Tags: environment, globalization, health/medicine, war/military, agent orange, chemical warfare, dupont, vietnam war, 00 to 05 mins
Length: 4:09
Year: 2012
Access: New York Times

Summary: This New York Times video examines the relationship between chemical war and the long-term effects on human health. As The New York Times reported in the accompanying article, "Over a decade of war, the United States sprayed about 20 million gallons of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, halting only after scientists commissioned by the Agriculture Department issued a report expressing concerns that dioxin showed 'a significant potential to increase birth defects.' By the time the spraying stopped, Agent Orange and other herbicides had destroyed 2 million hectares, or 5.5 million acres, of forest and cropland, an area roughly the size of New Jersey." Forty years later, there are areas where no plant life will grow and the human health toll is becoming more clear. One example of this is the child in the image here, who has a rare bone marrow disorder that has made him nearly blind and has required he has a blood transfusion every 2 weeks. As a result of long-term effects like this, many Vietnamese people continue to hold bitterness toward the US government and argue that the US has not taken responsibility for its activities, which many people believe were criminal. In 2012, the US government launched its first program to clean up some of the Agent Orange (which includes $43 million in funding to clean up one site where the soil remains highly contaminated and provide a program to help disabled victims). One American advocate of providing this assistance says that the key to securing US cooperation is to focus on assisting the disabled and not focus on who was responsible; he argues "after so many years, why waste time arguing about the past? why get involved in the blame game?... Let's help everyone in need." Some critics say this does not go far enough and some parents of the victims want financial compensation. Viewers may consider whether the US has responsibility for the long-term effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam? What responsibilities does this include and are they going far enough? For example, does the US owe financial reparations to victims? Does Dow Chemical (the manufacturer of Agent Orange) have any responsibility?

Submitted By: Paul Dean

Tags: goffman, theory, dramaturgical approach, impression management, scripts, social interaction, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2005
Length: 1:51
Access: YouTube 

Summary: Sociologist Erving Goffman is famous for theorizing social interactions from a dramaturlogical approach. Using the metaphor of a theatrical performance and deploying dramaturlogical concepts for support, Goffman argued that, when human beings interact, each person desires to manage the impressions that others receive of them; social actors do this by putting on a "show" for others. Goffman believed that social actors are especially motivated to engage in certain social practices so as to avoid embarrassment, either of themselves or others. To carry out this impression management, interactants, either by themselves or in groups, give "performances" during which they enact "parts," "roles," or "routines," and they make use of a "setting," "props," and "costumes." Goffman's analysis of "front stage" and "back stage" carries this metaphor further, as he pointed to the different rules and expected behaviors, or scripts, that social actors follow when performing in the front region of a scene versus when they are back stage, hidden from an audience. This clip of rapper Kanye West and actor Mike Meyers can be used to illustrate Goffman's concept of social scripts and, more specifically, what happens when social actors go "off script." The clip is from the fundraiser A Concert for Hurricane Relief, a live televised event organized in September 2005 to raise money for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. West and Meyers have a teleprompted script from which to read, in which they are to relay the extent of the disaster and provide information about the Red Cross's efforts to address the devastation. After Meyers reads his introductory script, West takes a sharp turn and goes completely off script, not only deviating from the teleprompted script, but also going off his social script by delivering a very public (i.e., front stage) and biting critique against the mainstream media's portrayal of the predominantly poor African Americans most devastated by Katrina, and also against then-President George W. Bush for failing to address the needs of this marginalized and vulnerable community. As Goffman predicted, when one social interactant goes off script, the opportunity for embarrassment is heightened. Meyers tries to manage the situation—though he is clearly uncomfortable as he fidgets his body—by continuing to read the teleprompter as though the social interaction is moving along smoothly. West does not follow the rules of social interaction, as he gives Meyers little assistance, and in fact creates more tension with his explicit accusation: "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Since the event, West has been both harshly criticized and enthusiastically applauded for his decision to go off script. Viewers can be encouraged to consider the implications of going off script. In his essay, "What Can We Do? Becoming Part of the Solution," Allan Johnson identifies going off script as one way to enact social change. Though often scary to do so (indeed, West's nervousness is palpable), Johnson argues that deviating from pre-determined scripts or, "paths of least resistance," is one way we can break from the status quo and routines that foster inequality.

Submitted By: Valerie Chepp

Tags: discourse/language, lgbtq, media, prejudice/discrimination, sex/sexuality, heteronormativity, heterosexual privilege, sexual identity, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2008
Length: 3:00
Access: YouTube

Summary: In this video, amateur photographer Travis Nuckolls asks a number of respondents whether they think people choose to be gay. To those who think it is a choice, Nuckolls poses a thought provoking follow-up question: "When did you choose to be straight?" Why are the respondents so surprised by this second question, and what might their surprise reveal about the way people think about sexuality. One answer is that people were caught off guard because they are rarely asked questions about heterosexuality, and this is arguably because heterosexuality is thoroughly taken for granted as the normal and natural sexuality. In fact, sociologists and others argue that the United States is a deeply heteronormative society, which means that it is a society awash in messages that suggest heterosexuality is the normal and preferred sexuality. In a heteronormative society, heterosexuals do not typically field questions about their sexuality, while sexual minorities, such as those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, or polyamorous, are routinely asked questions about theirs. A second insight one can glean from the surprise people express in the video is that heterosexuality is widely believed to be the original sexuality. That is, there is a heteronormative belief that all humans start life as straight, or perhaps as undecided, and then reach a moment when they become gay. This belief is the unspoken premise behind Nuckoll's question, "Do you think being a gay a choice?" and since people appear unsurprised by his first question, one can argue that they subscribe to this premise. In contrast, the premise to his follow-up question, "When did you choose to be straight?" is just the opposite. The follow-up question suggests that people start as gay or undecided, and only after making a choice, become straight. However, confronted with this question, people seem to be taken off guard. That is, they do not accept the premise behind the question. In sum, Nuckolls' video likely went viral because it centered and exposed U.S. heteronormativity and heterosexual privilege by asking people two relatively simple questions. It also clearly exposed the fact that people hold heterosexual folks to a different standard. It is entertaining to watch respondents in the video question their assumptions about sexuality, but it's also useful for viewers to articulate just what those assumptions are.

Submitted By: Lester Andrist

Tags: art/music, bodies, crime/law/deviance, gender, immigration/citizenship, inequality, prejudice/discrimination, race/ethnicity, religion, sex/sexuality, burqa, burqa ban, chandra talpade mohanty, femininity, feminism, male gaze, niqa, postcolonialism, racism, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2010
Length: 2:17
Access: YouTube

Summary: This clip features a protest against France's recent Burqa ban, which went into force in 2011. The new law stipulates that anyone caught wearing the niqab or burqa in public could face a fine of €150, or be forced to take lessons in French citizenship. The performance of the two women in the video challenges the resistance/subordination binary, which typically frames discussions about what it means when non-Western women don the veil. By sexualizing their veiled bodies, the women challenge ideas about whether wearing a veil is necessarily an expression of women's oppression, just as it challenges whether wearing hot pants and high heels is necessarily an expression of women's ability to resist oppression (Note that the ban went into force after the video was made). Moreover, by performing a sexualized femininity they are apparently able to navigate the streets of Paris without being disciplined, and their short walk raises a number of provocative questions. First, to what extent are the two women able to “break” the law because they have garnered the approval of the heterosexual male gaze? How might people react to these women if they did not fit the archetype of attractive females? This clip provides an excellent window into Chandra Mohanty's acclaimed paper “Under Western Eyes.” Mohanty takes issue with the way that Western feminists assume that wearing the veil is a symbol of oppression and fail to give a voice to the women who wear these clothes. It is unfair for Westerners to assume that the way they themselves dress is a symbol of empowerment without unpacking the systems of patriarchy that inform Western modes of dress. Viewers can also consider whether Westerners have the authority to make judgments about the way non-Westerners dress. Does the government have the right to create laws that ban certain styles of dress? If so, why aren't the religious symbol laws enforced for nuns who wear veils?

Submitted By: Pat Louie

Tags:  gender, inequality, violence, male privilege, patriarchy, rape, rape culture, sexual assault, victim blaming, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2013
Length: 4.40
Access: YouTube

Summary: This video clip, which was produced by a senior-seminar class at James Madison University focused on the sociology of interpersonal violence, exposes the lived realities of navigating a rape culture under patriarchy. By asking women and men what they do on a daily basis to protect themselves from being sexually violated, the video highlights the myriad strategies that women are socialized to employ in an attempt to protect themselves. Men, by and large, do not think about the threat of sexual violence in their lives, nor do most men, on a daily basis, do anything to protect themselves from such a threat. This is not to say that men are never raped or assaulted, but to highlight the realities of a culture in which women, but not men, are systematically targeted for acts of sexual aggression. Violence is one resource used in the reproduction of gender inequality, and as the video points out 100% of women experience the threat of that violence. Many men do think about this because it is not an issue that affects their daily lives directly. Many women don’t think about it in these terms because men’s violence against women is normalized under patriarchy. Importantly, the video is not intended to demonstrate things women "should" be doing. Instead, it highlights the realities of women's lives. Whatever decisions a woman makes regarding her safety, they are arguably the right decisions for her, but victim blaming persists when it comes to men's violence against women. As the video notes, it is never the victim's fault. We are often quick to ask what a woman did or didn’t do following an assault, but we rarely ask why a man assaulted a woman; nor do we ask why acts of men’s violence against women are normalized within our culture. Something to bring to the discussion is the fact that although women are targeted for acts of aggression by men, and although women's lives are constrained in important and material respects as a result of that, we still expect women to bear the brunt of the effort to challenge gender inequality. Men, as the recipients of male privilege (including the "privilege” of not having to carry the weight of being systematically targeted for acts of sexual aggression), have cultural space and influence to stand up—as allies to women—and challenge the patriarchal oppression of women, including men's violence against women. Although not all men are actively engaged in efforts to reinforce patriarchy and gender inequality, all men receive the conferred advantages of male privilege under patriarchy (but not all men have equal access to the patriarchal dividend as a result of other aspects of identity). As a result, men who are not actively anti-sexist are passively reaping the benefits of a sexist system. This video can stand as a springboard for class discussion about interpersonal violence (specifically men's violence against women), the rape culture, patriarchy, male privilege, victim blaming, and strategies of resistance.

Submitted By: Matthew Ezzell

Tags: children/youth, crime/law/deviance, gender, media, sex/sexuality, masculinity, patriarchy, sexism, socialization, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2013
Length: 0:30
Access: YouTube

Summary: Following Judith Lorber, patriarchy can be defined as simultaneously the process, structure, and ideology of women's subordination. Sexism, then, denotes anything that promotes or reinforces the system through which this persistent subordination operates. People often have trouble working with formal definitions, so illustrations from the real world, such as this thirty-second commercial from Allstate, can be helpful. The ad features an insurance agent chatting with a homeowner, who is quite pleased with the tree house he recently built in his backyard. "The boys love it," he boasts, "They are up there day and night!" Then with deft comedic timing, the agent informs his prideful client that the boys love their new tree house primarily because it looks into their neighbor, Mrs. Koslowski's, window. It is important to move beyond simply calling commercials distasteful. To articulate why this Allstate ad is sexist is to articulate how it contributes to the systemic subordination of women. It is an exercise in describing how patriarchy works. As I see it, the sexist problems with this commercial are of two sorts. First, the narrative relies on a very problematic myth about the irrepressible sexual desires of boys and men. Plainly stated, Allstate has conjured a scenario of three prepubescent boys in their new tree house with binoculars, but they are not there to play as children. Rather, viewers are to conclude that their incipient male sexual drive is leading them to seize upon a rare voyeuristic opportunity, and a non-consensual one at that. This particular representation of men is sexist because it attempts to justify an abusive and exploitative pattern of behavior among men as it pertains to women. While there is really no evidence that men's libidos ever render them incapable of moral behavior, it is fairly clear that cultures which assure men they have irrepressible sexual urges give men permission to act as if their libido occasionally renders them incapable of moral behavior. But if the first problem has to do with justifying predatory behavior among men, the second problem is the commercial's claim about what constitutes an appropriate response to men who behave as sexual predators. There is a sense in the ad that viewers are witnessing a family memory in progress, perhaps a funny story that might some day be told at a party. But it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the boys are engaging in behavior that is both morally and legally reprehensible (real world examples can be found here). The boys are committing a serious crime; yet the tone of the commercial assures the viewer that it is just another banal instance of boys being boys. Note that the agent is laughing, and while the father is clearly uncomfortable, his response is to spray the boys with a hose. On this last point, the commercial is sexist because it downplays the seriousness of this subordinating behavior among men. To paraphrase sociologist Michael Kimmel, the often made conclusion that "boys will be boys" really means that boys and men will always be violent, rapacious animals. Such a conclusion is a sexist posture of resignation.

Submitted By: Lester Andrist

Tags: inequality, prejudice/discrimination, race/ethnicity, integration, segregation, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2013
Length: 2:17
Access: ABC news

Summary: As ABC news reported, "For any teenager, prom is a monumental night, but for students at a Georgia high school, it has been more than 40 years in the making. For the first time ever, students at Wilcox County High School, in Rochelle, Ga. danced together at a prom that wasn’t segregated. For decades, the school board has avoided officially endorsing prom festivities, instead relying on parents to host and control invitations leading to year after year of two dances — one for white students, and one for the black students. Students have lobbied over the years to end the practice. This year, a group of Wilcox County seniors decided to take matters into their own hands." The students successfully organized their own prom event, attended by "nearly half" of the school's seniors. However, white parents and/or students organized another segregated whites-only prom. This serves as an example of how racial segregation continues to be reproduced in everyday life through the actions of students and parents, and supported through institutions (i.e. schools). These different actions illustrate competing racial ideologies, or the frameworks for understanding race that either legitimate and justify racial difference or challenge existing race relations. While we do not hear from proponents of the racially segregated prom, viewers can speculate on how and why those individuals might explain and justify their actions. Viewers can be encouraged to reflect on how racial segregation continues to persist in neighborhoods and cultural events such as this prom. Like many other videos here on race/ethnicity, it serves as another example of how race continues to shape social outcomes today.

Submitted By: Vicky Herbel

Tags: gender, achieved status, gender socialization, masculinity, performativity theory, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 1997
Length: 3:35
Access: YouTube

Summary: Many gender scholars gravitate towards the concept of gender practices because the explanatory model is so multifaceted. First, practicing gender captures how gender is something most men and women do regularly in their daily lives. However, the concept of gender practices also highlights how these ways of doing gender are socially structured or socially institutionalized because, somewhat like the rules of a sport, socially-shared normative guidelines set the parameters for how we practice gender. Lastly, most individuals become so well-practiced in their gender, it is done reflexively or without thinking, which explains how gender is ever-present and especially-salient in our lives (yet so regularly overlooked and seemingly inconsequential). However, what would happen if a man never learned his gender practices? In this clip from the movie In & Out, Kevin Kline uses a self-help audio book to help him learn to be masculine. It teaches him to more effectively monitor his gender practices—thus drawing on humor to illuminate the subtle ways gender dictates much of our daily behavior. Furthermore, because this example revolves around the interconnections between dancing and masculinity, the clip can spark discussion about manhood and ethnicity, especially since dancing is a gendered practice that exemplifies masculine athletic ability and prowess in many cultures.

Submitted By: Jason Eastman

Tags: capitalism, corporations, knowledge, marx/marxism, media, political economy, theory, censorship, fox, ideology, monsanto, news, 00 to 05 mins,  06 to 10 mins
Year: 2003; 1999
Length: 10:20; 4:17
Access: YouTube (clip from The Corporation)
                YouTube (clip from The Insider)

Summary: This pair of excerpts exposes corporate censorship of the news via a documentary (The Corporation) and through a Hollywood film (The Insider). In recent years, the news media has become increasingly concentrated and controlled by corporations. The implications of this is that corporations are responsible to shareholders and must earn high profits. This concentration of corporate news has led to conflicts of interests when a news source wants to air a story that could hurt their advertisers or their shareholders. The first clip from The Corporation shows this process. In 1997, investigative journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre of Fox News, had prepared a story about Monsanto and the negative impacts of their bovine growth hormones (e.g. their milk was potentially carcinogenic to humans). Monsanto was an advertiser for the Fox News channel, and the company threatened to both sue Fox and pull their ads. Because this would have cost Fox News significant advertising revenues, Fox decided to edit the news story so Monsanto would not pull their ads. The clip describes the process of 83 rewrites that either removed or minimized any negative effects of the hormone, until the journalists were ultimately fired and the story never aired. The second clip, from The Insider, features Al Pacino arguing how a story at 60 Minutes was being censored because of financial interests. The film is based on a true story about a whistle blower who worked for Big Tobacco and CBS was hesitant to air the interview on 60 Minutes because it might jeopardize the sale of CBS to Westinghouse Electric. Both clips illustrate the political economy of news media and Marx's concept of ideology, in which ideas and knowledge reflect the interest of the ruling class. Marx argues that the class having the means of material production (e.g. technology, money, labor, tools, etc.) also has control over the means of intellectual production (newspapers, schools, books, broadcast media, etc). One can see Marx’s claim come to life with the influence that Monsanto had over Fox News. Corporate interests shaped what news was aired, and a Fox executive later told the journalists "the news is what we say it is"; when the journalists used the courts to fight back, a Florida appeals court ruled that falsifying the news is not against the law. In both cases, financial interests shaped what constituted the news, and how it was presented--ultimately shaping knowledge in the interest of the dominant class.

Submitted By: Avery Winston and Paul Dean

Tags: rural/urban, theory, weber, gesellschaft, iron cage, rationalization, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 1965
Length: 4:51
Access: YouTube

Summary: This short cartoon comes from Hungarian animation. There are no words, but it skillfully and humorously illustrates the rationality and iron cage of modern life. It follows the main character, Gustav, from the end of his work day as a drone through his evening as he slowly descends into isolated madness. From a Weberian perspective, we might view the organization of modern urban life, with its highly efficient bureaucracies, traffic systems, and living spaces as overly rationalized spaces of social life. People are driven not by traditions, values, or emotions but rather by calculated efficiencies, and experience life in isolation from other humans. These systems of efficiency, calculation, and control constitute Weber's notion of an iron cage. It also works as an example of gesellschaft, where individuals act in their own interest (in contrast to gemeinschaft, where individual action is shaped via community norms and interaction). Ultimately, this existence drives Gustav to (unsuccessfully) attempt suicide and then to try to escape the monotony through alcohol and sleeping in the street, only to find he cannot escape the iron cage. Viewers can be encouraged to identify the elements of daily life that reflect the rationalization, iron cage, and gesellschaft.

Submitted By: Sydney Hart