One of my lifelong interests has been how different forces shape who we are. I read a lot as a child, so I wondered if books could have affected my way of thinking. I’m also interested in psychology and analyzing social situations. Media Studies validated my belief that media can play a strong role in our lives, and Sociology taught me that societal structures can have just as much power as individual choices. Now that I’ve graduated with my bachelor’s degrees, I’d like to share the most valuable lessons I’ve learned from both!
Although they’re quite similar, each has a slightly different lens. I see Media Studies as the study of society through media. The focus is on the media itself, the producers, and the people who consume it. How do American books, TV shows, and movies reflect broader ideas in our country? How do local and global audiences receive them differently and construct perceptions of American society?
Sociology, on the other hand, is the study of anything through the lens of society/societal structures such as race, class, and gender. We talk about how the economic system of capitalism has many social and cultural effects, some unintentional, others deliberately created by those in power. The ideology of the American Dream is that anyone can be successful if they work hard. Yet Sociology points out that gender, race, class, and other factors play a role in success. Typically, people who are middle- or upper-class already have advantages that let them gain easier footing in the system. The cost of college can create a barrier for people with less financial resources, and that then makes it harder to advance up the ladder.
I took a very interesting crossover class that fulfills requirements for both majors: Sociology 167 Virtual Communities and Social Media. My professor framed the course such that we would be presented with two different perspectives, and ultimately we could decide for ourselves which we aligned with. One was tech dystopianism, or the idea that technology is making society worse, and the other was tech utopianism, or the idea that technology and new innovations are creating a better world. Although I took the class before AI became prevalent, it’s a relevant case study. Some tech dystopianists might say AI harms the environment and takes away from human creativity. Some tech utopianists might argue AI can advance innovations and research by running processes a human couldn’t. I have my personal views on AI, of course, but the course taught me that things can be true at the same time. I can hold two opposing views together and critically analyze what makes sense in each argument.
I also got to learn about the early Internet and people’s hopes for a network of social connection. It’s so different from the ad-infested algorithmic content we get now. When I scroll through early webpages and forums, I feel like I’m seeing real people come together for respectful discussion. People treated each other like they were talking to another human being. In the current state of social media, I scroll past a lot of hate speech and presumptive comments that people wouldn’t dare say in real life. On the social media end, we learned about how users basically generate profit for companies. You get to use social media apps for free at the cost of having your data sold to advertisers. We’re not being paid by companies that use our personal information, or for keeping our friends on the platform so their data gets sold too.
Marx has a concept called commodity fetishism in which we see an object for its use value rather than as a result of human labor. For example, a shirt is a clothing item we wear for fashion or utility, rather than being a product of the people that grew the cotton, the factory workers that made it into a shirt, the pilots and truck drivers that transported it, and so on. If we ignore the people that create the everyday objects, it becomes very easy to distance ourselves from their problems. If those people are fighting for a pay raise, why would we side with them when it would increase the costs for us? It’s become a common way for us to displace guilt whenever something doesn’t directly affect us. Yes, the justice system is imperfect, but it keeps the “bad” people away so we’re safe. Yes, teachers should get paid a living wage, but they wouldn’t go on strike if they truly cared about the children. We see these people as a separate entity from us, with issues that don’t affect us, even though all of us are interconnected. I think the world would be a lot better if we all fundamentally saw each other as human rather than as categories of people. For me, the heart of Sociology is empathy.
We are not defined by our culture, gender, race, and class, but we are shaped by them and by how society sees us. And this is true for other people too: someone may seem “lazy” or “less productive,” but maybe their labor is undervalued by society. Maybe trauma or mental health has affected their capabilities, and we should be fostering a world that supports them rather than expecting them to conform. We are all embedded in structures that we have to recognize and unlearn in order to connect to others.
Media Studies taught me that my interests have a broader value. I used to think books, movies, and TV were purely for entertainment. Then, I learned in my classes that they can have ideological and sometimes political agendas behind them. The narrative of the American Dream is reinforced through media; there are so many movies of people making it big. Narratives of good and bad are showcased through the portrayals of the heroes and villains. Roland Barthes writes about how in scripted wrestling, the loser often has the “ugly” and “undesirable” traits whereas the winner is conventionally attractive. Beauty standards are upheld by different forms of media.
As a writer myself, I’ve also become more reflective about the types of characters and messages I write. We’ve discussed representation in media and what counts as inclusivity versus stereotyping. If there is only one Asian character and they are the butt of every joke or they represent every common stereotype, that’s clearly not the best representation. However, there are a lot of in-between cases where it’s hard to tell. What my professors said is that if there’s only one character of a certain background, the weight of the representation is placed upon them. Even if it’s unintentional, the creator may end up playing into stereotypes. That’s why it can be better to have several characters with that background. For example, if there are multiple Asian characters who each have distinct personalities, they don’t get pigeonholed into one category or trait.
When I was younger, I didn’t see much representation of myself onscreen or in books. I used to be excited whenever they came up; I bought a novel about growing up in the Bay Area, and it was a big deal in my family when Crazy Rich Asians came out. Now, there are so many more voices from different groups on different screens and mediums. We have a lot more to work on collectively, but we’ve come a long way. And the most valuable thing I’ve learned is that I can be part of that future.