institutions shape identity by rewarding conformity to their unwritten rules (Lecture Deviance, Mersmann).

# data[].attributes.body
Shutter Island is about a U.S. Marshal named Teddy Daniels who goes to a remote psychiatric hospital to look into the disappearance of a patient. As he spends more time there, things start to feel confusing and suspicious, and he begins to question what is real. His memories and the way people treat him make everything even more unclear. By the end, the movie reveals that Teddy might not be who he thought he was, leaving the audience unsure of how much of the story came from his own mind versus the environment around him.

This relates to Rosenhan’s ideas because the movie shows how powerful labels can be in shaping how people are seen. Once the hospital staff decides Teddy is a patient instead of a marshal, everything he does is taken as a sign of mental illness. Even normal actions become “evidence” of a problem, just like in Rosenhan’s study, where the pseudopatients’ normal behavior was treated as symptoms. Teddy can’t escape the label once it sticks, and the institution uses that label to explain everything he does. The movie shows how hard it is to prove your sanity once others have already decided you’re “insane,” which is exactly what Rosenhan argues.

# data[].attributes.headline
Required entry: (Adapted from an assignment by Joyce Johnson)

# data[].attributes.subject
Required entry: (Adapted from an assignment by Joyce Johnson)

# data[].attributes.body
While working the front desk at my office, I handled an interaction that started out routine but escalated quickly. I’m used to greeting people who come in to request book vouchers, bus passes, or to meet with a specialist, and I usually just verify whether they have an appointment. Our policy is that walk-ins are allowed only between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m., and after noon everyone must have an appointment. That afternoon, an individual came in asking to meet with a specialist for a book voucher. When I asked if she had an appointment, she said no, so I politely explained that I couldn’t check her in but could help schedule an appointment for her. She became exasperated and accused me of being racist, which completely stunned me. I reassured her that I would never treat anyone that way and explained that the policy exists to ensure every student is seen without overwhelming the staff. Despite this, she continued raising her voice, insisting she needed to see him immediately because she had seen him the day before. The situation only de-escalated once my superior stepped in, speaking calmly and kindly as they reiterated the same policy and explained what needed to be done.

1. What norms were being violated by this person? Did you know those norms were "there"? Where is this “there”?

First, she disregarded the rule that requires appointments after 12 p.m., a rule designed to ensure fairness and manage workflow. Second, she violated behavioral norms of respectful communication by becoming loud, accusatory, and hostile when the policy was explained.

1. How were the norms specific to the person's social status (age, gender, race, class, etc.)?

Some of the norms I expected were based on her social status. Since she was an older woman using a walker, I assumed she would be calmer or more patient, so her reaction really caught me off guard. I also think gender expectations played a part, because women are often expected to be less confrontational. Her being Black may have influenced how she interpreted the situation, which could be why she jumped to thinking it was discrimination. And the signs that she might have been from a lower income background may have made her more sensitive or defensive when I told her she needed an appointment.

# data[].attributes.headline
(H) 446-460: kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp By Harry L. Gracey

# data[].attributes.subject
(H) 446-460: kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp By Harry L. Gracey

# data[].attributes.body
In “Kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp,” Harry L. Gracey argues that school isn’t just about teaching kids academics; it’s mainly about teaching them how to behave in society. He explains that education works as a form of socialization, helping children learn the attitudes and behaviors adults expect. This idea connects strongly to the lecture, where Mersmann said that “one of the functions of education is to transmit knowledge” but also “to determine where you’ll be in the social stratification system” and “bring different groups of people together” (Lecture Education, Mersmann). Both Gracey and the lecture point out that schools don’t only teach facts; they also teach kids how to operate within the social system they’re growing up in.

Gracey uses kindergarten to show how this socialization works. Even though kindergarten is often described as a fun, gentle start to school, he shows that much of it is really about training kids to follow routines. Teachers spend a lot of time teaching children how to line up, when to speak, how to transition between activities, and how to follow directions. One teacher even said she “hated September” because everything had to be repeated over and over until kids learned what to do. This connects directly to the lecture’s point that “education was created so that wealthy people could live more interesting lives,” but later shifted as society needed a workforce trained for routine and order during industrialization (Lecture Education, Mersmann). Gracey argues that kindergarten acts like a small “boot camp,” preparing kids early to fit into the expectations of school, and eventually, into the expectations of society.

# data[].attributes.body
My first time voting, I was surprisingly nervous. My parents have never voted (mostly because they don’t have the documentation to do so) yet they were the ones constantly urging me to participate. Their insistence both scared me and empowered me; I kept thinking, women can vote now, so of course I should. Once I looked online, finding my polling place was easier than expected. It ended up being near my old middle school. I brought my sister, who was also finally old enough to vote, and even though both of us were anxious walking in, we went anyway. It felt like stepping into adulthood with purpose.

When I was getting ready to vote, I noticed how much politics showed up on my social media. People were arguing in the comments, posting edits, or even making art about candidates and issues. It felt like politics was everywhere, but that didn’t mean it was easier to understand. Our lecture mentioned that Americans are “the best entertained, least informed people on the planet” (Lecture Politics, Mersmann), and I started to realize what that meant. Even though I was constantly seeing political content, a lot of it was more dramatic than helpful. Instead of giving me clear information, it sometimes just made me feel overwhelmed. So while voting information was easy to find online, actually making sense of what I believed took more effort than I expected.

# data[].attributes.body
***Hey Professor, I’m sorry I couldn’t submit the discussions in Canvas. For a long time they never showed up on my end, so I didn’t realize when the due date had passed. I’ve put all of the completed discussions here instead. If there’s any chance you can accept them, I’d really appreciate it, but I understand it’s up to you.***

Race:

1. Don't look up definitions.  Just tell us your understanding of these terms. What is race? What is ethnicity?

To me, race is basically a way society groups people. Ethnicity feels more connected to culture than appearance.

Sex and Gender:

1. Don't look up definitions.  Just tell us your understanding of these terms. What is sex? What is gender?

sex is basically about the biological side of a person. More about how a person feels and expresses themselves.

Family:

Why do we work?

1. Not just about surviving, but also about growing and feeling fulfilled. Since work can help us meet new people too (we are community based species).

Sexuality:

1. Don't use dictionaries or other sources...Just tell us what you think. What does it mean to be homosexual? What does it mean to be heterosexual?

Homosexual is when someone is attracted to people who are the same gender as they are. Heterosexual means a person is attracted to people of a different gender than themselves.