:-D

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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). 

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.

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).

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).

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.