What is the specific problem? Why does this problem occur?

    My genius hour project has to do with socialization, specifically focused on social class and how the structure of our social class perpetuates inequalities , so then the problem is that depending on what social class you are a part of, one may have more advantages than other people. The extent of inequalities created by social class goes into the quality of a person's education, their occupation and overall stability, how vulnerable someone is to having a crime record and someone's self esteem. The problem occurs because we see social class as a way to define who a person is or how valuable they are , so if you come from a lower social class you are only taught hoe to follow orders versus the elite class that is taught to think creatively and voice their opinions, so this then plays into the job they get later in life and they face so many disadvantages that compared to higher social class they are raised to fail and never have the opportunity to the same quality of life that the higher social classes experience. On of my sources called "Social class and Education" has recognized social class as "a differentiating factor in the distribution of rewards and punishments in our society... Housing seems to be one of these, and medical treatment, and income, as well as educational opportunity", This not only shows that social class is a problem, but it emphasizes the amount of importance, social class plays into all other aspects of life. Although I haven't thought of a solution for this problem, because i don't know how realistic it would be to get rid of social class altogether, but maybe a good start would be to stop socializing people based simply on what social class they 'belong' to or a solution that decreases the gap or disadvantages between the high and low social classes. Another big step would be to deconstruct this idea that social mobility is always an option and if one does not transcend to a higher class then it the individual's fault instead of the society and the systems that come along with it, that created these circumstances that are preventing them from upward mobility.

15 SOURCES

Jensen, Arthur R. "Social Class, Race, and Genetics: Implications for Education." American Educational Research Journal 5.1 (1968): 1-42. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: U of California, 2011. Print.

Raths, Louis. "Social Class and Education." The Journal of Educational Sociology 28.3 (1954): 124-25. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Gecas, Viktor. "Social Class, Occupational Conditions, and Self-Esteem." Sociological Perspectives 32.3 (1989): 353-64. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Sumner, Kandice. "How America's Public Schools Keep Kids in Poverty." Kandice Sumner: How America's Public Schools Keep Kids in Poverty | TED Talk | TED.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2017. 

Socialization and Gender

      To start off I want to define what gender is versus what we have made it out to be. Throughout many readings and definitions, I have realized that gender is something that we have given importance to and has no origin, but it is made out to be something that is fixed like sex, when it actually isn't. Gender is "an achieved status: that which is constructed through psychological, cultural, and social means"(Doing Gender 175). We, as a society, construct this reality of gender, we participate in this imitating game by consciously trying to live up to these expectations that we have assigned to each sex and in turn that creates a society that is based on segregation and seclusion and grows on an individual's self-doubt. Although in recent years we have progressed in terms of seeing sex and gender as two different forms of identity, we are still constantly "creating differences between girls and boys and women and men, differences that are not natural, essential  or biological"(Doing Gender 178). This cycle is perpetuated through many forms which includes, family, school, peer groups and mass media, they all play a part into why people base their potential on how good their performance of gender is. For example, when a couple has a baby, the first thing relatives or even the couple ask is "Is it a boy or a girl?", which not only shows how much we value 'gender', but looking into why they specifically asked this question, the ways we raise each sex are based on this instilled belief that men represent dominance and women represent deference. Imagine if the couple would have said the baby was a girl and the amount of pink items that would have rolled through the door versus if the couple said it was a boy and the amount of blue items. Or looking back to a child's book titled "I'm Glad I'm a Boy, I'm Glad I'm a Girl" where it creates a sense of weakness versus strength, socializing girls by telling them they depend on boys and are only needed for domestic roles, which then creates barriers on what you can accomplish based solely on your gender. But the messages we send out about gender also directly affect our personalities, which based on the textbook definition is a person's consistent patterns of acting, thinking and feeling that develop through social experience and by internalizing surroundings. If we are surrounded by a society and people who as soon as someone comes out of the womb  and throughout the rest of one's life  we are categorizing them  and imposing upon them the belief that the way people perceive you can either increase your security or cause you to be stratified , then we are naturally going to internalize gender as something that defines us and instead of having the freedom to be who you are, you start to adapt to the environment in order to be socially accepted. Through this process you start to constantly be afraid of doing something that isn't approved as what your gender 'would do' and start to put on a performance for peer groups and throughout school in order to live up to the expectation of who you are suppose to be. But throughout the act of trying to gain social acceptance, we put people down and point out their own straying behaviors in order to elevate ourselves and gain approval of peers. This is tied to the reading about manhood and how men use women and other groups of men to gain approval from men on the level of manliness they embody, but the problem with that is that there is no original person or idea that is the complete embodiment of gender so the cycle is never ending because the end is not defined. This then leads to endless individuals always living with the sense of no control and placing a great amount of value on appearances and on what people own versus someone's character. Since we define men as powerful, the way we insult men is to emasculate them and all the insults are directly related to being a women, which then perpetuates misogyny by associating weakness with women and men, who are focused on self- image, do not want to be anything like a women and that lead to the hatred of women. Other effects of this process of exclusion is over-sexualization, rape culture, the man-box, bogy- image issues, the acceptance of violence, homophobia, and racism because since men are expected to not show vulnerability and are encouraged to prove there dominance this creates the ma-box and also leads to the usage of women as currency, which then implies the idea that women are simply "body props" that have to objectify themselves in order to have power and that their only value is found in how desirable they are to others.The media also plays a big part because through the news, commercials and tv programs they are portraying through sexualized themes,so females do not get any messages that are saying they don't have to use sexuality to be empowered and then leads to the normalization of rape because they blame it on women for simply applying the messages they absorbed and men's need to prove their dominance.But the way men use other men to reach 'manhood' is through comparison and that includes not wanting to be perceived as gay so they put them down and through stereotypes of different races they also put down men of color. Also, the media has commercials of males being aggressive and violent which confirms the expectations od dominance, but encourages for dominance to increase to a greater magnitude that includes defaulting to physically assaulting anyone that challenges them. All of these problems were created by society because we don't see people, but it is always a man and woman interaction were we assess people and decide, based only on face value, if they fit the expectations of gender, we give importance to gender by seeing it as a means to assure security.
         In the beginning of this unit , I recognized that gender and the expectations that came along were a huge problem in how we value people, but I hadn't realizing how the simple interactions I have, perpetuate this idea of segregation. My sociological imagination has expanded to not only include me thinking about connections between an event to other ideas, but to see my personal problems to occur because of the problems with society. The reason people, including me, have so many problems with assigning so much value to how we look or our self confidence issues is because we were taught that the way other people thought of us was were our value resided and that physicality was more important than character. But it also let me make more connections of how institutions that hold power have perpetuated the importance we play on gender, simply with the girl and boy bathrooms built in every building that force you to pick one binary , this was an example from 'Doing Gender' or how simply walking through a door that a male opened for you is a confirming the expectations we associate with sex. Now I at least will be aware of what society is telling me and analyze it instead of consciously or unconsciously internalizing it and not taking any personal struggles of stratification or segregation personally and blaming it on who I am, but as a result of the society I live in, it will give my some social mindfulness, so I can take step back and not see a situation as right or wrong.But, I don't know if problems with gender stratification and gender discrimination can be solved, because it's impossible to not do gender, but since we give gender the importance, what if we took that importance away. and then we wouldn't always be assessing people's 'essential nature' to decide what gender they belong in. We have to change the way we socialize people because socialization is basic to human development, but the way we socialize people to base their potential on how good their performance of gender is and our idealization of feminine and masculine natures, needs to change. In order to take away the importance of gender we have to socialize people to put less importance on the self, the part of the personality composed of self-awareness and self image, so that people aren't always focusing on perceptions and the approval of others. I think a big part of fixing these problems is to educate people and discredit the expectations linked with each sex, so people can be who they are and put less significance on power.

5 Sources

Farber, Bernard. "Social Class and Intelligence." Social Forces 44.2 (1965): 215. Web.

    Though this source, I have discovered a deeper insight on the different ways the socialization of social classes perpetuates inequality because somehow, thought to what extent has not been determined, what social class you are in and your intelligence correlate. The article brought up the idea of two main factors in intelligence and it was genetic and environmental factors that both intertwine with social class. This led me to think, which one had the most impact? Furthermore, I will use this article to broaden the range of inequality create and go outside of thinking about the financial inequality social class causes.

Lasswell, Thomas E. "Orientations Toward Social Classes." American Journal of Sociology 65.6 (1960): 585-87. Web

jn           To help me first understand what my topic is before using terms to describe certain causes of problems, I will use this source that defines what social class is and  how we differentiate between the stereotypes and reality of social classes. This source talked about mass and group stereotypes, which are the two main frames of reference to how people perceive social classes. Mass stereotypes have to do with the symbols such as indicators that are used in the forms of media. While group stereotypes are a group's norms or sanctions, altogether these both produce the social organization. How do we improve these problems, if we are absorbing and perpetuating these stereotypes ourselves?

Tittle, Charles R., and Wayne J. Villemez. "Social Class and Criminality." Social Forces 56.2 (1977): 474. Web. 

      One main effect of social classes is how lower classes tend to have higher rates of crime, which then begs the question, why we are  not trying to create a more balanced socioeconomic classes, so people wouldn't have to steal and beg for basic human needs. This article opens that door and looks more into the connection between these two concepts and how the relationship is problematic because nothing id solid enough to make definite claims. So, this led me to think of the reasons behind that and how there was blatantly a connection between crime and low social class that people were avoiding, so I'll look more into this.

Dunne, Mairead, and Louise Gazeley. "Teachers, Social Class and Underachievement." British Journal of Sociology of Education 29.5 (2008): 451-63. Web.
        I then brought the focus back to how social class and education overlap and I will use this source to help support my claim that there are inequalities in education due to social class. This article specifically talked about the underachievement gap between lower classes and the elite and hoe teachers reacted to it. Many lower class teachers didn't consider a kids social standing and used stereotypes to justify their practices and expectations. but if nothing is being done to close these gaps, then don't we have to find another solution, instead of letting the kids fend for themselves? How many kids are aware of the inequalities they have been burdened with?

Hughes, Robert, and Maureen Perry-Jenkins. "Social Class Issues in Family Life Education." Family Relations 45.2 (1996): 175. Web.
        This article focused on the diversity of family experiences despite social class, but it also brought up the importance of social class on how a family shapes their values and the way they teach their children to approach the world. This made me think that about how the lower and elite differed on their familial upbringings and whether one side was better or if both had their pros and cons? Is it not unfair that one family will never be able to experience a different mind set, just because they were born into a certain social class? Very restricting to families and future generations.

  

Annotated Bibliography

- Macionis, John J. "Education." Sociology. 14th ed. Vol. 1. Upper Saddle River: Person Education, 2012. Vii-670. Print. 
       The section 'Education' offered a basic understanding of what socialization through education looks like and how social class and race intertwine with the idea that the school institution is a privilege to some, but oppresses others.This source will help me broaden my idea of socialization through social class, because although it talks about the different mindsets that are created based on socioeconomic status, it also extends to how someone's home life affects their enthusiasm to learn and how the school system ends up helping people who already have advantages to begin with, and harming the disadvantaged.
-Anderson, Elijah N/A. "The Code of the Streets." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 05 May 1994. Web. 09 Oct. 2016. 

        Since lower social class and minorities usually correlate, I wanted to find an idea of why and what perpetuates this cycle and how deeply rooted the mindsets of these lower class people stem from their environment and this article targets that directly. This article offers a new perspective that focuses on a code of the streets that has to do with violence, respect and self-image, it kind of is putting the blame on the people a part of the 'ghetto' community. It brings to light how security in tough neighborhoods is based solely on how other people see you and if you are physically and mentally able to protect that image that you have created. Overall, this source promotes that idea that families are perpetuating this 'might for right' mindset that doesn't encourage children to think of a brighter future, but teaches them how to react in the now, so they don't lose their lives or equally as important their respect. I will use this source to get a better idea of what the environment and what the community values affects the individual.
-The, By Accepting. "Educating and Socializing: A Proper Distinction?SIZE=7." Educating and Socializing: A Proper Distinction? KIERAN EGAN, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2016. 
      This source is trying to distinguish if there is a difference between education and socialization and how they intertwine and how we should cut the ties between what is a conditioned response that society instills and what is needed to be able to interact socially. I will use this to establish my boundaries of what situation is necessary socialization in order to function and other situations where we are abusing the power we have to morph the core beliefs of children.

       -"Consequences of Social Class - Boundless Open Textbook." Boundless. Boundless.com, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

h           This source tries to show how social classes affect people in work and how this is an example of how society's social classes affect people's minutes of themselves or the direct affects of being a part of lower social classes. Upper class employs show a sense of respect from peers and usually think they have a good amount of creative opportunities. Upper class employees also had a lower degree of health problems which might correlate with the lower levels of stress and higher rates of overall happiness, due to their work environment. This shows how you think of yourself is based on what others think of you, and could provide a new look at what socialization, by social class, through education could harm people in ways that are not obvious.

       -Scott, Janny, and David Leonhart. "The Shadowy Lines That Still Divide." The New York Times. Class Matters, 15 May 2005. Web. 9 Oct. 2016. 
                 Through this source the question over what a social class is remains a constant, but it also points out how it is not as easy to see what social class someone comes from, based on what they're wearing or what they have, anymore. But that is not to say social class is nonexistent, because social class and education are actually more tightly linked to each other than ever before and even though people think that you can still move up the social ladder with hard work, it most likely one will stay in the same social class they were born into. This provides new open-mindedness on how limiting social class is actually and I will use it to base my opinions or inferences of the reality of how big of a part social class plays in how you end up living your life and whether their can be a change that is more inclusive and doesn't only benefit the rich and white.

Topic Proposal

        I have decided to focus my research on the socialization through social classes and what the main affects that come out of that are, focusing more on how it affects people in terms of their quality of education and different mindsets? What are the specific things that make you part of a social class/ Is there a way to switch social classes without any scrutiny of their credibility compared to people born into that social class? What are the latent functions behind socialization through social classes? Would creating a more loose socialization between social classes affect the stability of social structures in our society and would it be positive or negative?

The Zimbardo Experiment

      My first perspective is going to be the structural- functional approach because despite the experiment ending due to unethical reasons, it started off as a social structure with parts that were suppose to support each other. As a structural- functionalist  i would focus on the stability of the prison, to start analyzing the experiment, and to look at what parts of the prison were affected when the stability was an outlier. I would also try to figure out how big of a part each part of society played in trying to reach a level of stability? What are the separate parts of the society and what is the society's main purpose? Why did the society seem dysfunctional to one group of people, but to others it seemed to simply be a way to further the solidarity of the experiment? How are all the parts helping the society as a whole and how are they interconnected? What are the latent and manifest functions of the Zimbardo experiment? The two main groups of people are the prisoners and the prison guards and their form of stability is based on power dynamics and the idea that the prison  experiment is working and "stable" if the prisoners lose there sense of individuality and start to simply follow the prison guards' orders like any other prisoner would. For example, when at the start of the experiment their behaviors were already directly related to this purpose by belittling the prisoners on their way to the prison and while changing clothes. Whenever the stability decreased due to a certain prisoner's rebellion, for example, when on the second day they barricaded themselves in their room and taunted the guards. Through that taunting the power shifted from the guards to the prisoners and the guards had to increase their forms of humiliation in order to recover from the momentary embarrassment they had endured. The guards stripped the prisoners who rebelled and took away their beds and at one point chained a prisoners' feet. Both groups played equal parts in the stability because they both participated in this struggle that consisted of playing their roles or not, the guards had the choice of giving into what the experiment required and negating their moral beliefs in order to increase the degree of harassment needed to keep controller all of the prisoners. While prisoners had the choice to keep their sense of self and to keep rebelling in order to not give in to the experiment, they also had the choice to simply get through the experiment by forgetting the hold any power and simply following the rules, which in turn was them giving up on themselves and the freedom they tossed as being classed as prisoner. But if the prisoners followed orders and guards kept their power they were both helping each other create a new reality, that soon all were blinded by. In the end their were still a few prisoners that could not except that they were powerless and that increased the inhumane ways of the guards which then led to social dysfunction because the prisoner saw that as unnecessary harassment for a simple human right, while the guards saw it as just following their assigned roles and what expectations came with them.
      My second perspective is the symbolic interaction approach because the whole experiment dealt with this idea of trying to simulate a actual prison by using symbols that were prevalent in the actual prisons themselves, which is how the power dynamic came into play. How were the groups of people experiencing this certain experiment and the society built? How does the shared reality of the prisoners and the guards change from the beginning to the end of the experiment? What were examples of symbols throughout the society? Did  a person from one group ever show that they were trying to understand the point of view of the other group? How much did each group of people depend on an interaction to gain or lose something? Could the groups of people have shaped their reality in a different way? To start off I want to give examples of symbols which were the chains that represented loss of freedom, going to the bathroom represented privilege, a guard uniform represented power. Throughout the beginning their is still a sense of questioning the seriousness of the situation because it is an experiment and that is their shared reality between the groups, this feeling of  control because they knew it was an experiment and that is supported by the behaviors in the first days, the prisoners laughing and pointing out that it is an experiment,as an argument to support them disobeying orders, while the guards were still trying to fit their roles and were still questioning the degree of severity of their harassment and if it was going too far. But as the experiment progressed, the reality seem to morph and the society created throughout the experiment turned into their actual reality. Prisoners no longer identified with their names and guards went through levels of humiliation and abuse of power without any observed view of remorse. I don't think the two groups ever tried to trade roles and see how their realities changed because throughout the whole experiment that rated themselves as having anything in common. They just saw each interaction as a way to earn more power or  to lose it and maybe if they had realized that both groups of people where still people that had the capacity to coexist without the need of one group to be inferior then the experiment might have prevailed. But instead they lost themselves in how real it resembled a prison and than their reality turned into a way of just surviving.
       In the end a development of social imagination or just a brief knowledge of sociology would have benefitted the groups of people in the experiment very much because then they would have been able to distance themselves from a personal viewpoint and focus less on how they felt and the unfairness and focusing more of the structures, development and functioning of the experiment. Then both prisoners and prison guards might have stayed rooted on the idea that it was an experiment and that their personal losses was to benefit the experiment and there was no need to take the loss of freedom so personally when it was a simulation and that it was needed because that was the purpose of the  whole experiment. Or the guards would have understood that the experiment called for some form of regulation and punishment , but not to enable their own pursuits of revenge against embarrassment or indulge their crave for power and control: and lead to lengths of  an inhumane society. This experiment contributes to my own social imagination because it represents a real life effect of not being able to look at situations from a broader view and the degree of it's effects. The Zimbardo experiment showed me that social imagination is needed in order to not let the circumstances of a situation define who I am and let myself lose sight of the reality and to reveal that no one is outwardly trying to affect you, but there is a society that follows certain structures in order to function that may affect you unintentionally.

Socialization Project

I'm kind of lost on where to go with this project because of the wide range of topics and I was thinking of focusing my ideas more on the justice system or something that has to deal more with why their is so much dismissed unfairness in society. But then I looked up a little more on what socialization is and how it affects individuals and I really wanted to just learn more about the depths of it and how big of a part, it plays into who we are as people and if we can go against it. Can we even call ourselves individuals, because of how conditioned we have all been in order to fit in? I think i picked this topic because i hadn't even realized how involuntary socialization is and i really want to find out how it interconnects with how we see the world and how it shapes our bias. Could we change the degree of rigidness of socialization, into one more"loose or free"? Is repressive socialization a good thing, or needed at all? If you are aware of the socialization is there a way to go against the social order, even though the beliefs are already instilled in you? How would I pick a specific question, with such a broad topic, and how could you create a answerable question, if so many people still aren't aware? Is there a possibility to make people aware and give them a choice or is that another form of socialization?

Who I Am

I don't know who I am. I use to not think of who I was and was just focused on " being somebody", someday, constantly trying to reach straight A's and study the hardest, but I am somebody at this moment and it took me a long time to realize that. All I know is that I am no longer trying to fit a certain mold and I will constantly change, so nothing is a constant.
I am made out of my preconceived notions, bias, and the lies I tell myself, but those are just the factors that affect how I perceive the world. I don't have answers to what I am made of or who I am because I don't think I have even reached that point of being able to boil it down to a set number of values, traits or beliefs. Even if I did, my behaviors would probably not add up to the things they are based off of because I am constantly contradicting myself.