Sociological Perspective In Hamlet

September 1st: Sociological versus psychological explanations
In this entry, I will relate the concept of the “sociological imagination” to my personal experiences with the phenomenon of “culture shock” while studying abroad. The sociological imagination encourages researchers to consider the broader social and cultural forces that come into play when it comes to considering the behaviors of subjects, rather than the individual circumstances of each person’s reality. This can be difficult enough to keep in mind when in one’s own home state and country; I found this particularly challenging to immediately grasp during the summer of 2014, when I studied abroad for six week in Ireland and the United Kingdom. The commonality of language, I

believe, beguiled my mind into thinking that the culture experience would not be far removed from my own; I would not, I imagine, have assumed the same of my journey had I been studying in Ghana or the Philippines, for instance. Upon arrival in Ireland, the culture shock was not immediate, but crept up on my awareness over the first few days as I further interacted with the native Irish. Coming from a family of loud and openly affectionate people, it was rather off-putting to experience the brusqueness the Irish display toward most strangers. Had I been equipped with knowledge of the sociological imagination, perhaps I would have more quickly realized that the lack of warmth I was experiencing was not necessarily a reflection of my own behavior; this gruff attitude was not, in fact, a reaction to me, but an overall cultural behavior. Looking back now, I can only speculate, but perhaps such an interpersonal front grew from the historical degrading of the Irish people as lesser, as they were often made to perform service duties and hard labor, being seen as less intelligent of competent. An initially less-welcoming demeanor could act as a defensive mechanism, allowing Irish people to more fully develop an opinion of an outsider before opening up to them on a personal level.
September 3rd: Sociology and its research methods
When I stop to reconsider the discussion of data framing that occurred during this particular class, I cannot call to mind a more applicable, timely, or more personally poignant example of just how disruptive the incorrect interpretation and/or presentation of data than the events of the past several months at Sweet Briar College. While data may have been collected through legitimate and methodical means, the way in which it was presented to and interpreted by the then-ruling Board of Directors somehow shaped the narrative of the College as a negative one, doomed and prevented from reaching success. After allowing this presentation of the data to influence their decision making, the members and representatives of the Board were then prepared to frame this “doomsday” set of data to members of the media in a manner meant to support their crestfallen narrative. As lifetime consumers of of media, members of the public were betrayed by their desire to easily believe the old Sweet Briar administrations calculations and conclusions. Many, unwilling to dig deeper, think more critically, or defy the easy route of thinking, perfectly embodied Dr. Shea’s belief that, “Bad data is worse than no data.” Due to the misinterpretation of a select few data sets, the BoD made drastic decisions that not only gave life to many monocausal interpretations of Sweet Briar’s plight (“Single-sex education is outdated,” “Liberal arts colleges are no longer relevant,” etc.), but also generated a ripple effect caused by their massive “whoops effect.” Students, faculty, and staff members were forced to uproot their lives, deviate from their educational and/or occupational paths, and make numerous other decisions that would impact not only themselves, but their contributions to their families, their physical and academic communities, and their impact on the economic and geographical environments in which they resided. This particular personal case is merely one example of how influential data can be, particularly if it is not gathered or presented in a manner that coincides with the pure intentions of sociology as a field of study.

September 8th: Culture
During this class, we primarily focused our discussion around the article “Cosmetic Surgery: Beauty as Commodity,” which I found to be a particularly engaging topic from my position as a Gender Studies minor and self-declared feminist of many years. What struck me as particularly interesting is the duality of the attitudes toward women paying for cosmetic surgery to alter their appearances. On one hand, the concept of a woman being able to shape her body however she personally wishes appears so relevant that one could argue that such ideology is practically a tenet of modern feminism. On the other side of the coin, the majority of feminists abhor conventional and mainstream beauty standards and therefore, one could argue, should be completely opposed to the concept of women putting themselves at bodily and financial risk in order to achieve a certain “look” that society has deemed more favorable and attractive. Personally, I find my views falling into congruence with my beliefs on other issues, such as abortion; while I personally would never opt for non-medically necessary cosmetic surgery, I fully support the women who choose to pursue such procedures. As with abortion, however, I feel it important that any individual, male or female, fully educates him or herself on any procedure meant to be performed on his or her body, as well as the potential side effects and financial requirements associated with any medical intervention.

September 10th: Socialization
During this class gathering, we discussed the impact of television on the socialization patterns/learning of children. While our interlude primarily focused on the entity of television, we also introduced the concept of symbolic interaction, or, the shared understandings of various symbols that help to create group cohesion and dynamics within a society. This, combined with some of our discussion relating to the gendering of children’s toys, made me stop to consider the influence of color. A seemingly insignificant attribute, the color of a product does have a great amount of influence on each consumer that stops to consider its purchase. Boys tend to be less likely to latch onto something pink or floral, and young girls are often discouraged from engaging with “masculine” toys such as trucks or superhero paraphernalia. The frustrating fact, at least for me, is that these gendered associations of color are not inherent in our biological make-up. It was not until post World War-II, when Hitler used the pink triangle to mark homosexual prisoners (seen as societal deviants), that pink began to be viewed negatively when associated with boys. Prior to this shift, pink was often seen with male children, as red clothing, when washed a considerable number of times, usually faded to some shade of pink. Little girls, on the other hand, were often dressed in items in shades of blue, due to the cultural and religious associations of the Virgin Mary often being depicted as wearing blue. Nowadays, people mock the school colors of Sweet Briar College, usually smirking and saying something along the lines of, “Well, duh. Of course it’s pink, it’s an all-girls’ school,” as if my biological gender inherently programs my favorite hues. This stigma is currently being addressed here at Sweet Briar with careful consideration as the Admissions team works to redesign the marketing materials used to display women, not girls, of intelligence who can definitely be taken seriously.
September 15th: Deviance and Conformity
This class meeting’s discussion of Durkheim’s views on egoistic suicide definitely reminded me of the plight of the title Danish prince of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

Although Prince Hamlet does not, in the end, actually commit the act of suicide, he definitely does consider committing the act during an earlier point of the play. The drama begins several months after the untimely and surprising death of Hamlet’s father, the king. This event begins the list of social connections (i.e. integrations) that are severed and taken from the young prince involuntarily. His mother, the queen, then marries his uncle Claudius, placing her social connection to her son at odds with his negative emotions towards his uncle/new father-in-law/king. Although she attempts to reach out to her troubled child, he does not seem capable of forgiving her for her seemingly incestuous behavior. Left without any meaningful parental connections, Hamlet is then placed in the troubling position of not knowing whom he is able to trust. His supposed friends from university, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are summoned by the king and sent to spy on the young prince, under the guise of friendship. This behavior subsequently causes Hamlet to question every relationship and interaction in which he participates, as well as cuts him off from the social integration offered by his life at university. This pervasive suspicion of betrayal brings Hamlet to violently cast aside one of his only remaining relationships of meaning: his budding romance with the gentle and naive Ophelia. Left without social support and integration from parental units, educational life, or a romantically significant other, plagued by doubt and supposed visions of his murdered father, the young Danish prince questions both his own sanity and the purpose of life in general, easily demonstrating Durkheim’s belief in the importance of social

integration.
September 17th: Social Structure
Unsurprisingly, yet another of our class discussion topics reminded me of the struggles the Sweet Briar community has experienced over the course of the last several months. A titter of repressed laughter circled the conference table at Dr. Shea’s mention of cult leader Jim Jones. Surely I was not the only student to make the connection between the (literal) kool-aid promoting leader and the pushing of the metaphoric, “insurmountable challenges” flavored kool-aid by former interim president of Sweet Briar, Dr. James “Jimmy” Jones. While the former was brought up in our discussion regarding the topic of altruistic suicide, I feel that there are enough similarities for the connection to remain relevant beyond the face level of similarly-named individuals. From my understanding of the Jonestown massacre (based largely on this article: , Jim Jones elevated himself to an untouchable level: everything he said was the utmost truth and any dissent was simply ludicrous. While, of course, James Jones of Sweet Briar infamy was not preaching that our community should commit literal suicide, he did maintain an attitude that lacked room for dissent and promoted a Doomsday mentality. I personally sat in an Honors seminar for three hours, every Monday, with that man. On numerous occasions, he cast his supposedly empathetic gaze around the table to each of my classmates and me and said, “This whole Saving Sweet Briar thing just isn’t going to work; it’s impossible.” The culturally-ingrained portion of my socialization that conditioned me to believe and follow powerful (usually male) figures of authority was constantly put at odds with the alternative data and viewpoints coming from our alumnae efforts. I truly believe that Jimmy Jones’ attitude of defeat greatly impacted the mental states of all Sweet Briar students in his last few months. His utter commitment to his decided narrative, and his tenacious desire to transmit that narrative to all the members of the press and our community, are what called to mind his name during our discussion of altruistic suicide and the mentalities surrounding such instances.