There's No Such Thing as "Too Skinny"

Somewhere along the line, this thought came to be.  When did it become okay to be underweight? How did this happen? Maybe the fashion industry is to blame, or the media. Maybe the cause lies somewhere deeper, in the way women's roles are constructed by society, or the way familial tensions affect women. Disordered eating is a silent epidemic. What starts as innocent attempts at weight loss slowly morph into unhealthy obsessions before anyone can take notice. Anorexia has alarming effects on the body, and though it is experienced by both sexes, it is especially predominate in women. Science has not pinpointed a particular cause for anorexia, and, as with any psychological disorders, the causes are likely varied and situation dependent. However, it is generally agreed upon that social forces play a role in causing and perpetuating disordered eating. This post will look at the history of anorexia in women, and the roles social institutions, social construction, and other social forces have played in causing the disease and making it what it is today.

Before I begin, I want to note that while I am not an expert on anorexia in the scholarly sense, I am an expert in that I have experienced it firsthand. I was in treatment for a few years starting around the age of 13. I was very lucky, and I am now as recovered as I am probably going to get, but I have learned a lot about the disease through the recovery process and thinking about how and why it happened to me. I hope my personal experiences will contribute to the clarity of this post.

The origins of eating disorders shed light on some of the potential underlying causes, and they may not be what people expect. It is tempting to label eating disorders as a modern problem, or even a fad--the result of a body image-obsessed society where thinness and youth are highly valued. But eating disorders have roots as far back as the 14th century, with St. Catherine of Siena as one of the earliest known sufferers. In the early 1800's, Catholic girls deprived themselves of food to emulate St. Catherine and become more "saint-like." [1] Anorexia, recognized as a disease, started appearing in middle class women in the mid-19th century. Researchers then, and many modern ones, believed that women were deliberately starving themselves to cope with circumstances over which they had no control. [2] Evidence of this can be found in many places, both historic (as in the case of poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, who didn't eat presumably to help deal with the high expectations of her father) and modern (as in the case of women who starved as a means of internalizing feelings toward oppression). The social constraints placed on women throughout history seem to have contributed to the onset of eating disorders, and may continue to be doing so today.

In recent years, the idea that women were starving themselves to cope with the absence of control has been eclipsed by the notion that pressures from fashion and the media are to blame. These pressures are likely the cause of the rise in disordered eating that began in the early 1960's. This era is when we first saw impossibly thin models, like Twiggy, and the rejection of the curvier body ideals of the '50s. Today, bone-thin models are commonplace, and they seem to only be getting thinner. Weight loss schemes and crash diets are a dime a dozen. The bodies of movie and television stars are under constant, public scrutiny. For most, the "ideal" is unreachable and unhealthy, but women, especially young girls, seem not to care. What constitutes as beauty is a social construct and is therefore constantly changing and evolving.  There are even differences in the social constructs of beauty in different races. I just recently noticed this when looking through two popular magazines. The "regular" version of the magazine featured the same super-skinny models that we see in the fashion industry, but the Latina version of the same magazine featured curvier, more real-looking models.  What we as a society believe is beautiful could also making people sick. This shows the power of social construction

Recently, the idea has emerged that anorexia is correlated to social class. A study by Muriel Darmon revealed that anorexia is more common in upper to middle class women. [3] Because of their socioeconomic status, these women and girls are able to afford all of the crazy weight loss products, the expensive clothes being marketed with stick-thin models, high-priced gym memberships, and more. They have the disposable income and the time to devote to obsessive weight loss. When I was in treatment, the vast majority of the girls I was there with were from prep schools and affluent families. From what I understood, when you can afford the beautiful things, there is pressure for you to be beautiful as well.

Finally, it is important to recognize the role social institutions play in influencing anorexia and other disordered eating. Schools, I believe, have an obligation to educate students on the dangers of eating disorders. As it is now, eating disorders are glossed over in a middle school health class, but the actual causes of eating disorders are not addressed, and body shaming runs rampant in schools. A greater emphasis should be placed on this important issue. Family dynamics can also be influential. Dysfunctional family interactions can cause a girl to feel out of control and, much like the situation with Elizabeth Barrett Browning above, attempt to regain control through counting calories. Disapproval from a parent, or even a stray negative comment, can cause self esteem to plummet and disordered eating can eventually result. [4] These are just some social institutions that contribute to the continuation of eating disorders as a modern epidemic.

There are people out there trying to make a change. "Body positive" movements have started on the internet, and some fashion companies have gotten behind them. There are advertising campaigns urging women to love their bodies no matter what they look like. But as with any social change, progress is slow and there is opposition. Waif-like models, both women and men, still dominate the runways and magazine spreads. Crash diets are everywhere. The solution to these problems may not be to outright attack the media. After all, is the media dictating what is popular, or are we dictating it to the media? Instead, I propose that we, as a society, look into the underlying social problems that could be affecting our women and girls. Perhaps they feel like their value is based on how they look. Maybe they are trapped in the norms of their social class. Our society could well have constructed a standard of beauty that focuses too much on the physical. Institutions could be functioning to perpetuate these norms. There is no one solution to this multi-faceted problem.

One of the biggest misconceptions about anorexia out there is that those who have the disease are solely to blame. I have heard that they are too sensitive, or that they starve themselves on purpose. It might start out that way, but it will inevitably spiral to the point where the person doesn't even think what they're doing is wrong. Social forces play a huge role in pushing people to that point. Whether it is the desire to be "saint-like," the pressure to be beautiful, or even the need to regain some control in a situation where there isn't any, social forces play some part in keeping the eating disorder epidemic going.



Sources:

[1] Reda, Mario, and Giuseppe Sacco. "Anorexia and the Holiness of Saint Catherine of Siena." Trans. Graeme Newman. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 8.1 (2001): 37-47. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

[2] Hunt, Liz. "Five Hundred Years of Eating Disorders 'reflect Women's Lack of Power': Liz Hunt Reports That Anorexia and Bulimia Are Not Just Creations of the 20th Century but Have Roots in History." Independent. N.p., 1 May 1993. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

[3] Darmon, Muriel. "The Fifth Element: Social Class and the Sociology of Anorexia." Sociology 43.4 (2009): 717-33. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

[4] Vander Ven, Thomas, and Marikay Vander Ven. "Exploring Patterns of Mother-Blaming in Anorexia Scholarship: A Study in the Sociology of Knowledge." Human Studies 26.1 (2003): 97-119. Web. 11 Dec. 2015

Organizational Structure

Recently, I stumbled across an interactive map as it was circulating its way around the internet. Put forth by the University of Virginia's Cooper Center for Public Service, the map simply shows one dot per person in the United States, and it color codes the dots by race. I encourage you to take a look and zoom into to your own neighborhood. But before you do, answer this question:

Is your neighborhood segregated? 

Check out the map here. 

The Racial Dot Map: Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Virginia

My knee jerk response to that question would have been "maybe a little bit." I can certainly identify areas of my neighborhood that might have a higher concentration of one race or another. After looking at the map, however, I saw just how concentrated groups of certain races were in different areas. And after looking at the map, though it pains me to admit it, my neighborhood, town, and city are all segregated to some extent.

I am from am exurb of Detroit, about 45 minutes north of the city center. My town, Lake Orion, is predominately white. The school I went to? Predominately white. The church? Predominately white. In truth, I think my town was so racially homogeneous that race really never even entered our minds. I can only identify one time when it actually did. When I was a sophomore in high school, there were rumors about making our school into what is called a School of Choice. In Michigan, Schools of Choice accept students from outside the school district, preventing students from being constrained to a below average school district. At my school, it was very likely that we would get an influx of students from Pontiac, the next town over. I soon learned that people were expecting an influx of black students, but being new to the area, I didn't quite understand that. I thought it pretty unlikely that a predominately white town would directly neighbor a predominately black one. What I mean by that is, it seemed like such blatant racial segregation that I didn't think it was possible. Turns out, it was. 

As you can see in the map above, Lake Orion is a cluster of blue dots, and Pontiac is a cluster of green dots. This map was pretty striking to me, as the segregation is so clearly visible. I also want to share another, even more striking example.

The city of Detroit is known for its rich black history and community, but also for its corruption and blight. The map below shows racial segregation in the city of Detroit.

You can see the obvious separation to the north of the city, a straight line with a predominately white population to the north and a predominately black population to the south. Anyone familiar with the city would recognize the divide as 8 mile, made infamous through pop culture as an area filled with violence, blight, and crime. 


I was interested to see how income varied between these areas, and I was able to find a lot of great stats at the US Census Bureau's American FactFinder website. You can see from the graphs that Lake Orion has a much higher median household income than those of both Pontiac and Detroit. And following that, the number of individuals living below the poverty line is much higher in Pontiac and Detroit as well. I believe that these patterns of race and income are related. 

There are undoubtedly many interrelated reasons why races are segregated geographically, and why there are disparities in income. It is a multifaceted issue. To many people, it might be a bit of a shock to see this type of segregation; after all, the Civil Rights Act was passed over 50 years ago. While we might think that there is equal opportunity for all, the statistics suggest this might not be the case. I am not suggesting that there are not equal opportunities, but rather unequal access to those opportunities. A fairly straightforward example would be education. Every child in America is entitled to a free public education. That's great, but for some kids, getting that diploma at the end also means graduating out of a system that sets them up to fail. A child from Lake Orion will likely go to school, come home and do some homework, eat dinner, maybe participate in an extracurricular activity or two, go to bed, wake up and do it again the next day. That same child, had they been born into a family that lives in the predominately black neighborhoods south of 8 mile, will have a different experience. They will come home and they might not have a parent there because that parent has to work several jobs. No one is there to help with with homework and cook them dinner. What they eat may not be a nutritious dinner but instead a dinner of processed foods purchased to make food stamps stretch. Their family may not be able to afford any extracurricular activities, so this child will be left to their own devices, and could be out roaming the streets and getting into trouble. As they get older, this child might have to take a job to support the family, causing studying to fall by the wayside. Education may be the only way for this child to break the cycle, but in the decision between getting homework done or getting food on the table, the latter wins out. 

This is just one example of how an unequal access to opportunity can cause the patterns of geographical racial segregation and income disparity we see above. Though our society has the pretense of being socially just, it is organized in a way that, in some respects, perpetuates inequalities. Moving forward, I think it is best not to place blame on any one group, and instead work to recognize where changes can be made and make them. 

American FactFinder Website: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Violating a Gender Norm

Recently a group of friends and I did a small social experiment in the form of violating a gender norm. In our society, there are very clear distinctions for how a man should act and how a woman should act. We are conditioned from a very young age to adhere to these norms. For example, boys are taught to like blue and red, trucks and sports. Girls are taught to like pink and purple, princesses and playing house. When they're older, men are to be tough and strong, and women nurturing and gentle. Gender norms extend to outward appearances, too. In America, women are expected to have long hair, wear make-up and dress in feminine clothing like skirts and more form fitting clothes. Men are expected to keep their hair short, wear minimal jewelry, and dress in masculine clothing.  The gender norms of outward appearance are what my friends and I chose to investigate.

Two members of our group, both of them males, wore dresses through Wal-Mart on a busy Saturday afternoon. We decided to be pretty obvious about it so that we could garner as many responses from people as possible. It is also worth noting that the location of this experiment is a fairly small and conservative town. We all acted as if we were on a normal shopping trip, pushing a cart through the aisles and picking up food items as we went. The most common reaction was laughs, usually from the adults we came across. A few people shook their heads, and one man said "Looks like somebody lost a bet." The older people we saw seemed to look away and avoid us. On our way out, the cashier said "Have a nice day ladies," with a bit of a laugh. Interestingly, some of the most enthusiastic reactions came from the kids. Several asked their parents why the boys were wearing dresses, and others would point or stare with confused looks on their faces. I found it pretty interesting that the kids were doing the most in terms of social sanctioning. This could be because kids are separated so often by gender that they are more acutely aware of what is "for boys" and what is "for girls."

When I was talking to one of the guys who wore the dresses, he said it was "honestly one of the most awkward experiences of [my] life." He was, in effect, socializing himself. Without anyone even saying anything to him, he felt extremely uncomfortable in the dress. He said he felt like he wasn't supposed to be wearing it, and that he was afraid of what people might think of him. It is interesting that violating a gender norm like this could induce a biological reaction such as fear or stress, but the concept of gender is not biological at all. Our ideas of what is ideally male or female are something that we as a society created. Proof of this can be found when looking back through history. The ideals of male and female beauty have changed dramatically throughout recorded history. The roles of men and women in history are varied. For example, the traditional view of a women's role would be that of a homemaker, but viking women were warriors right alongside the men. The color pink is now associated solely with girls, but in the past wearing pink was a perfectly acceptable men's clothing choice. These changes in male and female standards over time proves that these norms are constructed by society. Today, male and female gender roles are so deeply ingrained in our society that they have become subconscious for us.

So, why does this matter? Well, for starters, the gender binary is simply not all inclusive. Many people don't neatly fit into the categories "male" or "female." It is doing these people a disservice to attempt to socialize them into one or the other. By doing so, we could be distorting these people's sense of self. By not recognizing deviations from the gender binary as acceptable, we are setting these people up for discrimination and other inequalities. I think awareness of the issues surrounding gender norms is not as prevalent as many may think. There is still a lot of confusion about all of the related terminology and the differences people can have. I even just recently learned that gender may be best viewed as a continuum, with male and female on either end. With a little bit of education, I think more people will be open to a the idea of a range of gender possibilities. And if that happens, a new social construct of gender could start to form.

Everyday Sociology: The Red Carpet

To many, the annual Hollywood awards shows may seem like trivial events, complete with flashing cameras, perfectly coiffed A-listers, drawn-out acceptance speeches, and of course, a red carpet. But in reality, these shows illustrate a lot of important sociological concepts and give us insight into how these concepts are applied to our own society. In her article "Sociology on the Red Carpet" at the Everyday Sociology Blog, Karen Sternheimer explains these awards shows from a sociological perspective. This post will share some of Sternheimer's main points and analyze them, showing how thinking sociologically can help us challenge the way we think about a well established cultural event.

As Sternheimer writes in her article, the red carpet walk and following awards show are both examples of Erving Goffman's front stage/back stage idea. This idea is that there are different social rules, scripts, and expectations in a public scenario compared to a private one. At these shows, the celebrities in attendance are, literally and figuratively, front stage. Millions of people tune in on their televisions and scrutinize every part of the event. And the celebrities are expected to "perform" a certain way. For example, Angelina Jolie would be expected to wear a designer dress and have her hair and makeup professionally done. She would be expected to talk to a reporter about "who" she is wearing and what she is excited about. She will need to sit through the show and clap, smile, and laugh at all the right times. Not only that, but she will likely end up being the subject of talk shows the next morning if she doesn't do those things right. Often times, the actions of the celebrities at the awards shows are more important than the awards themselves. This example shows us how much we as a society scrutinize each other in a public setting, and in scenarios far more ordinary than an
awards show.

In another part of her article, Sternheimer explains what the awards shows tell us about status in our society. In Hollywood, it is well known that there are more roles for Caucasian actors compared to ethnic actors. "Legitimate" photographers are afforded access to the red carpet, while paparazzi (often Latino immigrants of  a lower socio-economic class) must photograph from the sidelines. Even the Academy, who decides who wins the awards, is composed mainly of white males. These trends in Hollywood are projections of sociological trends at a larger scale, and this example shows us how one small event or ritual can tell us so many things about the broader society.

I found Sternheimer's article a really interesting read. Generally, I have never been a huge fan of awards shows because it seems like everyone is kind of being fake. But if you take Sternheimer's opinion into account, you might agree that these people are in fact playing a front stage role, and that role is one made by social forces (i.e. us). Not only do we make these people famous (by reading about them, Google searching them, emulating them, etc.), but we give them roles they are supposed to play out. This comes back to the idea of social construction, a point that Sternheimer left out. We, as members of society, construct societal norms and roles, such as what makes a celebrity and how a celebrity should act. Overall, Sternheimer's article is successfull in showing how thinking sociologically about something seemingly mundane can reveal a lot about society as a whole.

Link to Karen Sternheimer's article: http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2015/02/sociology-on-the-red-carpet.html

Critique a Children's Book: The Berenstain Bears

Socialization is broadly defined as the process by which we learn from others. Another way of putting it is that socialization is the nurture part of the nature vs, nurture debate. Through socialization, we learn the social structures and rules that organize and govern the society and groups we are a part of. Though socialization can happen at any age, children are certainly the most impressionable. They absorb social information from everyone and everything, and generally accept what they learn as fact without questioning it. This means that it's important to a society that children become socialized in way that eventually leads to them becoming functional members. Books exist as just one of the many agents of socialization for children (family, peers, teachers, television, etc. are others). Children's books can socialize children in a direct way (coming right out and saying that something is right or wrong, for example) or in an indirect way (like subliminally communicating gender roles through clothing, actions, and behavior of the characters). In fact, I would argue that most children's books are less for pure entertainment and more for teaching kids a lesson. This post will use a sociological perspective to critique a children's book from a popular, if somewhat dated, series -- The Berenstain Bears.

The title of this book is "Trouble at School," and in it, Brother Bear misses a day of school because
he is sick. While he is out, a classmate takes his place on the soccer team, and he misses an important lesson. He doesn't do his make-up work, so he fails his quiz the next day in class. Trouble at home and at school ensues from there. The most obvious and direct message this book is trying to communicate is about education. By showing how bad things happen when schoolwork isn't done, it is communicating to kids the importance of being dedicated to education. This is certainly not a bad message, since education is integral to being a functional and successful member of society. Education itself is an institution, and it has its own set of rules and expectations. This story communicates to children the expectations that success in school requires hard work, that work may not always be fun, and that poor grades are bad and could get you in trouble.

This book also socializes children through its messages about family.  It shows what may be considered the typical or "normal" family, at least in American culture. (Note: This book was published in 1986, so ideas about the typical construction of family have since changed.) In the book, the family consists of a mother, father, sister and brother. While this may be typical of some families, we know that today there are a diverse collection of family structures. Some children may have many siblings, some may have none. Some children may have only one parent, others two parents of the same gender, and still others could have no parents at all. Families could be made up of people with different ethnic backgrounds or religious beliefs.  I believe that until recently, children's media has not shown these different types of families, and thus children were not being socialized to accept alternative family constructs as normal. The shift to showing a more diverse family in media will likely result in children expecting and accepting all types of families in the long term.

In addition to family structure, this book also indirectly teaches children about roles within families and within genders. When Brother Bear is sick, Mama Bear is the one who takes care of him and nurses him back to health. Papa Bear's job is only to fetch the television and carry it up to Brother Bear's room. This reinforces that women, and even more specifically mothers, should be caretakers and nurturers, while men should be strong and dependable. Something I found interesting about this book was the way it portrayed elderly people. When Brother Bear needed advice, he avoided his parents and went to his grandparents' house instead. His grandfather imparted wisdom in the form of a story, and his grandmother made cookies (reinforcing the female gender role again here). The grandparents were also very doting and easy on Brother Bear even though he lied and skipped school. I think this portrays older people as wise but also lacking in authority. This lack of authority is not consistent across cultures, but in America I think we generally see the elderly without power and as the responsibility of society. Teaching kids this through books and other media will only perpetuate this view.

 Children's books are a strong agent of socialization, not only because they are popular, but because they are often made solely with the purpose of teaching kids lessons on how to behave, what to think, and what is right and wrong. The direct messages of children's books are well-intentioned and positive, but it is the indirect messages we have to watch out for. These can be sneaky and looked over by adults if they are not actively searched for, but children are so impressionable that these indirect messages could have an impact. With a little sociological imagination, children's books can be seen in a whole new light, and reveal some of the major sociological drivers in our society.


Berenstain, Stan, and Jan Berenstain. The Berenstain Bears' Trouble at School. New York: Random House, 1986. Print.

Culture & Media: Food Culture and Mainstream America

Food and culture are closely related. In fact, I would argue that food is a tangible representation of culture; it is something people can connect over, see, taste, smell and hear. There are often shared sets of beliefs about food, and across different cultures food has its own sets of norms. What is considered edible or a delicacy can vary widely, as can meal etiquette, what time meals are eaten, how and by whom meals are prepared, and many other factors. Food can help define ethnic groups, religious communities, class divisions and geographic regions. I think most cultures are proud of what they eat, and they try to preserve their culture through food.

In the United States, however, culture is complex. Much of what might be considered "traditional" culture -- the kind people think of as associated with their ethnic background or religious beliefs -- is now being relegated to special occasions. For example, my family is Polish Catholic, and so we eat traditional Polish food on Christmas and Easter, but not during any other times of the year. Another example: the other side of my family is Croatian. My grandparents used to go to the Croatian club every weekend to dance to tamburitza music, but now the club only meets on important Croatian national holidays. 

 I would argue that "traditional" culture, in today's mainstream America, is simply not convenient and that is why it is becoming rare. With regards to food, it takes a long time to prepare traditional meals, and authentic ingredients are more expensive and difficult to find.  Pre-processed and pre-packaged foods are cheaper and easier to buy and prepare. But the downside here is that people are becoming desensitized when it comes to their food. They don't think about where it comes from, what it takes to prepare it, and how their food impacts the health of the earth. This leads to a lack of responsibility. In the US, Americans throw away almost half of the food they buy, and discarded food is the single largest component in landfills around the country.* Lots of Americans buy so much food, they end up never eating it and having to throw it out. If their food isn't "perfect" (think about that slightly deformed apple you let go bad) they toss it. There are so many demands for huge volumes of "perfect foods," factory farms and genetic modification are currently thriving. 

I go to school in a very remote area, the northern part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This area is not untouched by mainstream American food trends, but it is holding onto some traditional methods of attaining and preparing food. Hunting and growing food is very common here, and I even have some relatives locally who eat entirely out of a greenhouse and their backyard. The people who live this way have different attitudes about food, and it got me thinking. How does self-sufficiency and living off of the land impact people's beliefs and behaviors?  The culture of eating rustic is almost in direct contrast to the food trends of mainstream America. 

This short video clip from Eating Alaska shows how some people hunt and gather their food. The culture in this place centers on frugality and respect for the animals and the land. As a result, the people tend to get only what they need, and they use all of what they have. They also must take the time to prepare food since they are getting it in its natural, unprocessed state. This leads to a slower pace of life, and I think these people appreciate their food so much more because of the work they have to do to get it. I have to admit, I ate chicken that came from a can today and I felt a twinge of guilt over it, especially when I saw people shooting and cleaning their own dinner. I truly don't think I could kill an animal by choice. If I had to, I certainly would, and I think it would get easier over time. But I also think my own personal food culture would change to become more like the people in the video. I would definitely have a sense of respect for the animals I eat and the other food the land provides me. I also believe I would waste less so that I didn't have to keep taking from the land, since I think that would be a show of disrespect and neglect. 

I recognize that the collective American people cannot all hunt and gather their own food, nor can they cook every meal in a traditional fashion. However it is the mentality of the Alaskan hunter gatherers and our elders we should try to emulate. A sense of mindfulness for where our food came from could go a long way in changing mainstream American food culture. Recognizing that we create waste by choosing foods that are not responsibly manufactured and by over-consuming food is an important step. Taking time to prepare food could help us appreciate what we have. There is an opportunity to create a new food culture, and American food culture, that values responsibility, sustainability, and mindfulness. 

*source can be found here 

Data as Evidence: Educational Funding and Student Achievement

Though I am currently working towards a degree in Biology, my ultimate goal is to use that degree to become a secondary school teacher. As part of my training, I have gotten to look at many of the issues currently facing the American education system. Many of these issues center around how to best teach the nation's children. Should we practice structured formal schooling, or take a more child-directed approach? How should the school day be structured? Are standardized testing and curricula a benefit to students or a hindrance? These issues are not always social in nature. Many of them are based on educational theories and some are very much focused on the individual. For this post, I'd like to step away from these questions and look more closely at an educational issue that is highly social and political. Funding for education is a common debate topic, and many would probably be surprised to find out that it varies quite a lot from state to state, and even city to city. I would argue that the less funding that is available to schools, the lower the student achievement. This seems logical, considering that less funding could mean fewer supplies, lower quality teachers, and out-of-date technology. However, I want to take a quantitative approach to the issue, and use data as evidence. I also want to discuss some of the challenges that come with using data in sociology. The data and graphics I use in this post will come from the Kids Count Data Center, a website that collects and provides data detailing the well-being of children in the United States. I will also include the URL to all the graphics I use at the end of this post.

 The map at right shows the per-pupil expenditure for education per state in the U.S. The darkest states put the most money towards schools, and the lightest states spend the least. Immediately what stands out is the divide between north and south. Almost the entire southern half of the country is in the lowest expenditure bracket. The northern half varies, but it has almost no states in that lowest bracket. Looking more closely, the Northeast region spends the most. We will keep these in mind when looking at a few factors measuring student achievement.

Never Finished  High School

Attained a Bachelor's Degree

Now take a look at these maps and compare them. They show, per state, the educational attainment of adults ages 25-34. The darker colors show the highest percentages of adults in the age ranges, and the lighter colors show the lowest percentage. These maps align pretty exactly with the information on expenditure. In the southern half of the United States, which has the lowest expenditure, the highest percentage of adults have not finished high school. In the northern states, the higher percentage of adults in each state attained some form of college education. Notably, only in the Northeast were the highest percentage of adults earning graduate degrees.

Attained a Graduate Degree

These maps show a pretty clear correlation between per-pupil expenditure and educational attainment. However, this does not necessarily mean that spending more money on students guarantees they go on to get a post-secondary education.  This is where using data in sociology becomes challenging. This issue, like most others sociologists study, is multi-faceted and complex. For example, I originally set out to measure student achievement in relation to education expenditure. Is educational attainment a good measure of student achievement? Would it be better to use the standardized test scores of children who are actually in school right now? There could be a variety of lurking variables at play. What if, for whatever reason, students in the south can't afford to attend college? Maybe there are some cultural influences to consider. It is entirely possible that students from the north, and especially the Northeast, are pressured and expected to go to college. Just think about how many Ivy League schools are in the Northeast, and how some parents might expect their kids go get into them, In the south, maybe there is less pressure to go to college and more of an expectation to get a job right out of high school. To make my point in fewer words, there are countless potential causes for this one correlation. Using data as evidence can reveal patterns and useful information, but a vivid sociological imagination is required to form connections, make sense of it all, and question what is there.


Links to the webpages for graphics:

•  http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Map/5199-per-pupil-educational-expenditures-adjusted-for-regional-cost-differences?loc=1&loct=1#2/any/false/868/any/11678/Orange/
• http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Map/6294-educational-attainment-of-population-ages-25-to-34?loc=1&loct=2#2/any/false/36/1311/13090/Orange/

The Sociological Imagination

In his Sociology on the Street video, Dalton Conley gives a tour of his childhood neighborhood and memories in an attempt to describe the concept of sociological imagination. He defines this as connecting our personal experiences to broader historical forces. To me, using my sociological imagination means looking at the social influences of my past and thinking about how they have shaped who I am. I also like to play make-believe with my sociological imagination, thinking about how alternate social situations could have made me different from the person I am now. In this post, I'll share the social influences of my own childhood and explore how they are connected to the way I see myself. 

I grew up in a tiny farm town in Ohio, essentially some houses and restaurants surrounded by corn and lots of it. Summers were spent shopping at farmer's markets and watching thunderstorms, and winters were mild and quiet. The most exciting things to happen were usually high school football games, or the annual street fair. You may think that a sleepy place like this wouldn't make much of an impact on a person, but after a little bit of introspection, I realized that it did have an impact on me. In Cortland, the pace of life was slow and the people were few. I now live in a more urban area (outside of Detroit) and it's not easy. After we moved, I developed an anxiety issue, and so I have these debilitating panic attacks in crowded places, when stuck in heavy traffic, and anywhere else where people are busy, stressed, and on most edge. I miss the quiet, open-air feel of a small town, and I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons I was drawn to Houghton. I'm also pretty sure that I'll look for a career in a small area. For some people, I think the social structure of where they grew up is what they will often seek out in adulthood, either because it's the most comfortable, because they feel they belong, or because they just don't know any different.

The move to Michigan was also difficult for me because I had to change schools, but I didn't have the typical issues of making new friends or adjusting to a new routine. What made it difficult was that I went to a Catholic school in Ohio, and transferred to a public school in Michigan. I loved going to Catholic school. It was small, I knew everyone in my class and had known them since kindergarten, we got to wear uniforms, my parents were always involved, and many more reasons. But looking back, I realize that Catholic school was also very sheltered. When I started public school, I experienced a bit of a culture shock. All the girls wore makeup and tight clothes with the same labels on them. The boys said words I didn't know (swear words, I later learned). Classrooms were rowdier, lunch was terrifying, and kids lit things on fire on the bus. I wasn't sure if I wanted to be noticed or be invisible, I just knew I wanted to fit in. Long story short, I ended up with a nasty eating disorder, the after-effects of which still plague me to this day. Between Catholic school and public school, I was in two entirely different social environments, one where I was a confident, if shy, student, and the other where my confidence was wrecked and I ended up getting sick. In this way, the change in social influences completely altered the way I viewed myself.

More recently, I have found myself in a new social group: people with divorced parents. The move to Michigan put a big strain on my parents' relationship, and they just couldn't make it work. They now live in separate houses, both are happy, and one has even remarried. For me, the divorce has impacted the way I view relationships, and the way I view my family. As far as the former, I am definitely wary of relationships and a little commitment-shy. It is hard not to be a little cynical when the main relationship you have to look up to doesn't work out. Regarding the latter, I am sometimes embarrassed to tell people that my parents are divorced, especially boys that I might want to be romantically involved with. I'm afraid people will think that since that my parents couldn't stay together, a relationship with me won't be successful in the long term as well. However, I will admit, that is probably just my fear about myself. I also sometimes feel shame around families who are still all together. Regardless, the social stigmas of divorce can definitely be cited as things that influence how I see myself and my family.

I ask myself this all the time: What if I never moved to Michigan? Would I be in a better situation or a worse one? I know for a fact that I would be different. I always wonder if I would not be so anxious about things, or if I would have never had to deal with an eating disorder. Maybe my parents would still be together. Living in Ohio, I most likely would have been able to grow up at a slower pace in a safer, more comfortable social environment. I'm sure there would have been challenges, but I'm also sure those challenges would have been different from the ones I faced in Michigan. I like this exercise and using my sociological imagination because not only does it give me insight into my own life, but it helps be identify some broader social factors that might be impacting other's lives. I think that using sociological imagination is like being a "fly on the wall" trying to interpret the reasons why people act, interact, and think the way they do.