From Obeying Father to Questioning Men

Introduction

I grew up in a household where my father’s opinion carried more weight than anyone else’s. My mother had a stable and respectable job, earning almost as much as him, yet at home she shouldered nearly all domestic responsibilities. Once, she told me she would not dare to travel to another city alone to visit me, unless my father came along. This puzzled me: how could a capable woman, financially independent, still feel so bound to a man’s presence?

This personal discomfort became the seed of my sociological questioning. Over time, I learned to distinguish between critical thinking as a general academic skill, and critical approaches in the social sciences that investigate how power works in everyday life.

Critical Thinking vs Critical Approaches

A helpful description I once read explained that critical thinking often means probing arguments, checking evidence, and not accepting claims at face value—what the author called a “common-sense-plus” practice. It is a habit of mind valuable across disciplines.

Critical approaches in the social sciences, however, go further. They focus on power, hierarchy, and inequality. They ask: who benefits, who is silenced, and how are norms sustained? This is the level of analysis I needed to understand my mother’s choices—not just contradictions in her statements, but the cultural system that made dependence seem natural.

The Sociological Imagination

Here, C. Wright Mills’ idea of the sociological imagination is crucial. Mills urges us to connect personal troubles with public issues. My mother’s hesitation to act alone was not simply her own insecurity. It reflected broader patriarchal norms in my region, where a woman’s independence often remained secondary to her role as a wife.

With this lens, I began to see my private frustrations as part of a social pattern. My story was not unique—it was one small case of how patriarchy continues to organize everyday family life.

Theory in Action: Power and Gender

Michel Foucault argued that power is not only held by governments or institutions; it operates in everyday practices and norms. As he put it, this form of power “applies itself to immediate everyday life” (Foucault, 1980). My mother did not need external enforcement to obey patriarchal norms; she had internalized them.

Simone de Beauvoir, in The Second Sex, highlighted women’s social construction as the “Other,” always defined in relation to men. Even economically independent women are judged by how well they support husbands or families. My mother embodied this contradiction: she worked hard in her career, yet was still measured by her ability to defer at home.

Through these theories, critique becomes more than pointing out inconsistency—it reveals how power and gender intertwine to reproduce dependence.

Is Being Critical Rude?

When I voiced my questions, I was often told I was “mean” or “disrespectful.” Similarly, when I noticed female classmates becoming what I privately called “little wives,” always obeying boyfriends, I felt uneasy. Yet I did not confront them directly, because I knew that personal judgment could be mistaken for rudeness.

This tension shows why we must distinguish critique from rudeness.

• Rudeness attacks people.

• Critical thinking analyzes arguments.

• Sociological critique exposes structures and norms.

To be critical does not mean to insult. It means shifting the focus away from individuals and toward the cultural and structural forces shaping their choices.

My journey—from obeying father to questioning men—illustrates the movement from personal confusion to sociological critique. General critical thinking taught me to spot contradictions; sociological critique showed me how those contradictions are sustained by power.

Being critical is not the same as being rude. With the sociological imagination, critique becomes a way to link personal troubles to social structures, to ask how norms discipline us, and to imagine alternatives. The aim is not to belittle individuals but to illuminate the invisible power that shapes our everyday lives.

SOURCES

Beauvoir, S. de. (2011). The second sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1949)

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Harvester Press. Retrieved from https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.power/

Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.

Booker, M. (2021). What does ‘critical’ mean in social science writing, and how can I be critical in my essay? University of Edinburgh. Retrieved September 29, 2025, from https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/criticalturkey/what-does-critical-mean-in-social-science-writing-and-how-can-i-be-critical-in-my-essay/

Sep 29, 2025

When I first came across the term digital sociology, the words that immediately came to mind were algorithm, social media, stratification, inequality—and finally, exaggeration. In my country, China, the “digital turn” is everywhere: digital payment, digital education, digital healthcare. But I cannot help wondering: is this entirely a good thing?

We should be cautious of assuming that “our” digital lives are universal. In reality, due to economic conditions, geography, age and so on, not everyone experiences technology in the same way. Digital infrastructures often mask inequality rather than erase it. As Kate Orton-Johnson, Prior and Gregory (2015) argue, the digital is not a neutral abstraction, nor a panacea—it is relational, social, and embedded. Digital sociology is not about fetishizing technology as a determining force, but about studying the local practices that bring digital technologies and social relations into being.

My Interests

My main interest in digital sociology lies in how social media reshapes the experience of loneliness. Platforms were once celebrated as spaces of connection, but as Papacharissi (2012) reminds us, self-presentation online is always a performance for multiple audiences. In China, many Gen Z users curate a “safe self” under the pressure of context collapse, where family, colleagues, and strangers coexist on the same screen. This negotiation often intensifies feelings of isolation.

A second theme is the transformation of friendship, relationship and network. The rise of dazi culture in China shows how young people seek functional companionship—a gym buddy, a study partner, a “milk-tea mate.” These modular ties reveal the fragility of Gen Z intimacy, where “situationships” replace long-term commitments. Such relationships raise new questions about how intimacy and loneliness are redefined in digital contexts.

Finally, I am interested in how loneliness is stratified through the digital divide. Digital technologies create many new opportunities—for example, rural live-streaming provides new income streams—but they also obstruct opportunities for others. Older adults are disadvantaged by digitized healthcare, while poorer children rely on phones as digital childcare, creating new forms of isolation. These examples suggest that loneliness in the digital age is not only emotional but also structured by class, geography, and age.

In short, my interest is not simply in whether digital technologies make people lonelier, but in how platforms reconfigure the very forms of loneliness: through self-performance, modularized friendship, and unequal digital access.

Exciting Topics

From the slides, some keywords captured my attention immediately. What excites me most is the theme of self and identity, especially how it is socially constructed through digitally mediated communication. I am fascinated by how digital technologies reshape how people see the world, relate to friends, and—perhaps  importantly—form intimate relationships. I was also drawn to discussions of networks, social capital and friendship.

My Own Research

I want to explore two directions in my own research. The first is identity formation in digital contexts. As Joseph (2023) points out, algorithms do not merely recommend content but actively shape identity. They filter and rank information that influences interests, politics, and emotional or gender identities. In this sense, identity online is not only performed, as Papacharissi (2012) noted, but also continuously optimized and differentiated by algorithmic systems.

The second is loneliness across different groups. The experience of loneliness varies by age, class, and sexuality. For sexual minorities or older adults, digital spaces may both connect and exclude. In an atomized world, where everyone longs to love and be loved, loneliness often generates crises of trust and authenticity. At the same time, I am curious about the rise of the “loneliness economy,” where anything that fills emotional gaps is quickly commodified. The popularity of chatting with ChatGPT shows how easily people turn to digital companionship. I hope to investigate whether digital products can create commercial value while avoiding the production of further anxiety and negative emotions.

My Hopes

First, I want to strengthen my skills in computing and digital methods. As Angus Bancroft has noted, computers and cloud infrastructures offer convenience but also risks. I hope not only to use digital tools to analyze and predict social structures, but also to emphasize autonomy—to avoid being enslaved by tools, and instead use them to understand the entanglements that shape human life.

Second, I want to deepen my understanding of social and historical contexts. Every transformation is rooted in broader histories and structures, and building a strong theoretical foundation is essential. I hope to conduct research that is both rigorous and socially relevant.

Sources

Kate Orton-Johnson, Nick Prior and Karen Gregory (2015) Sociological Imagination: Digital Sociology and the Future of the Discipline

Joseph, J. (2023). The algorithmic self: how AI is reshaping human identity, introspection, and agency.

Papacharissi, Z. (2012). Without you, I’m nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1989–2006.

Angus Bancroft (2025) Ethics of the interface and the right to risk – Self trust, self computing and disability

 

Sep 22, 2025