First Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-0wgrWB9g

Second Show

The show above, The kids are alright, is set in the 1970s with a family of 10. The show displays a republican family with catholic values and their lives. The family has all boys, one semi-working mom and housewife, and a working father. The show below, Last Man Standing, is set in modern times with a family of 5 at the beginning that soon grows into a cluster family. Both television series show a white middle class family that have strong familial values and are a product of their theoretical time. The highlighting difference between these shows are the set time. It shows how the world was by interpretation of modern society and how it has changed. The population is different in terms of the family size. The kids are alright shows a family of 10 which would be normal for a catholic family because of the lack of the use of contraceptives. Last man standing shows a family of 5 that is christian with some open mindedness towards the creation of families. The oldest daughter of The Last Man Standing had a son as a teenager and later married her husband. The youngest daughter decided on a path of service, while the second daughter decided to start a business while going to school. All of this is very contrasting when compared to the first show. The oldest son joins the seminary and later drops out, the second oldest does not take into consideration his life after high-school, and the middle children are all revolved in their childhood. The wife in the first show is a stay at home mother that takes care of home duties and attends to her sons. The second show displays a mother that is a scientist and works full time.

These videos serve as evidence supporting the video of suburban neighborhoods and how they were created. We see that both families live in suburban areas in different points in time however they both show one diverse neighbor while the rest of the community is White/ Caucasian. The laws prohibiting minorities to buy homes in safer and mainly white communities is echoed here. The diverse characters the first show displays are not of the same neighborhood but from the same job. The diverse characters from the second show are one and new to the neighborhood.

Fertility rates in the 1900s grew after the World Wars while it has decreased in modern times. The shows display a 50% decrease in family size while the mortality rate is relatively the same. Both families have grandparents that have lived into retirement age. Anti Malthusian theory is supported. Modern times push for the use of contraceptives to be a regular part of life and it is seen in the oldest daughter’s life in the second show as she is a working mother with no time to be raising a second son. Her husband is also unemployed from time to time and he takes on house roles. The change in roles and the evening of responsibilities may account for the lowered fertility rates in today’s society and why although the population of the world may be increasing the population in the united states has remained steady.

While these shows only display the lives of white middle class families it still shows great change that has occurred over time. It also leads me to think that the population and environment of the white middle class suburban families will change in term of size. Laws and protest are going into changing racist regulations against minorities and the decrease in population may lead to minorities living in once all white areas. In my opinion if minorities continue on to higher education and the white population of the United states continues to decrease as these shows portray then minorities will make up a great deal of the middle class.

Word Count: 644

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEqW_IF67pw

This video is about the rise of a political party called La Raza Unida Party. This party was created in part because of the dissatisfaction Mexican Americans had with another organization named LULAC, league of united Latin american citizens. The LULAC was an organization dedicate towards breaking down barriers in employment, education and health services however, when they helped elect John F Kennedy to presidency by advocating his promises and asking Mexican Americans to vote they did not see any of those promises carried out. People were dissatisfied with the work and this activist group became a social group no longer striving to make the community better. La Raza Unida party sought out to elect officials dedicated to helping the community and advocating for Mexican American rights. The LULAC was recognized and misused by JFK in order to promote in the Mexican Community in Texas because he saw the great influence this group had. The election lead to the people of this community to distrust politicians from both the Democratic side and the Republican side and thus created La Raza Unida party.

La Raza Unida Party came about because of Jose Angel Gutierrez and his peers at St. Mary’s college. The young students wanted to win back their land and their community so they started recruiting high school students. The students noticed unfair treatment towards Mexican Americans versus the Caucasian students in their high school. A young girl wanted to become a cheerleader however in a high school where Mexican students outnumbered white students 8 to 1 the cheer leading team was made up of all white students. The students staged a walk out in protest and demanded fair treatment, Hispanic teachers, and Hispanic teachers/ staff.

The students protest caused social change in their community. They lived in a small town where the social life was revolved around football and high school events. In their community they were able to achieve fair treatment and inclusion. When the young girl was denied entry to the cheer-leading squad the students who disagreed with the school rules formed a Collective Behavior and quickly formed a protest. This a huge social change that defined the Chicano community in that time. The efforts of these students was similar to that of the civil rights movements lead by Martin Luther King. These events are not taught in public schools like many others which leads to the idea that a new social change may occur in the near future. The history of Chicano and Latin American people in the United States is often over shadowed in textbooks. But it is seen that when students are aware of their history, power, and system they can make a real change.

Word Count: 451

“I just didn’t realize it was that much of an option. I didn’t see much of a model in society”……”I’m not someone who says ‘I don’t believe in monogamy'” “Monogamy isn’t easy…its hard” “I just know that I as a person wouldn’t be able to be in a polyamorous relationship and keep myself happy”

This video is about a group of people who are strongly monogamous in their relationships and a group of people who are strongly polyamourous. These people are answering questions such as “I have been attracted to other people while in a relationship” and “People are naturally polyamorous”. The people discuss what they think and what the questions mean to them. Different people who identify the same why answer the questions differently and some of them don’t agree on the same question or answer. The idea carried here is that they think they are different people with some similarities. The conversation is not so much to convince someone to think a certain way but to understand why people choose to be monogamous or polyamorous. There is some disagreement for example in the question that asked if they have ever felt attracted to someone else while in a relationship there was a majority agreement that people have, however, one person said they have not. Their explanation was not that they were born for one person or think they are extremely loyal but that they have conditioned themselves to restrain from wishful thinking as they would do in any other situations. Polyamory, as the people who identify with that lifestyle defined it, is a way to have a different need fulfilled by multiple people. They explained that to them polyamory was the equivalent to having a best friend and multiple other friends. Some have their main partner under traditional standards like paying the bills while also having more people they are romantic with. Monogamy, explained by the people who identify with that lifestyle, defined it as the want to only have one partner. They do not see the appeal to share nor do they think it is a retrain on them by society. Monogamy is a way to be yourself with one person and loving that person entirely with all the good and bad things that come along with them. So much is said and discussed and very well conversed. The video shows people having a respectful conversation, not a debate.

In terms of sociology, monogamy is the dominating lifestyle in America and western cultures as well as westernized cultures. So many cultures believe in monogamy and have so much rooted respect for it that polyamory may face a lot of hardships for acceptance. While it is a controversial topic it is not necessarily a topic or a thing used against people to discriminate against because relationships are personal and no job or activity can force someone to disclose their relationships. People also are misinformed and may equate it to polygamy. In politics at a micro level politicians may lose a race because of their marital and personal relationships but they won’t be taken out of office, they may resign but not for legal pressure but because of social pressure. However and a macro level of government people will most likely be more open-minded and because of the way the current administration’s personal relationships are being publicized with no negative consequence of impeachment, it is not legal for the government to impeach the 45th president based on his personal relationships, such is so for people working everyday jobs. The current social status in the United States is that people are fighting for equality, and fighting against what can be used to discriminate against. Polyamory is not one of those things and thus may not be accepted or respected in mainstream media for another few generations.

Another thing mentioned in the video is that people who are polyamorous are in open discussions with all their partners about their other partners. This takes me back to homogamy and endogamy. Polyamorous people will find those they are attracted to by sharing the same partner with another. They may also reject a monogamous relationship. Monogamous people may never encounter polyamorous people on purpose or for the purpose of a relationship. It seems that tension and discussion will be very low as they would theoretically not involve themselves with each other.

Word Count: 673

This video is about a young boy in the sixth grade that is yanked by his teacher to stand up and take the pledge of allegiance. The young boy is forced to do something he does not want to do by an authoritative figure. He expresses his dissatisfaction with his teacher as she used physical force and not words to get the child to stand up. The young boy explains that his rights were violated and he has no obligation to stand up and pledge the allegiance. His explanation is his religion and his idea that pledging to the flag is not what he believes is right. His parents supported his decision and made sure he knew that his actions were correct. The boy mentions that he could have let it go however it was his right not to stand up and he believes that refusing to stand up sets an example for his younger siblings that they do not have to assimilate and do something just because an authority figure is ordering them to do so when they feel it is wrong. The school district did not support the teacher as that teacher is now suspended and the district leaders sent out a statement that they fully support his and any children right to stand or not stand for the pledge of allegiance.

This takes place in an educational institution. The teacher is mentioned to be a guide for other teachers. This kind of action is not acceptable in a democracy that the United States has set for its citizens. While the teacher may have a personal agenda towards pledging to the flag the district itself does not. It is a federal place and a place of education meaning that there is no force for the child to participate in anything he deems unjust and incorrect based on his religion. The school cannot force students to pledge as the pledge of allegiance has citings of God and religion in them. While it is allowed to be said in schools it is not allowed for them to force children to do so as the government of the United States has separated church and state.

When totalitarianism is mentioned more often than not we seem to think of extreme countries that have full control over their people. However, it can be seen in the educational system. Many students like this young boy have been forced to do things they do not feel is right and violates their rights as United States citizens. When students are forced to pledge the allegiance that is a violation of rights. When students are forced to talk about their classmates to administrative leaders that is a violation of their rights. When children are held after school for an abnormal amount of time that is a violation of rights. When children have their personal belongings taken away that is a violation of rights. While we may see the educational system as a system that imposes rules and morals it must do so in a way that does not violate the basic rights children have. Totalitarianism is seen in classrooms across America and left untouched. The educational system should impose morals and knowledge however not at the cost of the children being forced to participate in situations they do not want to participate in such as pledging allegiance to the flag. The educational system is there to prepare students for the real world, and violating their rights as well as denying them is not what teachers should be teaching their students.

Word Count: 593

The video is from popular television series Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. The lawyer is making a remark on masculinity and what it means to be a man in modern society. The episode as a whole was about a young boy and his father who went on a camping trip. In the camping trip, the young boy fails to shoot a rabbit while his older brother is able to shoot a bigger animal. The audience is given the notion that the father is disappointed in his son and assaults him. The father thinks he is making his sons into men by making them participate in what he considers masculine. The show is revolved around special victims that are assaulted mainly through heinous crimes such as rape. The mother and the brother of the young boy did not think that what the father was doing to the young boy was a big deal because he needed to learn to be a man. Not until the boy is in the school nurse’s office with tearing and bleeding coming from his behind that it comes to the attention of the officers. There is evidence that the young boy was sexually assaulted. Because of that assult, the young boy can not deal with the fact that his father raped him for not being manly enough and thus unlocks his father’s gun goes to his high school and starts shooting at the students. What the lawyer is talking about in the clip is that boys are raised up and taught to be masculine by means of physical force and fighting. He makes the argument that even though boys are taught to be this way it is no excuse for his excessive violence towards his peers.

We have learned that our peers and our school are the Secondary Groups that teach us how to act and behave based on our gender. The young boy chose to shoot his school because he saw that his father’s mindset was not unique. He saw that the definition of masculinity his father taught and acted upon was the same that the society around him believed. In his world, people had the same idea about what it meant to be a man however he did not know that everyone was like his father. It was his way of making a change and ending the cycle of violence. By destroying the society he knew that perpetuated that idea of masculinity he would be attacking his father and his ideas. We also learned about Social Learning theory in which we learn how to behave by watching those around us behave. He saw his father shot animals as a metaphor for dominance and he saw his brother being part of the football team. The men in his life were defining masculinity as it was taught and he saw himself lack in it. His attack on his school was a demonstration of dominance as he knew fit. To him, nothing could be more masculine than shooting people to insert his grandeur over people. This episode was a very plausible situation as to the consequences of today’s masculinity and what we teach children. We have learned that men benefit from the system but when those do not benefit or are punished for not fitting into their assigned boxes then they find extreme forms to demonstrate themselves as true outliers. We have seen in class that men tend to be more violent towards other men and in general. The violence portrayed here is an extreme consequence of masculinity and what it can do to the psyche of a man.

Word count: 603

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzIsuF4r6U

“That’s a really good school. Good for you.” 1:07

Black-ish is a show that demonstrates life through the eyes of wealthy upper-class African Americans in the United States. In this particular episode, the Mother of the family is an anesthesiologist that has completed her work successfully in a number of surgeries. The staff and coworkers of her’s have thrown a surprise party for her and invited the head surgeon of the recent surgery she just finished helping with to the party. The leading surgeon asked her for her educational background and when responded to she gave a backhanded compliment. She mentioned “That’s a really good school. Good for you.”. This is something positive wrapped around what seems to be a prejudicial thought about African Americans and their intellectual abilities. Microaggressions are degrading and dismissive while not always being obvious to a third party. Microaggressions are difficult to explain unless someone has experienced one. However, most unenthusiastic congratulations that follow with rating the achievements of an individual will most likely be a microaggression. It is a difficult concept to explain and the show does well in portraying this. As the show goes on the Mother in Law of the Anesthesiologist mentioned that this kind of aggression is nothing compared to the racial slurs and frequent aggression she experienced when she was young. Aggression against people of minority background has changed in its deliverance but not in its meaning.

Prejudice, the incorrect preconceived notions of one social group applied to all members of that social group. The lead surgeon held prejudice against the anesthesiologist and conveyed it through microaggressions. While not harmful or hateful it is unethical and uncalled for. To think of someone who has gone through the same rigorous training and education to get ahead in their medical field and then be derailed to nothing because the lead surgeon did not believe people that looked like the anesthesiologist could be or go to an excellent medical school is what this microaggression was rooted on. This is what people hear while not being directly insulted.

Prejudice and aggression have come a long way in the united states. The mother in law is not quite old and recalls a time when aggression was strongly verbal and almost physical. While now aggression is hidden behind a curtain of compliments in order to not be deemed racist and outcasted by the social network of the hospital.

In my personal view, I never experienced blatant racism that is portrayed in popular media. I have received microaggressions from people of a different ethnic background and people of the same ethnic background. More often than not microaggression is written off as not a big deal when in reality it could become a new way to facilitate institutional discrimination and keep minorities down through self-doubt of their well-earned accomplishments.

Word Count: 462

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment is about a scientific study that was done in the twentieth century for its unethical processes of conducting research. It is often the example of what lack of regulations and the cause of deception. Like many things, this experiment was a product of its time, as it only participants where African Americans because the researchers wanted to know the effects of syphilis on the African American population as they still thought that African Americans and White Americans were different. The experiment involved African American participants that were poor, illiterate, and suffered syphilis. They were told they would get a cure for their illness however, they were not told they had syphilis instead the researcher informed them that they had “bad blood” in order to inhibit their knowledge and prohibit them from receiving a cure. The people in the study were followed around for 40 years and their families, children, and lives were put at risk as throughout the entire study many participants had died and the rest were never given a cure. The people that had passed away left family behind that loved them but were also in a great financial struggle. In order for the researchers to do further study and analyze data, they offered the suffering families money as compensation for an empty burial and rights to study the body.

The people in this experiment were of lower class mainly labors as they were illiterate and lived in times of heavy racism. Their lack of social economic status left them exposed to manipulation because they lacked the money the researchers could give them. These people not only were of the lowest class but they never moved up the social ladder. Because they suffered from syphilis and were never given the cure they were promised many jobs were not available to them leaving them in the constant movement of horizontal social mobility. Their lack of income was not the only thing that left them at the bottom of the ladder. They lived in a time were segregation and heavy racism was very prominent. Even with the means to get a good job, they would have never climbed high enough the ladder. During the twentieth century the climb and vertical social mobility were relatively possible with hard work and education, but coming from a disadvantaged background and being African American made it nearly impossible for them to change anything about their lives. In this time the worry of being in the bottom of the ladder meant the upper class and their ideologies controlled the scientific field. In today’s society, we see that the upper class, the top 1 percent, control the political field of the country and heavily influence it. Back then it was nearly impossible to be a researcher of African American background and in today’s society, it is nearly impossible to run for office in government without a great deal of money and hailing from the upper class.

Word Count: 494

The picture above shows a new Netflix show that premiered this year. This show has been around long before I was born. I decided to watch it because I remember watching it when I was a kid with my family. The show is about a young girl who was abandoned on an island that was inhabited by a school of professional criminals. The young girl grew up with no biological family around her. The people she knew on the island were the ones who took care of her and a cycle of nannies that taught her basic education. Throughout the first two episodes of the show, we see a young girl growing up in a remote island learning from the people around her. Pranking the people around her, without any sort of punishment. She learned to pickpocket, she learned to sneak around, she learned to keep a secret, she learned how to hide things. The young girl never had a real name and went by the code name “Black Sheep”, she learned all the wrong values in life. She idolized the young people that would study at the school of crime and fantasized of one day too graduating and becoming a criminal. A sharp turn, however, happened when she was finally allowed to join the school and was close to graduating. She failed her final exam and was not allowed to go on the mission. Due to her desire to prove herself and graduate she decided to go on the mission. What she saw on the mission changed her whole world view. Who she thought were her friends, turned out to be people who would go to any lengths in order to steal what they wanted. She witnessed people she trained with murder others that were in their way. After this, she decided to use her skills in order to stop the criminal acts of the people who ran the school of crime.

When watching this show the themes that stood out to me where, primary groups, secondary groups, in-group, out-group, and the labeling theory.

Carmen, as she now goes by, grew up without a mother or father or any siblings. Those who took care of her and socialized her were a cycle of nannies she grew up with. The nannies were her secondary group as she never built a strong emotional bond from them, and none of them stayed with her long enough to become her family. Those who I consider were her primary family was the headmistress of the school. She was the one I saw that would give Carmen any comfort and empathy. Carmen also stated that she felt bad for making the headmistress feel guilty for her defiance. Because Carmen grew up in the school isolated for the real world she saw everyone on the island both old and new as people that belonged in her in-group. She later realized that they were in the wrong for all the things they do to innocent people. The turn I mention in the previous paragraph leads me to conclude that the people she once saw as her in-group became her out-group and in correlation her enemies.

The Labeling theory, people internalize and self prophesize the labels that are given to them in society. Carmen never had a real name and was given the code name of Black Sheep. I think naming her the Black Sheep is a foreshadow to what she will end up doing, however, I also think Carmen internalized that name and became a black sheep. She learned everything the students at the school learned and did them better. She believed she was better because she was younger and smarter, and even though all the students worked toward the same goal, she believed she was meant to become a criminal. Once she started to defy the people on the island, she began to go by the name Carmen Sandiego. The name marked the moment she left the island and the moment she beat on the headmasters of the school. She was no longer a student at that school nor was she tied to anyone on that island. Accordingly, to the labeling theory, she internalized her name and abandoned the feelings of loyalty to the people on the island and became their opponent.

Word Count: 716

The video above shows people from the United States trying Taiwanese food for the first time. At the very beginning of the video, they are introduced to bubbly soda which they think tastes like Bubble Gum. The reaction from one of the participants is a complete denial that a soda would be flavored like candy. Although soda in the United States is very sweet, it usually is not flavored after candy, it is flavored after fruit. As the video goes along people start to relate the food they are being presented to with the food they are familiar with. A young woman thinks that Korean food, which she is familiar with, is very similar to Taiwanese food.

In these days people are more connected than ever. We are able to explore other cultures through the use of the internet and the diverse population of the United States. A concern for Cultural Appropriation is often brought up as the people from different cultures start to display a negative stereotype in the efforts of understanding a culture. This inevitably leads to some negative reactions. Thus, exploring culture through food is a good way to appreciate and learn about the culture without offending the people from that are apart of it.

The video displays the agent of family. As the participants are tasting the food they are continuously comparing and contrasting its taste to the food they are the most familiar way. Their individual families have taught them that food should look and taste a certain way which is why they are often confused about the flavor and presentation of the food. To imagine that family shapes and establishes a norm for such a diverse and flexible thing such as food is interesting. We are known to be part of a generation that eats take out and has little experience cooking, we often forget that the food we eat is the same when it comes to the flavor palate.

Additionally, the video displays re-socialization. Re-socialization is the replacement of previously learned norms for new norms. The participants are doing so by simply being in the video. They are replacing the norm that food should taste salty or drinks should be fruity. The norm they are now used to is that drinks will not always be flavored after fruit but may possibly be flavored after candy. The norm that food looks different all over the world, or that the food they grew up with is unique, is replaced with the fact that food in many countries is often very similar if not the same with a slight variation.

Word Count: 434

Max Weber

Max Weber was a German Philosopher often quoted along with Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Max Weber thought that capitalism would increase inequality. Additionally, he believed that capitalism would lead to a new way of thinking, society would change the way it thinks because of new technology that was designed to help build things faster. One key idea Max Weber was concerned about was rationalization. Rationalization is society’s way of replacing traditions, values, emotions, and culture towards a particular topic. For example, people today have a different idea of pop music in America then they did in the 1970s. Pop music in America has been influenced by many different singers from various countries. However, before the relative ease of internet access people would see pop music in America dominated by male American born singers, while today it is seen that pop music is dominated by artists from different countries.

The video above displays a woman that is popular on YouTube for her family. This video in particular displays the story of the woman giving birth to her twin daughters, nothing odd, until we learn that her daughters are not biologically her’s. The woman gave birth to her twin daughters by way of IVF (in-vitro fertilization). IVF in its self is already a radical difference of what it means to conceive a child in the twenty-first century. Max Weber was right that industrialization would change societal views on huge aspects of human life. The woman in the video has not only adopted the majority of her children but has given birth to adopted embryos. Adoption has been criticized by biological parents of children as having a lack of attachment to the child because one was unable to carry it or be present in the first few weeks of the child’s life. However, because of new technology and a new way of applying its capabilities it has radically changed the idea of creating a family. What was once thought to be a simple concept of a married couple creating a family essentially free, has become a business in which people can pay to be artificially inseminated and carry a child that is half theirs, or carry a child that was is not biologically theirs but be able to give birth to and carry.

When thinking of Sociology, Max Weber, and Rationalization I tend to think about big social changes, such as the view of race and intelligence of the lower class. Knowing that industrialization has changed society so much that it gives opportunities to those without regular means, and it has touched sacred human connection such as family is very eye-opening as to how much it will continue to change and the potential for future innovations in other fields of human connection.

Word Count 460