So now that I'm just about done with sociology, what are my feelings about this field of academic study? What have I learned; what are my big take aways?
Well, first of all I have learned that I think I would enjoy teaching this class at a high school level. I think that a lot of these ideas--about how institutions affect our lives, about privilege and racism and sexism, about culture and how individuals behave in social situations--would be fresh and eye-opening for the high school kids I will be teaching eventually. I love the idea of facilitating the challenging discussions and questions that arise from complex sociological issues.
I was also glad that I was able to draw from my psychology background to understand many of the concepts in this course, especially those pertaining to how individuals present themselves in social situations. Sociology and social psychology are closely linked; I think the key difference is sociology tends to focus on the macro level side of things (institutions and large social trends) whereas social psychology tends to focus on small groups or individuals.
Out of anything in the textbook, I'd say the concept I was least familiar with is that of the sociological imagination. Though I think I have applied this concept instinctively before in my life--what better way to grasp the importance of large institutions than by thinking how they apply to you?--it's good to finally have a label and solid grasp of what it is and how it is used in practice by sociologists.
One observation I have about this textbook, and perhaps about the field of sociology in general, is that it comes across as being very liberal politically. I am personally a fan of this--it aligns with my own beliefs about how institutions should serve humanity--but I could see other people dismissing sociology because of this. Overall I would say that sociology is a progressive discipline that shines a light on the problems within society. Whether or not we take advantage of that illumination and put it to good use is another matter entirely.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Immigrant Song
America is a country of transplants, with most people only a few generations removed from immigrants from somewhere else in the world. I am no exception; my ancestry is mostly German and Polish. While I'm sketchy on many of the details, this is what I know of my own "immigrant story".
My mother's side is German and Polish. My great-grandmother on my mom's side was 100% Polish and arrived in the United States as an immigrant in the early 20th century. According to my mom, my great-grandmother was processed at Ellis Island and then had to wait for a relative to come to Chicago by train to pick her and her sister up to and head back to the midwest. I think they went to Illinois, as that is where most of my extended family lived. My grandfather was mostly German, and I think I remember my mom telling me there was some strife over my grandpa marrying my grandma because she was at least 50% Polish.
I'm less clear about the origin story on my dad's side. I know his ancestry is mostly German, but I believe there is also some Scottish in there as well. I've asked my dad about this and even isn't totally sure. I do know that my great-grandfather was a professor in Ohio in the early 20th century.
More recently, I can speak of my own experience of migration within the United States. It's not exactly an immigration story, but it certainly shaped who I am.
My parents both grew up in the Chicago area, went to high school together, and got married when they were in college. Dad studied geology in Colorado, and eventually got a job with an oil company. This eventually led my parents to move up to Alaska.
One quick note about Alaska. As the United States is a country of immigrants, Alaska is a state of migrants or transplants. There are very few people whose families have been in Alaska for more than generation or two; it was home to very few people until WWII, wasn't even officially a state until 1959, and didn't see a huge population boom until the discovery of oil in late 1970s. Consequently, there are few people in the state whose families have been there earlier than the 1970s or 80s when the oil economy boomed. In this sense, I feel like Alaska is a microcosm of the immigrant experience of America in the last 150 years.
Anyway, so I grew up in Alaska and was there for 9 years, then moved to Butte, Montana for 2.5 years, then Dallas, Texas for a year, then back to Alaska for another 6 years until I graduated from high school. One result of all this moving around--and being relatively isolated in Alaska and, so a lesser extent, Montana--is that I hardly know my extended family. This might be why my knowledge of my ancestry is so incomplete. I've only ever had a handful of rich, meaningful conversations with people outside of my nuclear family, especially with my grandparents (especially now that two of them are dead and the other two are tremendously old).
One potential way for to get some answers about where I come from is the DNA analysis website 23andme.com. If you send in a sample of your DNA, they will analyze it and tell you all sorts of things about genetic ancestry.
Seeing as how the United States is a nation of immigrants, the xenophobia that is so pervasive in our society is perhaps a bit confusing. I think there are two main reasons why Americans remain so rejecting of immigrants:
1. Economic fears. Many Americans, especially during these less-than-stellar economic conditions, are convinced that foreigners are flooding the country stealing their jobs. While there may be some truth to that, as the textbook points out, most of those jobs are low-wage, low-skill jobs that most Americans don't want anyway. The economic problems this country has bigger causes than immigration.
2. Racism. Immigration in the late 19th/early 20th century was mostly white people from Europe. While these groups certainly faced discrimination--because of their religion, because of language differences, because they were a different shade of white--they never had to deal with the hate that non-white immigrants have faced in this country. From the reprehensible laws of the late 19th/early 20th century banning immigration from China to the US building a massive fence on the border with Mexico, non-white immigrants have always faced more personal and institutional discrimination than white immigrants. I think that's especially so today, because the vast majority of immigrants in the last 30 years are from Latin America, Asia, or Africa: almost all non-white. This has brought out some racist animosity from xenophobic people who feel that the power structure of White Euro-Americans is being threatened by non-white people with different languages, different cultural traditions, and who, frankly, look different. The thing that xenophobic white Americans fail to understand is that this country has ALWAYS been a country of transplants and immigrants...and we have succeeded and thrived BECAUSE of that diversity. Adding more diversity America's cultural makeup can strengthen us.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Sexist language
One aspect of institutional sexism that I wish the textbook had touched more on in chapter 12 is sexist language. At the high school I work at, I've discussed this topic at length with some of the English teachers I work with. Several of them have entire units based on recognizing and analyzing the meaning of sexist language and how to avoid using it. Phrases like "fight like a man", "you throw like a girl", and "grow a pair" are examples of this kind of sexist language; in each case, the masculine quality is seen as strong, resolute, and desirable and the feminine trait is weak, defective, or submissive.
There is a humorous inversion of this kind of sexist language popularized by sex advice columnist Dan Savage. He has mentioned a few times on his podcast and column at www.thestranger.com that insulting someone's toughness by calling them a "pussy" is not only sexist, it doesn't make logical sense either. Savage points out that vaginas are actually very tough especially when compared to male genitalia: they are self-cleaning, stretch to allow childbirth, and take a considerable pounding during male/female intercourse. Scrotums, on the other hand, are overly-sensitive, fragile, and weak; the slightest hit on a man's scrotum can incapacitate him as he keels over in pain. Therefore, Savage proposes that people should insult people's toughness by calling them "scrotum" instead of "pussy". In doing so, he has subverted the sexist patriarchal norm by making the masculine term synonymous with weak and the feminine term strong.
On a broader level, I think overcoming sexist language in our own daily use--and calling out when others around us use it--can go a long way in combating institutional sexism. Language is not only how we communicate to others, it helps form how we perceive the world in our minds. By eliminating insidiously sexist language from our everyday speech and thoughts, we'll create a new, more egalitarian way of perceiving the world.
There is a humorous inversion of this kind of sexist language popularized by sex advice columnist Dan Savage. He has mentioned a few times on his podcast and column at www.thestranger.com that insulting someone's toughness by calling them a "pussy" is not only sexist, it doesn't make logical sense either. Savage points out that vaginas are actually very tough especially when compared to male genitalia: they are self-cleaning, stretch to allow childbirth, and take a considerable pounding during male/female intercourse. Scrotums, on the other hand, are overly-sensitive, fragile, and weak; the slightest hit on a man's scrotum can incapacitate him as he keels over in pain. Therefore, Savage proposes that people should insult people's toughness by calling them "scrotum" instead of "pussy". In doing so, he has subverted the sexist patriarchal norm by making the masculine term synonymous with weak and the feminine term strong.
On a broader level, I think overcoming sexist language in our own daily use--and calling out when others around us use it--can go a long way in combating institutional sexism. Language is not only how we communicate to others, it helps form how we perceive the world in our minds. By eliminating insidiously sexist language from our everyday speech and thoughts, we'll create a new, more egalitarian way of perceiving the world.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Negro Motorist Green Book
I was really looking forward to reading this chapter, as I find pointing out the realities of racial inequality in this country is often very challenging for college students. Last summer I took an Education and Cultural Diversity course as part of the MAT program, and it was extremely eye-opening (that and reading "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Lunch Room?" Spring of 2011). I had always considered myself non-racist, tolerant, and understanding of the plight of non-white people in this country. After taking those two classes, I realized my perception of these issues was woefully naive.
While this realization was depressing in some ways, I am fortunate to be in a position where I can hopefully DO something directly to change the racist culture we live in as a teacher. It's my hope that I can work to counteract some of the racist elements of today's culture, especially within the education system.
Anyway, the part of this chapter that caught my attention was the mention of "The Negro Motorist Green Book", a guidebook published in the early/mid 20th century (I'm still getting used to referring to the 20th century as this era in the distant past) that gave advice and guidance to African-American travelers on which places were accepting and accommodating to black travelers. I decided to look up this handbook and sure enough I found a full text PDF of it online. http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Casestudy/87_135_1736_GreenBk.pdf
In it, a found a remarkable and touching statement in the introduction:
"There will be a day sometime in the near future when this guide will not have to be published. That is when we as a race will have equal opportunities and privileges in the United States. It will be a great day for us to suspend this publication for then we can go wherever we please, and without embarrassment. But until that times comes we shall continue to publish this information for your convenience each year." (Green 1)
As I discovered in my diversity class last summer, it's easy to say "Look at how far we've come!" when looking at examples of blatant racism in the past and simply dismiss the insidious racism that still plagues our society. And while today the Green Book isn't published anymore, there are undoubtedly still places in this country where non-white Americans aren't welcomed.
While this realization was depressing in some ways, I am fortunate to be in a position where I can hopefully DO something directly to change the racist culture we live in as a teacher. It's my hope that I can work to counteract some of the racist elements of today's culture, especially within the education system.
Anyway, the part of this chapter that caught my attention was the mention of "The Negro Motorist Green Book", a guidebook published in the early/mid 20th century (I'm still getting used to referring to the 20th century as this era in the distant past) that gave advice and guidance to African-American travelers on which places were accepting and accommodating to black travelers. I decided to look up this handbook and sure enough I found a full text PDF of it online. http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Casestudy/87_135_1736_GreenBk.pdf
In it, a found a remarkable and touching statement in the introduction:
"There will be a day sometime in the near future when this guide will not have to be published. That is when we as a race will have equal opportunities and privileges in the United States. It will be a great day for us to suspend this publication for then we can go wherever we please, and without embarrassment. But until that times comes we shall continue to publish this information for your convenience each year." (Green 1)
As I discovered in my diversity class last summer, it's easy to say "Look at how far we've come!" when looking at examples of blatant racism in the past and simply dismiss the insidious racism that still plagues our society. And while today the Green Book isn't published anymore, there are undoubtedly still places in this country where non-white Americans aren't welcomed.
Life on a budget
It's difficult to think of how a poor family struggles and what kinds of things middle class people take for granted that poor families have to do without until you stop and add up monthly expenses. In this situation, I'm going to imagine a family of four and what their monthly expenses might be.
Food: For myself, I spend maybe $500 a month on food between groceries and eating out. So that's $2000/month
Shelter/Bills: I live in a modest sized house in a working class neighborhood in St. Paul, there are two of us in the house; I believe the mortgage is around $700/month, and other bills are usually around $400-500/month. Property tax is added on to that, but I'm not sure how much. Let's say bills and shelter are a total of $1500/month for a family of four.
Daycare: I visited http://www.mnchildcare.org/families/pay.php to see how much day care costs... Uh, like $1000/month for a toddler!? Jesus.
Transportation: I usually have to fill up once a week for my usual job, and that's about $40/week, so $160/month. Let's assume we have two cars (since both father and mother drive) and that they have older, less fuel-efficient cars (I have an '05 Corolla that gets close to 35mpg), So let's go with $400/month.
Uh, that's like 58,800/year.
So maybe my estimations are a little (or a lot) off...I mean, I haven't even factored things like tuition or recreational activities or travel into this little off-the-cuff budget of mine. Things that might reduce this:
1. Spending less on food. Maybe I don't have to buy quite so much food for children, but more likely I would just have to buy less food and less expensive food. So, lots of ramen, lots of mcdonald's, lots of mac and cheese, carby staples rather than proteins. A lot of my food budget goes to buying proteins, which are expensive.
2. Live somewhere cheaper. I doubt a family with this low level of income could afford a mortgage and tax payments on a house, even a relatively modest one with a low monthly mortgage like this one. If we were able to find a really cheap apartment or duplex, or live with our parents or something, that would help a lot.
3. If I could either rope my parents or convince some friends in the neighborhood who are stay at home moms to care for my 3-year-old during the day instead of sending them to day care, that would eliminate that prohibitively expensive cost. I'm just baffled that day care is like $12,000 a year. Could that really be true?
4. Not much I can do about the transportation costs except maybe looking into taking public transit...and even that's not exactly free.
And again, we haven't even touched on recreational activities or clothes or pets or car and house repairs and upkeep. All of that stuff would have to be secondary to everything I listed above. Solutions to these challenges: shop at thrift stores for clothes, get hand-me-down clothes and toys from shelters or extended family, don't have pets, keep using old/damaged/broken appliances/cars/etc without repairing them.
Maybe considering what a four-person family needs to live at the standard I do as an individual doesn't just come down to simply multiplication, but still. I'm way overbudget if this family is only making $22000.
The effect these limitations would have on the children would be profound. They wouldn't grow as strong physically or mentally because of their diet, they might not be treated to the same level of health care, their busy working parents wouldn't have time to spend with them to help develop their mental and emotional capabilities so they probably wouldn't do as well in school or socially, they wouldn't have access to learning opportunities outside of their school and daily life because of their inability to travel or visit museums and so on, and they wouldn't learn how to access higher levels of society. More importantly though, I think growing up in poverty like that would instill a sense of learned helplessness and despondence that would permeate their entire outlook on life. Their expectations for themselves would be lower, their outlook on what the world has to offer them would be limited, and their view of how social institutions (like school) serve them would be one of pessimism.
Food: For myself, I spend maybe $500 a month on food between groceries and eating out. So that's $2000/month
Shelter/Bills: I live in a modest sized house in a working class neighborhood in St. Paul, there are two of us in the house; I believe the mortgage is around $700/month, and other bills are usually around $400-500/month. Property tax is added on to that, but I'm not sure how much. Let's say bills and shelter are a total of $1500/month for a family of four.
Daycare: I visited http://www.mnchildcare.org/families/pay.php to see how much day care costs... Uh, like $1000/month for a toddler!? Jesus.
Transportation: I usually have to fill up once a week for my usual job, and that's about $40/week, so $160/month. Let's assume we have two cars (since both father and mother drive) and that they have older, less fuel-efficient cars (I have an '05 Corolla that gets close to 35mpg), So let's go with $400/month.
Uh, that's like 58,800/year.
So maybe my estimations are a little (or a lot) off...I mean, I haven't even factored things like tuition or recreational activities or travel into this little off-the-cuff budget of mine. Things that might reduce this:
1. Spending less on food. Maybe I don't have to buy quite so much food for children, but more likely I would just have to buy less food and less expensive food. So, lots of ramen, lots of mcdonald's, lots of mac and cheese, carby staples rather than proteins. A lot of my food budget goes to buying proteins, which are expensive.
2. Live somewhere cheaper. I doubt a family with this low level of income could afford a mortgage and tax payments on a house, even a relatively modest one with a low monthly mortgage like this one. If we were able to find a really cheap apartment or duplex, or live with our parents or something, that would help a lot.
3. If I could either rope my parents or convince some friends in the neighborhood who are stay at home moms to care for my 3-year-old during the day instead of sending them to day care, that would eliminate that prohibitively expensive cost. I'm just baffled that day care is like $12,000 a year. Could that really be true?
4. Not much I can do about the transportation costs except maybe looking into taking public transit...and even that's not exactly free.
And again, we haven't even touched on recreational activities or clothes or pets or car and house repairs and upkeep. All of that stuff would have to be secondary to everything I listed above. Solutions to these challenges: shop at thrift stores for clothes, get hand-me-down clothes and toys from shelters or extended family, don't have pets, keep using old/damaged/broken appliances/cars/etc without repairing them.
Maybe considering what a four-person family needs to live at the standard I do as an individual doesn't just come down to simply multiplication, but still. I'm way overbudget if this family is only making $22000.
The effect these limitations would have on the children would be profound. They wouldn't grow as strong physically or mentally because of their diet, they might not be treated to the same level of health care, their busy working parents wouldn't have time to spend with them to help develop their mental and emotional capabilities so they probably wouldn't do as well in school or socially, they wouldn't have access to learning opportunities outside of their school and daily life because of their inability to travel or visit museums and so on, and they wouldn't learn how to access higher levels of society. More importantly though, I think growing up in poverty like that would instill a sense of learned helplessness and despondence that would permeate their entire outlook on life. Their expectations for themselves would be lower, their outlook on what the world has to offer them would be limited, and their view of how social institutions (like school) serve them would be one of pessimism.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
From Student to Teacher: How Standardized Testing Affects Me
It's funny that the blog question for chapter 9 should be about education and how grades and standardized tests dictate how students and teachers behave in relation to school. It's a subject I've talked about and studied to some extent in my master of arts in teaching classes here at Hamline. As idealistic young teachers-to-be, my classmates and I regularly bemoan the importance and primacy of grades and standardized tests. We would rather focus on learning for learning's sake and focus on real educational progress in our students rather than teach to the test or focus on some faceless standardized test.
The reality of the situation is that we all need to assign grades and give final assessments of our students in a standardized way that everyone understands; we need to make sure our students are prepared for the mandatory high school graduation tests and college prep tests they will be taking; and we have to make sure students do well on national benchmark tests so we maintain federal funding. For as much as we would like to abolish the use of standardized tests, what other systematic way do we have of assessing student performance? Yes, looking at a combination of standardized test scores, class grades, in-class performance, creativity in projects, effectiveness in group work would be ideal, but it's simply not practical to take into account all of these factors sometimes.
As for me... I'm in a bit of strange situation caught in transition from one role in the educational institute to another. Save for the awkward 2.5 year dead zone after I graduated undergrad in 08, I've been a student since I was 3 years old. In many ways, being involved in the education process has defined who I am, and will continue to define me when I become a high school teacher. Fortunately, it's an institution I am comfortable and successful in, and one that I feel passionate and excited about being a part of as an adult from the teacher side of things.
The reality of the situation is that we all need to assign grades and give final assessments of our students in a standardized way that everyone understands; we need to make sure our students are prepared for the mandatory high school graduation tests and college prep tests they will be taking; and we have to make sure students do well on national benchmark tests so we maintain federal funding. For as much as we would like to abolish the use of standardized tests, what other systematic way do we have of assessing student performance? Yes, looking at a combination of standardized test scores, class grades, in-class performance, creativity in projects, effectiveness in group work would be ideal, but it's simply not practical to take into account all of these factors sometimes.
As for me... I'm in a bit of strange situation caught in transition from one role in the educational institute to another. Save for the awkward 2.5 year dead zone after I graduated undergrad in 08, I've been a student since I was 3 years old. In many ways, being involved in the education process has defined who I am, and will continue to define me when I become a high school teacher. Fortunately, it's an institution I am comfortable and successful in, and one that I feel passionate and excited about being a part of as an adult from the teacher side of things.
Ubiquity of Institutions
Today I went to a Pearson professional testing center to take the first of a series of standardized tests I have to complete in order to get my Minnesota teaching license. I didn't really think much of it until I read this most recent chapter and realized that this testing center was yet another part of the macro-level social structure that we live in. Specifically, it's another one of those big organizations that affect our lives every day in profound ways. There was obviously some sort of need for a company dedicated just for organizing and running various professional tests, and a location (or locations) to hold these tests. I know of Pearson, and I know that they do big business in testing.
Obviously there was a need for this because so many people were taking these tests. But where did all these adults taking tests come from? It gets back to something the book mentioned: one of our major cultural beliefs in the West is that getting a good education is the best path to economic prosperity, and thus personal fulfillment, purpose, and creature comforts. So, it is this cultural belief that eventually led this professional testing facility in an office building in Eagan to spring up.
Obviously there was a need for this because so many people were taking these tests. But where did all these adults taking tests come from? It gets back to something the book mentioned: one of our major cultural beliefs in the West is that getting a good education is the best path to economic prosperity, and thus personal fulfillment, purpose, and creature comforts. So, it is this cultural belief that eventually led this professional testing facility in an office building in Eagan to spring up.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Deterrence theory and Economics
Last fall I took some economics classes at Metro State. I had never really thought about economics much before, but I was struck by how rational it assumed people are in their decision making. Particularly, the concept of a cost-benefit analysis usually assumed that people would rationally analyze all available data to make the best decision for themselves (usually in terms of economic gain).
I bring this up because deterrence theory in chapter 8 reminded me a lot of cost-benefit analysis in economics. It uses the same principles as in economics, just related to sociology. Particularly, it focuses on the thought processes people have in deciding whether or not to act in a way that might be seen as "deviant". The theory states that if the individual thinks that the benefits of performing a certain deviant act outweigh the potential costs, then they will follow through with that act...and vice versa.
This theory explains why there are fewer murders than, say, thefts. The punishment for theft is a lot less than the punishment for murder, so people may be more inclined to steal something than kill someone because the potential costs of being caught are less.
However, just like how the economic model of cost-benefit analysis simplifies things down to a level that rarely exists in real life, so too does the deterrence theory fail to explain the relationship between deviances and punishments in society. For instance, chapter 8 goes on to discuss how the punishments for white-collar crime and blue-collar crime are not in proportion to the societal damage they do, especially if you think about it terms of money lost. If deterrence theory were accurate, then society would reassess the punishments it has for blue-collar crime and white-collar crime and and adjust them accordingly. So, if we're judging what the punishment should be off of societal harm, then white-collar crime should incur much stiffer punishments than blue-collar crime. However, this isn't the case in reality, so deterrence theory is limited in what it can tell us about about deviancy, punishment, and society.
Obviously what I am writing about here is quite relevant to the economic downturn of the last 5 years, and the decade of economic irresponsibility that preceded it. I noticed in the text that it listed just three prominent financial figures who have received jail time in the wake of the global financial crisis. To the hundreds and maybe thousands of people who gambled with other peoples' money, deceived poor people into making poor financial decisions for their own (or their company's) gain, and used risky investment strategies that eventually necessitated a $700 billion dollar bailout: where is their punishment? Instead, they were coddled, bailed out, and are back to making obscene amounts of money in an era of unprecedented income disparity while the rest of America continues to struggle with high unemployment. Here's an example of that outrage:
I bring this up because deterrence theory in chapter 8 reminded me a lot of cost-benefit analysis in economics. It uses the same principles as in economics, just related to sociology. Particularly, it focuses on the thought processes people have in deciding whether or not to act in a way that might be seen as "deviant". The theory states that if the individual thinks that the benefits of performing a certain deviant act outweigh the potential costs, then they will follow through with that act...and vice versa.
This theory explains why there are fewer murders than, say, thefts. The punishment for theft is a lot less than the punishment for murder, so people may be more inclined to steal something than kill someone because the potential costs of being caught are less.
However, just like how the economic model of cost-benefit analysis simplifies things down to a level that rarely exists in real life, so too does the deterrence theory fail to explain the relationship between deviances and punishments in society. For instance, chapter 8 goes on to discuss how the punishments for white-collar crime and blue-collar crime are not in proportion to the societal damage they do, especially if you think about it terms of money lost. If deterrence theory were accurate, then society would reassess the punishments it has for blue-collar crime and white-collar crime and and adjust them accordingly. So, if we're judging what the punishment should be off of societal harm, then white-collar crime should incur much stiffer punishments than blue-collar crime. However, this isn't the case in reality, so deterrence theory is limited in what it can tell us about about deviancy, punishment, and society.
Obviously what I am writing about here is quite relevant to the economic downturn of the last 5 years, and the decade of economic irresponsibility that preceded it. I noticed in the text that it listed just three prominent financial figures who have received jail time in the wake of the global financial crisis. To the hundreds and maybe thousands of people who gambled with other peoples' money, deceived poor people into making poor financial decisions for their own (or their company's) gain, and used risky investment strategies that eventually necessitated a $700 billion dollar bailout: where is their punishment? Instead, they were coddled, bailed out, and are back to making obscene amounts of money in an era of unprecedented income disparity while the rest of America continues to struggle with high unemployment. Here's an example of that outrage:
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Family
It's funny that this issue comes up now, because it's one that is often on my mind.
I have been in a stable, committed relationship with my partner Matt since 2007. We love each other very much, have lived together for 4 years, and share many of the duties and responsibilities that married couples do. Being a homosexual couple, however, we cannot get married in Minnesota, and even if we were to go get married in a state that allows same-sex marriage, Minnesota and the federal government would not recognize our marriage.
I have been reflecting a lot on what "family" means to me and how terms like "family values" are misused by politically motivated people and groups to advance discrimination against gay couples like myself. To me, a marriage is the commitment that two loving adults make to each other, announced publicly. Being married carries a lot of social significance in our society. It is one of those landmarks in the life of most Americans that binds people together and gives a large number of people something to bond over. Some people say that civil unions or domestic partnerships would give the same level of equality to gay couples without carrying the religious baggage of the word "marriage", but this isn't true when you think about the social perception of intimate partnerships that are defined as marriages or not. For example, if Matt and I were at a dinner party with a number of other married, heterosexual couples, we would say that we have a domestic partnership but not a marriage. We don't reap the benefits or social cache that comes with being married and having it recognized by the state and federal government. We don't receive the same kind of respect and recognition that the other couples at the dinner party do. Even if domestic partnerships DID have all the same benefits as being married, we would still be a separate class. To me, this brings to mind the system of segregated education that existed in the United States before Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that "separate but equal" was not actually fair.
Anyway, enough ranting. As you might know, there is an important ballot measure up for the vote this November in Minnesota about whether or not to create a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Same-sex marriage is already banned in Minnesota from a legal precedent from the 70s, but conservatives wish to pass this amendment because it will make legalizing marriage equality much more difficult in the future. Minnesota United For All Families has been doing a great job of spreading public awareness about this issue, raising money to fight the passage of this amendment, and appealing to the fairness and goodness of Minnesotans all across the state. Their website (http://mnunited.org/) does a great job in showing everything that a family can be through pictures, testimonies, and more. They even have a part of their website that says "This is what family looks like!" with pictures of different groups, couples, and loved ones from across the state (http://mnunited.org/gallery/). It's inspiring, and it challenges the assumptions and stereotypes people might have about what a family is.
Here's what my family looks like:
I have been in a stable, committed relationship with my partner Matt since 2007. We love each other very much, have lived together for 4 years, and share many of the duties and responsibilities that married couples do. Being a homosexual couple, however, we cannot get married in Minnesota, and even if we were to go get married in a state that allows same-sex marriage, Minnesota and the federal government would not recognize our marriage.
I have been reflecting a lot on what "family" means to me and how terms like "family values" are misused by politically motivated people and groups to advance discrimination against gay couples like myself. To me, a marriage is the commitment that two loving adults make to each other, announced publicly. Being married carries a lot of social significance in our society. It is one of those landmarks in the life of most Americans that binds people together and gives a large number of people something to bond over. Some people say that civil unions or domestic partnerships would give the same level of equality to gay couples without carrying the religious baggage of the word "marriage", but this isn't true when you think about the social perception of intimate partnerships that are defined as marriages or not. For example, if Matt and I were at a dinner party with a number of other married, heterosexual couples, we would say that we have a domestic partnership but not a marriage. We don't reap the benefits or social cache that comes with being married and having it recognized by the state and federal government. We don't receive the same kind of respect and recognition that the other couples at the dinner party do. Even if domestic partnerships DID have all the same benefits as being married, we would still be a separate class. To me, this brings to mind the system of segregated education that existed in the United States before Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that "separate but equal" was not actually fair.
Anyway, enough ranting. As you might know, there is an important ballot measure up for the vote this November in Minnesota about whether or not to create a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Same-sex marriage is already banned in Minnesota from a legal precedent from the 70s, but conservatives wish to pass this amendment because it will make legalizing marriage equality much more difficult in the future. Minnesota United For All Families has been doing a great job of spreading public awareness about this issue, raising money to fight the passage of this amendment, and appealing to the fairness and goodness of Minnesotans all across the state. Their website (http://mnunited.org/) does a great job in showing everything that a family can be through pictures, testimonies, and more. They even have a part of their website that says "This is what family looks like!" with pictures of different groups, couples, and loved ones from across the state (http://mnunited.org/gallery/). It's inspiring, and it challenges the assumptions and stereotypes people might have about what a family is.
Here's what my family looks like:
Movie theatre
I went to see "Prometheus" last night and being in a movie theater again brought to mind some of the concepts we've been learning about in this class. Everyone in the theater was an adult or teen, so they were all familiar with the "movie theater role"...they were familiar with the American norms of being in a movie theater and no one defied these norms. Rules of engagement for this context include being quiet while watching the movie, remain seated and still unless you have to go the bathroom or otherwise leave the theater, and, if there is enough room in the theater, leave a seat between your group and the next group in your row. My brother and I defied these rules a bit by talking to each other at points during the movie, but even then we would lean in close and whisper in very quiet tones.
At one point during the film, someone in the movie made a comment that could have been interpreted as amusing, but only one woman in the theater laughed. I felt embarrassed for her...laughing, especially in a social public setting like that, is usually a group activity; it can be awkward if you laugh at something and no one else joins you. My feeling of embarrassment was maybe a way for me to deal with the awkwardness of the moment.
I've heard that in other cultures--and even other subcultures within the United States--that these movie theater norms are different. For instance, in African American communities I have heard it's not unusual for people to be more boisterous during a film, talking and even yelling things about the movie while the movie is playing.
At one point during the film, someone in the movie made a comment that could have been interpreted as amusing, but only one woman in the theater laughed. I felt embarrassed for her...laughing, especially in a social public setting like that, is usually a group activity; it can be awkward if you laugh at something and no one else joins you. My feeling of embarrassment was maybe a way for me to deal with the awkwardness of the moment.
I've heard that in other cultures--and even other subcultures within the United States--that these movie theater norms are different. For instance, in African American communities I have heard it's not unusual for people to be more boisterous during a film, talking and even yelling things about the movie while the movie is playing.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Impression management
For this week, reflect on your own thoughts regarding how we manage the impressions that others have of us. What are some situations where you recognized that you were engaging in impression management? Can you recognize a variety of strategies that you've employed to do so?
Impression management is a skill that all of us employ when we involve ourselves in a new situation with people we don't know. In September, I started a new job working at the Anoka Hennepin School District. Now, this district has quite a reputation for having policies that aren't exactly super-supportive of gays and lesbians. In light of this, I decided to be cautious in how open I was about my sexuality. For the first week of me working there, I avoided talking about my personal life, I did not bring in personal photographs like many of my coworkers have at their desks, and I remained relatively silent when the issue of sexual orientation came up. In this way, I was practicing impression management by withholding some important personal information about myself for fear that it would upset these new people or would paint myself in a negative light right away.
Another good example is if I am hanging out with a lot of heterosexual men versus when I'm hanging out with a lot of homosexual men. My mannerisms and topics of conversation vary quite significantly. If I'm with a lot of straight guys--like if I'm a party with my college or high school friends--I might hold back how expressive I am with my voice and body language and talk about sports or video games. If I'm with my gay friends, I tend to be more expressive and less inhibited with my language and body language, and might be more inclined to talk about relationships, people I find attractive, and so on. I alter my persona in order to create favorable impressions with each group. If I did this the other way around, for instance, I might not be as well accepted by either group.
Impression management is a skill that all of us employ when we involve ourselves in a new situation with people we don't know. In September, I started a new job working at the Anoka Hennepin School District. Now, this district has quite a reputation for having policies that aren't exactly super-supportive of gays and lesbians. In light of this, I decided to be cautious in how open I was about my sexuality. For the first week of me working there, I avoided talking about my personal life, I did not bring in personal photographs like many of my coworkers have at their desks, and I remained relatively silent when the issue of sexual orientation came up. In this way, I was practicing impression management by withholding some important personal information about myself for fear that it would upset these new people or would paint myself in a negative light right away.
Another good example is if I am hanging out with a lot of heterosexual men versus when I'm hanging out with a lot of homosexual men. My mannerisms and topics of conversation vary quite significantly. If I'm with a lot of straight guys--like if I'm a party with my college or high school friends--I might hold back how expressive I am with my voice and body language and talk about sports or video games. If I'm with my gay friends, I tend to be more expressive and less inhibited with my language and body language, and might be more inclined to talk about relationships, people I find attractive, and so on. I alter my persona in order to create favorable impressions with each group. If I did this the other way around, for instance, I might not be as well accepted by either group.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Religion as a harmful social institution
I'd like to take a moment and reflect on the effects that institutions have in shaping public perception of sexual orientation and sex culture in the United States in general.
Newman focuses his discussion of socialization and institutions on three main major cultural institutions: education, religion, and mass media. Each one plays a significant role in shaping how Americans think about sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Education plays a role by giving students heteronormative sex education that often stresses abstinence and disease prevention rather than discussing sexual pleasure, the intricacies of relationships, and non-traditional sexual expression. Religion plays a role by stressing monogamous, heterosexual relationships and generally being extremely sex-negative until you are married. Finally, mass media inundates citizens with hyper-sexualized, misogynist, and heteronormative images that show everyone what "normal" sexual behavior should be.
In light of these trends, the data is not surprising. Newman points out how people are more likely to hold sexist views on gender roles and engage in gender-related activities if they watch lots of TV. One aspect of these institutions shaping our views on sexuality and sexual behavior that Newman unfortunately does not discuss is the destructive quality that religion has in the public perception of homosexuality, transgendered people, and anyone with sexual morals outside of their naive, conservative perspective of sex. As a gay man and an atheist, I can't help but wonder about the civil rights progress gays and lesbians might have already achieved if it weren't for religious people denying rights like marriage and adoption to loving gay couples. I can't help but wonder if the shaming of sexually active women would be less if religion didn't tell women that they are supposed to be sexually modest and submissive to their husbands. I can't help but wonder if the teenage birth rate and sexually transmitted disease rate would be lower if religious people weren't foisting ineffective abstinence-only health education programs on the public.
Overall I find many of the deepest and most harmful problems regarding the treatment of women, homosexuals, and anyone else not following the "sexual norms" of American culture stem from the poisonous effects of religion in America.
Newman focuses his discussion of socialization and institutions on three main major cultural institutions: education, religion, and mass media. Each one plays a significant role in shaping how Americans think about sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Education plays a role by giving students heteronormative sex education that often stresses abstinence and disease prevention rather than discussing sexual pleasure, the intricacies of relationships, and non-traditional sexual expression. Religion plays a role by stressing monogamous, heterosexual relationships and generally being extremely sex-negative until you are married. Finally, mass media inundates citizens with hyper-sexualized, misogynist, and heteronormative images that show everyone what "normal" sexual behavior should be.
In light of these trends, the data is not surprising. Newman points out how people are more likely to hold sexist views on gender roles and engage in gender-related activities if they watch lots of TV. One aspect of these institutions shaping our views on sexuality and sexual behavior that Newman unfortunately does not discuss is the destructive quality that religion has in the public perception of homosexuality, transgendered people, and anyone with sexual morals outside of their naive, conservative perspective of sex. As a gay man and an atheist, I can't help but wonder about the civil rights progress gays and lesbians might have already achieved if it weren't for religious people denying rights like marriage and adoption to loving gay couples. I can't help but wonder if the shaming of sexually active women would be less if religion didn't tell women that they are supposed to be sexually modest and submissive to their husbands. I can't help but wonder if the teenage birth rate and sexually transmitted disease rate would be lower if religious people weren't foisting ineffective abstinence-only health education programs on the public.
Overall I find many of the deepest and most harmful problems regarding the treatment of women, homosexuals, and anyone else not following the "sexual norms" of American culture stem from the poisonous effects of religion in America.
Monday, June 11, 2012
I defied a cultural norm
I defied a cultural norm. I did! It felt kinda good actually.
But really, one little cultural norm that irks me is the American tendency to ask "how's it going?" when you greet someone. It has simply become part of the standard greeting procedure even though people rarely honestly answer that question. It's such a disingenuous question, because people don't really want to know and don't really care about your response or how you're actually doing.
I was walking along at work and a coworker passed me by. She asked, "hey, how's it going?" Instead of the usual "Oh I'm fine" or "doing well!" or some other canned, dishonest response I decided to really tell her how I was. I'm really excited for summer but I'm also really busy, and so on and so on. She got this glazed, kind of shocked look on her face as her smile faded as she realized I was actually answering her question. It was definitely an awkward moment! At the same time, I felt good to actual break this annoying norm and answer her question. If you ask a personal question, especially something like how someone is doing, you should expect a response!
I remember I also did this one when I was in high school, just real quickly. I was having a terrible day and someone I knew passed me in the hall and asked me how was. I just responded, "terrible" and kept walking. She was shocked, but I didn't care. Guess what? That's how I feel, and if you aren't prepared for an honest answer, you shouldn't ask the question.
The second question--the role of culture and norms in society--is kind of a massive one. Where do I start? It's almost hard to distinguish culture from society, to me. Culture is what defines society and gives it form and shape and meaning. Culture, like art, is difficult to define; like art, it can be defined as anything and everything. What i mean is, some people claim that art can potentially be anything around us; the same can be said for culture.
Norms are a little more concrete. I'd say the value of social norms is to maintain a sense of societal order and predictability. In this way, they remind me a bit of how the human mind uses stereotypes. Stereotypes are generally bad things--generalizations we make about people based on some trait they have. But imagine if we didn't have these evaluative shortcuts when we interacted with people. Evaluating every single person we come across every day at an individual level without making guesses or inferences about them based on things like race or gender or economic status would be mentally tiring. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a more efficient way of going about the world. Norms, to me, have a similar function. They are shortcuts to existing smoothly in society.
But really, one little cultural norm that irks me is the American tendency to ask "how's it going?" when you greet someone. It has simply become part of the standard greeting procedure even though people rarely honestly answer that question. It's such a disingenuous question, because people don't really want to know and don't really care about your response or how you're actually doing.
I was walking along at work and a coworker passed me by. She asked, "hey, how's it going?" Instead of the usual "Oh I'm fine" or "doing well!" or some other canned, dishonest response I decided to really tell her how I was. I'm really excited for summer but I'm also really busy, and so on and so on. She got this glazed, kind of shocked look on her face as her smile faded as she realized I was actually answering her question. It was definitely an awkward moment! At the same time, I felt good to actual break this annoying norm and answer her question. If you ask a personal question, especially something like how someone is doing, you should expect a response!
I remember I also did this one when I was in high school, just real quickly. I was having a terrible day and someone I knew passed me in the hall and asked me how was. I just responded, "terrible" and kept walking. She was shocked, but I didn't care. Guess what? That's how I feel, and if you aren't prepared for an honest answer, you shouldn't ask the question.
The second question--the role of culture and norms in society--is kind of a massive one. Where do I start? It's almost hard to distinguish culture from society, to me. Culture is what defines society and gives it form and shape and meaning. Culture, like art, is difficult to define; like art, it can be defined as anything and everything. What i mean is, some people claim that art can potentially be anything around us; the same can be said for culture.
Norms are a little more concrete. I'd say the value of social norms is to maintain a sense of societal order and predictability. In this way, they remind me a bit of how the human mind uses stereotypes. Stereotypes are generally bad things--generalizations we make about people based on some trait they have. But imagine if we didn't have these evaluative shortcuts when we interacted with people. Evaluating every single person we come across every day at an individual level without making guesses or inferences about them based on things like race or gender or economic status would be mentally tiring. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a more efficient way of going about the world. Norms, to me, have a similar function. They are shortcuts to existing smoothly in society.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Personal Billboard = passive self expression
A "personal billboard" is merely another word for the ways in which we express ourselves everyday: the clothes we wear, signs and symbols on our cars and bags, or even our hairstyles. One example is a personalized license plate like this one:
Another way in which I express myself as a "personal billboard" is my shirts. I have shirts that express my interests (video games, the Minnesota Timberwolves, Star Trek) and my beliefs (Minnesota Atheists, blood drive shirts). I usually choose shirts that fit the social situation I am going to be a part of that day.
I chose this for two reasons. One, I am from Alaska and still feel a great affinity with my home state. I especially chose the traditional ugly bright yellow license plate because of nostalgia for my home state and how it reflects the tacky-but-memorable tradition of Alaskan culture. Two, I chose "skptic" (skeptic) because I identify myself as a skeptic. A skeptic is not someone who automatically denies a new idea, but rather someone who sees the world with an objective, critical eye, who seeks reason and evidence, and evaluates claims with facts to reach closer to truth.
Another good example of a visual billboard would be the back of my car. While I don't have a picture of it handy at the moment, I can say that there are four bumper stickers on my car that I feel represent me quite well. Firstly, I have a sticker with AK on it, the mailing abbreviation for Alaska, to represent where I came from. Next, I have a Human Rights Campaign equals sign to represent my belief in equal rights for all people, especially women and gay people like myself. Thirdly, I have a Vote No sticker from Minnesota United for All Families sticker, which expresses my political viewpoint on the upcoming marriage amendment vote this fall about marriage equality (I am for marriage equality, and so I am against this amendment). Finally, I have the N7 logo from the video game series Mass Effect because I am a gamer.
Another way in which I express myself as a "personal billboard" is my shirts. I have shirts that express my interests (video games, the Minnesota Timberwolves, Star Trek) and my beliefs (Minnesota Atheists, blood drive shirts). I usually choose shirts that fit the social situation I am going to be a part of that day.
Ultimately these kinds of self-expressions are somewhat superficial, but can create a first impression for others encountering you in society.
January 1998
The crux of sociological thinking--that outside and broader societal forces play a large role in determining the course of our lives--is a difficult one for Americans to take, as Newman notes in chapter one. It is, however, fascinating to deeply consider how broader societal forces have helped shaped the course of my life, particularly my upbringing.
I was born in 1986 in Anchorage, Alaska. My parents had just moved up to Alaska from Dallas, Texas. My father worked for an oil company, and there were many new job opportunities in Alaska because of the discovery of oil there in the 1970s and the subsequent construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 80s. I would almost certainly not have been born and raised in Alaska if it weren't for this discovery and subsequent construction.
Another way in which broader society affects my life is actually one that that Newman noted in chapter 1: my rights as a gay citizen. I have been with my partner for over 5 years, and honestly, if same-sex marriage was legal in Minnesota (which it is not because of a legal precedent from the 1970s) and was recognized by the federal government (which it would not be because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman), we would probably already be married. Because we are not married, the follow things have happened to us the last few years:
--I could not be added onto his health insurance he has through his job, so I went without health insurance for 2 years after I graduated undergrad.
--We cannot combine our federal or state income taxes; as a result, we pay thousands of dollars more in taxes per year than if we were married
Let's fast-forward (or rewind depending on where you want to start from) to January 1998. I was just turning 12, and was actually living in McKinney, Texas at the time, a suburb of Dallas. I spent just one year there today, and it was pretty traumatic on a personal level. On a societal level, however, there was an even greater tragedy afoot:
Oh my gosh, they're ending Seinfeld. How will we laugh again!?
But really, the January 12, 1998 issue of Time magazine has some interesting and portentous articles. There were two articles on the Asian economic crisis, an event that would rock the global economic climate and in some ways signaled the beginning of the end of the great era of prosperity and growth that marked most of the mid-90s. Yes, the Internet economic bubble was just beginning, but just 3 years the bubble burst; 4 years later the country was reeling from 9/11 and the economy was dipping.
Another article from this issue I found interesting was an opinion piece on the new ban on smoking inside bars in California; the author likened this new ban to the prohibition of alcohol in the 20s. I found this piece ironic not only because this ban still exists, but that this policy has been adopted in many other places in the countries and indeed the world.
While the Asian financial crisis did not affect me personally in any big way, 12-year-old me was definitely bummed out about the end of Seinfeld. That show helped shaped my humor and gave me and my family something to bond over throughout my upbringing. Thinking more broadly, the California smoking ban led to other public smoking bans throughout the country; when I traveled abroad to Germany in 2006, I was shocked and unprepared for the overwhelming amount of smoke in German bars. The shocking newness of being in an actual smoky bar helped define my time in Europe, to the point where when I returned to the United States after my trip, the smell of a cigarette actually made me feel nostalgic for Europe rather than just feeling like my lungs were being assaulted.
This concept of "sociological thinking"--thinking deeply about how societal factors have shaped my life--is actually tremendously fun, but also essential to understanding the value of sociology as an academic discipline. Only by making these connections between broader society and individuals can we see the use of sociology.
I was born in 1986 in Anchorage, Alaska. My parents had just moved up to Alaska from Dallas, Texas. My father worked for an oil company, and there were many new job opportunities in Alaska because of the discovery of oil there in the 1970s and the subsequent construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 80s. I would almost certainly not have been born and raised in Alaska if it weren't for this discovery and subsequent construction.
Another way in which broader society affects my life is actually one that that Newman noted in chapter 1: my rights as a gay citizen. I have been with my partner for over 5 years, and honestly, if same-sex marriage was legal in Minnesota (which it is not because of a legal precedent from the 1970s) and was recognized by the federal government (which it would not be because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman), we would probably already be married. Because we are not married, the follow things have happened to us the last few years:
--I could not be added onto his health insurance he has through his job, so I went without health insurance for 2 years after I graduated undergrad.
--We cannot combine our federal or state income taxes; as a result, we pay thousands of dollars more in taxes per year than if we were married
Let's fast-forward (or rewind depending on where you want to start from) to January 1998. I was just turning 12, and was actually living in McKinney, Texas at the time, a suburb of Dallas. I spent just one year there today, and it was pretty traumatic on a personal level. On a societal level, however, there was an even greater tragedy afoot:
Oh my gosh, they're ending Seinfeld. How will we laugh again!?
But really, the January 12, 1998 issue of Time magazine has some interesting and portentous articles. There were two articles on the Asian economic crisis, an event that would rock the global economic climate and in some ways signaled the beginning of the end of the great era of prosperity and growth that marked most of the mid-90s. Yes, the Internet economic bubble was just beginning, but just 3 years the bubble burst; 4 years later the country was reeling from 9/11 and the economy was dipping.
Another article from this issue I found interesting was an opinion piece on the new ban on smoking inside bars in California; the author likened this new ban to the prohibition of alcohol in the 20s. I found this piece ironic not only because this ban still exists, but that this policy has been adopted in many other places in the countries and indeed the world.
While the Asian financial crisis did not affect me personally in any big way, 12-year-old me was definitely bummed out about the end of Seinfeld. That show helped shaped my humor and gave me and my family something to bond over throughout my upbringing. Thinking more broadly, the California smoking ban led to other public smoking bans throughout the country; when I traveled abroad to Germany in 2006, I was shocked and unprepared for the overwhelming amount of smoke in German bars. The shocking newness of being in an actual smoky bar helped define my time in Europe, to the point where when I returned to the United States after my trip, the smell of a cigarette actually made me feel nostalgic for Europe rather than just feeling like my lungs were being assaulted.
This concept of "sociological thinking"--thinking deeply about how societal factors have shaped my life--is actually tremendously fun, but also essential to understanding the value of sociology as an academic discipline. Only by making these connections between broader society and individuals can we see the use of sociology.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Sociology go!
So I'm finally getting around to creating my blog for my sociology class. I know I'm a bit late on this, but now that I'm getting going on this, I'm pretty excited.
I guess this is a pretty good time to introduce myself. My name is Matthew Everhart. I'm 26, and I was born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska. I'm taking this class as part of the process of obtaining my teaching license in secondary social studies through Hamline's MAT program. I got my psychology undergrad degree at St. Olaf College ('08) with minors in neuroscience and asian studies. I've taken one other online course before through Metro State and it was kind of a mixed bag, so I'm hoping for a better online class experience this time.
At first I wasn't too excited for this class, but now that I have started to explore the textbook and watch some of the supplementary materials that have been posted online, I am started to feel good about it. The social sciences are definitely my favorite, and sociology has a close relationship with psychology, so that's a plus.
I guess this is a pretty good time to introduce myself. My name is Matthew Everhart. I'm 26, and I was born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska. I'm taking this class as part of the process of obtaining my teaching license in secondary social studies through Hamline's MAT program. I got my psychology undergrad degree at St. Olaf College ('08) with minors in neuroscience and asian studies. I've taken one other online course before through Metro State and it was kind of a mixed bag, so I'm hoping for a better online class experience this time.
At first I wasn't too excited for this class, but now that I have started to explore the textbook and watch some of the supplementary materials that have been posted online, I am started to feel good about it. The social sciences are definitely my favorite, and sociology has a close relationship with psychology, so that's a plus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)