Tags: class, consumption/consumerism, culture, economic sociology, knowledge, social construction, theory, aesthetic, bourdieu, elite, seinfeld, taste, 00 to 05 mins 
Year: 1994
Length: 2:11
Access: YouTube

Summary: In his often densely worded prose, Bourdieu discusses how those in power define aesthetic concepts such as taste. Referring to surveys of French citizens from different economic and educational backgrounds, he shows how social class tends to determine a person's likes and interests, and how distinctions based on social class get reinforced in daily life. He observes that even when the subordinate classes may seem to have their own particular idea of good taste, "the working-class 'aesthetic' is a dominated 'aesthetic' which is constantly obliged to define itself in terms of the dominant aesthetics..." In this clip, a wealthy businessman (Elain's boss) is observed eating a candy bar using a knife and fork. Elaine tells her friends about this unusual behavior, but George sees it as being "proper" or culturally polished. He later eats his candy bar the same way in a public place. As more people see this behavior, more people begin practicing the behavior. This spreading cultural practice illustrates how the society, and conceptions of proper behaviors, are shaped and dominated by the social elite.

Submitted By: Julie C.

Tags: knowledge, social construction, theory, allegory of the cave, karl mannheim, peter berger, plato, social construction of reality, thomas luckmann, 00 to 05 mins 
Year: 2007
Length: 3:11
Access: YouTube

Summary: This award-winning short claymation film is an adaptation of Plato's Allegory of the Cave and can be used to teach core concepts from the sociology of knowledge, including the social construction of reality. The Allegory of the Cave, presented in Plato's Republic, tells the story of prisoners trapped in a cave who can only see shadows casted on the wall in front of them. Plato's story is a commentary on the human condition, in which he suggests that humans are trapped in a material world, interpreting illusions and shadows to be reality. Plato's theory shares similarities with ideas presented in Berger and Luckmann's (1966) The Social Construction of Reality, specifically that our perception of reality is shaped by our social and physical location. In this way, reality is not absolute, and what we understand to be "real" is actually a social construct. To deepen the discussion, instructors might also screen or assign the following two instructional videos: the first provides details about Plato's Allegory of the Cave and the second explains Plato's Theory of Forms. As shown in the first video, when one of the prisoners is exposed to the sun of the outside world, Plato believes he no longer inhabits a world of illusions and shadows. Similar to the abilities of the philosopher, the prisoner can now see the world for what it is. Instructors can distinguish this feature of Plato's Allegory from Berger and Luckmann's theory, highlighting that Berger and Luckmann would contest this point, as there is no one reality. Similar to the relativist critique of Plato's Theory of Forms (discussed here at minute mark 2:09), a social constructionist perspective argues that reality is based on social agreement, and does not exist outside of the mind. These clips can be used to teach other ideas from the sociology of knowledge, such as Mannheim's (1929) argument about the role of intellectuals in society, presented in Ideology and Utopia. Instructors can compare and contrast Mannheim's arguments to Plato's claim that, because of their privileged ability to see the world for what it "really" is, philosophers are best positioned to rule society (discussed here at minute mark 6:55). To learn more about this clay animation film, how it was made, and the awards it has won, click here.

Submitted By: Murali Shanmugavelan

Tags:  capitalism, economic sociology, globalization, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, science/technology, theory, assembly line, deskilling, jobs, labor, reskilling, robotics, 00 to 05 mins
Length: 3:58
Year: 2012
Access: New York Times

Summary: This NYT video examines innovations in robot technology used for factory production (see associated article). These robots are far more sophisticated than typical factory robots, and they have important implications for work, labor, and the geography of the global economy. As Marx predicted, global competition drives producers to mechanize their operations to drive down costs. For example, as the article notes, "In one example, a robotic manufacturing system initially cost $250,000 and replaced two machine operators, each earning $50,000 a year. Over the 15-year life of the system, the machines yielded $3.5 million in labor and productivity savings." The robots are replacing huge numbers of low and mid-skilled workers, making assembly lines more efficient and creating some higher skilled jobs. At 2:50, a representative from a robotics company states "We don't view robots as a way to eliminate the labor, it's just an opportunity to raise that skill set and help everybody realize a better life as a result of that, get them out of that repetition and into a place where they can earn a higher wage and be more successful." Viewers may reflect on this highly optimistic view. In some cases, these advanced technologies are bringing manufacturing jobs now held in countries like China back into the US. With the automation of much manual labor, the new jobs are often safer - but they also have new forms of stress and higher insecurity. However, many people who lose their jobs do not have access to the education and training needed to reskill themselves for the new jobs. Furthermore, such technologies might lead to the increasing polarization of jobs in terms of both skills and wages. Who wins and who loses when robots replace human labor?

Image by Paul Sakuma/Associated Press

Submitted By: Paul Dean

Tags: capitalism, class, durkheim, economic sociology, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, theory, weber, alienation, disenchantment, mechanical and organic solidarity, species-being, 11 to 20 mins
Year: 2012
Length: 20:00
Access: YouTube (start 13:40; end 33:40)

Summary: The London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony focused in part on the Industrial Revolution which is seen to be pioneered by both the British and Europeans in the 19th Century. The ceremony opens with England depicted as a meadow, showing its agricultural past, then continues by depicting the industrial society that followed. This clip can be useful for illustrating many sociological concepts, such as Durkheim’s concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity; Weber’s concept of disenchantment; Marx’s concepts of a two class system, species-being, and alienation; and with the presence of the Suffragettes in the latter part, the clip can be used to introduce Feminist Perspectives. For example, Marx’s concept of species-being (the naturalness of human’s creativity and interaction with nature) is evident in the previous feudal/agricultural society, where the actors are seen enjoying nature and creative activities symbolic to the UK (such as cricket and Maypole dancing), interacting with family and friends, and partaking in ‘productive activity’ which they can relate to, e.g. farming and creative work. However, the people become alienated from their species-being through the era of industrialization. As capitalism developed, workers experienced alienation from their ‘productive activity’; alienation from the ‘product’; alienation from other workers; and alienation from their own creative ‘human potential’. This is shown in the video through the factory work occurring with greater numbers of workers, but with no contact among these workers with each other, working in unison like machines on products that they have no relation to and unable to express any form of human creativity. Viewers might also consider what is missing from the clip, such as colonialism, as well as the race and ethnicity of the actors (as compared to colonized subjects).

Submitted By: Michelle MacDonagh         

Tags: crime/law/deviance, discourse/language, inequality, intersectionality, knowledge, lgbtq, marriage/family, prejudice/discrimination, race/ethnicity, sex/sexuality, social mvmts/social change/resistance, theory, civil unions, collective action frames, marriage equality, same-sex marriage, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2011
Length: 4:24
Access: YouTube

Summary: In Part I we explored the concept of a collective action frame in the context of the vote on North Carolina's Amendment One, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Reverend Dr. William J. Barber argues in this clip that the amendment passed because the wrong frame dominated the public understanding of the issue. In Part II we want to further interrogate Barber's own frame, which posits that the amendment writes discrimination into the state constitution. We think Barber’s argument draws on key insights from intersectionality theory in sociology. In short, this theory draws attention to the relationships among multiple dimensions of social inequality (e.g., race, sexuality, gender, etc.) and insists that the formation of any subject happens at the intersections of these dimensions. Similarly, systems of domination, such as racism and heterosexism, work through this invisible, intersectional scaffolding. Echoing an insight from Kimberlé Crenshaw's path breaking article on the theory, the failure of antiracism to interrogate heterosexism means that antiracist activists are doomed to reproduce the subordination of racial minorities in the LGBTQ community. Indeed, this is what might very well have happened in North Carolina. In the lead up to the vote on Amendment One, it is now clear that there was a coordinated strategy from a political group calling itself the National Organization for Marriage. The group aimed to drive a wedge between members of LGBTQ and Black communities (here and here). Recently unsealed memos from the group state clearly that “The strategic goal of the project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks” and another memo noted the group's aspirations to make the exclusion of gay people from marriage “a key badge of Latino identity.” Barber's frame, then, grasps the way racial and sexual identities were strategically pitted against each other in the vote on Amendment One, but his frame also grasps that violations of equal protection under the law for members of the LGBTQ community in this instance, leaves the door open for violations against racial minorities in the next. As illustrated in this moving speech, intersectionality theory, not only describes how political power relies on manipulating social constructed racial and sexual identities, but also how political resistance must take these constructs into account when formulating effective collective action frames.

Submitted By: Lester Andrist

Tags: crime/law/deviance, discourse/language, goffman, government/the state, inequality, knowledge, lgbtq, prejudice/discrimination, social mvmts/social change/resistance, theory, civil unions, collective action frames, marriage equality, same-sex marriage, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2011
Length: 4:24
Access: YouTube

Summary: In previous posts on The Sociological Cinema, we have explored Erving Goffman's concept of framing (here, here, and here). To recap, the concept has been useful for scholars of social movements, who have rebranded the term collective action framing. The concept denotes the active and processual sense-making and signification of phenomena done by social actors. In other words, the realization that a conflict with police is evidence of a repressive state and that the passage of a new law is an effort to codify division and discrimination are socially "made" interpretations or meanings. They are the social achievements sociologists refer to as frames. The success then of passing a new law or amending an old one often hinges on how the proposed change is framed for the public and how influential that particular frame is in shaping the terms of the debate. The above clip is a speech from Reverend Dr. William J. Barber. who rebukes the media for using the "wrong" frame to report on the recent amendment to North Carolina's state constitution, which passed on May 8, 2012 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The amendment also bans any other type of "domestic legal union," such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. Barber asserts that the media frequently polled the public asking, "How do you feel about same-sex marriage?" but a better question—a better frame—would have been whether a majority should be able to decide on the rights of a minority, or should discrimination should be written into the constitution? Here Barber is clearly attempting to key the struggle against Amendment One to the protests of the Civil Rights Era, and he even mentions the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by name. In Part II, we'll move beyond framing and explore how this video can be used to illustrate insights from intersectionality theory, a theory that offers promise in overcoming the divisions of identity politics.

Submitted By: Lester Andrist

Tags: goffman, psychology/social psychology, social construction, theory, face, impression management, interaction order, self, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2004
Length: 2:16
Access: Comedy Central

Summary: One of the most difficult aspects of Ervin Goffman’s face to understand is the concept’s multifaceted nature. Face is both ‘something we are in’ during social interactions as we conform to social roles, identities and practices; but simultaneously face is also ‘something that can be gained and lost’ through our impression management. To overcome this difficulty, Dave Chappelle’s ‘When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong’ can be used to highlight the multifaceted nature of Goffman’s concept. In this video, Vernon Franklin feels a colleague violated the rules of the interaction order by being insensitive, thus creating a social situation where the two facets of face conflict with each other. Vernon is forced to choose between ignoring an insensitive comment and maintaining face as afforded to him by his colleagues because he abides by the rules of the interaction order; or challenging his offensive colleague and save the face he claims for himself through his personal pride and dignity. Vernon chose the former by leaving face and “keeping it real;” or he abandons the line others expect him to play to maintain a positive self-perception of his own self. Because of his own violation of interaction order, he ends up first losing face as afforded to him by others when he is fired from his high paying job and then the face he is able to claim for himself as he is relegated to the occupational role of a poorly paid car wash employee.

Submitted By: Jason T. Eastman

Tags:  capitalism, class, economic sociology, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, theory, class consciousness, gang hierarchy, gangs, labor theory of value, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2002
Length: 3:09; 1:34
Access: YouTube (clip 1; clip 2)

Summary: [Trigger Warning: these clips use extensive profanity and racial slurs.] In the first of these 2 scenes from HBO's The Wire (season 1, episodes 1 and 3), D'Angelo teaches Bodie and Wallace how to play chess. He likens each chess piece to a member of the gang hierarchy, illustrating the stratification structure and his consciousness of it. For example, the king is at the top of the hierarchy and allowed to do what he wants, the queen moves where ever she wants and gets work done, while the pawns protect the king. Like the upper class within a rigid capitalist structure, there is also little mobility within the structure: "the king stay the king" even though he "doesn't do shit"; "everything stay who he is" ... unless "they are some smart ass pawns" and can climb the hierarchy. In the second scene, the characters discuss value and production within capitalism. While enjoying a fast food lunch, Wallace suggests that whoever invented Chicken McNugges must be extremely rich because of their popularity, but D'Angelo explains that the worker who invented chicken McNuggets "is just some sad ass sittin' in the basment of McDonalds thinkin' up some shit to make some money for the real players." This reflects Marx's labor theory of value, which explains how capitalism is structured to extract value from the workers (the true source of value) and funnel it into the hands of the owners (i.e. "Ronald McDonald" or more accurately, the stockholders). When Bodie responds "that ain't right", D'Angelo says "Fuck right. It ain't about right; it's about money" and explains that whoever invented the McNuggets is still "working in the basement for regular wage thinking of some shit to make the fries taste better." Both clips illustrate D'Angelo's consciousness of the class system, and its inherent injustice. Viewers may also be interested in the restaurant scene from The Wire that examines cultural capital.

Submitted By: Paul Dean

Tags: durkheim, religion, theory, profane, sacred, 06 to 10 mins
Year: 2011
Length: 6:48
Access: colbertnation.com

Summary: While Émile Durkheim is known as a founding father of sociology, much of his work has anthropological elements. Many of his theories are based on the assumption modern societies have more evolved and complex versions of the same social attributes that are also found, and more easily visible, in “primitive” or pre-modern societies. One of his most well-known examples comes from the ways many pre-modern societies used religion to differentiate the sacred and the profane. The profane is the routine and seemingly unimportant elements of everyday life whereas sacred things are both idealized or beyond reproach, and bond people together through a collective morality. But since religion plays a less central role in modern life, helping students identify what sacred things bond us together in our own modern society is difficult. However, in this clip from The Colbert Report, philosopher Sean Durrance Kelly explains how sacred aspects of modern societies still exist in places that often seem profane—like The Super Bowl.

Submitted By: Jason T. Eastman

Tags: capitalism, commodification, consumption/consumerism, corporations, economic sociology, marketing/brands, marx/marxism, political economy, theory, culture industry, false needs, max horkheimer, theodor adorno, wal-mart, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2004
Length: 3:48
Access: South Park Studios

Summary: In this South Park clip, Kyle and Stan enter the local Wall-Mart in an attempt to ruin the business because the people of South Park have been negatively affected by its recent opening in their town. Having been led to believe that destroying the “heart” will destroy the business, the boys search the store for the “heart” of Wal-Mart . While Randy (Stan's father) is walking through the store with the boys, he is distracted by the fact that Wal-Mart continues to lower their prices. Everywhere he looks there are items that he does not need, but he continues to buy them because of the low prices.  In this way, Wal-Mart is creating “false-needs,” which are created and fulfilled by capitalism, and exert power over Randy. When the boys meet the man that calls himself “Wal-Mart,” he claims that he can take any “form” that he chooses. He then switches clothes, thereby acquiring different forms through consumer goods, and asks the boys which “form” they prefer. When the boys find the “heart,” they are surprised to see that it is a mirror; i.e. the “heart” of Wal-Mart is the consumer. The man adds that his “forms” can be Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Target, but that he represents one single entity, “desire.” This desire is the power that is exerted over people by major corporations. While the clip seems to suggest that Wal-Mart is simply fulfilling the desires of the consumer, viewers may consider how such desire and the low prices of Wal-Mart are produced more broadly. Through advertising and Wal-Mart's artificially low prices (e.g. by exploiting cheap labor), these desires are produced like a commodity in a factory and are a fundamental mechanism for capitalist control over people. By suggesting that the "heart of Wal-Mart" is the consumer, does it offer hope in us being able to change the corporate giant or does it unfairly place blame on individuals for a bigger structural issue?

Submitted By: Sean Kelley and Ian Hammer