Ancient people have been fascinated by the need to explain their personal experiences in the world they lived in. They explored the natural and physical world, defending explanations that satisfies them, though often filled with superstition. Today, we remain fascinated by investigating the world around us. The mundane and esoteric. But unlike ancient people who could only imagine, we are now able to expand our senses with instruments and machines that allow us to observe beyond the confines of our planet.

Connections: Sociology examines human behavior by comparing itself to other social sciences. It is similar to history, in that both attempt to understand the social context that influences people. Like political sciences, sociology studies how humans govern one another and the consequences of different forms of government on peoples lives. It relates to economy because sociologist are interested in what happens to the goods and services of a society, as well as the social consequences of their production and distributions. Sociology also overlaps with anthropology, since both study culture, beliefs systems, and groups structures, along with how people communicate. However, sociology differs from this disciplines. Unlike historians, sociologists focus on events of the present. Unlike political scientists and economists, they do not concentrate on a single institution. Unlike anthropologist, sociology primary focuses on contemporary societies. and unlike psychologists, who study internal mental processes, sociologists emphasize the external features that influence individuals.

Thinking about our consumer culture, I notice how people often feel pressure to upgrade and buy something new. The capitalist economy constantly pushes new trends, and if people see you wearing an old pair of jeans, you are seen as out of fashion. What most people don't realize is what is behind their jeans. The whole process of production, where the material comes from, and how they are often made in the cheapest labor environments such as China, where workers face long shifts, low wages, and dangerous working conditions. In a sociological perspective, this makes me reflect on how society's ideas strongly influences our decisions, even when we do not notice it.

This shows that the values and threats we feel in our personal lives are strongly connected to larger social structures like the economy, family, politics, and culture. For example when someone is unemployed, they may feel anxious because their values of work and security are being threatened. But the cause of this problem is not only their personal choices, but it is also shaped by how the economy and job market are organized. By using sociological imagination, Mills reminds us that private troubles are often really public issues, and that seeing this connection helps us better understand the true sources of our personal crises and uneasiness.

From a Marxist perspective, however tamales can also be seen through the lens of commodity fetishism. When I enjoy them I don't immediately think about the material condition behind the ingredients. The labor of farm workers who pick the corn, the industrial system that process the masa, or the economic inequalities that shape food distribution. These realities are hidden, while the final product ( the tamale) appears as something almost magical and disconnected from those labor and social relationships.

One idea that really stayed with me is how advertising blends into our daily routines so smoothly that we barely notice it. Its is everywhere on our phones, in sights, in the influencer we follow etc, and yet it works. Ive definitely experienced moments where I bought or consumed something, not out of necessity, but because of what it represents. For example, I sometimes eat food from my home country El Salvador, not because I'm particular hungry but because of what it makes me feel. The taste remind me of my family, my culture, and good moments from my childhood where I just ate that food with my cousins.

This reading helped me see that consumption isn't always about materialism, sometimes is about meaning, It remind me that what we consume can carry cultural and emotional weight. Advertising taps into that and wether we like it or not, it shapes how we connect to ourselves and others.It makes me think if we can we even make a choice without being influenced?

This makes me notice that my behavior, even when I'm upset, is shaped by the presence of others. I don't act in isolation. I consider the reaction of the other person. That's why symbolic interactionism makes sense to me. It reminds me that our society is built through these daily exchanges of meaning.

At the same time I struggle to fully agree with functionalism, which says that. every part of society works to maintain stability. Functionalism consider how through industrialization, if you're sick, someone will take care of you. But what happens if you don't have the resources to access healthcare? This is where conflicts theory feels more real to me, because I see how society is structured in constant struggle. people competing for money, power, and status. We clearly live in a system where social classes create tension: the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class, the bosses and the workers, the people with wealth and those barely surviving.

To really understand society and its behaviors, we must understand how people feel about life. And just as following the steps of sociological research. I Consider that choosing the right methods and the right group of people is key. If the sample is wrong, the results won't truly represent society. That's why I find random sampling so valuable, it make results more accurate. I also believe its important to check information more than once, comparing responses from different people, to make sure that what we conclude makes sense.

From this readings, I learned that Sociology isn't just about observing people, It's about really listening to how they make meaning of their lives and using that to understand the bigger patterns in society.

Variable 1: Good teaching

Variable 2: Learning

Good teaching: means clear explanations, the ability to connect with students. A good teacher provide support and motivated students to do their best. Also being available for extra help and asking questions that keep students engaged.

Learning: More than just memorizing, or repeating "The baking concept". Learning is more about understanding, applying knowledge and the ability to think critically.

Through quantitative research I would ask questions that can be measured with numbers.

To measure good teaching :

• How many hours per week is the instructor available for extra help?

• How many questions does the instructor typically ask students during a class session?

To measure learning :

• How many people graduated from college?

• What are the average test scores of students in the class?

By looking at these variables and numbers, we can start to see how good teaching impacts the learning outcomes of students.

The data shows that for white applicants, 17 people with a criminal record were hired, compared to 34 without a record. For black applicants, only 5 with a criminal record were hired, compared to 14 without one. This reveals that race plays a significant role in employment outcomes. In fact, white applicants with a criminal record (17%) received more favorable treatment and callbacks than Black applicants without one (14%)

This suggests that whiteness itself provides a certain privilege in the labor market. The book also points out that many whites do not recognize the discrimination against black individuals, because they are not in the inferior or disadvantaged side of the system. Additionally, black people are more likely to be incarcerated than whites, often because of stereotypes that portray them as dangerous.

If racial barriers limit job opportunities for Black individuals, what alternatives are left? Does this lead to cycles of poverty, exclusion, or even more crime?

We form deep connection with objects, giving personal and sentimental meaning to our possessions because they become part of our sense of self. That is why marketing has shifted from simply explaining what a brand is to creating the NEED for us to have their products. It's not just about wanting something for ourselves, it's about wanting it because everyone else has it, too. Cooley's concept of the "looking-glass self" explain this perfectly- we see ourselves reflected in the eyes of others. Our peers, one of the strongest agents of socialization, and the mass media influence us constantly to follow trends.

I also found fascinating how we carry multiple selves, shaped by the situations and relationships we are in. As Goffman's dramaturgical idea - We perform differently on different stages. In college, I try to dress formal, giving a formal presentation, I become my 'intellectual self'. With friend, I may be more relaxed and humorous. Neither version is more 'real' than the other, My 'self' just perform different depending on the context.

This connects with my own experience of a bilingual person. When I speak Spanish, I feel like one version of myself, and when I speak English, I perform another. At first I used to think one of them had to be the "real" me, but now I understand that both are authentic. I associated more the Spanish language as my home language, while English is more academic stuff. My "self" is just shaped by the situations I find myself and the people Im interacting with.

Even our more unique traits, like being a dancer or a soccer player, are always tied to larger social groups and structures. My self is not just mine, it is also a reflection of the world around us.

The first person to walk in is a woman, probably in her 40s, look hispanic to me, she has curly hair. She came holding a stack of papers and a large, spacious purse. The workers said "Hello welcome in", but she didn't respond. She chose one of the larger tables with four chairs, spread out her papers, take her phone out and start taking pictures of the papers.

Soon after, two black woman come in, carrying 4 Walmart bags. The cashier kindly welcome them and asked "What would you like to order?" to one of them, but she didn't reply and seemed to have even slightly egocentric attitude. I overheard them talking and one of them wanted to go to the bathroom. One of them asked the cashier for the bathroom code, but seemed not to catch it, so she later asked the cashier if she could open the door for her. Meanwhile, the other black one who hadn't ordered nothing, opened one of her Walmart bags, and pulled out a pack of baby wipes. The cheap ones (I recognize them cause I have nieces and I know those are the cheap ones because there aren't good for babies) and then took them to the black woman who was already in the bathroom.

At the same time, three adults (two woman and 1 men) and a little girl of about 10 years old walk in.They also looked hispanic, brown hair, short people. The girl twists her hands behind her in a way that make me think she might have a medical condition. They seat with the curly hair woman that entered first. Two adults sat down the woman and men, and the other woman and the girl remain standing, because they table had only 4 chairs and they were 5 people in total. They are speaking Spanish, as a suspected they were hispanics. I speak Spanish so I understand they were talking about singing some kind of paperwork, maybe related to a house. The little girl after sat down and seemed bored, she traced shapes with her finger on the table like imaginary doodles. I was surprised she wasn't given a phone, which is so common for kids now. After a while, she order a drink.

Later, an elderly white American man cam in. He wears a mask, orders a small coffee and a pastry, and sits at the table next to mine. He carries a phone with a strap case, but he never used it. He is alone, and honestly I feel sad, I don't like seeing old people lonely. Anyways. He eats slowly, staring straight ahead. Meanwhile, I notice the hispanic man looking at me several times, maybe he felt observed. while the elderly white man never looks my way.

As I continue to observe, I realize that no one interact with people outside of their own group. The cashier greets everyone in the same friendly way, but the costumers remain serious and reserved. The space feels less like a social space and more like separate bubbles coexisting in the same room. The is no a single group that dominates the coffee shop, it is very mixed, with hispanics, black women, and an elderly white man. The ages vary widely too, from a young girl to some very old.

I am surprise by how much happens in such a short time. Normally I would not notice these details because Im too focused on myself. what stands out to me right now is the slightly defiant attitude of the two black woman in contrast to the cashier friendliness. I found interesting how Starbucks brings together such different people in one space, even if no one really connects with each other.

My assigned reading was about the mesoamericans, indigenous ancestor who built an advanced civilization. They had deep knowledge of mathematics, created impressive buildings that are still admire today, and develop natural forms of medicine. While reflecting this my professor starts talking about the family (the primary agent of socialization.) He explains how the family shapes us, normalizes behaviors, and teaches us what is "normal" within a culture, even if those things are harmful.

He asks, "how does violence against woman begin?" Many of us think about alcohol abuse, psychological issues, or impulsivity. While those others factor he says the primary reason often starts with violence against children. Families raise boys to be aggressive, and this becomes a learned behavior. This is one way that the primary agent of socialization has a long-term impact. in many Latinx cultures, machismo and even homophobia become so normalized that people talk about them casually, without naming them directly.

He also shares how culture shapes interpretation. For example, in Brazil its normal to see older women wearing bikinis at the beach. But in Mexico, El Salvador, or other hispanic cultures, imagining our grandmothers in bikinis feels disrespectful or even sinful. This shows me how the self is deeply molded by our surroundings. Being born in Brazil, China, or the U.S. leads to different believes and different selves, because the primary agent of family and the larger culture shape who we become.

One of my classmates Patty, shares how (mass media another agent of socialization)influences the way we see ourselves. Social media often make us feel ashamed of being bicultural. We live inside Cooley's "looking-glass self" constantly reflecting on how others see us and then turning those judgements into our self perceptions. If others see us as less valuable, we often end up believing it too.

Finally, in the video I linked above, some mesoamericans explain how in Mexico they are often called "Indians", a word uses as a synonym for uneducated. This immediately reminds me of conflict theory, which shows how groups maintain power by creating hierarchies and looking down on others. People are always trying

In this process, there are two kinds of commuication: expression given and expression given off. The expression given refers to the information we intentionally provide, such as what we say or how we act in a controlled way, while the expression given off is the impression we unintentionally transmit through body language, tone, or other signals that we may not even notice.

I can relate to this in my own experience. For example, when I participated in class, I often wonder what other people will think. I ask myself "was my answer correct?"

"Did my opinion sound dumb?" These thoughts influence the way we act and wether decide to speak up. This shows how much my self-presentation depends not only on what I want to say (expression given ) but also on the unintentional signals that others may pick up (expression given off)

Conscious and unconscious communication.

I also found interesting how, in the United States, people used to prepare the bodies of their deceased family members. In Mesoamerica, families also prepare the bodies of their relatives .This process could last up to nine days, followed by another ritual a month later, another one after a year, and then until 4 years passed. They washed their bodies, prepared them, and decorated them with different materials depending on their social class. It was interesting to compare this cultures and to realize how mistaken I was about the actual life expectancy in this places.

Going back to the chapter, a person's occupation or profession is central to their personal and social identity because it reflects the role they play in society and how people perceive them. It was really hard for morticians and funeral directors to handle the stigma associated with their work, such as being considered "death tainted" "working with dead" or "profiting from other people grief". What I found most interesting is the way they handle the stigma by using euphemisms, avoiding works like "dead" and replacing them with terms like "remains" or "love ones" They have to be very careful with the language, either by using appropriate terms or by redefining their occupations.

Another strategy is practicing role distance, meaning emotional detachment. This reminded me of doctors. I remember watching the series New Amsterdam, where there is a character named Dr.Helen who work in Oncology. However, she struggled with maintaining emotional detachment, and eventually stopped practicing that specialty. As a funeral director in the chapter explained "If you think about it much, you'll never make it in this business". Professionalism is also essentials, morticians claim prestige and try to minimize the stigma of being involved on what is considered "dirty work". They constantly have to deal with the stigmatization of their profession and often even hide how successful they are, because people assume they profiting from others misfortunes.

Overall, I found this chapter very interesting, I never think about this stigmatization!

Reading this makes me reflect on my own shopping habits. Personally, I usually enjoy shopping especially after a long day, because it feels like a relief to walk around and look a things. I notice a difference when I go with women, like friends or family, compared to when I go with men, like my boyfriend or dad. For them, shopping feels more negative, like wasting time, while for me it feels like an enjoyable activity.

The chapter also opened my eyes to how companies influence us to want things, and how women in particular are often targeted with the fantasy of having the newest makeup, or clothes. Sometimes I feel like I make rational choices, like buying the cheapest rice to save money, but when it comes to clothes, I cannot always choose the cheapest option because clothing plays a huge role in representing who I am and how I want others to perceive me. For instance, brands like Lululemon attract many buyers not only because of the product but also because of the image and community associated with it.

I also realized that I sometimes stigmatize products myself. For example, If I see nice shoes at a discount store but they are not well-known brand, I hesitate to buy them. This connects to the idea of consumer sovereignty versus consumer dupers. I like to think of myself as making my own choices, but I can also see how social influences and brand images affect me.

Ascribed statuses :

1. Being baptized

2. Being a woman

3. Having vision problems

Achieved Statuses :

1. Being bilingual

2. Being a student

3. Being a saxophonist

I chose the achieved status of being bilingual. The roles connected to this status include: taking the role of leader, being the family translator, and translating content from English to Spanish and vice versa. I am expected to have a good understanding of both languages and to speak them whatever needed. I am also supposed to always be open to helping, although sometimes it can be exhausting.

It make me reflect on the Hispanic Ice officials. They probably don't want to wake up everyday and deport people who might even share their same background or values. But its their job, and even if it goes against its morals, they often don't have another option. They might fear speaking out, since they could lose the job they worked so hard to get.

Also thinking about American people, some of them are racist not necessarily because they bad people and their certainly believe that, it could be because of the way they were raised. They were taught certain ideas that became normal in their culture, or those beliefs of superiority, and they keep acting that way because that's how. the system has worked for them.

I was amazed by the results of Milgram's experiment, discovering that Americans were extremely obedient. Many participants went to the extreme of giving electric shocks to the "learners" because they kept that idea in their minds that " it was painful, but not dangerous". They didn't showed so much regret, similar to how Ice officials carry out deportations believing its for the greater good.

When I was in high school, I remember that Nike Jordan shoes were really popular among my group of friends. Everyone had them in different colors. The shoes cost around $200, and I told my mom that I really wanted a pair. After some days, she bought me a pair, I choose the same color as my boyfriend's. That make me feel like I belonged more in my group, or at least made me feel more accepted and connected with them.

The scheduling software systems often give them less than 40 hors a week, and they never know exactly when they'll be called to work. This makes it really hard for parents who need to find last-minute childcare. It's unfair that a few powerful people at the top keep wages low, hurting families and communities all over the country.

Reading about this reminded me of how much our economic system has changed. In the past, people were creative, families worked together, made things by hand, and exchanged goods to survive. But under capitalism, work became something repetitive people started working just for a wage. As Karl Marx explains, this created inequality and alienation, because workers no longer owned what they produced. Now, many of the people in low paying jobs like at MacDonald's are African American, Latino, and woman. I've also noticed many older people working in fast food to support their families, but the money is not enough for them to live decently.

The chapter also showed that ideology often works to justify inequality and exploitation. Movements like fight for $15 try to change this reality by fighting for fair wages and better conditions. This movement show how social movements can grow and organize nationally through social media and shared goals. It also shows how the right framing of a message can help society see inequality as legitimate problem that needs change.

Overall, this reading made me think deeply about how much work defined who we are and how unfair our system can be for those who give the most but earn the least.

From a sociological perspective, this moment reveals what Émile Durkheim called anomie a sense of normlessness that appears when social structures and moral guidelines collapse faster than new ones can form. People no longer know what to expect from work, relationships, or even themselves. The old rules that once gave life meaning don’t seem to apply, yet the new world hasn’t offered stable replacements.

I see this shift everywhere  in education, where students are told to prepare for jobs that don’t yet exist; in families, where traditions are fading but new forms of connection are still uncertain; and in our culture, where digital life blurs the line between the real and the virtual. We are living in between no longer fully part of the old world, but not yet comfortable in the new one.

What struck me most about Wishard’s argument is that this period of confusion is also a period of creation. Being caught between ages might feel chaotic, but it also means we are helping define what comes next. It made me wonder whether the future will bring stronger communities and new values based on empathy and connection, or if we will continue drifting toward individualism and isolation. In the end, sociology reminds us that every transformation begins with people and how we choose to adapt will decide what kind of age we create next.

Work in low-wage jobs strips people of time, health, and dignity. Employees are expected to be constantly "on" managers patrol the floor, breaks are discouraged, and workers are punished when sitting even when there is nothing to do. These conditions produce exhaustion and physical harm, many people take two or even two jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, which leaves not time for rest, education, or family, and they can't still afford a safety place to live in.

The material consequences are terrifyingly concrete. Without affordable healthcare, minor illness became chronic problems. Without enough money for fresh food, diets are calorie-rich but nutrient-poor, which worsens long-term health and increase medical costs. without stable hosing, people lose the privacy and safety needed to recover from injury or stress. These are not isolated personal choices they are predictable outcomes of a system that prizes short-term profit over human well-being.

McDonald's promises uniform products and perfect service, but to achieve that, the company has broken down every single task into routines and strict rules. At first, this might sound organized, but Leidner shows that it actually makes the job more stressful and repetitive. Workers have to follow scripts, move in specific ways, and smile not matter what they feel. It's like they are trained to act instead of think, and that takes away a part of their individuality.

What I found most striking is how this routinization affects their humanity. These employees aren't just flipping burgers, they're performing emotions for the company's image. It made me wonder how much freedom we really have when big corporations decide how we should behave, not only at work but in many parts of our lives.

This reading connects to Nickel and Dime because both show how low-wage workers are trapped in system that demand everything and give almost nothing back. It made me reflect on how much we take for granted every time we go to McDonald's, there are people behind the counter working under pressure just to make a living.

-Bangladesh

-Combodia

-China

-Vietnam

-Guatemala

-Honduras

-Guatemala

-China

-Guatemala

-China

Seeing the list of countries from my clothes, I discovered that most of them were made in China and Guatemala. This could be because those are countries where people often work long hours for low wages and are sometimes overworked. China, for example, is known for having a lot of machines and large factories in the manufacturing industry. All these countries work hard to produce clothes that are that are then sold in the U.S., where people usually don't work in manufacturing anymore but focus more on technology and service jobs instead. This shows how global economy depends on cheap labor from other countries and how future jobs will continue moving toward technology rather than physical labor.

People from different social classes not only work different types of jobs, but they also consume different things in different ways. This is partly because consumption is cultural. People with higher status often have more financial freedom, more influence, and more power to shape their lives.

Our social class is also influenced by the class position of our parents. Personally, this made me reflect on how I aspire to achieve social mobility to create a better lifestyle for myself. But moving up its not just about money, its also about cultural and social access.

Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explains that people with higher status usually hold three forms of capital : economic capital (money) social capital, (connections, networks) and cultural capital (knowledge, skills, education)

These forms of capital allows them to fit into elite social circles and maintain their status. For example, someone from a middle or upper class background might be more comfortable talking about things like piano lessons or fine dining, which can make it harder for lower-class individuals to enter those social spaces.

Consumption also becomes a way people signal their status. Today, access to credit cards makes it possible for people to spend beyond their means to "appear" higher class-like buying luxury brands, even fake ones. What we buy becomes a way we try to show where we think we belong.

Starbucks its a good example of cultural capital. It strategically placed in higher status neighborhoods, and even the language used there (like "Venti" instead of "large") Can make it feel like a status marker. It shows how consumption, lifestyle, and identity are connected.

Social class boundaries are shaped through consumption, by what we buy, how we present ourselves, and what we consider "good taste" and these patterns continue to create a reinforce inequality.

The poor also create jobs for others. If they did not take on the jobs that they do, it would be harder for professionals to obtain stable positions in fields where space is already limited. Many sectors of the economy rely on the existence of low-wage labor. Without the poor performing dirty and difficult work, the cost of many everyday goods and services would be much higher. However, while the poor contribute positive to the economic system, there are also professions meant to "manage" or "protect" society from the poor, such as police officers. It is important to note the distinction between being poor and being bad. Many of the poor people steal or work under harsh conditions out of necessity, while others who are not poor may commit harm out of ambition.

Even in my home, most of our furniture and clothing is second-hand. Poor people help sustain industries like thrift stores and second-hand markets, allowing good to continue being used instead of wasted. Grocery stores also lower prices in certain communities to meet the needs of low-income families. In this way, poor people help maintain the circulation and accessibility of resources.

Although poverty comes with many negative consequences, poor people are essential to the functioning of society and the economy. Without them, many services would become more expensive, and a certain professional roles would change or disappear. I agree with Gans that the poor play a necessary role in maintaining social and economic structures, even if that reality is unconfortable to acknowledge.

My brother wasn't able to continue with his education after we moved to the United states because he had to work, and because of that my parents put their hope in me, they believe I can be the one to achieve social mobility that they work so hard to make possible. But the chapter explains that when someone from a working class background moves into a higher social class, they often experience a type of cultural shock. I'm wondering If I'm going to feel caught between two worlds too? Probably yes. In fact, going to college, getting all this new information and then going back home where everybody has a different way of thinking impacts me now, I think it would continue to change with the years.

This chapter also mentions how the way we are raised is shaped by class. In my case, my childhood was full of music, TV, and everyday noise. Not really books bought at home. At home, I didn't grow up with the idea of expressing opinions freely. My dad brings home the work mentality where there isn't enough space for independent thinking. Many times, when I shared a different perspective, it was dismissed as "wrong." I also grew up with the belief that being quiet meant being respectful, which I currently don't believe it's true.

There were expectations tied to my role, too. Since I was very young, I was expecting to serve the food and stop eating if my dad or brother wanted more. That was just normal to me, because in many ways working-class families, gender roles are very clear and unquestioned.

This connects directly to (H) Chapter 33: The Uses of Poverty, where Gans argues that poor people are necessary for the structure of the economy. This made me think about how immigrants are often stigmatized and seen as criminals or threats, when in reality many of them are simply trying to survive and support their families.

Just like the poor, immigrants perform essential labor that keeps industries functioning - cleaning homes, working on construction, serving food and doing works that natives avoid. Instead of being value, they are frequently blamed, and judged.

The truth is that both the poor and immigrants sustain parts of the economy that most people never acknowledge, even while benefiting from their labor every day.

One example is the social registered, a list of families considered part of "proper" high society. It works like a guide to determine who belongs and who doesn't. It restrict social interaction and helps members maintain a sense of exclusivity. In other words, it creates a boundary that separates the upper class from everyone else from birth to death. Even the places they go, the doctors they see, and the school their children attend are intentionally limited to those who are already 'inside."

This reminded me of my experience when I used to live in El Salvador. I attended a regular public kinder garden, but my cousin, whose parents were a lawyer and a police officer, went to a private school called "primavera." The children there were sons of educated or wealthier families. For my older cousin he went to a private University called San Francisco, which were known for people with higher financial stability. I grew up seeing how the upper class becomes a model that the middle class tries to imitate. This is connected to JCB chapter 10: Branding / The self and social interaction, When someone from the upper class has a certain brand-name item, people from the middle class often want it too, even if they can only afford a fake version - because it makes them feel like they belong.

In the United States, this happens through boarding schools and elite Universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. These institutions are not just about education, they are spaces were children are surrounded by "acceptable" people, and where the values of the upper class are passed on. And even at these universities, they create private clubs to ensure lifetime friendships and business connections that continue to keep them separate from the middle and lower classes.

This video makes me think about the functions of poverty, the idea that poverty continues because it actually benefits the wealthy and the upper class connects directly with what I saw in the video. Poor and working-class people often do the least desirable jobs - cleaning, constructions, farming. Which allows the economy to keep going. Meanwhile, the wealthy can keep building more wealth because the system already works in their favor.

I also reflected on my own goals and future. I am doing everything I can to move forward, studying, planning, trying to create better opportunities for myself, but I now understand that I am doing this within a system that is unequal by design. That realization was difficult, but also important. The video helped me see that inequality in the United States is normalized, but it isn't fair.

However, while sports can unite, they also reflect essentialism as the chapter explains. The text mentions how people have historically believed different racial or ethnic groups have “natural” abilities in sports, such as the early assumptions that Jewish players were better because of supposed physical traits (Leonard 2015). I have seen this same essentialist thinking today. My boyfriend and his friends often say that “Black players are better” because they are “naturally stronger or faster.” For example, when they talk about Enner Valencia, a player from Ecuador they not only highlight his skill, but also emphasize that he is Black, as if his race alone explains his ability. Even when these comments seem positive, they still reduce a whole person down to one stereotype, and they reinforce the idea that race determines talent.

I have also noticed how sports can create social boundaries of who is included and who is excluded. When I used to go with my boyfriend to the soccer fields, there was always a boy who wanted to play with them. They allowed him to join, but because he did not have the same skills or the same “soccer knowledge,” he was never really included in their conversations or in the betting games. He was physically on the field, but socially he was on the outside. This showed me how sports create not just teamwork, but also hierarchies about who is considered “in” and who is not.

Another part that impacted me is the gender inequality in sports. I already knew that women’s sports receive less support, but seeing the actual numbers made it clear: male players in the World Cup can earn around $69,000 just for being on the roster, while women only receive about $15,000. The difference in pay, attention, and respect is directly connected to patriarchy. Most of the men around me barely talk about women’s soccer because they don’t consider it as skilled or exciting. And even my cousin, who used to play on a professional team, talks more about male players and says women “don’t know how to play” at the same level. This shows how deeply the idea that “sports belong to men” has been internalized, even by women themselves. It also connects to how society labels women who play soccer as “masculine,” or says they don’t look “pretty,” which reflects cultural expectations tied to gender norms and assimilation into what femininity is supposed to look like.

Overall, this chapter helped me understand how sports can create bonding social capital (connecting with people similar to us), but also bridging social capital (connecting across differences). At the same time, sports reflect ongoing systems of inequality tied to race, and gender.

Sociologically,, music teach us about tastes, subcultures, and the power of subcultural capital. Our taste in music becomes a way to express identity and to draw symbolic boundaries. Saying someone has a "good taste" is usually connected to cultural capital, which ties back to class. From my observations, people from different social classes tend to listen to different kinds of music, because their living conditions and environment shape what they learn to enjoy. So when we say “ I like this music,” we are also saying “this is who I am” and signaling the social group we belong to.

Music also has a sociological significance for cultural survival and resistance to oppression, especially racism. Music can be used as a form of protest and a tool of musical resistance, but under capitalism, this resistance can also become commodified and consumed by many different kinds of people.

For example, in Canada, the First Nations hip-hop ground A Tribe called Red uses music to talk about colonization and the oppression of indigenous people. Their music critics cultural appropriation, racist sports mascots, and the colonial narratives behind holidays like Thanksgiving. They show how music can carry a vision of social change.

Early jazz singers also expressed both joy and pain. The song “Strange Fruit” is a powerful example. It combines a haunting melody with a critique or lynching, but something that is not often mentioned is that Mexicans were also lynched during the same era. This is a part of history that has been erased, but the music still holds that truth.

Hip-Hop also shows the connections between music, identity, and lived experience. The history behind is something I didn’t know, the style emerge from African American and Latino youth living in poor conditions, expressing everyday struggles with poverty, crime, drugs, and police brutality. But instead of being understood as cultural expression, these youths were labeled as “troubled” or “dangerous” simply because of the music they listen to and the style associated with it.

I'm part of a program called Puente and most of the people there there are Hispanic or share similar cultural backgrounds. When we talk about discrimination and segregation ion our ethnic studies class, some students said they have never experienced segregation because most people around were latino and friendly. But after reflecting, we realized that the reason most people in those areas were Latino were actually a result of segregation, it reflects how society tends to push minority groups into separate spaces.

The story of the journalist who discovered he was Black living in a White community showed how segregation worked in the past. During the 1950s people said "separate but equal," but the reality was "separate and unequal." Such as separating them in different schools, bathrooms and even playgrounds. As he mentioned some Black people felt proud to have something they could called their own, even if it wasn't truly equal. His white friend didn't even noticed the segregation, which shows how privilege makes inequality invisible to those who don't experience it. For example, many men say there is not gender inequality simply because they don't face it firsthand.

The way racial terms have changed over time fro "Negro," to "Black," to "African American," to "person of Color" Clearly demonstrates that race is socially constructed and constantly elevating depending on time, place and culture.

Coming from El Salvador, race was not something I thought about because more people looked like me, and speak the same language that I do. But after moving to the U.S. at fourteen, I started to become more aware of it, filling out forms that asked about my race and ethnicity made me question. Why does it matter so much? Why do we need to classify people? Now that Im taking this course I understand that these categories shape how people is threaten and the opportunities they have in life. I've experience situations of racism that white people probably would never experience. Being "the only one" or being seen as different or foreign. It makes me question who I am and where do I belong.

This idea reminded me of something from the book White Fragility. The author, a white woman, reflects: “I grew up in poverty and felt a deep sense of shame about being poor. But I also always knew that I was white, and that it was better to be white.” (DiAngelo 19). Even when someone experiences suffering or disadvantage, whiteness still provides unspoken protections and privileges. Her experience shows how deeply racism shapes our society, even for people who don’t consider themselves racist.

Another powerful point is the critique of statements like " I don't see race" or "I am colorblind." These phrases often come from the desire to appear “good” and non-racist, but they actually deny how racism works. Racism is not simply an external choice we accept or reject it is away of thinking that we absorb automatically by living in a society built on racial hierarchy. The author compares it to living next to a cement factory: you don’t choose to breathe the dust, you absorb it without even noticing. In the same way, racist beliefs and assumptions settle into our thinking long before we are aware of them.

The author’s personal story about the photograph on his desk makes this point even deeper. The image shows two young Jewish boys who survived a Nazi concentration camp, holding an infant in their arms. For him, this photo is more than a memory. It reminds him that racism is not abstract it destroys lives, and futures. The picture symbolizes the real human suffering caused when prejudice becomes accepted, normalized, or encouraged by society. It shows that prejudice may begin as a natural human reaction to fear or difference, but it becomes dangerous when institutions and cultural beliefs give it power.The photo forces him to remember that the cost of racism is not theoretical it is measured in human pain.

Because of all this, it becomes unrealistic to say, “I am not racist.” We all internalize ideas from our surroundings, even without meaning to. The goal is not guilt; the goal is awareness. Only by recognizing the influences we’ve absorbed can we prevent them from shaping our actions. Ultimately, what matters is not the image we hold of ourselves but the impact we have on others. Real people continue to be harmed by racism and poverty, and meaningful change begins with the courage to look inward.

-What race are you?

-How do you know? How do you make that decision?

-How did you learn what race you are? What early messages did you receive about race?

-How do you decide what race other people are?

-How do other people decide what race you are?

What I found is that even though everyone answered individually, their experiences where similar to other people, and it revealed how deeply race shapes our identities, often before we are even aware of it.

Two of my friends shared almost identical answers, which I think is connected to having very similar backgrounds and family experiences.

One of them identified as Hispanic. She told me she never actually “chose” her race, her family identified that way, so she simply grew into it over time. She also learned she was seen as a different race through school paperwork asking her to check a box, and because she spoke Spanish. To her, race is something others determine through appearance, skin tone, and accent. She feels that other people identify her the same way, mostly based on those visible markers.

Another person I spoke with identified as Cambodian. She said she learned her race because her parents taught her. They showed her Cambodia on a map, talked about traditions and culture, and she still practices many of them today. She decides what race other people are simply by asking them, and she said that other people do the same with her.

The next interview was with a man who identified as Black. He said he knows he is Black because of his skin color. He didn’t remember specific early messages he received about race, but he explained that he often determines others’ race based on a mix of asking and appearance. He also said other people see him as Black mainly because of how he looks.

The last person I interviewed identified as White. She said she knows she is White because of her blue eyes, light skin tone, and the way her parents look. She learned this mainly in school when they talked about different races. She said she identifies others’ race through appearance, accent, and even height. She mentioned that for her, it feels “obvious,” especially because her own appearance fits the typical characteristics associated with being White.

What is race?

Race is a social category that society creates to classify and group people based on physical traits like skin color, facial features, or hair texture. Even though it feels natural or “obvious,” race is not biological, it is something societies build and enforce. It influences how people see us, how institutions treat us, and even how we see ourselves.

What does it mean to say that race is socially constructed?

Saying that race is socially constructed means that race is not something we are born understanding it is something we learn from our Families, schools, government forms, media, and everyday interactions teach us what race “means.” Society creates the categories, assigns meanings to them, and decides which traits are important. These categories change across time and cultures, which shows they are not natural or fixed. I think of race as a category to justify inequality.

The interviews I did make this clear none of the people I talked to decided their race on their own. They learned it through parents, schools, paperwork, and how others treated them. This shows that race is more about social meanings, expectations, and labels that shape our lives, often without us noticing just accepting it.

The other day, I went to the store and parked on the street on the other side of the road from my house. It was a public street and perfectly legal. Suddenly, a white woman walked up to me and said, “Can you park somewhere else? I have some people coming today and we need to park here.” I didn’t say a word. I just moved my car.

But later, I asked myself. Why did I do that?

It wasn’t her driveway. It wasn’t reserved. It was a public street.

When I told my dad about what happened, he said, “Why did you move? You were parked on the street. And honestly, I was mad at myself because deep down, I know that if that person had been from another race, I probably would have responded differently. But something about the situation her tone, her confidence, maybe just the way I’ve been conditioned made me feel small for a moment.

It made me face something uncomfortable, sometimes I carry this internal feeling of inferiority that society has planted in me, and that I’ve absorbed without even realizing it. But I also know those feelings aren’t right and don't define me.

I’m learning to remind myself that I have the same right to exist and to take up space as anyone else.

Also I know that situations like this may happen even more in university, where many students are white or Asian. As Hispanics, we sometimes feel scared or intimidated, even though it doesn’t make much sense because race is socially constructed and doesn't define any intelligence, but it does represent inferiority. Still, it’s hard to shake the stigma that they are somehow “smarter,” more capable, or more likely to succeed than people from my race.

The two images from a toy store in France (page 181) also highlight how toys are separated by gender. In the image on the left, the “girls’ section” includes dolls, images of girls on the boxes, and a wide variety of colors—though pink is the most dominant. In contrast, the image on the right shows a boy in the “boys’ section,” surrounded mostly by trucks. The dominant colors there are blue, white, and yellow. This separation shows how gender plays a major role in shaping children’s choices from a very young age.

Parents also influence what children choose. For example, I grew up with around ten kids; only three of us were girls. My oldest girl cousin loved playing soccer and with trucks, but she was told she was “too masculine” at a very young age. Her parents tried to force her to like dolls or pretend cooking instead. This demonstrates how gender expectations limit kids’ freedom.

It is important to recognize that these ideas change across time and culture for example in 1914, pink was considered for boys and blue for girls. This shows that gender is socially constructed, not natural.

Having strict gender categories doesn’t work for everyone. Many people, including transgender people, do not identify with the gender assigned to them at birth. Gender roles also limit our lives. For example, as a woman, I’m “supposed” to clean and not like cars, which can restrict my interests.

Overall, toys are a window into the socialization of the next generation of consumers. The types of toys children are offered teach them what society expects them to like and do in the future. For example, it’s common to find toy sets for girls that involve feeding or changing diapers, but not for boys reinforcing the idea that boys and girls are completely different and contributing to future inequality and sexism

When I typed “beauty” into Google, the images that appeared were almost exclusively of white women surrounded by beauty products. In just a few seconds, it became obvious that beauty is not only an ideology it is an industry. Makeup alone has become one of the most powerful cultural tools to measure and perform beauty. Even in my own experience, when I’m not wearing makeup, I feel as if something is missing, as if I am not fully “beautiful.” At family gatherings, I often hear the same comment many Latina girls grow up with: “¿Por qué no te arreglaste?”—which translates to “Why didn’t you arrange yourself?” as if my natural face were somehow defective, incomplete, or in need of fixing. Makeup stops being a choice and becomes a social requirement, a way to be accepted, validated, and welcomed into society.

These pressures run deep. I think about women like Sol León a famous women in social media once celebrated for her natural beauty who became so consumed by the demand to maintain and perfect her appearance that she altered her body over and over until she barely resembled the person she once was. Her story is not unique. Many people lose themselves in the pursuit of a beauty standard that keeps shifting, always just out of reach.

Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s work in The Body Project helps me understand this better. She shows how, in different historical periods, girls were encouraged to focus on inner improvement becoming wiser, kinder, more capable. But over time, the focus shifted toward the external body. What I see around me now is that many girls just want to grow up faster, wear makeup early, dress more provocatively, and imitate influencers who are also shaped by these same social pressures. Beauty becomes a performance, not a personal choice a social construction that dictates how we should look, act, and even feel about ourselves.

Beauty also creates huge pressure, especially for women, and it reinforces dominant racial hierarchies. Beauty standards privilege whiteness. Even though I am considered light-skinned, I remember a time when I got very tanned, and because the beauty narrative implied that “lighter is better,” I started doing a rice mask to lighten my skin again. The mask irritated my face and didn’t even work. That moment showed me how powerful socially constructed ideas can be they can make us feel the need to change something that was never wrong in the first place.

And then there is the industry. Skin-lightening products and skincare lines have grown into a multi-billion-dollar business, selling the idea that we must constantly improve, lighten, tighten, and “fix” ourselves. The products get more expensive, more inaccessible, creating frustration, insecurity, and competition among women who are simply trying to meet an impossible standard.

And sometimes I ask myself: why is sex so important? Why is so much decided before we even understand who we are?

I think about my aunt. She desperately wanted a girl but ended up having three boys. At first she was disappointed, because she imagined doing her daughter’s hair, buying dresses, sharing makeup those very gendered rituals that society teaches us to value. But now, when I talk to her, she says she’s happy because she has “men who provide.” Yet for years, she was the one cleaning for them, caring for them, carrying the emotional and domestic burden. This made me see how our sex hands us lifelong roles we are expected to perform, roles that feel natural only because they’ve been socially constructed and normalized to the point that we barely question them.

I see it everywhere. The “right” clothes. The color blue assigned to boys like a rule of nature. Parents freaking out if their sons touch a dress or anything pink. Their toys are trucks, action figures, boxing, This placed boys into certain ways of acting. Boys get praised for being loud, messy, expressive. Even when moms tell them to stop, deep down they accept it as “that’s what boys do.” And as they grow, the world opens for them. They speak louder, wander farther, stay out longer, talk back more. Meanwhile, girls are raised in an entirely different universe quieter, smaller, more controlled.

I’ve lived this difference in my own home. My brother has always had more freedom than I ever did. At fifteen he could go out with friends, do sleepovers, go to the beach, discover and experiment. I couldn’t. Because I am a girl. And for girls, the world is labeled “dangerous” by default. I was supposed to be quiet while they were allowed to be silly and loud. They enjoyed their freedom while mine was monitored, restricted, minimized. Even when I was older than him, the answer was still no.

And what’s even harder is that men know these inequalities exist. They know they’re on the privileged side. And they reinforce it they discriminate against other boys who don’t act like “real men.” Puberty becomes another stage where they are pushed to exhibit masculinity, to prove something, to perform a gender role that never came from biology in the first place.

I’ve also noticed how they shift their selves depending on who’s around. With boys, they’re relaxed, natural, unrestrained. Around girls, they suddenly perform gentleness, softness—behaviors that aren’t always real but strategic, used to manipulate women into giving them what they want.

The more I reflect on all of this, the more I understand that gender isn’t just something we are, it’s something we are taught to perform every single day. And the consequences of that performance shape our opportunities, our freedoms, our identities, and even the way our families treat us.

I did it because I wanted to look pretty. I had a crush, and back then, looking good felt like the most important thing in my life. I didn’t think about my body’s needs. I didn’t think about eating. I didn’t think about rest. All I thought about was beauty because that’s what society had taught me girls are supposed to care about.

Beauty becomes something we’re evaluated on every day, even if we never enter a formal beauty contest or try out for cheerleading. The judgment doesn’t need a stage it happens at school hallways, in classrooms, in social media posts, and in silent comparisons. And girls contribute to this system too. We talk about other girls in ways that reflect our own anxieties, our own fears about not looking good enough. The critiques, the comments, the gossip so much of it comes from insecurity, not confidence.

And weight is one of the biggest pressures. I’ve seen how celebrities like Adele get criticized harshly if they gain weight, while men never face the same scrutiny. Nobody says anything when men gain weight. This double standard gets absorbed by girls who are still trying to understand themselves. Middle school girls, who have almost no control over their changing bodies, start to panic about staying “thin enough.” Many of them end up doing things like skipping meals or even forcing themselves to throw up after eating, because they’ve been taught that beauty is more important than health.

But the truth is, these thoughts feel inevitable. Society makes beauty so central that it becomes impossible not to think about it. From a young age we learn that how we look matters more than who we are. And that message follows us everywhere even into adulthood. When we apply for jobs, beauty is silently evaluated. When we try to keep jobs, it’s evaluated again. Over and over, women are viewed primarily as physical or sexual objects rather than full human beings with thoughts, intelligence, and emotions.

And when I think back to myself waking up at 5 a.m. just to impress a boy, I see how much this construction of femininity shaped me before I even understood what was happening. I was acting from social learning. Society had already taught me that being a female meant caring about beauty above everything else. And I carried that weight without ever being given the chance to question it.

As a girl, I remember how girls always played with girls. We brought dolls, small toys, and played quiet games that didn’t take up much physical space. Meanwhile, the boys played soccer, ran around outside, and engaged in rougher games activities that were louder, more physical, and took over the playground. Even the environment reinforced this division boys occupied more space, while girls were expected to remain orderly and polite.

I noticed that girls were expected to follow the rules, while boys were almost encouraged to push boundaries, break norms, and test limits. Over time, these differences created a whole social world where rule-breaking was coded as masculine, and obedience was coded as feminine.

Something that stands out to me is how the labels boys used shaped their early homophobia. Words like “gay,” “girly,” or “weak” were used as insults among them, reinforcing a hierarchy where vulnerability was dangerous.

In contrast, girls built friendships around intimacy, sharing secrets, and mutual emotional support. What we saw as bonding, boys saw as “weakness,” something they feared being exposed for through joking or “horsing around.”

While both boys and girls knew “dirty words,” boys flaunted them more, even risking punishment, because acting out was part of their social script. Girls rarely did, rule-breaking by girls was seen as shocking or out of place.

Looking back, I now understand that gendered peer groups were quietly producing the early sexual scripts of adolescence: who liked whom, what it meant to be a couple, how boys and girls should interact. These scripts were always heterosexual and male-centered, shaping how we learned to understand attraction and relationships.

In the end, my experience taught me that boys and girls were learning very different skills and types of social knowledge. While girls learned emotional closeness and cooperation, boys learned dominance and rule-breaking. These early patterns are not random they’re socially constructed, and they follow us into adolescence and adulthood.

As women, I notice how our conversations are usually centered on connection and empathy. When I talk with friends, I constantly consider their feelings and emotional comfort. Meanwhile, men are socialized to avoid appearing “one-down,” weak, or vulnerable, so their conversations follow a different script one that protects their ego and dominance.

One habit I recognized in myself is how often women apologize. Sometimes our “sorry” isn’t a real apology it’s a way of sharing responsibility, softening tension, or maintaining harmony. The other day, while I was with my friends (all girls), I kept saying “sorry” over the smallest things. They told me, “You didn’t even do anything,” and that’s when I realized how automatic this response is.

This reminds me of the word “mande” in Spanish a word many of us grew up using whenever our parents called us. Translating it literally gives you “order me,” a phrase loaded with submission. Even our language subtly teaches us to be obedient, agreeable, and self-effacing. It’s not empowering it’s inherited. The same way women apologized place themselves in a position of submission.

I also think about humor. Men can joke freely, even with authority figures, without being judged. But when women make jokes, we risk being seen as “too much,” “unserious,” or even “easy women” We aren’t given the same space to be expressive without social consequences.

This chapter challenged me to monitor my own speech, to notice the gendered habits I carry without thinking the softening, the apologizing, the shrinking. It also made me reflect that maybe if more women were placed in positions of real authority, we would finally learn to feel comfortable with power, to speak without shrinking, and to take up space without apologizing for it.

When there’s a question like “Who started the classroom disturbance?” or “Who broke the vase?”, adults are more likely to blame the unattractive child, while the beautiful child is assumed to be innocent. Many people refuse to believe that someone beautiful can do something bad. Even studies show that teachers assume beautiful children have higher IQs, are more likely to go to college, and have parents who are more invested in their education.

It’s almost shocking to see how much beauty can excuse things sometimes you can get away with inferior work if you’re physically attractive. The more beautiful someone is, the more they are liked. We treat physically appealing people as if they are guaranteed to have better marriages, become better partners, and live more fulfilling social and career lives.

What shocked me the most was learning how much height affects men’s success. Tall men are seen as dynamic, decisive, powerful basically “born leaders.” And all of this is based on appearance alone, not on who they actually are.

Every day, without even noticing it, we make assumptions about people based on the way they look. And this chapter made me realize how deep and unfair those assumptions really are.

Miller found that Army men often employ strategies of resistance “weapons of the weak” usually used by marginalized groups. Instead of welcoming equality, some men direct their energy toward resisting their women coworkers and commanders through sabotage, name-calling, door-dragging, and spreading rumors. What strikes me is that women themselves do not appear to use these weapons of the weak to gain power over men. Instead, people act based on their own perceptions of power, shaped by their personal experiences and knowledge.

Many military men believe that women “take advantage” of their gender to move up, even though women are actually navigating a hostile environment. This hostility often takes the form of gender harassment, which is used to enforce traditional gender roles or punish those who violate them. Gender harassment tries to undermine women’s attempts at gaining power. And this isn’t only directed toward women, men who fail to live up to the masculine ideal can also become targets.

Women report that gender harassment can be just as disruptive as sexual harassment. It affects their ability to work, their private lives, and their opportunities for recognition or promotion. As I read these experiences, what hurts the most is seeing how men often show resistance to authority when the authority figure is a woman. It reveals how threatened some men feel by women superiors, pushing them to undermine their work instead of respecting it.

On top of that, military women also face constant rumors. If a woman dates more than one man, she’s labeled a “slut”; if she doesn’t date at all, she’s labeled a “dyke.” Their personal lives are under constant and intense scrutiny, with no way to exist without judgment. Even though the Army strengthened its formal sexual harassment policies in the 1990s to teach men definitions, rules, and consequences those policies don’t automatically create a supportive or even tolerant environment.

For me, this chapter reveals how deeply gender is socially constructed within institutions like the military. It shows that simply allowing women into these spaces isn’t enough. Real change requires confronting the perception of power, the enforcement of gender roles, and the informal systems that continue to undermine women every day.

Another example is the way gender roles were implemented in my family, especially in Hispanic households. Women were expected to cook, serve, and take care of the house, while men were expected to provide. At home, it was always my older brother, my mom, and my dad. If my dad or brother wanted more food while we were eating, my mom or I had to stand up and serve them. We also had to pick up the dishes and wash them. I remember getting frustrated and asking myself why being a woman felt is so hard, and why these responsibilities automatically fell on us just because of our gender. It is our responsibilities as women. 

Both of these experiences show how I was socialized into my gender from a young age learning what girls “should” and “shouldn’t” do, and understanding the expectations placed on women long before I even understood what gender socialization meant.

The girls’ aisle was dominated by pink. Almost every toy had some shade of pink, purple, or pastel colors. The themes were also very specific: princesses, babies, kitchen sets, makeup kits, and dolls. On the packaging, the images only showed girls playing with the toys, reinforcing the message that these toys belong to girls and girls only. The toys also promoted ideas of caregiving, beauty, and domestic roles messages that society often connects to femininity.

On the other side, the boys’ aisle was almost the complete opposite. The dominant color was blue, along with darker tones like black and red. The toys focused on action and adventure: cars, trucks, superheroes, dinosaurs, Legos themed around battles or construction. The boxes only displayed boys playing with the toys, reinforcing the idea that boys are supposed to be active, strong, and involved in building or fighting scenarios.

I did notice a small section of gender-neutral toys, mostly animal toys or educational toys. These packages used yellow or multicolored designs that didn’t lean toward either side. However, they were a very small portion of the toy section, and they were placed between the girl and boy aisles. Even baby toys were more colorful and mixed, but many still leaned slightly toward one gender through subtle details like the color of the baby pictured on the box, clothing choices, or small design choices.

Overall, what stood out the most during my observation was how strongly toys are still gendered. The colors, the themes, the packaging, and even the placement of the aisles all communicate what society expects from boys and girls. Even before children speak or understand these messages, the toys available to them already shape ideas about gender roles, interests, and identity

From the Women category, I counted the race of the models based only on appearance, which I know may not be completely accurate. Out of all the women I observed, 23 appeared to be White, 8 looked Latina, and 4 appeared to be African American. There were also several women whose race I couldn’t determine, which shows how complicated and socially constructed racial categories really are.

When I moved to the Curve section, I noticed something important: many of the women didn’t look significantly different from the women in the main category. They just had slightly more visible weight, they were placed in a separate section as if they belonged to a different world of beauty. This division reflects how society defines “acceptable” bodies with extremely narrow standards. Even women with minimal extra weight are separated and labeled as something outside of the “norm.”

In the Men category, I counted 23 White men, 2 Black men, and several others whose race I wasn’t able to identify but appeared to be various shades of brown. Just like the women’s section, the majority of men shown as “model material” were White.

Across all categories, I also noticed that very few people had visible body fat, even in the curve group. Beauty was consistently associated with thinness and very specific body proportions.

What I learned from this mini-content analysis is that beauty is deeply socially constructed. The modeling website didn’t just reflect society’s beauty standards it helped create them. By showing mostly White, thin, and conventionally attractive bodies, the site reinforces the idea that these features are the “ideal.”

It also shows how race is not biological, but something we visually assign based on skin tone, hair texture, and facial features. The fact that I had to guess the races of many models and sometimes couldn’t at all proves that racial categories are invented by society, not natural facts.  these invented categories still shape who gets represented as beautiful, desirable, or “marketable.”

This assignment made me aware of how much power the media has in defining what counts as beauty. These images influence how we see ourselves and others. They normalize certain bodies while making others invisible or “other.” It also made me question the stereotypes we attach to different racial and gendered bodies who gets portrayed as elegant, strong, feminine, exotic, or professional.

This story is extremely sad, but it shows how, in extreme circumstances, people may be forced to violate deeply rooted cultural norms in order to survive. In their case, eating the bodies of those who had died, something that goes completely against their moral and cultural principles became the only option to stay alive. Although the act is considered deviant in normal circumstances, in this situation it became a necessary decision for survival.

Our world is socially constructed. Nothing carries a built-in meaning instead, humans assign meaning to things, behaviors, and symbols. We could easily assign different meanings, and in fact, societies often do. Meanings are arbitrary, they can shift, and people reinterpret them depending on the context. For the Andes survivors, this is exactly what happened. They had grown up learning that a dead body, even if it is no longer a person, must be treated with respect and that consuming human flesh is morally wrong and socially deviant. However, when their circumstances changed so drastically, the definitions changed as well.

What is considered deviant, or who is labeled a devian is also socially constructed. Actions that society sees as threatening, immoral, or taboo can be reevaluated when survival is at stake. The survivors negotiated new norms among themselves: how to divide the food, how much to eat, how to treat the bodies with dignity, and how to make sense of their actions without losing their humanity. These newly created norms helped them maintain a moral order within chaos.

Talking about these ideas helps us understand that behaviors we label as deviant are not always about “good” or “bad” people, but about context, survival, and the social meanings we attach to actions. The principles shown in this story are fundamental to human life. They do not apply only to the Andes survivors or to those labeled as deviants in general but to all of human society.

For all of us, reality is socially constructed, and the story of the Andes survivors reveals the essence of how humans create, negotiate, and sometimes reinvent the norms that guide our world.

The “white wedding” is not just a personal fantasy, it is a massive industry and a powerful cultural ritual. It sets expectations for bridesmaids, multi-layer cakes, expensive honeymoons, and a perfect romantic narrative. But behind the fantasy is also the reality that for men, this often represents more work and financial pressure.

The chapter helped me see how this ritual is connected to bigger sociological concepts: the family, romantic love, social reproduction, and heteronormativity. The white wedding creates an ideology that hides inequalities around gender, sexuality, class, and race.

When I think of my own family, I realize I grew up within the nuclear family, shaped by the cult of domesticity the idea that women should cook, clean, raise children, and maintain the home. Historically, marriage wasn’t even about love. People married for survival, for economic stability, or for the need to produce children. Even today, many people marry because life is expensive and resources are scarce, not necessarily because marriage is the only way to express love.

The chapter also challenged the idea of heteronormativity, which assumes only two types of people,-masculine men and feminine women and that they are “naturally” attracted to each other. But with the legalization of gay marriage, this norm has been questioned. Scholars like Suzanna Danuta Walters remind us that marriage is historically rooted in inequality, and that love doesn’t need state approval to be real or legitimate.

What surprised me most is how much cultural power the white wedding still has. It is tied to race, class, gender, and sexuality, and yet it continues to be seen as the symbol of a “complete” life. It even creates consumer debt, pressure, and unrealistic expectations. People who don’t get married may feel like their lives are missing something because society has made the white wedding the ultimate goal.

However, the chapter points out that in many ways, family life was far worse a hundred years ago. Thousands of children worked full-time in mines, mills, and sweatshops. Most adults labored 10 hours a day, six days a week, leaving them little time or energy for their families. Women couldn’t vote, earned extremely low wages, and many were pushed into prostitution just to survive.

Divorced men often failed to pay child support. Many wives reported that being ignored or belittled by their husbands was considered “normal” in an otherwise happy marriage. Spousal rape was legal, domestic violence was not taken seriously, and much of what we now call child abuse was viewed as acceptable discipline.

Today, individuals and families have more opportunities and protections than ever before. This allows people to express unpopular opinions and live in ways that were once impossible. It has also opened the door for families who historically had no social acceptance at all interracial families, LGBTQ families, single-mother families, and more. Women’s expanded educational and economic opportunities benefit not only themselves but also their children.

American children are also significantly safer today. An infant in the 1950s was four times more likely to die than an infant today. Parents were three times more likely to lose a child under 15, and far more likely to lose an older teen. Teen births have dropped from 50% of all nonmarital births in the late 1970s to just 30% today. Mothers also have more resources and educational opportunities than ever before.

When we look at families today, the chapter emphasizes that differences within family types are more important than differences between them. No family structure guarantees success or failure. What matters most is how a family functions on the inside, not what it looks like from the outside.

The biggest challenge American families face is not that families have changed too much, it’s that our institutions haven’t changed enough. Work policies are still built for a world where mothers stayed home and fathers weren’t expected to participate in childcare. School schedules are still based on the needs of farm life from 150 years ago. And political leaders often frame choices as either supporting stay-at-home parents or investing in childcare and after-school programs, while other nations have shown that both can be done.

But afterward, I thought, “If I can’t have my dream quince, then for my wedding I want a big dress and the perfect celebration.” So at fourteen, I started planning every detail of my future wedding. Back then, it wasn’t really about marrying my soulmate—it was more about the party and the celebration itself.

Now that I’m older, my mindset has changed. I still want to get married someday, but I’m more relaxed about it. And honestly, I think I would prefer something small and intimate, because I don’t like sharing meaningful moments with strangers. A simple wedding feels more like me now.

However, as Zimbardo’s remarkable experiment demonstrated, the problem goes far deeper than individual personalities. The social structure of the prison itself the roles, the power dynamics, and the environment creates the conditions for brutality, dehumanization, and violence.

I read and watched a video about Philip G. Zimbardo’s experiment for my psychology class and this class, and it was shocking. Seventy volunteers with no criminal record were paid $15 a week to participate. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but it had to be shut down on the sixth day because of what they witnessed. Some of the boys assigned as guards began treating the “prisoners” as if they were despicable animals, taking pleasure in cruelty.

Meanwhile, the boys assigned as prisoners became passive, anxious, and dehumanized, thinking only about escape. Four prisoners had to be released within the first four days due to severe emotional breakdowns—hysterical crying, confusion, and deep depression.About a third of the guards became enthusiastic about the power they held, inventing new ways to break the prisoners’ spirits and make them feel worthless.

This experiment revealed a powerful truth: individual behavior is heavily shaped often controlled by social forces, structures, and expectations. The prison system doesn’t just contain violence; it can actually produce it.

So, how can prisons be improved to minimize violence?

To reach that goal, we need to rethink the social structure of prisons. The environment must shift from punishment and domination to rehabilitation and reintegration. There should be more community involvement in these institutions, with stronger connections encouraged between inmates and their families or friends. Educational and vocational programs should be expanded to help prepare individuals for returning to society as stronger, more valuable members than they were before. Power should not be used to dehumanize, but to guide and support transformation.

Zimbardo’s experiment reminds us that it’s not just “bad people” who create violent prisons it’s the systems we build, the roles we enforce, and the social meanings we attach to authority and obedience. Changing those structures is essential if we want a safer, more humane, and more effective prison system.

Notions of normality and abnormality may not be as accurate as people believe. Of course, some behaviors are clearly deviant murder is deviant, and so are hallucinations. Anxiety and depression exist, but ideas of normality and abnormality, sanity and insanity, and the diagnoses that come from them may be less reliable than many think. Patients can present symptoms that appear “insane,” but the whole way we categorize mental illness has been challenged as possibly useless at best and harmful, misleading, and stigmatizing at worst.

Rosenhan wanted to see how accurate psychiatric diagnosis is by sending normal people (who had never shown symptoms of serious mental illness) into psychiatric hospitals. If these pseudopatients were discovered to be sane, it would show that normality is something that can be recognized regardless of context. But if their sanity was never detected, it would create serious problems for those who trust traditional psychiatric diagnosis.

The article explains that eight sane people secretly gained admission to twelve different hospitals. The pseudopatients came from varied backgrounds: one was a psychology graduate student in his twenties, and the rest were older and established, three psychologists, a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter, and a housewife. All entered complaining that they heard voices. After admission, they behaved completely normally. However, once they were labeled schizophrenic, that label stuck no matter how sane they acted.

The pseudopatients were not carefully observed. The experiment shows that professionals sometimes label sane people as insane, especially when reputation and diagnostic certainty are at stake. Labeling and depersonalization have serious consequences, we tend to assume more knowledge than we actually have. Instead of taking the time to understand patients, staff simply labeled them “schizophrenic,” “manic depressive,” or “insane,” as if those words captured the full reality of the person. The study also reminds us that many people have pretended to be insane to avoid consequences for their actions.

Police violence is not random it is often treated as a regular part of the job. Although this behavior is not always openly supported or admired, officers sometimes use forms of violence that would be seen as illegal, illegitimate, or immoral if done by anyone else. But within police culture, this violence is often justified as “necessary.”

Officers are trained to control, subdue, and restrain suspects. They are taught that they may use deadly force if their life is in danger, but they are also instructed that weapons like batons or guns cannot be used to torture, injure, or kill unnecessarily. Still, new officers quickly learn that using extreme force can earn them respect from their colleagues. This is often considered “real police work.”

There is also a gender dynamic: male officers are often seen as more competent, while female officers are viewed as physically or emotionally weak. For example, one female officer’s hesitation to shoot a suspect led her colleagues to question her competence. She later said she wished she had shot him and would do it next time reflecting pressure she said next time I would “shoot first and ask questions later.”

Police officers sometimes abuse their power not in the name of justice, but to maintain prestige, authority, and the stereotypical image of how a “real cop” should behave. This becomes more about power than about doing what is right or being effective.

We still see this abuse of power today, especially in the way some ICE officers treat immigrants. They often dehumanize them and act freely without consequences because institutions and the government support this treatment allowing this behavior to continue.

Growing up in El Salvador, women shaving their heads was almost unheard of unless it was connected to illness. So without even thinking about it, I carried those cultural expectations into the way I interpreted her choice.

In sociology, we learn that norms are powerful precisely because they are invisible. No one ever sat me down and said, “Women must have long hair,” but that rule was always “there” in media, beauty standards, and the expectations I grew up with. Seeing her break that norm showed me how strongly gender shapes the way we judge what is “normal.”

When I thought about it more deeply, I realized there are many rational reasons someone might shave their head medical treatment, symbolic change, personal empowerment, or simply preference.

In those situations, I wouldn’t think of myself as “weird” for making the same choice. The label I applied in the moment didn’t change my feelings toward her, but it made me aware of how quickly we use words like “weird” or “crazy” when people step outside the norms we take for granted.

This experience reminded me that behaviors that seem shocking at first often make perfect sense in different cultural, emotional, or personal contexts. And sometimes, the real lesson is not about the other person it’s about the norms we didn’t even know we were carrying.

Every society depends on its members following norms and expectations. That is why social institutions like family, religion, and education exist. According to the chapter, education is considered a secondary institution because it operates based on the values and structures already built by primary institutions. But even as a secondary institution, the school plays a powerful role in reproducing society. Through routines, expectations, and controlled environments, education systematically socializes young people into the behaviors and attitudes that society wants to maintain.

This chapter helped me understand that kindergarten works almost like a training ground. Children learn to sit still, wait their turn, follow instructions, move through a schedule, and function within a highly structured environment. All of this is part of internalizing the student role, a role that requires obedience, patience, routine, and acceptance of authority. These behaviors may seem simple, but they form the foundation for participating in larger institutions later in life.

What I found especially interesting is the idea of “holes” in the adult-controlled environment. Even in a place as structured as a kindergarten classroom, there are moments like Work Time or Play Time where adults loosen their control. Children quickly learn to use those moments to create their own tiny worlds: forming small groups, inventing games, making rules, and creating shared meaning with their peers. Sociologists compare these groups to the informal groups adults form in workplaces and bureaucracies. Even within rigid systems, people carve out spaces for autonomy, friendship, and creativity. These small subworlds help individuals feel human inside institutions that can otherwise be impersonal.

Another insight from the chapter is that kindergarten doesn’t only prepare children for the next twelve years of school; it also prepares them for adulthood. After graduation, many people will work in large bureaucratic organizations such as factories, offices, companies where routines and rules dominate daily life. Learning how to function within systems that are imposed on you, even if they don’t always make sense, becomes an important skill. From this perspective, kindergarten is like the first stage of training for navigating the bureaucratic organization of modern society.

Overall, this chapter made me see kindergarten in a completely new way. Instead of viewing it as just a fun and gentle introduction to school, I now understand it as a powerful site of socialization, one that shapes children to fit into the larger structures of society. It teaches them how to conform, how to follow norms, and even how to create small spaces of freedom within systems that are much bigger than they are.

Even though the class was fully online, I still felt engaged and connected to the material. Your explanations made complex concepts easy to understand, and they really changed the way I see everyday life. 

Wishing you the best!