Who am I according to Professor Dan, the Sociologist?

ok, so in my Sociology class today, we talked about social control in everyday life and things surrounding that topic. My prof had us write down 20 things really quickly, literally he gave us like a minute to write them down, answering the prompt, "Who Am I?" Just words or phrases that came to our minds in that short amount of time... I only got about 14 done when he told us to stop and we discussed our answers. This is what I ended up writing, and in this order:
1. Lover of God
2. follower of Christ
3. friend
4. daughter
5. sister
6. student
7. artist
8. athlete
9. sinner
10. enthusiastic
11. funny
12. disease-stricken
13. competitive
14. prideful

According to my prof, this is a common test that sociologists use, and the results show us the difference between traditional society and modern society (or, postmodern some say) that we live in today. The number one thing we wrote down is what is called our "Master Status." In modern society, it is common for women to have something associated with their family role as their master status, and for men it was common to have something associated with their job or school role as their master status. Whereas, in traditional society, it was simply the family clan for both genders as their master status. Out of the 20 (or so) things we wrote down, we were supposed to categorize them in these four ways-- Roles (daughter, friend), Biological (disease-stricken), Psychological (enthusiastic, funny), and something he called Oceanic (which I don't have any of). I thought this was an interesting little test thing.

Anyway, my prof went on to finish talking about social control in everyday life... and he brought up this slide he had titled, "The Modern 'Divided Self'," and went on to explain that in modernity, there is no way one person can be a completely "good student" and at the same time be a "good religious/moral person." We have so many different social roles that we play, that it pulls us apart. Modern society creates its own set of moral rules, and they're so distinct that you cannot live in modernity with traditional moral rules. That was the claim he made (he always makes a claim that is the main concept of that day's lesson). Moving on to other slides, he showed us a slide on William Isaac Thomas, who wrote a book with his wife that took a whole new view on morality in traditional vs. modern societies. The two things that came from the book were- 1.) things defined as real are real in their consequences, and 2.) it was the first systematic thorough theory of the "social construction of reality". So, basically, something isn't real unless you think it is? You construct your own reality, your own truth? You make true something, it isn't just true? Why does it seem like we just throw around the word "truth" like it's of the same value of saying a word like "cool"?? Why does it make me mad?

I'll probably come back to this post and add more... or just make another one tonight. Probably. I'd like to.

But now I have to go walk to Lebaron Hall and take my first Soc. 134 exam, and get an A on it. Then I have to come back and study for my third test this week, which is tomorrow morning. As well as... do my homework for both of my classes tomorrow. Sweet action..
:-(