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.