TV and Advertising as Agent of Socialization

Consuming Kids 

The media has become a powerful force over the last few decades.  This social construction is different from other agents of socialization because it is so recent and so vast.  Similar to family, media starts influencing kids from a young age, even before young kids have a conscious sense of self.  Marketers call this "cradle to grave" marketing.  The point of the marketing campaign is to turn kids into consumers from the moment they are born, until they die.  And they have become very good at it.  So good, that one might say kids have become consumed by the omnipresent media.  That is the focus of the documentary called Consuming Kids.  (Yes - I get the irony of using a documentary to teach about media) Below is the trailer for Consuming Kids. But you can see the whole video by clicking here and logging into mediacast, or in parts at youtube and find more info on the Media Ed website.

The documentary draws on the work of sociologist Juliet Schor from Boston College.  Here is an interview with her on NPR and an excerpt from her book, Born to Buy.

Some of the most important claims from the documentary are:

• Big media and corporations have been successful at deregulating the industry which has allowed for more and more control in the U.S. markets.
• Marketers have invested in psychology, neurology and a number of other advanced studies about how to capture consumers.
• They have successfully tied individual identity to products.
• Media is pervasive and omnipresent; it started as simple radio and tv, but is now everywhere - especially digitally on social media devices and social media platforms.

McGrane's Un-TV

TV is all a message to you to be a consumer and a conformer.  It is also produced so that as a viewer you don't question what you are doing, certainly not while you are watching the TV.  The TV is in many ways like a good friend of ours waiting for us in our living room. It's there with us giving us the feeling that we are connected to and engaged in society, when the reality is exactly the opposite.  Try the Un-TV experiment from Professor Bernard McGrane of Chapman University to experience how TV shapes you.  The Un-Tv assignment is another great exercise in sociology from Bernard McGrane and his book, The Un-Tv and the 10mph car.  McGrane has also published a more recent book that is completely focused on the media called Watching TV is not Required; Toward Media Mindfulness and Enlightenment TV.  Here are some of the reflections on this experiment from Mcgrane's book.



You have been socialized by the media.

If you are skeptical that you have been socialized by the media, try playing one of the corporate logo games here.  See how much you have been influenced.  Or try this quiz of tv show theme songs.  Or this quiz from sporcle for commercial jingles.  Or this commercial jingle quiz from business insider.  What is interesting to me is that none of us ever consciously tried to learn the logos or the theme songs and jingles, but we know so many of them.  Media influences us without us realizing it.


Media Stats

98% of American homes have TV (that’s more than have phones 94%)
- the average American household has at least one set turned on for 7 hours per day.
-the average American child watches 20,000 commercials per year.
- TV watching is a routine that children learn before learning to read.
- many children spend as much time watching TV as they do interacting with parents.
- Sex, violence and wealth are more prevalent in mass media than in real life.
- Minorities watch 40% more TV than those in the majority, but they are not involved in the shows.
42% of children under 8 years old have a television in their bedroom.
Half (52%) of all 0- to 8-year-olds have access to a new mobile device, such as a smartphone, video iPod, or iPad/tablet.
More than a third (38%) of children this age have used one of these devices, including 10% of 0-to 1-year-olds, 39% of 2- to 4-year-olds, and more than half (52%) of 5- to 8-year-olds.
In a typical day, one in 10 (11%) 0- to 8-year-olds uses a smartphone, video iPod, iPad, or similar device to play games, watch videos, or use other apps. Those who do such activities spend an average of 43 minutes a day doing so.

BIG Media Ownership

https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/media-ownership-chart-with-logos-2016.4425/full

The graphic above shows how much the big media companies own.  Here is a chart from Vox from 2018.  Also, this chart is from 2012, but it explains the trend nicely.  Owning so much allows media to cross-market and create a sense that their shows/products are important.  They actually produce the culture that we consume.  In other words, they convince us what we should be watching, then we consume it.  Another resource on media ownership is from the Columbia Journalism Review.

A few examples of how this plays out to shape public thought are:

• When news like ABC run a story about their own shows.
• When radio stations run the same song on multiple stations.
• The attempt by NBC to cover up the Harvey Weinstein allegations as reported by Ronan Farrow.

Merchants of Cool, though a little older, highlights the media's impact on teens.

What is Sociology? The Sociological Perspective Lesson 1

WELCOME to SOCIOLOGY!

This is obviously a weird year, but like I said in that email I sent you last week - I am truly committed to the class and I think you might even get more out of it than in a traditional class.  However, I recognize it's a totally different format so please don't hesitate to ask for help or make suggestions.  And please be understanding of difficulties along the way.  Thanks in advance for that.

While I have plenty of experience using tech and the web for teaching, I have not used Zoom a whole lot.  My class will rely heavily on this blog for the lessons.  Please bookmark this page.  I will post lessons on the blog each day.  If you miss a zoom or if you are not sure about the lesson, go to my blog page to review the lesson.  During our Zoom lessons, I plan to work off the blog so, I might assign you to a breakout room to work individually.  We will do this today.

I will link to each individual reading as we go along, but if you want a complete readings packet for Unit 1: The Sociological Perspective click here  

Student Demographics Survey 

I want to get to know each of you better as an individual, so please answer this demographic survey.  It is only for me.  Please share as much info as you are comfortable sharing.  

I had you fill out the survey above because I wanted to get to know you as an individual.  My question now is, are you, in fact, an individual?  What makes you an individual?  For remote learning, I want you each to answer individually for all of the numbered bold face questions below.  I will do this for each lesson of ours.  Click on the link below and open the Google Form in a new window.  Then read along with the blog and answer questions in the order that they come up.  If you have questions, I will available via zoom or email.  

Here is the Google Form for today's lesson.  Please open it in a new window.

1.  Do you think you are an individual?  Why or why not?

2.  What do you think it means to be an individual?

Sociology

The Western world in general, particularly Americans, like to believe that they are individual and unique.  This idea stemmed from the Enlightenment.   Many scholars at the time doted on the idea that each person is unique and each person free to choose whoever they want to be.  

However, shortly after the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution changed the way people lived and it showed that individuals are shaped a great deal by their social circumstances and not just by their own free choice.  We will learn more about this in the lessons to come, but for today, see this idea exemplified in the student demographic sheet you filled out. 

People are shaped by structures of society and their place within the structure.   The place you were born and the culture you were born into will shape how you think, talk, and what opportunities you have.  Families, schools, jobs, politics and media all influence how you see the world and what you value and how you think.  Additionally, your race, gender, social class all shape how you see yourself and how others see you.  Sometimes that can result in others treating you differently based on those identities.  All of this is sociology.  Sociology is scientifically studying how these groups in society affect the individuals within them and the obstacles and opportunities they will face because of their group identities.

3.  Any questions about what sociology is?

Syllabus

Please look at the syllabus for this class. The syllabus is in the readings packet on pages 2-5, but here is a separate link to the syllabus.  I want to highlight a few ideas:

• Please be open to learning.  If you took this class only because it is easy or you took it because you want to debate the course content (as opposed to learning), drop the class now.  It will be better for you and for your classmates.
• This class is a dual credit class through Loyola University.  
• Grades are based on EBR and the standards and targets included in the syllabus.  
• Blog:  This blog is an important learning tool for this course.  Bookmark it.  If you are absent, or if we are quarantined, you must still read the blog post and answer the questions for each day.
• Reading:  You will be required to read for this class.  This class will have the expectations of a college-level class.  If you want to have no work this year in your class, I urge you to drop this class and find another class to take instead.

4.  Any questions about the highlighted items above?

Teen-Parent Conflicts 
5.  Identify some conflicts you have with your parents.  What are they about?

Discuss as a group:

• Do you think these conflicts are personal?
• What is difficult about being a teen?

HW1:  Read Parent-teen Conflicts by Stephanie Coontz.  (Also in your student readings packet pages 6-9)  This is an important reading for this first unit.  Please be sure to read and understand it thoroughly.  It will help make the rest of the lessons this unit easier.

As you read, think about what Coontz attributes the conflicts to.  What is her overall thesis?

HW2:  Read the full syllabus.

HW3:   Name Survey

For homework, please survey your family about why you were named the legal name that you have.  If you have a nickname, please ask about that as well.  How and why did you get these names?  Is there a symbolic meaning to your name or why you were named that?

Lesson 12: Race in the U.S.

The Census provides a map and chart of racial diversity in the US:

 https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/

Racism toward Americans who are Hindu

PEW Data about Americans who identify as Hindu.

Hindu American website, and the Hindu Hate Watch https://www.hinduamerican.org/projects/hindu-hate-watch

Trends and Analysis

Looking at the overall number of suspected hate crimes reported in the media, there are two important trends to note.

First, two important spikes in the incidents must be noted: the first occurring right after the 9/11 attacks; the second occurring in 2014-15.

The first spike is more easily explainable, coming as a part of a backlash from the attacks targeting Arab and Muslim Americans, and those who could be mistaken for such, including Sikh, Hindu, and other South Asian Americans. However, the 2014 spike is not tied to any such major terrorist attack.

The second trend is a shift in the types of incidents occurring.

Out of 18 reported incidents in the last three months of 2001, two were attacks on houses of worship, four were attacks on private or commercial property, while the remaining twelve were physical attacks or harassment of individuals. In contrast, out of the 33 incidents in 2014 and 2015, there were only two attacks on individuals, with the rest of the incidents comprising of vandalism, attacks on houses of worship, and home invasions. Subsequent to 2015, there were 18 incidents, 14 of which were directed towards individuals and four against houses of worship.

 

Anti-Hindu Prejudice in the Media and the Public Sphere

Even as the Hindu American community grows its numbers, Hinduism remains poorly understood in the American public sphere. According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, only 22% of Americans knew a practitioner of the Hindu faith, compared to 38% for Muslims and 61% for Jews. Americans in general also held a neutral or negative view of Hindus compared to other religions in the United States.

Given a lack of familiarity with Hindu practitioners, many Americans are influenced by the portrayal of Hinduism offered in the mainstream media, by public officials, and by their own community and religious leaders.

Unfortunately, much of the coverage of Hindus, Hindu Americans, and Hinduism in these outlets is flawed, relying on stereotypes and inaccurate information.

 

Anti-Hindu Prejudice In the Public Square

Given the level of misconceptions and ignorance about the Hindu community and it’s beliefs, Hindu Americans frequently face harassment and religious prejudice when they attempt to participate in public life, whether they choose to lobby their representatives or run for public office.

On September 14, 2000, the first Hindu invocation in the history of the United States Congress was offered by Venkatachalapathi Samudrala before the U.S. House of Representatives.

This prayer attracted criticism from the Family Research Council, who argued that it was a sign that the country was “drifting from its Judeo-Christian roots.”

On July 12, 2007, the first Hindu invocation was offered before the US Senate by Nevada Hindu leader Rajan Zed. As Zed stood up to speak, three protesters started screaming at him, “This is an abomination!” Zed’s invocation was the first invocation in the history of the United States Senate to have been protested.

Shortly after the incident, former Navy Chaplain, Gordon Klingenschmitt wrote in the protester’s defense, arguing that Hinduism constituted idolatry and should not be respected in America.

Similarly, Rev. Flip Denham condemned the prayer, decrying the equal treatment accorded to Christianity and Hinduism, and accusing Hinduism of worship a “false god.”

A number of public figures joined the chorus of support for the protesters including US Representative Bill Sali (R-ID), Tim Waldmon of the American Family Association, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and currently a commissioner at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Bonnie Alba of Renew America, evangelical activist David Barton, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court, and Rev. Wiley Drake of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In March 2015, Zed was invited to give the invocation before the Idaho State Senate. Unlike the 2000 and 2007 invocations, which were largely protested by outside groups, the 2015 invocation was protested by members of the Idaho State Senate. Senator Steve Vick, who led the protests, argued that Hinduism should not be welcome in Idaho because Hindus “worship cows” and “have a caste system.” Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll added that “Hindu [sic] is a false faith with false gods.”

Similarly, Hindu attempts to represent their heritage alongside Christian monuments have repeatedly been rejected. Applications to include Hindu monuments alongside the Ten Commandments have been rejected in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Hindu candidates running for office have frequently been the target of religious prejudice and attacks.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the first Hindu American elected to Congress, was criticized by her opponent for her Hindu faith.

Similarly, former Minnesota State Senator Satveer Chaudhary was asked to convert to Christianity by his Republican opponent in her concession speech. She said, “The race of your life is more important than this one…It is my sincere wish that you’ll get to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Jesus is the way.”

Even non-Hindu candidates open themselves up to the risk of attacks if they appear tolerant or respectful of Hinduism.

In Kentucky, Gov. Steve Beshear was attacked by State Senate President David Williams for attending the groundbreaking ceremony for a Hindu temple. In his remarks, Williams announced that he would never participate in a religious ceremony that was non-Christian and demanded that all Hindus in Kentucky convert to Christianity.

President Barack Obama was attacked for speaking positively about the Hindu God Hanuman.

Ordinary Hindu Americans have also not been spared. In early 2019, after the Tulsi Gabbard became the first ever Hindu American to run for president, several media outlets began targeting political contributions made by individuals with “Hindu origin names.” These articles accused Hindu Americans of having dual loyalties to India. They also alleged, without any evidence, that these same donors financially support Indian political parties and politicians, which incidentally, would be in contravention of Indian law.

These articles have yet to be redacted and editors have failed to respond to questions about the racist and bigoted nature of these “investigations,” including whether they would approve of similar investigations of Jewish donors to Jewish candidates, Muslim donors to Muslim candidates, or Hindu Americans contributions to other candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and numerous others.

Such attacks show the progress that needs to be made before religious prejudice is erased.

And from Doximity the most common last name for doctors has changed to Patel!

Social Class and the Connection Between Location and Education

 The Wall Street Journal published a study of data showing where graduates from different colleges move after graduating.  The article and interactive is here.

So you want to learn more about race or racism? Here's recommended reading...

Brief history of the recent sociology of race

 Brief history of the recent sociology of race

Historically, the approach to race has had some major evolutions especially within sociology.

As the U.S. emerged from the civil rights movement, by the 1980s, the emphasis for reacting to race in the U.S. was on colorblindness or acknowledging that race is a made-up social construct so we should no longer think in terms of race;  we should try not to see anyone's race, and move forward in the world ignoring race.

However, colorblindness did not reduce racism, instead, it ignored it.  This allowed racism to continue and allowed SOME people to claim they were not racist because they ignored race (but also ignored the racism)

This led to a new movement (late 90s) championed by sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.  He said we should strive to be race-conscious.  This means that we should acknowledge that though race is not a discrete biological category, it is in fact a social construct.  As such, it affects both how think about our own identity as well as how we think and act toward other people.  Some of these thoughts and actions might be explicit/conscious and some are implicit/unconscious.  Race consciousness emphasized trying to be conscious of all of these attitudes.

However, being race-conscious allowed SOME people to believe that they were doing their part to be not racist.  It was possible to feel that you understand the racial dynamics in America and that you were going to try hard to be aware of racist attitudes and actions and avoid them in your own life.  This could allow SOME people to go about their business feeling righteous about their own views on race, all the while allowing the status quo to continue.  And the status quo meant that racism could continue.  Sometimes there was a legacy of racism - such as the wealth gap which was generational, and other times there was racism embedded in social institutions.  The empirical data for this type of racial inequality is overwhelming.  (If you need data/examples here, I am happy to provide it)  

So it became clear that individuals claiming to be racially conscious and self-aware was not changing the system.  This led to Ibram Kendi's work called How to Be an Anti-racist.  Kendi's main thesis is that being race-conscious and working to not be racist as an individual is not enough to reverse the racism already embedded within society.  Doing so, allows racism to continue in really significant ways.  And so Kendi is trying to emphasize that simply denouncing racism without doing anything does not make one anti-racist.  In order to truly be anti-racist, one must actively work against the forces of racism that are already embedded in society.  

Some people want to criticize Kendi for being too extreme.  And I think that it is possible to be critical of specific aspects of being an anti-racist.  For example, there are some Americans perceived as whites who claim to be working against racism but not all Americans who identify as black will see their actions as such.  A great example of this are a number of instances during the George Floyd protests where well-meaning whites thought that by looting or rioting they were speaking out against the racism of the George Floyd incident.  These "woke" whites thought that they were taking to the streets to voice their displeasure with race relations.  They thought that they were working to be an anti-racist.  Plenty of Americans who identify as black spoke out against these looters/rioters.   There were stories of protesters who protected cops from being harmed by crowds and protesters who protected stores from being looted.   Clearly, there is disagreement or misunderstanding about what it means to be an anti-racist. And this is not surprising because society is complex and so are individuals.  And not only are they complex and multi-faceted, but they are dynamic: individuals and society are constantly changing.

But the general thesis of Kendi's idea is really simple to me;  if you truly opposed something, you will work to stop it.  For example, if you see a young child wander out into a busy street, you can stand by and say "I am really against letting children get by cars."  Or, you can actually help the kid even though you are a stranger.  You take an active role for something that you care about.  Take something like poverty.  You can claim to be against poverty or anti-poverty, but if you don't take steps in your daily life to end poverty, are you really anti-poverty? In other words, it is one thing to believe something, but it is something much more to actively work against it.  That is the simple takeaway from Kendi.

Meanwhile, Robin Diangelo has been working as a racial equity trainer throughout the different eras that I described above.  And what she has noticed is that SOME people who are in the various mindsets above, knee-jerk when they are challenged to be anti-racists as in the way that Kendi describes.  SOME people think that colorblindness is enough to be antiracist.  In fact, some people strive for colorblindness to the degree that any mention of race makes them uncomfortable.  I have experienced this with students myself.  Others think that race consciousness is enough and as long as they are aware of race, they do not feel obligated to work against laws or institutions that reinforce racial inequality.  When you say that being a bystander allows inequality and oppression to continue, they react defensively because they don't want to be implicated as a cause of continued racism.  The defensive feelings of people who identify as the majority are what Diangelo calls white fragility.  Discussing racism is hard and emotional so it makes people uncomfortable in ways that they have never had to feel.  And since whites are in the majority, they are not used to having to feel the emotion and discomfort of racial issues.  That, is what Diangelo describes as "white fragility".

Despite the history of sociological scholarship I mention above, it is true that both people and society are unique, complex and dynamic.   I think sociologists would be careful to not say, "The left thinks..." or "Conservatives think..." or "white people think..."  I thought about that as I was reading your text about "not all black people agree with the most progressive version of anti racism".  I agree with you and I think that overgeneralizations are a problem.  However I also think that failing to see the forest for the trees is a problem as well.  If you dismiss the overall thesis of Diangelo and Kendi because you get too bogged down in the minutiae, I think it misses the point.  

Regarding ERD - we would have to talk about the specifics of which ERD and what was being pushed.  I think it is naive to think that after hundreds of years of racism that anyone has the solution or even that there is one solution.  

But instead, I think the goal is to acknowledge that:

- Race is a social construct that shapes the obstacles and opportunities for people in the U.S. 

- Being aware of the ways in which race shapes the obstacles and opportunities can help us as both citizens and educators speak and act to mitigate the racial inequalities.

Those are the two basic ways that I approach race.  But I acknowledge that everyone is at a different understanding of those two things.  SOME (emphasis intended) people refuse to believe that race plays a roll in society and even moreso, SOME people will balk at the idea that they have contributed to racism.    

Complaining While Black

Jacob Faber from NYU explains his research about complaints against Chicago police and the correlation to race:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWl5Ui4udcA

gun ownership subculture

 gun ownership subculture 

• ASA has a short video about gun ownership and the research of Professor Harel Shapira here: https://vimeo.com/239536359
  
• Gun Nation is a 30 min doc from 2016 produced by The Guardian:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUpCqBonOFw
  
• 91% documentary here: https://www.91percentfilm.com
  
• From HBO there is a doc called Gun Fight https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/gun-fight/synopsis

Why don't people protest violence when it is not because of a cop?

They do!

Once again the media is awash in gross generalizations and stereotypes about violence in the black community.  "Why don't these people protest violence when the perpetrator is black?"  

This erroneous message is used to say that people should not protest when violence is because of police or whites.  It turns the concerns about being victims of violence into an argument about racial animosity.  In other words, it is saying you are just protesting because you're black and the perpetrator was white.  This dismisses the issue of violence altogether and instead tries to put people against each other based on race.

It is easy to put people against each other because we all live such segregated lives.  When there are not protests in the larger society, many whites do not realize the work and risk that many black Americans are putting into ending violence in their own communities.

For example, many Chicagoans heard about the violent shootings in April 2020 but this Mother Jones article details how,

The day after the bloody Tuesday, around noon, Joshua Coakley joined about two dozen outreach workers on a walk through the streets of this working-class neighborhood. They were on the lookout for local contacts, mostly gang members or former gang members who might have information about the shootings—or plans to retaliate.

And here is a picture in 2018 of high school students who  protested violence in their community:

Another group protesting violence is Mothers Against Senseless Killing (MASK) detailed in this Crain's Chicago Business article.  Below is a photo of Tamar Manasseh, who founded the group in 2014.

The Trace details how MASK launched Moms On Patrol, a group that camps outside to monitor the neighborhood and prevent violence.  Here is a picture of some of those moms monitoring the neighborhood and doing street yoga:

And sadly, two of the moms in this group were even killed by the violence that they were trying to stop.  Here is a NY Post article about it.  And here is a memorial created for them:

In 2018 there was a protest specifically meant to raise awareness in less violent  neighborhoods about the violence that occurs in other parts of the city.  This Associated Press article details that.


This DNAinfo article (2015) shows how residents protest violence in neighborhoods all across the city.

There is sociological research that these protests and interventions do help.  This article from Science Daily (2019) shows that these protests go back to at least 1994 with Operation Ceasefire in Boston.   And sociologists from Northwestern found a significantly lower rate of violence because of interventions:

Spreading effects

George Wood and Andrew Papachristos, sociologists at Northwestern University just north of Chicago in the city of Evanston, Ill., have looked into the how gun violence prevention efforts have played out in the city where 051 Melly was gunned down. 

Their work, published August 19 in Nature Human Behavior, focuses on a Chicago intervention that, between August 2010 and June 2016, invited violent offenders, identified via Chicago Police Department records, to one-hour meetings, known as call-ins, held in community centers and other public places. The study tracks recorded instances of being shot among nearly 8,500 individuals, including program participants and their associates, who are known from arrest records, police and outreach workers to be involved in violent groups.
As in programs in several dozen U.S. cities, the call-ins began with officers emphasizing that shootings had to stop. If they didn’t, perpetrators as well as neighborhood associates would be hit with outstanding warrants, parole violations and charges for other crimes. 

Then community representatives, including parents of murdered children, ministers and street outreach workers, told participants that they are loved and valued, but need to become involved in constructive activities. Victims of gun violence and their relatives described the trauma of their experiences.
Finally, local social service workers offered access to job training, drug treatment and other programs.

And, Presidential candidate Joe Biden  spoke out against the violence as reported by Reuters (2020)

... after George Floyd’s death, Joe Biden repeatedly condemned violent protests. In a May 31 post on his blog shortly after George Floyd’s death, he wrote, “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not.” ( here , here ).
At a speech in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on June 2, he said, “There’s no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches or destroying businesses […] we need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest and opportunistic violent destruction” (here).
On July 28, Biden also condemned violent protests at a speech in Wilmington, Delaware, as seen here at the 8 minute 24 second mark.
On August 30, Joe Biden condemned violence at protests in Portland (here) by releasing a statement on his campaign website (here), which said, “The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable […] as a country we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash. It is not a peaceful protest when you go out spoiling for a fight.” (More here )