Essay: Sociological definitions

“Sociology is defined as the scientific study of interactions and relations among human beings,” according to McIntyre (2006, p.3).  McIntyre also notes that perceived realities are also important (2006, p.4).  According to C. Wright Mills, there is also a sociological imagination.  The sociological imagination is looking at the social structure and how it affects people and communities not just personal issues that affect people and societies (McIntyre 2006, p. 31).  There are a few assumptions that go with the sociological discipline.  One important assumption in sociology is that place matters more than people sometimes.  For example, where a person grows up influences more of their life than their own personal beliefs.  Another assumption is that people have agency or choice to what they do.  Lastly, there are consequences for differences in society.  For example, people are treated differently based on their race, class, or culture.  Most of the theoretical articles that were read over the semester support this definition and assumptions.  The three theoretical articles that I am going to focus on are Connell, Lorber, and Hill Collins.
Connell shows the scientific study of interactions and relations among human beings because he focuses on the hegemonic male.  By focusing on the hegemonic male, he focuses on the relationships between males and also between males and females.  Connell starts off his article looking at the history of social roles leading him to sex roles.  Socialization teaches people how to be a part of their sex role, and shows what is expected for that gender (Connell, 2000, p.7).  Based on research Connell saw that multiple masculinities existed (Connell 2000, p.10).  The multiple masculinities have people making their own masculinities based on their culture (Connell 2000, p.10).  This gives the people a little agency but they still are dependent on place. Looking at the culture we have to look at societies.  In some cultures and societies, some actions will be seen as masculine while in other cultures and societies that are far from being masculine.  A good example of this practice is men in some African tribes are expected to dress up in makeup and outfit, while in America this is not seen as masculine but feminine.  So, where a person is matters more than who people hang out with.  Connell also says that the ways our society defines masculinity goes beyond just the individual (Connell 2000, p. 11).  This goes along with the fact that we are looking at societies and not just individual problems.
There is also the hegemonic male, where this form of masculinity is the most ideal (Connell 2000, p. 10).  This status is very hard to achieve for most males in the Western world because one thing that determines hegemony is that the person be white rather than a person of color.  Another component of the hegemonic male is that they have some kind of power like being a CEO or just have a lot of money in general.  Many men in the United States are of working or middle class so these men are automatically disqualified from being part of this sphere. This part of the theory doesn’t follow the agency rule.  The main thing that determines if you are able to be hegemonic is determined by where one is born and whom one is born to.  This also leads to consequences, because some men are not able to become hegemonic.  These men must find other ways to show that they are masculine.  For example, the construction workers in one article were always trying to one-up the other in feats of physical strength.
Lorber looks at gender under three lenses.  The first lenses is process, “where gender creates social differences” (Lorber 1994, p.15).   This lens focuses on how everyday interactions create gender.  This lens leads to consequences of difference.  For example, if you are perceived to be a female you might be treated differently in some situations than if you were a male.  Also, people feel like they have to place others in a gender category.  The second lens is that gender is part of a stratification system (Lorber 1994, p.15).  This lens focuses on the status of A versus, not A.  Men are A in situations and not A would be anyone not a male.  This A, not A situation influences how society treats its members.  For example, males are seen as the important, dominant group; whereas females are seen as a subordinate, lesser group.  There are also the consequences of difference here based on how the groups are treated.  There isn’t any agency for the A, not A groups.  They are placed there by birthrights.  The last lens is structure, where “gender drives work in the home and in economic productions, legitimates those in authority, and organizes sexuality and emotional life” (Lorber 1994, p. 17).  This again relates to the consequences of difference.  There again isn’t agency again.   And lastly, this lens keeps males and females in different spheres.
Overall Lorber’s A versus not A theory is related to the definition of sociology because it is looking at the interactions and relations between men and women.  All the lenses are used to look at the interactions and how gender influences interactions among people.  The A versus not A theory is an interaction itself since those that are A will be treated differently than those who are not A.  People act in these ways according to their gender, because that is what society expects of them, thus this is more of a societal thing more than a personal thing.  If they were to not act according to how society wants they may face difficulty in certain aspects of life.  For example, if a male does not act dominant, then his sexuality may be questioned.
The last theorist that I will look at is Hill-Collins and her outsider with-in theory.  The article focuses on black feminist thought and has three themes.  The first theme is the meaning of self-definition and self-valuation (Hill-Collins 1986 p. S16).  African-American women tend to embrace their stereotypes to feel empowered.  These women have agency.  They are able to either accept or reject how they are expected to act.  This can be empowering for the women.  They oppose domination, which leads to consequences where they can be assaulted.  These women are able to change how others think of them through choice, but they are still held back by the color of their skin.  Note that Hill-Collins says that this theme is necessary for their survival (1986, p.S19).  The second theme is the interlocking nature of oppression.  This theme emphasizes the fact that black women have to face more problems because of the fact they are women and African-Americans (Hill-Collins 1986, p.S20).  They have to fight a battle twice as hard because the dominant gender is male, while the dominant race is white.  This relates to the consequences of difference, in that they have to fight for different rights than others.  This also relates to the fact that society shapes people’s relationships and live.  The last theme is the importance of Afro-American women’s culture (Hill-Collins 1986, p.S21).  This theme relates to the fact that these women for a tight bond to one another because they all go through this.  Family is very important and they are there for each other.  Theses women seem to have a different bond than women of other cultures.
Overall Hill-Collins relates to the sociological definition, because she is looking at how these women are treated as a group.  The article makes a valid point of showing a view point that is not often see in other articles, since most article focus on a white male’s perspective.  The main thing that black feminists want to do is to show that black women are human as well and should be treated as such.  Our society has still not made this connection since the article was written in 1986, 30 years later and minorities are still not seen as fully human.  The femenists are able to offer a different view since they are the ‘losers’ of both gender and race.  They can also treat other minorities in a better light, based on what they went through.