HhAaNnAaHh BbAaEe

SsOoCcIiOoLlOoGgYy
FfIiNnAaLl PpAaPpEeRr
14 DdEeCc 2010
 Sociology
Self-evaluation

Our sociology class was very diverse in both demographic and in opinion. There were students in
the teens to students in their thirties. There were Koreans, African Americans, introverts, extroverts, big,
small, artsy, bookworm, lethargic, energetic, you name it. What made the class so interesting were the
strong opinions. Lack of participation was never really a problem. However, sometimes the opinions came
off too strong and they would not allow some of their classmates to speak up. I found myself unable to
speak up sometimes because I was intimidated by some of the aforementioned strong opinions. My
personality is such that I wait until the other is finished speaking before I respond to the other. But there
was rarely any time for me to respond because someone else would do so before I did. I tried to contribute
to the discussion as much as I could. But I was content in listening to the strong opinions.
Zeldin says that conversation is a meeting of the minds. This means carefully thinking through
others’ opinions instead of rejecting them. Before this class, I would do what he warns against like it was
my second nature to do so. The purpose of my silence was to wait for the other person to finish speaking
so I could share my knowledge. Through this class, I learned the value of listening to others. I learned that
is it good for me to see an issue from someone else’s perspective.
I also learned to form my own opinions and allow them to be changed. This class formed many of
my current opinions. The processing questions helped me get to a place where I would have to think about
the topic being questioned, when before I would not bother to think about that topic. I now have a greater
opinion on the impact of television on young children, for example. I would be indifferent to the nature of
children watching television before we watched the clip of gender roles portrayed by Disney movies.
Watching the video clips shown in the class, reading the primary sources, listening to the songs played in
the beginning of class - all this had an impact on me. Incorporating these mediums into the topic we were
discussing in class, I realized the social implications held in what I would otherwise pass by without a
second thought. The questions asked in class made me think about the mediums. The discussions had in
class opened my eyes to new perspectives, to see what I could not before.
The class was very engaging. I do not think there was ever a time when I had not wanted to be
engaged in the class. All the ideas presented in the class seemed new and fresh, ready to be taken and
exhausted. These ideas were carried outside of class, where I would offer them to my classmates, my
relatives, and even my boss. Sociology is a subject that is centered on people and their relationships.
People are constantly thinking about their interactions with other people, so it was no struggle to bring up
those ideas.
In fact, I would blatantly tell people that the idea I was offering to them had come as a
consequence of an enlightening hour of Sociology. I would even ask others their opinions on a certain
sociological topic that I was writing an essay for. I wanted to be able to produce writing that was from the
best of my abilities. I wanted to gather as much pertinent information as I could. I believe I spent more
time researching, holding conversations, integrating sociological questions into conversations, reflecting,
and organizing my thoughts on the topic than I did on actually writing the essay itself. And I spent much
time writing the essays.
I enjoyed the class very much. I learned much. It really did change my thinking in many ways. I
would never expect for that to happen in a school setting, but it did. The class exceeded my expectations.

I would give myself the following overall grade for the class: 98%
 “Out of all of the primary/secondary sources you read, listened to, or watched,
which one intrigued you the most and altered or challenged your thinking?

Sir Ken Robinson gives a lecture on “Changing Paradigms.” In class, we watched the RSA
animation of his lecture. This lecture changed the way I viewed education, economics, children, and
culture. Forever will I be inspired to criticize our current education system on placing children on factory
lines, to be produced in batches by age group where the date of their manufacture is most important. The
drawing of children on factory conveyor belts is engrained in my memory. Now I have a clear definition
of creativity and aesthetics - and how our school system has the knack for doing the exact opposite, for
anesthetics, for deadening the senses. The picture of the menacing doctor jabbing a large needle into the
poor student makes me grimace. Robinson’s challenge to the growth standardized testing, which he tied
into the growth of ADHD, has influenced me to question the purpose of standardized testing. His
arguments are very convincing. He suggests the change be made in utilizing divergent thinking. He calls it
a “capacity for creativity… see multiple answers, not one.” Robinson shows evidence that education kills
this capacity, and teachers do not have much choice in changing the system as it is in our current
economy-driven world, where, now, one cannot guarantee a job even with a college degree. He calls for a
raising of standards within the school system to meet our society today, where we do not judge people
into two categories of academic or non-academic- can they be intellectually familiar with the classics and
deductive reasoning or not? The way that I see it, the education system is catered towards the “smart”
people. The sad truth is that, often, these people are the ones who will graduate with the undergraduate
and graduate degrees and snag higher-paying jobs while those who are not able to reach current academic
standards have no choice but to take a less lucrative job, such as moving pianos for a living.
Our education system causes our society to judge these people who have either ADHD, difficulties
with system rules (i.e. only one answer, no cheating/”collaborating,” utilize deductive reasoning, etc), or
any other factor that might hinder them from success within the system. Since the “intellectuals” have the
higher paying jobs, society dictates that they deserve respect than those who have not had as much
success in school. Ken Robinson argues that the purpose of education should be to foster creativity in
another lecture. And all people have creativity within themselves. If schools had been reformed to
encourage creativity, there would be no judgment made on certain types of people in comparison of
others. Even in society, I imagine there would be less reason to judge people since our levels of respect
would not be in relation to somebody’s status.
This video has intrigued me the most in that it made me look at why our society might be the way
it is today because of the education system. It also made me consider how much power schooling has on
individuals, or even how much power an individual can have over another individual.
 “Out of all the topics and/or ideas studied, which one intrigued
you the most and altered or challenged your thinking?“

The ideas that were discussed over childhood were most interesting to me. Upon reflection on the
class, I have been convinced that it is during childhood that an individual’s perceptions of life are most
influenced. All people are born into an environment where every person they meet (or lack of people they
meet) will change their lives in some way or another. Children are constantly being socialized. They learn
gender roles from the television they watch. They learn what discipline is from the rebukes they receive.
They learn what is popular from their fellow classmates at school. Because they are born as blank slates,
they form their opinions off of what their environment teaches them. Children will find their core values
based off of life experiences. A human being is given the fearsome, exciting opportunity to wield much
power over the life of another human being. The fact that I can make an impact on someone else’s life is
awe-inspiring. I grew up to think that what I can do will never be enough. I always thought that I will be
insufficient. But this new idea was telling me something different. It was telling me that I do matter. My
presence in a certain time and place does made a difference. Before long, I could not help myself from
choosing my words selectively - especially around younger children. What I say could help define gender
roles for them. My words could teach them what types behavior are good or bad. What is dangerous is
that I am the judge in deciding what to say or do. I choose what I believe is exemplary, or acceptable,
behavior and influence children to behave accordingly. I choose what I want them to think and they will
follow my lead. I do not have a choice in this matter. Children will be influenced by me each time I spend
any significant amount of time with them, and I cannot stop this from happening.
Children are so innocent. That is their charm, I believe. I would not enjoy being near children if
they were not so. If they were like adults and required time to learn to trust me, I would not love their
company half as much as I do now. Their creativity is valuable - and they love to let others know. It
amazes me to hear all that they can say and see all that they can do. Children often find no need to hide
what they say or do. Their presentations are honest. They can bring out emotions in people that adults
have difficulty in doing. They can see what adults cannot see, because adults like to see with their eyes. It
is hard to explain. As hard to explain as how a Chopin piece can move a grown man to tears for no reason.
 “Out of all of the discussions, questions, and/or processing activities,
which one intrigued you the most and altered or challenged your thinking?”

One of the earlier topics we had discussed was on conversation. I remember reading that great
excerpt from Zeldin on conversation and we had broken off into groups in class to discuss the reading and
the processing question, which had asked what is required to have a good conversation. Before, I had
never put any thought into the technicalities of a conversation. I had never put value into my
conversations until that class.
To me, a conversation was never more than just time spent talking with a friend. What mattered
most to me was the time spent together. I cared more that I had done something good enough to deserve
the time of another person. The conversations I had were generally one sided. I listened as someone else
shared his or her wisdom. Then I shared my wisdom as the other would listen. Conversation was about
sharing emotions and putting ideas into people’s heads. It was not about the meeting of minds,
transforming them, reshaping them, drawing different implications from them, and engaging in new trains
of thought, as Zeldin explains. He says that it is “like a spark that two minds create.” The discussion that
we had in class taught me that conversation is what Zeldin explains it to be. There is so much more to
conversation. There is not only the act of speaking, but of listening. And listening can be quite risky. One
will have to prepare himself to hear an opinion that will differ from his own opinion. Not only that, but
the listener must be willing to actually consider the other’s different opinion. It is easy to hear the
different opinion and not give it a second thought - but I learned that there is no joy in doing so. One can
never mature by believing that only what they think is right. There is no learning if he believes that what
he knows is absolutely right. Sir Ken Robinson says in his creativity lecture that “if you are not prepared
to be wrong, you will never come up with anything original.” We are afraid of being wrong.
I learned to forget my fears of being wrong. I never knew I would be embarking on a journey that
would be challenging. Once, I found I was being forced to agree with someone else’s opinions. Another
time, I was taught I must make sure I am clearly defined in my opinions so that I would be able to give a
definite answer to any question I am asked. I had met such strongly opinionated people that I almost
feared talking with them. Conversation seems almost impossible with such people.
In class, one person mentioned how conversation can extend one’s life. It is meaningful. It makes
an impact. Soon after that class, I sought out conversation. There was something I found exhilarating in
listening to what other people had to say. Each conversation I had made an impact on me and how I saw
the world. I yearned to know more. I wanted to know what perspectives other people held on a certain
topic. So I learned to question them. I learned to ask questions in such a way that they would be able to
elaborate on what they were talking about. In great conversations, the questions would never stop. The
other person and I would have so much fun in the meeting of our minds and in exploring through new
ideas together. I finally figured out what Zeldin meant by that spark, and I could not get enough of it.
 “Create a plan to improve the idea of community for the spring semester at PBU
Explain why you think your idea will be effective.“

To stimulate community at PBU, I propose that each student and faculty member makes a
conscious effort to be in unity with the rest of the student and faculty body. In order to be in unity, one
must think himself as equal to everyone else, not better or lower. Being equal to one another, their core
values must be shared. They must strive after one purpose - that is to glorify God in all that they do. They
must be one in thought. There must be no division in the body. There must be harmony. They must share
all that they have, with great joy and generosity. They must worship together, being one in Spirit. They
must praise God and enjoy the goodwill of all the people. They must be honest with each other. They must
trust each other. They must be vulnerable to each other. They must be humble, always thinking of the
others as better than themselves. They must be patient with each other’s faults. They must have a genuine
love for each other, that overflows from having received an abundance of love from God. They must have
the same hope of a glorious future. They must be a body in its essence with Christ as the head. While they
might have different gifts and agendas, they must be interconnected in a way that they all need each other
as each body part needs one another to have a healthy body.
This plan is inspired by the model of the New Testament early churches. The believers mentioned
in Acts 2 had an incredible community. They trusted each other enough to sell all that they had to give to
those who were in need. They were so humble that they disregarded their own needs. Their community
was not about seeking to fulfill their own best interests - it was about seeking to fulfill God’s interests.
God’s will is for His people to be holy (1 Thess 4:3) and to be thankful in all circumstances (5:18). To be
holy means to be set apart. Therefore, the believers found their purpose in being set apart for Him. They
had their thoughts on things above, being citizens of heaven. Everything that they did came as a
consequence of this mentality. They praised God because of who He was in their lives. They were honest
with each other because dishonesty comes from Satan, the father of lies. They trusted each other because
the Holy Spirit is more than trustworthy, and the Holy Spirit lives in them. They were vulnerable to each
other because they wanted the best for each other, not to condemn each other. They were humble because
they were so in love with God that they spent infinitely more time thinking about Him, loving Him and
loving their neighbors.
When one encounters God’s love, the only natural response is to worship Him. Paul tells us, in
Romans 12, that the true act of worship is to be a living sacrifice to God. When one is a living sacrifice, he
is dead on the cross. He no longer lives, but Christ lives in him, as Paul describes in Galatians 2:20. This
is incredibly humbling. One finds out that his former, carnal desires no longer hold any value. He desires
to seek God. If there is a group of changed individuals, say a group of living sacrifices, then they are a
community with unified thought and purpose. The conditions of an improved community mentioned in
the first paragraph are only consequences that I believe would come naturally from any group of
believers. Then why is there no such community at PBU? I do not believe it is because that sort of
community is utopian and impossible to reach. Otherwise, Paul, in his letters, would never urge the
different churches to follow after that model of unity. I believe PBU is not acting upon this community
because we are not living sacrifices. To be a living sacrifice is difficult. But it is possible. If the students
and faculty on this campus can be living sacrifices each day, they would be unified in one thought and
purpose, under one Spirit, one Head, hoping for one glorious future, citizens of one heaven. They key is to
be a living sacrifice. To be a living sacrifice means to worship God with one’s entire life. To worship God,
one must encounter God’s love. To encounter God’s love - to meet Him, one must draw near to Him. We
must seek Him and become desperate for His presence. An improved community will naturally occur.