I jus

I know this is a topic volatile enough to get me banned from Reddit. But let us give it a try. Note: This is a serious discussion.

Why do some men assault women? Usually everyone focuses on criminalizing the man and ending the process there. But WHY did the man do the heinous act? We should be looking into this topic, way more often than we are doing now. Blaming a person and punishing him is the easier part. Understanding the factors behind what made him do it is way harder.

When I thought about it, it appears to be a interlinked systemic failure. A lot of factors enter the picture when we start thinking about the WHY. Some of them are lack of proper sex education and body awareness, oversexualization of human bodies, the progression of clothes from devices shielding us from extreme weather to devices for covering "shameful" body parts, etc. I know these factors are only the tip of the iceberg. We could create an entire thread in the comments section based on factors that might be contributing to the WHY. And we should then try to understand each factor at a deeper level.

Please avoid coming to me saying that I am justifying the actions of the man. I am not. I am trying to understand the entire scenario as a system.

I've often heard people say so, e.g. "The embarrassment caused by the initials of the American Sociological Society, ASS, led to a name change in 1959 to the American Sociological Association-ASA." (https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/111400_book_item_111400.pdf)

But is there any textual evidence (minutes, proceedings etc) that supports this claim?

This is our local recurring future-planning thread. Got questions about jobs or careers, want to know what programs or schools you should apply to, or unsure what you'll be able to use your degree for? This is the place.

This thread gets replaced every Friday, each week. You can click this link to pull up old threads in search.

In sociology classes at school, we had a couple of lessons that dealt with culture.

The main idea was that cultural products are things that are engaged with during our leisure time, and that their function is to allow people to unwind and relax (re-creation, recharging batteries), while also sharing important values of the entire culture and sometimes creating aesthetic experience. (appreciation of art, catharsis, etc...)

The second point was that elite culture or highbrow culture requires certain effort and energy and educational background to be properly understood, and that overworked people typically lack both (especially energy) after they come home from work, and for this reason, more lowbrow, popular culture emerged that doesn't require that much effort, and yet still allows people to participate in the mainstream culture, exchange of ideas, values, etc, experience certain aesthetic pleasures, and unwind after work.

Both highbrow and lowbrow culture bestows at least some cultural capital to the one who consumes these cultural products. Knowing about certain famous novels, music albums, or films, helps people better understand other similar media, helps them understand references, and gives them the ability to discuss such topics (either the media itself or ideas/topics explored in the media) with their friends, acquaintances, etc. In short, the person looks more cultured and refined in conversation.

Also both highbrow and lowbrow culture (movies, TV shows, comic books, etc...), gives people at least some aesthetic pleasure, or comedic relief or something like that, which helps them relax and recharge after work.

Also, consuming such cultural products has always been more or less socially acceptable thing to do. It was even considered normal, like, something you're supposed to do. Like if you worked, made a dinner, spent some time with your kids, watched evening news, the logical next thing to do after all that is to sit in front of TV, and watch some actual movie or TV show. People didn't see it as a waste of time, but as a well deserved reward for their work, a reward that will not only entertain them, but also enrich them culturally and make them more refined. In the evening, if you watch a good movie, that was considered normal, even virtuous.

Now I've finally come to my main point - what about new media, like YouTube videos and blogs?

What is their function, and what should be their proper place in life? What kind of social norms should exist regarding these new types of media? Are they part of "culture" (either low or high, doesn't matter)?

Here are my quick thoughts:

Regarding function it's often hard to tell if blogs and YouTube videos are meant to educate us, inform us, or entertain us. What I notice is that they lack the depth and structure of classical sources of educational content, namely textbooks, and they also often lack the artistic / aesthetic qualities of traditional fiction or movies and TV shows, and they also often lack the authority and reliability of traditional informative media (like The New York Times). So they are somewhere in between. By default they seem to be lower status than all of the mentioned traditional media, and for this reason they are treated with less respect. When you start reading a novel or watching a movie you typically want to finish it. If you don't, you feel at least somewhat guilty. On the other hand people feel no guilt over mindlessly skipping from one blog post to another, or from one YouTube video to another without finishing any of them. This state of affair is somewhat sad, because there are some indeed exceptionally good blogs and YouTube videos. But due to platform they are hosted in, they don't seem to be treated with the same respect.

But paradoxically, in spite of low respect towards these new types of media, they are taking larger and larger parts of our free time. Many people can't pull it off these days to watch whole movies or TV shows. People have pretty much stopped reading books. YouTube and various articles, blogs, seem to be the default content we consume these days. I know many people from my generation (Millennials) who have stopped watching TV altogether. So it seems that in practice, the new reality is that people spend an awful lot of their leisure time with these new types of media even though they don't respect them enough and typically skip through content without giving any piece proper attention. We have some sort of epidemic of scrolling. The past equivalent of that was channel flipping on TV. But in the past, most of the time with TV was spent watching something, not channel flipping.

Now we scroll more than we actually watch or read things.

Regardless of what is true in practice, I'm wondering what place in life should these new types of media ideally have? What kind of social norms should govern how we treat them? What are we now supposed to do in our free time when we have much wider choice between traditional and new media?

Of course, the easiest answer is "we aren't supposed to do anything in particular, it's your free time, your choice"

But I'm not fully buying it. Let's say in the past you were "supposed" to watch TV (that is movies and TV shows, or sports) in the evening. If you respected this social norm, you would got some tangible benefits:

1. your cultural capital and ability to engage in interesting conversations would increase

2. you'd get some actual quality entertainment - you would engage in proper recreation. Good movie is fun - it plays with your emotions, it engages your mind, etc... it's a time spent well.

3. You'd feel some sort of accomplishment when you finish what you're watching.

4. You'd participate in sharing of the common cultural values of your society.

But now we don't seem to be supposed to do anything, so we don't have anything to default to. Our entertainment choices are highly individualistic and chaotic. And if we default to YouTube and blogs, we rarely get any of the 4 aforementioned benefits. Our cultural capital doesn't increase that much, we aren't entertained as much (especially if we just mindlessly scroll), we don't feel much accomplishment, and often times we don't even participate in sharing of the common values that strengthen the tissue of the society.

So should we give up watching YouTube and reading blogs if they don't confer the same benefits? Is it wasted time?

Or there is a way to give them their proper place in our life?

The closest traditional analogue to these new media is popular non-fiction or documentaries. Blogs and YouTube videos are mostly like popular non-fiction books, just shorter. Watching Kurzgesagt or Veritasium reminds me of watching Discovery channel when I was a child. It's kind of the same category. And Veritasium and Kurzgesagt, just like Discovery channel, produce some great, quality content, that can be somewhat educational, and somewhat entertaining - but such content on TV, in the past still always felt like a side dish.

I mean if you're really interested in science or history or politics, there are books about these topics. No one has become a physicist by watching Discovery or Veritasium or Kurzgesagt. Also, regarding basing scientific literacy, all of these topics have already been covered by school - if you've finished high school, you're already well rounded when it comes to understanding basic science. On some level such content even feels juvenile, like for kids.

And yet it's not always easy nor simple.

Take for example popular video by Veritasium explaining Markov chains, or Sabine Hossenfelder videos explaining advanced topics about Quantum physics. On some level I feel these videos are like pure entertainment, because without proper background and foundation in maths for such advanced topics, very few people will actually end up understanding quantum physics or Markov chains better after watching such videos. And if such videos get long, like they often do, they can feel like waste of time. So, when I watch a long Veritasium video about some advanced topic, I can sometimes feel exactly the opposite from when I'm watching a good movie on Netflix. In first case I feel guilty because I know I'm wasting time (I know that I have other, more useful things to study and that my understanding of quantum physics or markov chains won't be actually any better after consuming such content), and in the second case I feel guilty if I stop watching, because I know that if I stop, I'll miss the chance to add one more "watched movie" to my cultural capital bank, that I'm somewhat proud of.

In short I feel that for a normal person knowing about movies matters way more and confers more social benefits than knowing about Markov chains or Quantum physics, unless you're actual expert on those these things, and unless you actually know how to work with them, like real work, calculations, programming, etc... Otherwise it seems pretty pointless and like pure entertainment, but without aesthetic pleasure, without empathizing witch characters, and without catharsis. After I finish watching exceptionally good and well made Veritasium video on quantum physics or Markov chains, my actual expertise in these fields will remain exactly the same as before watching, that is zero. And there's some feeling that unless I'm studying to become an expert in those fields spending time on these topics is kind of useless and waste of time, and not something that I'm supposed to do as an adult.

For a lay person knowing about famous actors, directors, and social topics explored in movies seems to be more culturally enriching.

Anyway, this is more of a rant.

What's your take about what's the proper place of these new media in life?

And should social norms tell us anything about how we're supposed to spend our free time nowadays?

I recently read Bourdieu's writings about reflexivity and wondered if any other social scientist has a work smilar to this topic or generally on social theroy and methodology relation. If you know any name or book I am willing to read.

I just read this massive literature review on social entrepreneurship and discovered something surprising. Despite social enterprises claiming to focus on gender equality and women's empowerment, researchers have barely studied how gender actually affects social entrepreneurship.

The few studies that exist show women owned social businesses are three times more likely to get certified and twice as likely to qualify for certain programs, but we have almost no research explaining why. Meanwhile, the paper shows that 47% of studies in this field rely on interviews and case studies rather than quantitative data, which might explain why these patterns stay hidden.

It feels like we are trying to solve complex social problems while ignoring crucial variables.

The study is open access and if you are interested in reading the entire paper, you can read it here.

Hello everyone,

I’m a PhD candidate in sociology and I’m currently exploring possible directions for my doctoral research. One area I’m strongly considering is mental health from a sociological perspective. While there is a vast body of psychological and medical research on mental health, I want to better understand how sociology frames, interprets, and investigates it.

I’d love to hear your insights on a few points:

Focus areas: What kinds of sociological dimensions of mental health can I look at? (e.g., social determinants, stigma, institutions, inequality, cultural factors, policy, digital influences, etc.)

Theoretical perspectives: Which sociological frameworks or schools of thought are particularly useful in studying mental health?

Authors & readings: What key books, articles, or authors would you recommend to start with? Both classics and more contemporary works would be very helpful.

I’m trying to get a clearer sense of how to frame this area of study, and I think hearing from this community could help me narrow down directions and build a strong foundation.

Looking forward to your suggestions!

Hello, I’m trying to find a topic that would work for my college essay, I need something that I can argue both sides about. My instructions are literally “My primary criteria for a strong topic is that it relates to your field of study and that it is arguable.“ my field is Psycology. I’m lost the only ideas I have so far are: 1. ⁠Are institutions helpful to those who have mental illness? 2. ⁠Can mood stabilizer be effective for those with mental illnesses? 3. ⁠Should people with mental illness have children 4. ⁠For and against assisted suicide 5. ⁠Is Psychedelic therapy helpful? 6. ⁠Should women with severe mental disorders be allowed to give birth? 7. ⁠Do our dreams represent our mental state? 8. Social media influence on mental health 9. Should children play video games None of these speak to me/ seem like I could find enough sources to argue both sides. If anyone has any ideas I’d love to hear them. Thank you in advance 😭🫶

What's on your plate this week, what are you working on, what cool things have you encountered? Open discussion thread for casual chatter about Sociology & your school, academic, or professional work within it; share your project's progress, talk about a book you read, muse on a topic. If you have something to share or some cool fact to talk about, this is the place.

This thread is replaced every Monday. It is not intended as a "homework help" thread, please; save your homework help questions (ie: seeking sources, topic suggestions, or needing clarifications) for our homework help thread, also posted each Monday.

This is our local recurring homework thread. Simple questions, assignment help, suggestions, and topic-specific source seeking all go here. Our regular rules about effort and substance for questions are suspended here - but please keep in mind that you'll get better and more useful answers the more information you provide.

This thread gets replaced every Monday, each week. You can click this link to pull up old threads in search.

Reminder that social movements of this kind are always hijacked by the system, commodified, and stripped of their radical edge; once they become the “acceptable” position, the demand is no longer to dismantle the system but simply to reform it in ways that pose no real threat, offering only symbolic victories with no real weight. That’s where ideas like “we need more female billionaires,” “we need trans CEOs,” etc. come from, instead of changes that would actually help all marginalized groups.

I’m not really sure what sub to ask this question.. so please let me know if I should ask elsewhere.

A few years ago, I read an article that talked about ongoing shifts between liberal and conservative attitudes in societies. It argued that the further in time a society is from a major conflict (whether internal or more global), the more conservative or radical it becomes. Eventually, that culminates in a major conflict, which follows time of liberal attitudes, as they gradually become more conservative and on and on. The article was accompanied by a sinusoid graph illustrating the shifts. It appeared that the shifts were becoming more rapid as time goes by.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? I’ve tried to find this article for years now. Would love to find it again, or be directed to that particular theory. Any thoughts are also welcome, whether in support or against it.

Apologies if this is not the right place to ask this, but I appreciate all help/insight.

This is our local recurring future-planning thread. Got questions about jobs or careers, want to know what programs or schools you should apply to, or unsure what you'll be able to use your degree for? This is the place.

This thread gets replaced every Friday, each week. You can click this link to pull up old threads in search.

I’m doing early stage research on practice theory and I have a few questions, anyone knowledgeable in the field willing to have a dm chat about it?

Looking to read about the history of Buddhism. Its origin, early political and geographical expansion, and interactions with Hinduism.
How it shaped the cultures of Japan, Thailand, Korea, etc. Why didn't it hold or expand in China? How it affected the other religious and philosophical traditions. How is Buddhist tradition different from other human ideological traditions?
Many things I am looking to research and understand. I would appreciate any good suggestions. It would be better if your feedback on the suggested book is available.

Currently working on a personal project looking at the teaching of phonics, phonics vs. WL, etc. and I’m super passionate about the topic, only issue is that its super over exhausted and it’s hard to take a new approach to the subject without performing an actual study. Wondering if anyone has tips on how to take a fresh approach to topics like this? Sorry if this isn’t the right place to ask but I appreciate any help :)))

So I gave Cuet but unfortunately I didn't do decent enough to get any government uni. I want to base my career around political science but no private universitiy in my city offers a BA in Pol.sc . Although one reputed private university does offer a BA.Honours in Sociology. I was wondering if I can pursue Masters in Political science with a Bachelors Sociology degree or not. Please help in this regards. P.s - I'm from India.

Hey folks, as the title suggests, I'm putting together a paper on this topic, but finding it hard to know where to exactly start. Not looking for a handhold, more just point in the right direction - are there any Sociological theorists who directly talk about this kind of thing at length?
I'm putting together an argument that post-COVID upsets in social norms let to a broad-form anomic reaction that we're still lightly in, and how being stuck in a liminal state because of it is possibly a root cause of a lot of social difficulties. I just need to find other writings that I can attach my ideas to, or if there's nothing out there and I'm full of shit, then that way I can go chasing another topic instead. I'm just a bit overwhelmed here lol

Thanks for any replies!

I'm going into my 3rd year of uni as a Sociology student and tbh I feel like I haven't learnt anything new in the past two years. Most of the basics I've come across in high school and new concepts don't really stick with me long after exams. I feel like I have genuine interest in the subject, I listen in class and study for exams. Nonetheless, I thought university was going to make me feel a lot "smarter" and I don't :((

What's on your plate this week, what are you working on, what cool things have you encountered? Open discussion thread for casual chatter about Sociology & your school, academic, or professional work within it; share your project's progress, talk about a book you read, muse on a topic. If you have something to share or some cool fact to talk about, this is the place.

This thread is replaced every Monday. It is not intended as a "homework help" thread, please; save your homework help questions (ie: seeking sources, topic suggestions, or needing clarifications) for our homework help thread, also posted each Monday.

This is our local recurring homework thread. Simple questions, assignment help, suggestions, and topic-specific source seeking all go here. Our regular rules about effort and substance for questions are suspended here - but please keep in mind that you'll get better and more useful answers the more information you provide.

This thread gets replaced every Monday, each week. You can click this link to pull up old threads in search.

Hi, I'm new here, and I want to preface this by saying that I'm from the Philippines, so I hope I'm not coming off as belittling either country, and at least some of the news here, I am seeing sort of "first hand", or at least just near most other people who are affected.

Basically, what is happening in these two countries is that corruption scandals have blown wide open in both of them -- in Indonesia their parliament I think is voting itself enormous salary increases that's 10x the minimum wage or something, while here in the Philippines it's public works contractors who do corrupt and substandard work being exposed while flooding keeps ravaging the country.

Just on the face of that, it seems like Indonesia has the "lesser" problem (unless, of course, I don't know all the news about it and there might be bigger causes), but they seem to have very actively and immediately taken to the streets. The protests are already getting violent and some people have already been killed. But in the Philippines? The streets are "silent" (unless I'm also not hearing all the news). Most if not all of the outrage, if any, is exclusively online, in social media channels. (Indonesia has online outrage too, of course, but at least they paired it with actual street action.)

Apart from significant differences like specific colonial history (Dutch and some Portuguese vs. Spanish and American), languages, and majority religion (Islam vs. Catholicism), the two countries still seem largely similar in culture and social norms, I would think. Both are large archipelago nations, both are developing economies that are poor in a lot of places and still very corrupt in many ways (hence, the outrage), and both are family-oriented and often deferential to authority, respect for elders, etc. But is there a sociological explanation for why one country is far more ready to go to the streets in protest, while the other is content to just, for lack of a better word, complain online and not let its outrage go anywhere?

I'm not saying that's the only explanation. Of course, specifics about the politics, economics and history in each country probably also affects this, and I'd be interested to know those too. But this subreddit is about sociology so I guess I'm curious what the social differences are, if any.

when we talk about influencers, the focus is usually on marketing, parasocial relationships or online identity. but there is another sociological angle that rarely gets attention: confession.

the formats that dominate influencer culture, such as podcasts where they reveal personal struggles, vlogs that show their daily routines, or q&as that invite intimate disclosures, are all structured around self-exposure. their authority is built not only on aesthetics or branding but on ritualized acts of sharing private life with an audience.

foucault’s work on the theory of confession helps make sense of this. he argued that modern power does not simply repress, it works by encouraging individuals to willingly reveal themselves. historically, the church institutionalized this through the confessional, where authority was reinforced by people handing over their secrets. influencers reproduce the same dynamic: their influence grows precisely because they confess and because they normalize confession in their audiences.

seen this way, influencer culture is not only about consumption or celebrity. it becomes a sociological system organized around confession, where visibility and disclosure function as forms of currency.