Journals on Different Articles on Sociology

¶ … new ways of thinking about and conceiving the world. I have particularly appreciated the multidisciplinary approach, as all course readings have in some ways synthesized sociology, ethnography, anthropology, and psychology. We have learned to view the world through structuralist-functionalist approaches, as with many of the readings in the text Seeing and Thinking Sociologically, which refers to the "architecture of everyday life." The architecture of everyday life incudes blueprints of language/linguistics and related issues like semantics.

Moreover, social status and hierarchy is also constructed and has an architecture of its own. As Hutson describes in "The Power of the Hoodie-Wearing CEO," outward symbols of social status such as dress or clothing markers, cars, or visible signs of wealth are not the only means by which a person can convey and communicate social status and power. Mark Zuckerberg became famous for wearing a casual outfit to almost all of his presentations: a simple hoodie and comfortable sneakers.

Zuckerberg is not dependent on external markers to display his significant social and cultural capital, let alone his financial capital. I found it fascinating to consider the many men and women who choose to either flaunt their wealth or conceal it. Concealing wealth via subversive dress like Zuckerberg's is often far more powerful a statement than ostentatious displays of wealth, like wearing couture. In most societies, it would be considered socially deviant to show up to an important board meeting or a massive public presentation wearing a hoodie and sneakers.

Yet a powerful person like Zuckerberg can do so, and doing so conveys an extra dimension of social status.

As Hutson puts it, "deliberate nonconformity shows that you can handle some ridicule because you've got social capital to burn." Equally as fascinating as Hutson's analysis of social status and the symbols that convey status is Deutscher's article for The New York Times Magazine, "Does your language shape how you think?" Language is a fundamental building block of the "architecture of everyday life." The way we think about the world depends on what language we do our thinking in, which is why learning new languages forces us to "think" in that new language.

When we consider the ways our thinking are constrained by language, we become empowered and more compassionate about different worldviews and perspectives. For example, many languages are gendered but English is not. In English, we can have an entire conversation referring to a close friend without ever having to mention the person's gender. In gendered languages like the Romance languages, it would be impossible to do so, and this would significantly restrict the ways writers develop their characters and stories.

Similarly, Deutscher points out that many languages of the world do not use "egocentric" directions, which are directions in relation to our body. Those languages that do not use egocentric directions only rely on the cardinal directions, north, south, east, and west. Thus, a person does not "see" or perceive of an object as being in front of him or her. The person sees the object as being just to the north or south.

This concept is fascinating, and encourages me to explore the challenging subject of linguistics more in depth at a later date. I have found it remarkably rewarding to think critically about the "architecture of daily life." I realize how many things I take for granted, as I might fail to recognize how my upbringing, cultural background, and gender all influence.