REFLECTION

Had these blog posts not been conceived for the purpose of engaging with sociological commentary, I find it rather likely that my writings would have been ridden with socio political bias. What all three of my posts hold in common is their tendencies to ask sociological questions instead of making political statements, which ultimately made for a more factual, empathetic, and nuanced assessment of current events. 

The first post I made, “What It Means to Cite Title IX As A Law In Favor of Trans Inclusion in Sports: A Halbwachs v Schwartz Collective Memory Debate” forced me to see both sides of a debate by virtue of reckoning with a conceptual issue on which two sociologists had already disagreed. I wanted to select a current event topic that would entail preexisting sociological discourse so as to ensure my argument would be a nuanced lens into a highly polarized issue with two very exhausted poles. That I had ready access to the contrasting opinions of two sociologists made this post my favorite of the three. Furthermore, I was able to incorporate the historically differing opinions among congressmen as to whether statute should be interpreted literally or liberally. Without access to this preexisting debate I would’ve relied solely on the fact that TITLE IX said nothing about trans folks and jumped to the conclusion that it doesn’t serve as an adequate argument for trans inclusion in sports. 

But as mentioned, this post was not the only post where questions prevailed over answers. Post number three, “Critical Race Theory Bans And Olick’s Technologies of Memory,” identified two opposite ways in which technologies of memory could be lost. The only concrete statement the post seemed to make was that a net loss of technologies of memory is best avoidable. Before writing this post, I would’ve thought that banning virtually anything from school curriculums was bad. However, this post made me consider that sometimes technologies of memory in school curriculums can actually cause a loss of fact if they’re over-applied or not serving their designed functions. 

Another advantage of a sociological lens was that it challenged my understanding of sociopolitical issues by forcing me to consider the steps people have or haven’t taken to arrive at their stances. There was really no way to present these current events sociologically without dissecting the paths people take or neglect to take to arrive at their arguments on debated issues. The specific subjects I chose combined with the sociological analysis made me act as a journalist of sorts. There were times when I even tried to become unglued from neutrality and that combination wouldn’t let me. It was a check on a bad inclination. Had I chosen either less debatable topics or analyzed things politically rather than sociologically, I probably wouldn't have had three relatively nuanced posts. 

One commonality that all three of my posts shared was a focus on historical distortions, which wasn’t something I expected to happen going into this assignment. My first post talked about the potential for historical distortions in an application of TITLE IX and liberal statutory interpretations in general. My second post mentioned historical distortions that traditionalist, Edmund Burke claimed were stuck in the minds of those who supported the French Revolution. One could also see the focus on historical distortion in the post’s commentary about Trump’s radicalism and his delusional take on historically successful institutions. Furthermore, there seems to be a risk of historical distortion in Ron Desantis’s actions involving critical race theory and LGBTQ+ content in schools. My third post focused on the risk of historical distortion associated with the loss or presence of certain technologies of memory. 

I am most interested in this shared focus on historical distortion for the fact that time, trauma, and commemoration all have to do with the way we imagine and portray our pasts on an individual and institutional level. I, therefore, consider my focus on historical distortion appropriate given the class for which these blog posts were written. 

Another concept all three of my posts dealt with was technologies of memory. My first post focused on TITLE IX which, as a law, is essentially a time capsule for what people wanted for women in the seventies that can constantly be revisited as a way of remembering and refining our nation’s values. My second and third posts talked about educational technologies of memory, such as textbooks, specifically focusing on how America will depict its racial and sexual past before student eyes.