A Sociological Perspective On Our Life

I do think our self develops through interactions and our impressions about how others see us because we interact with people everyday and over time that will change the way we act naturally. We also act differently if we see that something we’re doing is frowned upon by our culture.

In order for an individual to understand and interpret everyday life and the society in which they live, the sociological perspective can be used as a valuable tool for that understanding. According to Mills (1959; 5) the sociological imagination is simply the “quality of the mind” that aids an individual in understanding how their personal problems and experiences can be linked with the immediate external environment. The use of sociological imagination as a tool will guide an individual to think critically about the relationship between their individual problem and social issues which are viewed as driving force of the problem. This essay will discuss the how the sociological imagination can be used as an umbrella to view a personal problem

The psychologists believe that individual’s behaviour is linked with the inner thoughts and self-image. The idea is that due to free will people change often. It is humans’ responsibility on how their well-being and lives carry on. This is because we are capable of striving to achieve the best, self-actualisation desire.

After a careful study and a deeper research on an introduction to sociology, I have come to understand that no problem can be solved well enough if one does not have the sociological perspective which is defined as a way of looking at the world through a sociological lens. In fact, there is the need of the lens that will help one to view situations and have the eye to emerge through different views to solve that problem. This mirror has become a doorway that will help one to have a beginner’s mind to approach problems.

Growing up, almost every parent will tell you, “you can be anything you set your mind to!” or “the possibilities are endless”. But from an early childhood my parents were creating an opportunity structure for my life. Through my 20 years, how I was taught, the places I went to, the people I interacted with and the implications of society and societal norms followed me. As with many other families, my parents focused on setting me up for the best possible future. But little did they know, they were contributing to a society where some people are allotted more privileges and opportunities than others. I will attempt to deconstruct this complex social construction by looking at gender, social class, family influences, race, and socialization; which will be discussed in greater detail further along. When analyzing sociological concepts like gender, social class, and race sociologists use a “sociological lens”. Using a sociological lens will allow me to take the experiences I had and look at them on a broader cultural level. Ultimately sociologists use sociological lenses to better understand how personal experiences not only impact 1 person but how they can be applied in a broader context, allowing individuals to relate to others in society who may have had similar experiences.

“Cut from the same cloth”, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”, “A chip off the old block”; most of us have heard these types of idioms at one point or another, ways of likening us to our parents. Sometimes they are right, while other times it couldn’t be farther from the truth; leaving us to wonder, “what is it that makes us who we are?” Are we simply the product of our environments, a collective sum of our interactions and experiences? Or, do our genetics pre-determine who we are, complex variations in our DNA that dictate our individual personalities? Some scientists argue on behalf of the nurture theory, that our personalities are continually changing and growing, influenced by the world and people around us. Others believe that we are pre-wired by genetics alone, that while external factors may magnify or diminish some aspects of that wiring, everything we are is already programmed into us from the moment of conception. So, who is right?

Growing up, my life was somewhat sheltered compared to the lives of other people my age. I was raised by both my mom and dad in a Christian household, in which I was taught morals based upon our faith. As a result of this upbringing, my parents and I made the decision to enroll me in a private Christian school in sixth grade. In this setting I was protected from the influences of the outside world. All of the language, violence, and temptations were around me, which I began to recognize as I entered my freshman year of high school. Even the walls of the highly respected establishment could not keep the real world out.

What is it that makes us who we are? There are two main opinions that have been proposed as solutions to this question: nature and nurture, both of which have been rigorously researched through history. The nature argument proposes that human personality, intellectual development, and social interactions are ultimately determined by heredity. Alternatively, the nurture argument says that all of these factors are determined by the environment’s influence of the individual. By examining what studies have shown in the past, as well as the observations of acclaimed psychologists, one may determine which ideology, nature or nurture, (or perhaps a combination of both) contributes more to the individual qualities that people develop as they grow up.

A sociological perspective on human behavior is connected to the society as a whole. It invites us to look for the connections between the behavior of individuals and the structures of the society in which they live. (Appendix 1)

Explanation of common sense and sociological approaches to the study of Human Societies, with examples.

     Two things can happen when we are required to base our definition of “self” on others.  One can take others’ ways of living and thinking, process them, and formulate his or her own definition, independent of anyone else.  Or, one can use the relationships he or she has with other people on which to base their own definition of self, thus making him or her dependent on those other people.  As young people, we learn and take in all we can through the world, our experiences, and relationships with other people.  From there, we grow and establish our own identities, our own “selves”, in response to those interactions with others.  This definition is continually growing and progressing as we evolve as people, interacting with different people in different environments and

Nature combines with nurture to form our personalities. Our genes may predispose us for certain inheritable traits such as diseases like cystic fibrosis or even just irritability, similar to our relatives, but the environment we are raised in has quite a bit to do with how visible certain aspects of our personality become. If a child is always around an environment where there is constant arguing and yelling going on, the child may naturally feel that is the proper thing to do when things do not go as they would like. Likewise, genetics play a role in determining a person's body type, thus you could get your eye color from your mom, and your height from your dad.

Scientists still agree that biology does play a part in human behavior, however. Nature and nurture do not oppose each other in every manner. Today, social scientists hesitate to choose one or the other. As humans, life depends solely on the operating of the body. This is seen especially in children. It is obvious that children share their biological traits, such as hair or eye color, with that of their parents. Heredity also plays a part in their intelligence, how artistic they are, and their overall personality. We all have “potential” inheritances, in which their full development depends on how we are all raised. Both sides

I think that humans are almost entirely shaped by society, not only by what our nature makes us to be. In The Lessons of History, by Will and

     Both the social constructionist and the psychodynamic views adopt a hermeneutic epistemology, which centers on the analysis of a person's actions, their fundamental influences and how the external social world can be internalised and represented symbolically within an individual (Stevens, 1996). However, there are key differences between the two views. The social constructionist applies a societal study approach which converge the external society and the social relationships within it. This implying that the self is built-up and continually developed through multiple social networks (Sapsford, 1996). On the other hand, psychodynamic theories applies psychoanalytical