How does the 2026 Presidential Election explain these?
Hillary Clinton was the more qualified candidate.
She had served as New York State’s Senator from 2001 to 2009 and had served as the Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. She had more political experience than her opponent, Donald Trump, in the 2016 Election.
Yet, her pundits still focused on her looks rather than her policies and experience.
He refused to join the army because he didn’t believe in the war.
I’ve talked about this before, but in sociology, agency is an individual’s capacity to act independently and make their own choices.
It’s their ability to think critically about decisions that shape their experiences and act on them.
For example, in 1967, boxer Muhammad Ali used his agency and refused to be inducted into the U.S. Army to fight in the Vietnam War.
He knew there would be major consequences.
It was based on stereotypes that have been used to oppress.
Sociologically, discrimination is when a group of people is treated differently than other groups. This often happens in policy making, law enforcement and in classrooms.
Additionally, stereotypes are generalized beliefs about particular groups or communities, where an expected behaviour is applied to every member.
Here’s an example: “Shut up and dribble.”
LeBron James was very outspoken in 2018.
He spoke up about the discrimination he faced when someone spray-painted the N-word on his home, the challenges of being a prominent Black athlete, and he frequently criticized President Donald Trump during his first term.
This led to Fox News host Laura Ingraham telling LeBron to “Shut up and dribble” in one of her segments.
Via NPR:
“It’s always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid $100 million a year to bounce a ball,” she said. “Keep the political comments to yourselves. … Shut up and dribble.”
Ingraham received backlash for her comments, with many saying that they had racist connotations.
She claims she didn’t mean to be racist and to discriminate against the Black athlete.
But here’s why it was discriminatory:
She told a sports league of predominantly Black players (the NBA) that they weren’t intelligent enough to comment on current events or the wrongdoings in their community because all they’re good for is being athletic; all they’re capable of is playing basketball.
The stereotype of the dumb, ignorant Black person has been used to oppress the Black community since the birth of the American nation.
As a result, they don’t have the same resources and opportunities as their White neighbours. Policies are often counterintuitive to their progress and many people treat them differently as well.
So, when Ingraham told LeBron to “Shut up and dribble,” she was just adding to the oppression the Black community had been dealing with.
However, this didn’t deter LeBron from speaking his mind:
“I get to sit up here and talk about social injustice,” he said. “We will definitely not shut up and dribble. … I mean too much to society, too much to the youth, too much to so many kids who feel like they don’t have a way out.”
If you want to learn the core concepts of sociology, you can click here to check out my eBook SOCI 001 at my store.
Or you can check it out on Amazon here.
Basketball fandoms are an example of groupthink.
In sociology, Groupthink is a process where members of a group uncritically accept the viewpoints that their group has created.
The theory was created by Irving Janis in 1972 to explain the psychology behind decision-making and support for decisions, specifically foreign policies.
As an example, think about NBA fandoms.
In sociology, agency is an individual’s capacity to act independently and make their own choices. It’s their ability to think critically about decisions that shape their experiences and act on them.
For example, when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a 20-year-old sophomore at UCLA, he decided to support Muhammad Ali’s decision to not serve in the military during the Vietnam War, despite the media shunning Ali. His Bruins’ basketball coach, John Wooden, also criticized him.
America was filled with racism in the 1960s.
And Boston was one of the worst cities because it was one of the most segregated cities in America, where their residential neighbourhoods and schools were split up by race.
People were close-minded and bigoted, and for whatever reason, they felt it was appropriate to be racist during sporting events.
He didn’t behave as society wanted him to.
The Philadelphia 76ers’ Allen Iverson was one of the top players in the NBA in the early 2000s.
He was the 2001 MVP, had racked up a bunch of All-Star appearances and was named to a handful of All-NBA Teams.
He was one of the league’s most popular players and had a lot of influence on fans and a handful of other NBA players.
But his problem was that he didn’t look like a professional.
And how can this theory make you a better person?
In 1902, American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley introduced the concept of the Looking-Glass Self in his book Human Nature and the Social Order.
Cooley said that a person’s concept of self is developed through their interpersonal interactions and their perception of how others view them.
He said that there are 3 stages to this theory:
For example, a basketball player receives compliments on his playmaking skills.
In 1948, American sociologist Robert Merton developed the concept of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.
The theory says that a prediction or expectation can become true if a person’s belief in it influences their behaviour, which can lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy.
In the article, Merton defines it as:
“[The Self-fulfilling prophecy] is a belief or expectation, correct or incorrect, could bring about a desired or expected outcome.”
For example, if you’re a teacher and you constantly call a student a bad student, the chances of him becoming a bad student for the long run will increase because he’ll start to believe it.
Additionally, this can extend to groups of people as well.
I must admit — I was a book snob.
I rarely read fiction because I believed it couldn’t teach me anything. Fiction was strictly for leisure.
When I wanted to understand something, I read non-fiction to learn whatever it was I wanted to learn.
Well, that approach to learning is wrong because reading fiction can teach you a lot.
For example, in the novel Small Mercies by Dennis Lehane, you learn a lot about the relationships between communities and the race relations in Boston in the ’80s. You also learn how this one working class community talks, behaves, thinks, and deals with problems.
I learned a lot of sociology from this novel and I found it down in the crime thriller section.
Another novel that has a lot of social science in it is Red Rising by Pierce Brown.
In 1903, American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois introduced a concept about the African Americans’ ability to view events from both the African identity and the American identity in his book The Souls of Black Folk.
He called it Double Consciousness.
“It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness, — an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife — this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self.”
What Du Bois is saying here is that minorities can view their community through the eyes of other communities as well as their own.
Imagine this (no pun intended): You’re at a coffee shop and there’s a group of loud people sitting near the entrance.
Initially, you think that they’re obnoxious and should take their loud conversation elsewhere, such as their home.
But then you wonder why these people are being so loud.
These types of questions are what sociologist C. Wright Mills calls the sociological imagination.
It can help you be more empathetic.
I scrambled through the course listing to find a last-minute option.
The only available courses for me were an intro sociology class and an intro psychology class, which I had already taken.
“Guess I’m taking sociology,” I thought to myself. “But what is it?”
The course description said:
“Sociology is the study of social life in all its forms. A variety of topics within the discipline will be explored throughout this course, such as social theory, social research methods, culture, with a strong focus on gender, sexuality, class, and racial inequality.”
It sounded interesting enough and I didn’t expect to get much out of it other than the credits.
Those who bully are often the scared ones.
Conflict theorists view power as a struggle for control between social classes.
Those with power are wealthy and influential and impose their dominance over the oppressed.
They use many tactics to achieve this and one of the ways is to control what the oppress consume.
An example is book banning.
Book-banning policies have spread across America and in Alberta, Canada. The government wants to censor what kids can read by forcing public and school libraries to remove books from their shelves.
They claim these books contain sexual content that shouldn’t be read by kids.
And though there is some sexual content in them, these books are not solely about sex; they’re not pornography.
Rather, they tell stories about groups with little or no power. The stories are about what it’s like to come out as LGBTQ+ to your parents, or about what it would be like if your entire gender were disenfranchised, or what would happen if individuals had the tools to think for themselves and were critical of the institutions of power.
The government is banning these texts because they fear representation (because anything other than straight is sinful) and civil disobedience (because they fear their citizens will employ their rights to criticize the government and rally to enforce change).
As Stephen King says, “Censorship and the suppression of reading materials are rarely about family values and almost always about control; about who is snapping the whip, who is saying no, and who is saying go. Censorship's bottom line is this: if the novel Christine offends me, I don't want just to make sure it's kept from my kid; I want to make sure it's kept from your kid, as well, and all the kids. This bit of intellectual arrogance, undemocratic and as old as time, is best expressed this way: ‘If it's bad for me and my family, it's bad for everyone's family?’”
And this is why power -specifically maintaining power- is the root cause of book bannings.