Sociology as I am sure you understand is about the study of people. That is us, how we communicate, interacted and quantity information at certain times about a variety of topics.
Some of these topics are important and others not so important.
Who are you and who are you speaking too? And are you reaching the right audience.
An audience must understand your jargon to fully comprehend your message. Depending on how you use this jargon those who understand will begin to shape ideas about you by evaluating the rhetoric you consistently use. Moreover they will already have a perception about who you are depending which organisations you represent.
Human behaviour shapes citizens outlook of how they treat you face to face or by merit. If you deliver what they want to hear and offer solutions, then this is what they will expect from you. If you share common values, colours or project shared symbols they will come to you quicker.
In London we have Big Ben right next to the Houses of Parliament. When the bells ring on the hour we are also reminded of something important happening in that area.
Politics in Britain is slightly different to other countries, we have a Privie Council from all over the country who commute to London to air their constituents views to a variety of political party members. We also have to Royals which make Britain unique by proxy.
Without shaping views about politics my point is simple: In any occupation there is a hierarchy and within that structure is a selection of gentlemen and women who speak for large numbers of people.
Depending on which catchment area you live in we can make certain assumptions about who will get what. But overall the assumption should be everybody in the same position should be treated the same way. The variables differ compared to other skilled occupations.
They differ by words used in communications, body language and a culpable palpable voice sounding crucial topics that consider a variety of norms.
When politicians get this consistently right, when the bell tolls you can safely assume all will be good when they step foot into the Houses of Parliament.
If you or they start of making jokes about things there is a danger of getting treated like a comedian instead of a politician. Equally many politicians are great when the cameras are on them, which amplifies their persona to a larger audience. This creates spin offs on various shows where they will get to prove there point. Anything they miss in communications with the world will be judged. Most good politicians in the public eye I imagine have been in the system a while, kept a low profile, served their constituents well and have support of other constituencies.
The best thing about a House for Parliament is other areas get to share and adapt with similar areas therefore making society change in a logical way. The problem seems to be the convincing rhetoric and understanding of what everyone wants to hear to push a personal agenda. Personal experience is the most powerful, so with that said how can we be sure the individual at some time in there life has had to deal with something traumatic?
Trauma creates facial ticks or makes words symbolically attached with triggers that could slow a man down like a rabbit on the road. They could lose temper and nobody understands why. This could lead to being labelled madness and then be treated as such. It could also change the way mad people are seen within the group. When they leave and walk down the road to Victoria or Charing Cross and see all the homeless people they might realise they are not insane too. See how easy it is to pass a word and amplify it into something else.
When you consistently exaggerate problems people start to hear less of you. Your image will keep you in the pack. Rather than see you as an Ace or a Diamond, they will imagine you as a Joker or top Trumps.