"The ability to formulate an identity that allows comfortable movement between worlds will be at the very heart of achieving a truly global soul" (Suarez-Orozco, p. 221). This is the challenge that stands before us. As globalization progresses, so does the blending of cultures. With this blending, comes a loss of some of the original ingredients. For example, blending 100% blueberries with 100% raspberries makes a 50/50 blend. This means that the new product isn't as blueberry or raspberry-like as its predecessors and its' offspring has the potential to be even less-so. As people immigrate into a country, the country's original country is diluted and the immigrants' original culture is greatly diluted. With this slow loss of cultural identity, we need to begin looking at new definitions of identity. Carola Suarez-Orozco proposes the idea of a global soul, or an identity that transcends culture as we currently know it.
Clara E. Rodriguez discusses what it means to be Latino in the United States today. What make Latino culture different in her eyes is that there is flexibility in people's views. Rather than black and white, Latinos tend to have varying shades of tan, brown and caucasian colored skin. These skin colors tend to be interpreted differently based on the context of whatever setting Clara was in. For example, her tan skin was considered beautiful and attractive in her neighborhood in Brooklyn; however, the same hue was considered different by others when in the business district of Manhattan. Similarly, the term Latino has a certain flexibility unto itself. The term refers to a broad array of nationalities that has become grouped together. Again, this is leading to a slight loss of culture as people who refer to themselves as Latino are essentially diluting their original culture.
John Tehranian writes about the history of the term Middle East and its' transformation over time. It has never referred to one definitive set of lands, rather it encompasses varying definitions and boundaries according to whoever is using the term. Unfortunately, the term itself has been identified as something having to do with concepts such as terrorism and war. Although these concepts are not exclusive to the term Middle Eastern, they are certainly widely recognized as related. With this relation comes a grouping. The people who are classified under this broad umbrella must live with the accompanying thoughts, even if they aren't relative to their lives. For example, people may identify themselves as Middle Eastern because they are from Egypt. When walking down the street, someone yells a racist remark to them because they're Middle Eastern and that person is upset about something that happened in Morocco. The disparity is that this person must suffer because of the broad title they've been assigned, even though they've done nothing and don't even belong to the specific nation the person was angry at!
These three articles all reference a similar idea: we're slowly losing our purest sense of cultural identities as we progress through time. It makes me wonder what the world will be like 100 years from now. Will there be any ethnicities that are still pure? Will new blended ethnicities become the new standards? I believe Suarez-Orozco had the right idea when discussed the idea that we need to create a new type of ethnicity, more of a global ethnicity. We've been using the term human race for centuries now, but maybe now is the time to change what that means and begin taking it literally. If we can switch over to the idea of a human race, then we can celebrate differences rather than letting them define us.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Final Reflection
I came into this class with one overarching goal: to learn a new perspective on diversity and the issues surrounding it. I always had an idea what diversity meant, but had never lived it or experienced it in a meaningful enough way to truly grasp the entire kingdom it covers. Race, ability, politics, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation and so much more comprise what diversity covers. As the weeks went by, attending class and reading more from The Meaning of Difference (2012) taught me that although there are many aspects to diversity, there are also patterns that end up repeating themselves.
One such pattern that seemed to arise in each of the readings were the ideas of identity and classification. These two ideas go hand-in-hand as choosing an identity typically implies that you will also be choosing a classification. One article that stood out in particular in reference to this concept wrote that humans rarely identified as anything unique in ancient times. This was mainly because the lack of technology and transportation kept people from travelling to foreign lands. Without this sort of travelling, there was little mixing of ethnicities, ideas and lifestyles. With everyone essentially belonging to a monoculture, there was no need for the word 'diversity' to even exist yet! What's most telling about this is that diversity and the concepts surrounding it are clearly man-made ideas; it was never instinctual for us to begin separating each other into unique identities based on various characteristics.
So then why the creation of diversity? What is the aim of diversity? If there is one thing the modern world has come to embrace, it's order. We crave understanding and do best when things are orderly and explainable. Science has taken us away from the age of questioning and into the age of answers. When we don't have answers, we find ways to create them. When topics are neatly explained and are logical in our minds, we feel a certain confidence. Unfortunately, the world is an infinitely complex idea with countless topics being incapable of quantification. When we come upon topics that confuse and befuddle, we begin searching for reason.
As globalization has progressed, the world itself has become a melting pot. Not only have people mixed with each other, but we also simply know more about different people and what/who exist in the world. We now know there are people that don't look like us and that have different lifestyles. There are people capable of different things and who like different things. Who are these people?? How do they fit into my once neat and orderly monoculture? How can I begin to understand their differences? This is where classification and identity begin to appear.
It would never be enough to simply know that someone is different than you based on the color of their skin; people would need more answers like "Why are there so many others that look similar?" or "Why is their skin a different color?" As we try to find answers, we begin to find quantatative differences: eye color, hair color, skin color, language, religion. All these attributes become recognizable and explainable as we begin to classify these attributes. I grew up in a land full of brown-haired people, so who are these people with yellow hair and why are there so many? "Oh, they're from Europe and are known as Europeans. They're different from you."
These classifications began to separate people into nice orderly groups so we could better understand our differences. As the world became more complex, so did our classification systems. Suddenly, classifying people soley based on appearance wasn't enough, there were other attributes to be sorted out: religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics etc. These too made people vary and deserved classification. This all seems well and good, except many of these attributes belong to a spectrum, rather than mutually exclusive categories.
In "Where's the Rulebook for Sex Verification" (Dreger, 2012), she reviewed the countless attributes the human body has that lead to what we have classified as gender. While most people believe gender classification is as easy as looking at the baby's genitals, there are actually many other factors that might disprove the genitals. Various chemical balances in the body lead it to develop in certain ways; when the balances lean one way or the other, a series of development begins that leads people in the direction of a gender. Along the way, these balances can take several different turns, all of which lead to slight variations in the person's anatomy. Suddenly, the person who was born with male genitals realizes that they have the chemical composition of a female and the ovaries to prove it! "What does this mean? There are males and there are females!" It means that perhaps our idea of classification is flawed and cannot perform like we expect it to. Perhaps we need to look elsewhere to learn about each other.
This is where the idea of identity enters. Identity is a construct of man that is the basis of each of our classification. While there is little we can do to change our physical classifications, there is much we can do to change our identities. Things like religion and politics suddenly become based upon our own decisions. This is where the idea of diversity enters. Suddenly we have a myriad of choices to make in order to create our unique identity. These choices are a direct result of diversity and only exist because of the diversity of the human race! This is a mixed blessing as people who are faced with so many options can still have difficulty trying to fit into any one identity.
The problem then becomes not that diversity exists, rather that the concept of diversity exists. Since the beginning of the human race, many of the characteristics that make-up our diverse population have existed. These characteristics only became problematic when we tried to organize them. Suddenly we were taking everything that was natural and forcing it into an unnatural concept. This in-turn forced and is forcing people to make decisions about how they fit in to their society. Will they accept what's expected of them, or will they challenge people's preconceived notions of their identity? This is what is so difficult about diversity.
The relief comes in the same form as the problem: diversity. While we are obsessed with trying to classify everyone, we are also recognizing the differences and expanding as we go. In the late 1800s, there were only three ethnicities recognized by the United States; currently, there are over 20. So now we know we're all different and are still trying to make sense of everything; however, we're becoming more aware of this and are expanding to make room. It's exciting to live during this time because there has been a dramatic shift in consciousness regarding this topic in the past few decades with much visible growth. As long as we can continue to celebrate differences rather than simply pointing them out, we will grow.
As we continue into the future, my hope is that we will continue expanding our understanding without questioning identities.
One such pattern that seemed to arise in each of the readings were the ideas of identity and classification. These two ideas go hand-in-hand as choosing an identity typically implies that you will also be choosing a classification. One article that stood out in particular in reference to this concept wrote that humans rarely identified as anything unique in ancient times. This was mainly because the lack of technology and transportation kept people from travelling to foreign lands. Without this sort of travelling, there was little mixing of ethnicities, ideas and lifestyles. With everyone essentially belonging to a monoculture, there was no need for the word 'diversity' to even exist yet! What's most telling about this is that diversity and the concepts surrounding it are clearly man-made ideas; it was never instinctual for us to begin separating each other into unique identities based on various characteristics.
So then why the creation of diversity? What is the aim of diversity? If there is one thing the modern world has come to embrace, it's order. We crave understanding and do best when things are orderly and explainable. Science has taken us away from the age of questioning and into the age of answers. When we don't have answers, we find ways to create them. When topics are neatly explained and are logical in our minds, we feel a certain confidence. Unfortunately, the world is an infinitely complex idea with countless topics being incapable of quantification. When we come upon topics that confuse and befuddle, we begin searching for reason.
As globalization has progressed, the world itself has become a melting pot. Not only have people mixed with each other, but we also simply know more about different people and what/who exist in the world. We now know there are people that don't look like us and that have different lifestyles. There are people capable of different things and who like different things. Who are these people?? How do they fit into my once neat and orderly monoculture? How can I begin to understand their differences? This is where classification and identity begin to appear.
It would never be enough to simply know that someone is different than you based on the color of their skin; people would need more answers like "Why are there so many others that look similar?" or "Why is their skin a different color?" As we try to find answers, we begin to find quantatative differences: eye color, hair color, skin color, language, religion. All these attributes become recognizable and explainable as we begin to classify these attributes. I grew up in a land full of brown-haired people, so who are these people with yellow hair and why are there so many? "Oh, they're from Europe and are known as Europeans. They're different from you."
These classifications began to separate people into nice orderly groups so we could better understand our differences. As the world became more complex, so did our classification systems. Suddenly, classifying people soley based on appearance wasn't enough, there were other attributes to be sorted out: religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics etc. These too made people vary and deserved classification. This all seems well and good, except many of these attributes belong to a spectrum, rather than mutually exclusive categories.
In "Where's the Rulebook for Sex Verification" (Dreger, 2012), she reviewed the countless attributes the human body has that lead to what we have classified as gender. While most people believe gender classification is as easy as looking at the baby's genitals, there are actually many other factors that might disprove the genitals. Various chemical balances in the body lead it to develop in certain ways; when the balances lean one way or the other, a series of development begins that leads people in the direction of a gender. Along the way, these balances can take several different turns, all of which lead to slight variations in the person's anatomy. Suddenly, the person who was born with male genitals realizes that they have the chemical composition of a female and the ovaries to prove it! "What does this mean? There are males and there are females!" It means that perhaps our idea of classification is flawed and cannot perform like we expect it to. Perhaps we need to look elsewhere to learn about each other.
This is where the idea of identity enters. Identity is a construct of man that is the basis of each of our classification. While there is little we can do to change our physical classifications, there is much we can do to change our identities. Things like religion and politics suddenly become based upon our own decisions. This is where the idea of diversity enters. Suddenly we have a myriad of choices to make in order to create our unique identity. These choices are a direct result of diversity and only exist because of the diversity of the human race! This is a mixed blessing as people who are faced with so many options can still have difficulty trying to fit into any one identity.
The problem then becomes not that diversity exists, rather that the concept of diversity exists. Since the beginning of the human race, many of the characteristics that make-up our diverse population have existed. These characteristics only became problematic when we tried to organize them. Suddenly we were taking everything that was natural and forcing it into an unnatural concept. This in-turn forced and is forcing people to make decisions about how they fit in to their society. Will they accept what's expected of them, or will they challenge people's preconceived notions of their identity? This is what is so difficult about diversity.
The relief comes in the same form as the problem: diversity. While we are obsessed with trying to classify everyone, we are also recognizing the differences and expanding as we go. In the late 1800s, there were only three ethnicities recognized by the United States; currently, there are over 20. So now we know we're all different and are still trying to make sense of everything; however, we're becoming more aware of this and are expanding to make room. It's exciting to live during this time because there has been a dramatic shift in consciousness regarding this topic in the past few decades with much visible growth. As long as we can continue to celebrate differences rather than simply pointing them out, we will grow.
As we continue into the future, my hope is that we will continue expanding our understanding without questioning identities.
Thirteen Key Supreme Court Cases and the Civil War Amendments / Segregation: The Rising Costs for America
This first article is a review of 13 of the more important supreme court cases. The authors defined "important" as cases that produced widespread social changes for a particular demographic. The reason I say a particular demographic is because the US Constitution along with all its' amendments secure individual's right, rather than the entire nation. The original constitution was very exclusionary and benefitted a very narrow demographic. The way our country is set-up (federalism), individuals have the right to amend and change laws/policies over time to create change. These cases represent cases that set new precedents for social change, meaning the results allowed for others in similar circumstances to benefit from the results. For example, women's suffrage was added to allow women the right to vote. The author's argument is that these cases, while they produced widespread change, still only benefitted one demographic at a time rather than the entire population.
James Carr discusses the rising costs America faces due to unfair practices in housing. The problem is that certain lower-class demographics are being targeted by the housing industry. They prevent them from upward mobility by putting out road block after road block to keep them concentrated in undesirable areas. By creating excessive costs and other such unfair practices, the real estate industry can essentially prevent certain people from living in certain neighborhoods. Due to this, these people will remain less affluent and will have their lives directed by this disparity. What most people don't realize, is that by keeping these people "down" like this, we're creating more costs for the United States as a whole. If we keep increasing this population (lower-class), we're increasing the number of people accessing social programs such as food stamps, welfare and unemployment. This is slowly going to trickle up in my mind as the people who are just slightly above lower-class will no longer be able to remain there; instead, they will succumb to the increased costs and become a part of the lower-class. This cycle could continue until the majority of people in the nation are being supported by a vast minority.
These two articles were interesting because they offer a unique perspective of diversity issues: namely from the viewpoint of politics and economics. It's easy to understand diversity as a social issue, but it's a completely different topic to understand it as a political/economic issue. Suddenly, there are larger implications to many of the decisions made. When the outcomes of those court cases were made, social change occurred to a specific group. When these outcomes happened, economic changes were also made and will likely affect everyone connected to the economy (which is everyone in the nation). This makes me wonder if this could potentially sway people's minds when it comes to social issues. Would conservative wealthy people be more apt to support social programs if they knew it would decrease costs to them long-term? This mind-set might be the only way to appeal to people and businesses that are built around the "bottom line."
James Carr discusses the rising costs America faces due to unfair practices in housing. The problem is that certain lower-class demographics are being targeted by the housing industry. They prevent them from upward mobility by putting out road block after road block to keep them concentrated in undesirable areas. By creating excessive costs and other such unfair practices, the real estate industry can essentially prevent certain people from living in certain neighborhoods. Due to this, these people will remain less affluent and will have their lives directed by this disparity. What most people don't realize, is that by keeping these people "down" like this, we're creating more costs for the United States as a whole. If we keep increasing this population (lower-class), we're increasing the number of people accessing social programs such as food stamps, welfare and unemployment. This is slowly going to trickle up in my mind as the people who are just slightly above lower-class will no longer be able to remain there; instead, they will succumb to the increased costs and become a part of the lower-class. This cycle could continue until the majority of people in the nation are being supported by a vast minority.
These two articles were interesting because they offer a unique perspective of diversity issues: namely from the viewpoint of politics and economics. It's easy to understand diversity as a social issue, but it's a completely different topic to understand it as a political/economic issue. Suddenly, there are larger implications to many of the decisions made. When the outcomes of those court cases were made, social change occurred to a specific group. When these outcomes happened, economic changes were also made and will likely affect everyone connected to the economy (which is everyone in the nation). This makes me wonder if this could potentially sway people's minds when it comes to social issues. Would conservative wealthy people be more apt to support social programs if they knew it would decrease costs to them long-term? This mind-set might be the only way to appeal to people and businesses that are built around the "bottom line."
Beyond the Closet / "Dude, You're a Fag" / Sexual Orientation and Sex in Women's Lives
Steven Seidman discusses the role of identity as it pertains to sexuality. He begins by defining what he calls one's "core identity" versus an "identity thread." "A core identity will be a key part of one's public presentation; it will carry over to diverse situations and remain part of varied social roles...By contrast, approaching identity as a thread suggests that an identity is important or self-defining in only some situations" (Seidman, p. 269). " Your core identity is something that influences all your major decisions in life and basically represents who you are and how you think. An identity thread is more representative of one's personality and the shifting that can come with this. Loving a specific band for a period in your life is an example of a thread; whereas being religious is more of a core identity. The distinction of these two labels relates to sexual identity in that homosexuals were labeling their sexual identity as a thread rather than a core identity while being "in the closet." In a heterosexual dominated society, people were afraid to change their core identities regardless of how they felt. Instead, they would change their identity threads to suggest an identity rather than being able to live their lives completely immersed in that identity.
C.J. Pascoe has a unique perspective on homophobia, particularly adolescent boys and homophobia. She and other scholars have found that homophobia in young boys tends to be more of a sign of defining masculinity rather than hatred. Apparently, by avoiding homosexuals and pointing them out and/or teasing them, boys are helping to define who they are and what gender/sexual orientation they identify with. This is not to say that this is the case across the board, simply that this tends to be the case with this age group. I can understand this as young children tend to not have such deep opinions formulated early in life and really can't make informed decisions yet. It would make sense for their teasing and other gestures to be a sign of internal changes rather than them truly making a statement.
Esther Rothblum reviews the definitions surrounding various women's sexuality identities. Her main concern is that people tend to see identities as being mutually exclusive. For example, this would imply that once a woman makes the decision that she is a lesbian, she should also rule out loving men in any sexual way. This is clearly impossible for most people to do, as identities are not mutually exclusive. There tends to be overlap and grey areas in defining women's sexual identities. For example, Rothblum discusses how sexual behavior and sexual identity are often different (just because you are a lesbian doesn't mean you engage in sexual activity with women). Due to all this confusion, there is even more confusion for those trying to "figure themselves out." For people already having difficulties trying to figure themselves out, now there are even more confusing variables to consider.
The trend and theme these articles all follow is around the idea of identity. For each of these topics, identifying oneself is at the heart of the debate. It's so interesting that our society has programmed us all to believe we need to fit into certain categories as opposed to simply living without questions. If you meet a stranger on the street and begin talking with them, it shouldn't change your perception of them if you later find out they're gay. For this exact reason, it would make sense that these classifications aren't necessary and really only cause strife. When things are scientific and quantatative, they are easier to classify. When things are abstract, like sexual identity, they are far more difficult to classify. The victims are the people feeling that they need to identify themselves neatly into one of these categories even if one doesn't describe exactly who they are. This seems extremely difficult!
Real Indians / Asian American Panethnicity / "Race" and the Construction of Human Identity
Eva Garroutte writes about the challenges facing what it means to be "Indian." She doesn't discuss the day-to-day life, rather she is reviewing the definitions in place and not in place that are meant to classify humans into various ethnicities. Most tribes in the Unites States have classification standards based on blood line, meaning you have to have a certain percentage of Indian blood in order to be accepted into their tribe. Some tribes have no such requirements and simply ensure that potential members are of a direct lineage. What makes all this so controversial is that by controlling the standards by which people are classified, they can control other aspects of life associated with the classification. There are certain benefits that come with belonging to a tribe such as rights to land, access to money generated by the tribe and the right to live and function on a reservation. By controlling the entrance requirements, the tribes can effectively control these other parts too. This takes away from what it means to belong to a tribe and begins making the process more political than anything else.
Yen Espiritu discusses what it means to be Pan-Asian and how it can be beneficial and detrimental. The benefits of being classified as such is that they are a unified front of varying ethnicities. Especially in a country like the Unites States where Asian-based ethnicities are statistically minorities, developing a panethnic classification allows several smaller ethnicities to combine and gain strength. The difficulties are obvious in that this classification system discourages individuality and can cause internal strife among individual groups living under the panethnic title. Although this is the classification that has developed throughout the years, it's important to know that this was not always the case; immigrants coming to the United States never intended to be put in an umbrella-like ethnic category, rather they were hoping to maintain their culture in a different land.
Audrey Smedley reviews the history of ethnic labeling and the importances surrounding the development. In ancient times, people were less concerned with identities as there was little overlap of societies due to lack of technology/transportation. Identities were changing and individuals could join different identities if they wanted to. Starting with more of the classical era, people began classifying others based on their lineage and occupations. It was very important to know someone's ancestors to get a better understanding of who the person in front of you was. As people began to travel the world more and more, diversity became a reality; once this began being noticed, people began classifying each other in almost an attempt to organize the chaos that was seemingly a result of different ethnicities intermarrying.
These articles all deal with one main topic: the classification of ethnicities. It was so interesting to read these articles and to see the differences in viewpoints and also the many similarities. What ties them together is the idea that we need to be classified at all. It was interesting to think of older times when classification wasn't needed as people didn't really travel at all. It proves that ethnicities and the classification system is truly a construct of man. The most unfortunate part of all is that societies are continuing to interrelate and insisting that we continue to need this system. As backgrounds become increasingly diverse, this begins to alienate people and make them feel less a part of something. For example, a person with a diverse background may not be more than 20% of any one origin; this might lead them to believe that they don't belong to the system we've created. What box are they to check off? Will it be enough to gain access to Native American lands? Will it be enough to claim citizenship? Attempting to classify inherently creates these problems and will only lead to more complex problems as globalization continues.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Class and the Transition to Adulthood / Cause of Death: Inequality / Why Are Droves of Unqualified, Unprepared Kids Getting Into Our Top Colleges? Because Their Dads Are Alumni
In this article by Annette Lareau and Elliot Weininger, social class and it's long-term implications are discussed. The authors essentially break the class system into two basic systems: the lower/working class and the upper class. They review several different examples of parenting techniques and how they differ from class to class. For example, upper class parents tend to engage children in conversation and challenge them to communicate on higher levels; whereas lower/working class parents tend to give mostly directives to their children who are expected to follow. Similarly, lower/working class parents tend to let their kids learn through free play and leisure time whereas upper class parents may enroll their children in sports or activities meant to enrich their children. These parenting choices have long-term consequences they lead to both advantages and disadvantages later in life for both classes.
Alejandro Reuss discusses statistics surrounding inequality in the United States, and around the world. There are many statistics demonstrating the benefits of higher education, having upper class background and living in certain areas. It's no surprise that people with more years of education behind them tend to have better health and experience far fewer health problems later in life. Likewise, these same people tend to make better decisions and die from fewer preventable accidents each year. What's interesting is that when you compare some of these statistics to the rest of the world, the US does not give people a leg-up in every instance. For example, you would think that a lower class US citizen would have it better health-wise than a similar lower class citizen in a European country because of the idea that US citizens have all the benefits in the world. Unfortunately, this is inaccurate and lower class US citizens are typically unhealthier than their European counterparts. What's interesting is that in contrast, upper class US citizens are better off healthwise than their European counterparts.
John Larew discusses the bias involved with accepting kids into colleges. Harvard, one of the most selective colleges in the world, is three times more likely to accept a student if one of their parents attended previously. These "legacies," receive special treatment because of their lineage and the people that came before them - this is what makes them stand out. These statistics weren't exclusive to Harvard, Larew had statistics from most of the ivy league and they were all similar enough to indicate a wide-spread discrepency. Not only does this make the entrance process unfair because it's not based on merit, but it also creates a lineage of accepted people and keeps the unaccepted away.
These articles all deal with benefits people receive early on in life. Whatever shape these may take, acceptance to college, wealthy background or an enriched childhood, they all lead to long-term differences later in life. In a way it's a bit discouraging because it basically means that whatever your lot in life, you're likely going to end up a product of that environment. This is not to say that things couldn't get exceptionally better or worse, just that this is what will happen to the majority of people. This can be frustrating as none of us can choose the way we're raised, so many people are left with a lot more ground to make-up in life, leaving them disadvantaged in so many ways.
Public Transit / "Can You See the Rainbow?" / Not Blind Enough
These three articles describe various hardships that people with disabilities face. The first article documents the struggles of a wheelchair-bound man, the second a color blind woman and the third a legally blind woman. Although these are all different disabilities, they all face similar challenges and have lives that are affected in similar ways.
John Hockenberry's article describes what it's like for him to access public transportation, more specifically taxis, in New York City and the difficulties that come with it. Basically, the majority of taxi drivers see a wheelchair as a burden and will skip over him in order to avoid having to load his wheelchair into their trunk. They all have similar poor excuses and tend to make the author extremely angry. He recounts one episode in particular where he ended up damaging the taxi purposely following being denied a ride. He literally broke the door off and scared the driver so that he could experience having the upper hand for once.
Sally French recounts her experiences growing up with the inability to see color. Not being able to see colors leads to additional vision difficulties and decreases the overall ability to see clearly. Since she wasn't blind, people were often in denial and expected her to be able to function just the same as they did. Unfortunately, this was impossible and often left her feeling very alone. It would've almost been easier if she was completely blind because then people would at least not have unrealistic expectations for her. Fortunately she was able to go to a special school for children with vision impairments which allowed her to flourish in a world designed for her.
Not Blind Enough documents the struggles of the author who is considered legally blind. The problem for her was that legally blind does not imply total blindness, rather it means that her vision is impaired enough for her to fit into a particular classification system for disabilities. Oddly enough, this has caused people to react adversely to her, often expecting her to be completely blind. She discussed that people would often be angry with her once they realized she could see to an extent - for some reason people thought it was disrespectful to use the term blind in reference to someone who isn't 100% blind.
For these three people, their disability has caused a myriad of emotions throughout their lives. What makes it most difficult is that many of these emotions are in response to other's ignorance and harassment regarding their disability. These people all understand who they are and are accepting of it; it's everyone else who is making their lives more difficult. I never really thought of this perspective and how a disability is almost not so until others begin to judge and compare you. These people were all fine with who they were and understood their physical differences and the implications. It's not until society begins comparing them to others and expecting things that their lives become more difficult. This makes me think of how wonderful the Universal Design for Learning is since it aims to not point out differences, rather it makes differences obsolete by catering to all one one level. This is the only true way to level the playing field and to prevent those with disabilities from feeling isolated.
John Hockenberry's article describes what it's like for him to access public transportation, more specifically taxis, in New York City and the difficulties that come with it. Basically, the majority of taxi drivers see a wheelchair as a burden and will skip over him in order to avoid having to load his wheelchair into their trunk. They all have similar poor excuses and tend to make the author extremely angry. He recounts one episode in particular where he ended up damaging the taxi purposely following being denied a ride. He literally broke the door off and scared the driver so that he could experience having the upper hand for once.
Sally French recounts her experiences growing up with the inability to see color. Not being able to see colors leads to additional vision difficulties and decreases the overall ability to see clearly. Since she wasn't blind, people were often in denial and expected her to be able to function just the same as they did. Unfortunately, this was impossible and often left her feeling very alone. It would've almost been easier if she was completely blind because then people would at least not have unrealistic expectations for her. Fortunately she was able to go to a special school for children with vision impairments which allowed her to flourish in a world designed for her.
Not Blind Enough documents the struggles of the author who is considered legally blind. The problem for her was that legally blind does not imply total blindness, rather it means that her vision is impaired enough for her to fit into a particular classification system for disabilities. Oddly enough, this has caused people to react adversely to her, often expecting her to be completely blind. She discussed that people would often be angry with her once they realized she could see to an extent - for some reason people thought it was disrespectful to use the term blind in reference to someone who isn't 100% blind.
For these three people, their disability has caused a myriad of emotions throughout their lives. What makes it most difficult is that many of these emotions are in response to other's ignorance and harassment regarding their disability. These people all understand who they are and are accepting of it; it's everyone else who is making their lives more difficult. I never really thought of this perspective and how a disability is almost not so until others begin to judge and compare you. These people were all fine with who they were and understood their physical differences and the implications. It's not until society begins comparing them to others and expecting things that their lives become more difficult. This makes me think of how wonderful the Universal Design for Learning is since it aims to not point out differences, rather it makes differences obsolete by catering to all one one level. This is the only true way to level the playing field and to prevent those with disabilities from feeling isolated.
Whiteness as an "Unmarked" Cultural Category / America's Changing Color Lines
The first of these tow similar articles was written by Ruth Frankenberg and reviews "whiteness" and all the concepts surrounding it in the United States. The second article, written by Jennifer Lee, reviews the changes in the race and ethnicity statistics in the Unites States. Together, these articles help to clarify what race and ethnicity means in the United States.
Frankenburg's article was very relatable as I've always identified myself as being white. She begins to analyze this concept further, delving into what it means for whites to be other ethnicities. In the US, white people are so dominant that it has become a norm for whiteness to be considered the majority. She gave an example that people living in Central American may listen to Latin music as opposed to regular music - "regular" music being the music white people typically listen to. The reason she claims white people to be an unmarked cultural category is because "white" doesn't imply a true origin. The US is a melting pot full of many white people, but besides referring to themelves as "Americans," there is no one nation of origin to identify with. For this reason, white people become a category that can only be compared to other ethnicities for identification purposes, it may not be readily identified independently.
Lee's article sheds much light on what the United States is becoming and how majorities are shifting. Just like white people having no single origin to relate to, our country is becoming more and more mixed with significantly more people identifying themselves as multiracial. These people are not just between major ethnic groups such as Latino and Asian, but between groups and sub-groups and sub-groups of those groups and so on. Basically what is happening is that we're all becoming more and more diverse with fewer and fewer majorities. It seems like eventually the majority will be multiracial people who may not be able to identify with a specific origin, much like whites are currently unable to.
This makes me wonder what people will eventually identify themselves with. It was always my hope that people would identify as "Americans." I think this is difficult for some people who take pride in their heritage, but I wonder if it will become easier and easier as people become less a part of that original identity. It would be great if the melting pot could truly produce a new identity, one that is a mixture. This mixture would no longer be considered a mixture, rather a new race or perception of identity that lays to rest differences. It would be great for the people of the US to take pride in this nation and understand that it's made-up of nothing but different people and to embrace that. When we try to identify with our past, it makes the present and future a bit more difficult as it stratifies our current situation. A new blanket identity would be unifying and might help to truly end the very concept of ethnicity itself.
Frankenburg's article was very relatable as I've always identified myself as being white. She begins to analyze this concept further, delving into what it means for whites to be other ethnicities. In the US, white people are so dominant that it has become a norm for whiteness to be considered the majority. She gave an example that people living in Central American may listen to Latin music as opposed to regular music - "regular" music being the music white people typically listen to. The reason she claims white people to be an unmarked cultural category is because "white" doesn't imply a true origin. The US is a melting pot full of many white people, but besides referring to themelves as "Americans," there is no one nation of origin to identify with. For this reason, white people become a category that can only be compared to other ethnicities for identification purposes, it may not be readily identified independently.
Lee's article sheds much light on what the United States is becoming and how majorities are shifting. Just like white people having no single origin to relate to, our country is becoming more and more mixed with significantly more people identifying themselves as multiracial. These people are not just between major ethnic groups such as Latino and Asian, but between groups and sub-groups and sub-groups of those groups and so on. Basically what is happening is that we're all becoming more and more diverse with fewer and fewer majorities. It seems like eventually the majority will be multiracial people who may not be able to identify with a specific origin, much like whites are currently unable to.
This makes me wonder what people will eventually identify themselves with. It was always my hope that people would identify as "Americans." I think this is difficult for some people who take pride in their heritage, but I wonder if it will become easier and easier as people become less a part of that original identity. It would be great if the melting pot could truly produce a new identity, one that is a mixture. This mixture would no longer be considered a mixture, rather a new race or perception of identity that lays to rest differences. It would be great for the people of the US to take pride in this nation and understand that it's made-up of nothing but different people and to embrace that. When we try to identify with our past, it makes the present and future a bit more difficult as it stratifies our current situation. A new blanket identity would be unifying and might help to truly end the very concept of ethnicity itself.
Who is Black? One Nation's Definition / The Evolution of Identity
James Davis' article begins with a powerful interview with a blind african american man. He discusses how since he literally can't see skin color, he realizes how trivial of a divider it really is. He goes on to say that he knows some black people that act more like white people and vice versa; for these reasons, it's clear that skin color is just one level of information that our eyes take-in. What's of the utmost importance is how we think and live our lives. These actions are what define us as they are all that is real - skin color is simply descriptive information taken in by the eyes.
Both articles go on to discuss the actual definitions of race in the United States and how trivial a process it can be. In the late 1800s, there were only three categories of race recognized in the US. Currently, there are about 27 unique races of mixes that the US recognizes. Clearly, these were all present in the population in the 1800s, but were not recognized until much later. I can't imagine what it must have felt like to not be represented on something as basic as your ethnic background.
Davis goes on to talk more specifically about African Americans and what it means to be considered black in the US. When is someone considered black? Is it when their skin color is a dark black, or is it when their genetics reveal a certain percentage of african heritage? People throughout history have argued this as light-skinned black people receive critical feedback for not being black, even though their genetics might contain more african heritage than a darker skinned person. So then what is the criteria? Most people have used the "one drop" rule; which basically says that one drop of african blood in you makes you an african. Due to this criteria, there is a variety of skin colors that fit into this criteria.
This article makes me re-think race in general as most of the time it is so closely affiliated with skin color. Seeing people with lighter skin who are actually black proves that our eyes can only help so much with racial identification. Like many of our heritages in the United States, race too is a mixture from your past. Unless you have a pure bloodline, you're likely a number of different races, regardless of your skin color. What's interesting to me is that we as humans tend to choose an identity rather than simply accepting ourselves mixes. Why is it so important for us to relate to a certain group? What should guide our decisions when picking a group? If I'm 50% African and 50% Latin, how do I choose? After reading these articles, it almost makes choosing and skin color seem arbitrary.
Both articles go on to discuss the actual definitions of race in the United States and how trivial a process it can be. In the late 1800s, there were only three categories of race recognized in the US. Currently, there are about 27 unique races of mixes that the US recognizes. Clearly, these were all present in the population in the 1800s, but were not recognized until much later. I can't imagine what it must have felt like to not be represented on something as basic as your ethnic background.
Davis goes on to talk more specifically about African Americans and what it means to be considered black in the US. When is someone considered black? Is it when their skin color is a dark black, or is it when their genetics reveal a certain percentage of african heritage? People throughout history have argued this as light-skinned black people receive critical feedback for not being black, even though their genetics might contain more african heritage than a darker skinned person. So then what is the criteria? Most people have used the "one drop" rule; which basically says that one drop of african blood in you makes you an african. Due to this criteria, there is a variety of skin colors that fit into this criteria.
This article makes me re-think race in general as most of the time it is so closely affiliated with skin color. Seeing people with lighter skin who are actually black proves that our eyes can only help so much with racial identification. Like many of our heritages in the United States, race too is a mixture from your past. Unless you have a pure bloodline, you're likely a number of different races, regardless of your skin color. What's interesting to me is that we as humans tend to choose an identity rather than simply accepting ourselves mixes. Why is it so important for us to relate to a certain group? What should guide our decisions when picking a group? If I'm 50% African and 50% Latin, how do I choose? After reading these articles, it almost makes choosing and skin color seem arbitrary.
Blink in Black and White / See Baby Discriminate
Malcom Gladwell and Po Bronson have developed more scientific ways to assess racial views in people. Since most people are very guarded and less likely to admit being racist, it's difficult to get accurate measures of what the typical perspective is.
In Gladwell's article, he discusses the use of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). This test is based on the principle that your brain can make connections between two separate ideas faster if the ideas have been thought of before in your mind. It's basically a way to test your subconscience and what's inside your brain before you begin to overanalyze things. There is actually a test in this article the reader can take in order to get a sense of the IAT - it was really interesting and definitely helps one to understand how it works. It was interesting to see how quickly my brain associated common girl/boy names with the "appropriate" gender identity. When the categories became more complex, my brain had fewer pre-conceived notions and was forced to become analytical. It was interesting to see how programmed my brain really was!
Bronson discusses the use of a study by Vittrup used on young children to gauge their understanding of racial differences. It was testing to see if television shows with obvious diversity truly would increase the children's views of diversity. What they found was that the exposure wasn't enough, and although children learned blanket phrases such as "we're all equal," they didn't truly understand the implications of the statement. To make matters worse, they began to realize that the kids actually had many pre-conceived notions somehow regarding race, many of which were negative.
The problem both articles were uncovering is that we learn many unifying themes and statements, but we never truly learn about our differences. We become "color blind" and try to pretend we have no differences rather than embracing our differences and viewing them as a source of strength. Teaching kids equality is a great first step and certainly necessary, but without teaching what our differences mean, we're only sending people half the message. I believe I was brought up with the color blind style, having been brainwashed that we're all equal and to never think beyond this...I will certainly have to re-visit these ideas as I teach others in the future!
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
In Defense of Rich Kids / What Can We Do? Becoming Part of the Solution
William Wimsatt, the author of the first article, was born into wealth. His family describes themselves as upper-middle class and he stands to inherit a large amount of money in the not too distant future. Until this happens, he is very comfortable writing and being active for various causes. One such cause he is passionate about is the organization of wealthy people and their expenditure habits.
This topic is where he begins to defend rich kids like himself. "Rich people don't choose to be born rich any more than poor people choose to be born poor" (Wimsatt, p. 511). He begins arguing that people automatically tend to push this class of people aside, finding little to relate to and often referring to them as simply spoiled. What Wimsatt is pushing for, is for others to understand that the money held by these people can potentially create a great deal of positive change in the world; grassroots organizations and hard work can only go so far without adequate funding. If instead of ridiculing, we urged these wealthy people to donate conscientiously and in a focused way, we could create the change we wish to see. The organization he is currently developing is seeking to do exactly that: organize wealthy people in order donate to specific causes in order to have the largest impact. Allan Johnson's article is similar in the sense that most change does require both action and money. While action is largely seen as common sense for something like creating change, the money situation is where becoming part of the solution can be impossible for some.
While these articles did make me view wealthy people in a new way, it didn't necessarily change all my opinions. Wimsatt is basically telling us to look to these wealthy people as sources of funding and to take advantage of their capabilities. This is all well and good and I'd be overjoyed knowing wealthy people were contributing to just causes, but it still doesn't change the way they live their lives. This to me, is what separates the wealthy from the rest. I understand he's doing good by being generous with his money, but he still can't relate to my life and knowing that I'm going to have to work everyday for a long time in order to stay afloat. Without being able to personify the wealthy in this way (struggle) it's hard to relate. I don't blame them for being wealthy and I don't hold a grudge; I simply cannot relate to their lives and hope they realize that they can't truly relate to not having money no matter how generous they are.
This topic is where he begins to defend rich kids like himself. "Rich people don't choose to be born rich any more than poor people choose to be born poor" (Wimsatt, p. 511). He begins arguing that people automatically tend to push this class of people aside, finding little to relate to and often referring to them as simply spoiled. What Wimsatt is pushing for, is for others to understand that the money held by these people can potentially create a great deal of positive change in the world; grassroots organizations and hard work can only go so far without adequate funding. If instead of ridiculing, we urged these wealthy people to donate conscientiously and in a focused way, we could create the change we wish to see. The organization he is currently developing is seeking to do exactly that: organize wealthy people in order donate to specific causes in order to have the largest impact. Allan Johnson's article is similar in the sense that most change does require both action and money. While action is largely seen as common sense for something like creating change, the money situation is where becoming part of the solution can be impossible for some.
While these articles did make me view wealthy people in a new way, it didn't necessarily change all my opinions. Wimsatt is basically telling us to look to these wealthy people as sources of funding and to take advantage of their capabilities. This is all well and good and I'd be overjoyed knowing wealthy people were contributing to just causes, but it still doesn't change the way they live their lives. This to me, is what separates the wealthy from the rest. I understand he's doing good by being generous with his money, but he still can't relate to my life and knowing that I'm going to have to work everyday for a long time in order to stay afloat. Without being able to personify the wealthy in this way (struggle) it's hard to relate. I don't blame them for being wealthy and I don't hold a grudge; I simply cannot relate to their lives and hope they realize that they can't truly relate to not having money no matter how generous they are.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Other Movement that Rosa Parks Inspired / Influencing Public Policy
The Other Movement that Rosa Parks Inspired: By Sitting Down, She Made Room for the Disabled
"She stood up by sitting down. I'm only standing here because of her" (Wilson, p. 491). These words come from Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, who owes much of what the public transportation in his city has become for the disabled to Rosa Parks. Though Parks wasn't protesting for the rights of people with disabilities, she set a precedent. This standard was that the voiceless should have a voice and that change can be created by ordinary people. Her efforts during the civil rights movement inspired another organization at the time, Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT).
ADAPT saw relevance in Parks' methods and realized they could create similar changes to help their cause. Bob Kafka, a leader of ADAPT, discussed how the organization was splintered with everyone wanting something different. "The deaf community wanted interpreters. People with mobility issues wanted curb cuts. The blind wanted more sensory communication...We were tossed salad, not fondue" (Wilson, p. 491). Without something to unify their movement, there was little progress being made and transportation for those with disabilities was a huge problem. Typically, only certain busses were equipped with lifts for wheelchairs; thus, severely limiting public transportation options for those with physical disabilities. This prevented this population from accessing jobs, social opportunities and anything else which required consistent transport.
When they eventually realized that by staging sit-in style protests on the busses, they could send a message and be heard, they began doing so across the country. Like with Parks, changes slowly began and with the introduction of the Americans with Disabilities Act, laws were changed. Currently, the difficulties lay in ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act across states. With the high-cost of purchasing and maintaining wheelchair lifts, cities often fail to provide what they're legally obligated to provide. "A 2002 federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics study found that 6 million Americans with disabilities still have trouble obtaining the transportation they need" (Wilson, p. 492).
This whole discussion made me think of how possible a legacy truly is. Rosa Parks stood up for civil rights and created a legacy in doing so. This later impacted those with a similar struggle and cause even more positive social change. As most of us are in the education field, I believe it's important to think of ourselves in this way. The impacts we make on children everyday will repeat in different ways throughout a child's life. If we can make a significant difference, they might in-turn replicate your work later in their life. Thinking this way can be especially helpful on difficult days, when it seems like you're not making a difference. It's important to understand that if you're truly doing your best, there's no way you can't be making a difference, for you're modeling the best we can hope for.
"She stood up by sitting down. I'm only standing here because of her" (Wilson, p. 491). These words come from Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, who owes much of what the public transportation in his city has become for the disabled to Rosa Parks. Though Parks wasn't protesting for the rights of people with disabilities, she set a precedent. This standard was that the voiceless should have a voice and that change can be created by ordinary people. Her efforts during the civil rights movement inspired another organization at the time, Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT).
ADAPT saw relevance in Parks' methods and realized they could create similar changes to help their cause. Bob Kafka, a leader of ADAPT, discussed how the organization was splintered with everyone wanting something different. "The deaf community wanted interpreters. People with mobility issues wanted curb cuts. The blind wanted more sensory communication...We were tossed salad, not fondue" (Wilson, p. 491). Without something to unify their movement, there was little progress being made and transportation for those with disabilities was a huge problem. Typically, only certain busses were equipped with lifts for wheelchairs; thus, severely limiting public transportation options for those with physical disabilities. This prevented this population from accessing jobs, social opportunities and anything else which required consistent transport.
When they eventually realized that by staging sit-in style protests on the busses, they could send a message and be heard, they began doing so across the country. Like with Parks, changes slowly began and with the introduction of the Americans with Disabilities Act, laws were changed. Currently, the difficulties lay in ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act across states. With the high-cost of purchasing and maintaining wheelchair lifts, cities often fail to provide what they're legally obligated to provide. "A 2002 federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics study found that 6 million Americans with disabilities still have trouble obtaining the transportation they need" (Wilson, p. 492).
This whole discussion made me think of how possible a legacy truly is. Rosa Parks stood up for civil rights and created a legacy in doing so. This later impacted those with a similar struggle and cause even more positive social change. As most of us are in the education field, I believe it's important to think of ourselves in this way. The impacts we make on children everyday will repeat in different ways throughout a child's life. If we can make a significant difference, they might in-turn replicate your work later in their life. Thinking this way can be especially helpful on difficult days, when it seems like you're not making a difference. It's important to understand that if you're truly doing your best, there's no way you can't be making a difference, for you're modeling the best we can hope for.
Lilly's Big Day
Gail Collins, the author of this essay, is referencing Lilly Ledbetter in the title of this work. Ledbetter waged a successful series of litigation in the court system that led to the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009. This piece of legislation was the culmination of decades of struggle and effort put forth for equal rights by women. Collins describes the smaller political victories won by women such as Eulalie Cooper, who was forced to leave her flight attendant position because she married. Or Lorena Weeks, who was told later in her career that she was making a fraction of what her male counterparts were earning.
These women stood up, often alone, to fight for what they knew to be right. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a result of these many small victories along the way. No longer can companies fill positions with men, citing that women are incapable of handling parts of the job responsibilities. It's evidence that individuals do make a significant difference and that small victories can shift to larger. Collins ties all these women together in this essay, pointing out "They're strangers to one another; most of them made their stands and then returned to their ordinary lives" (Collins, p. 490). These women were not part of a movement and didn't have a previous stand to make, they were simply reacting to what they saw as inequality. It makes me wonder if any of the small changes I've been able to create over the years will snowball towards a greater good. It will be important to remember these lessons when things seem impossible or insurmountable, you never know how much change is necessary at once...
These women stood up, often alone, to fight for what they knew to be right. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a result of these many small victories along the way. No longer can companies fill positions with men, citing that women are incapable of handling parts of the job responsibilities. It's evidence that individuals do make a significant difference and that small victories can shift to larger. Collins ties all these women together in this essay, pointing out "They're strangers to one another; most of them made their stands and then returned to their ordinary lives" (Collins, p. 490). These women were not part of a movement and didn't have a previous stand to make, they were simply reacting to what they saw as inequality. It makes me wonder if any of the small changes I've been able to create over the years will snowball towards a greater good. It will be important to remember these lessons when things seem impossible or insurmountable, you never know how much change is necessary at once...
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Everybody's Ethnic Enigma
Jelita McLeod is half-Caucasian and half-Asian. This mixture of ethnicities has caused her a great deal of annoyances over the years that don't cease at the end of a conversation with a stranger. People are constantly going up to her to ask what race she is. It's amazing people feel they can ask for this information and that for whatever reason it's less private than other identity markers such as height and weight. She said that it's almost always strangers asking and some are far more clever in their wording than others. However they choose to phrase the question, her answer is always the same.
What does change are people's reactions to her responses. People often reacted as if they had guessed incorrectly and were disappointed in themselves. This sort of reminds me of when people guess dog breeds in public...I just never thought people would be guessing human breeds! Her least favorite reaction is when people suddenly don't feel a connection they were thinking they might have had if she had been the ethnicity they were guessing. For example, an Asian person might assume she's Asian and ask, only to be visibly disappointed with the response. Suddenly, because of her answer, she is not the same person as who the question was asked to initially.
What's interesting about all this is that people are clearly not "color blind" as most would hope to claim. If one were to truly identify as such, they would never ask anyone about their ethnic identity, for they wouldn't notice any differences between the individual and them self. Even though these strangers aren't necessarily asking questions because they are being racist, they are certainly highlighting differences between them and making this author feel super uncomfortable! This makes me feel for those with mixed backgrounds who appear as such - people will likely think about their ethnicity rather than being able to readily identify it and simply move on.
What does change are people's reactions to her responses. People often reacted as if they had guessed incorrectly and were disappointed in themselves. This sort of reminds me of when people guess dog breeds in public...I just never thought people would be guessing human breeds! Her least favorite reaction is when people suddenly don't feel a connection they were thinking they might have had if she had been the ethnicity they were guessing. For example, an Asian person might assume she's Asian and ask, only to be visibly disappointed with the response. Suddenly, because of her answer, she is not the same person as who the question was asked to initially.
What's interesting about all this is that people are clearly not "color blind" as most would hope to claim. If one were to truly identify as such, they would never ask anyone about their ethnic identity, for they wouldn't notice any differences between the individual and them self. Even though these strangers aren't necessarily asking questions because they are being racist, they are certainly highlighting differences between them and making this author feel super uncomfortable! This makes me feel for those with mixed backgrounds who appear as such - people will likely think about their ethnicity rather than being able to readily identify it and simply move on.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
What's Class Got to do with It? / More or Less Equal? / The Silver Spoon
Michael Zweig breaks down the importance and relevance of social classes before defining the most current interpretations of the various classes. He believes it's important to understand different people's class status in order to have a more holistic view of each person's background. He gives an example: "Suppose you knew that there were men and women because you could see the difference, but you didn't know about the socially constructed concept of gender. You would be missing something vitally important about the people you see" (Zweig, p. 130). Like this example using gender as a classification, social class too gives people more information.
Zweig goes on to divide the classes and define each of them. The lowest level he describes are the working class, comprised of blue collar employees who have little say in their day-to-day operations. Next are the middle class, these people earn enough to have more amenities and carry more power and decision making capabilities than the working class. The middle class is broken into three subcategories: self-employed, professional and supervisors. The final class is the capitalist class, which makes the final decisions and has the most persuasion. The Economist's article describes how these differences were created and how they have changed over the last few decades. Again, these classes are changing and the results seem to be leading the US towards more inequality.
Stephen McNamee discusses how these varying classes affect our lives before we even have a chance to understand what's happening. The idea of the silver spoon is very much real and is proven through statistics. Basically, people who are born in a higher class don't need to work as hard to maintain that level of comfort; whereas, people born into lower classes need to work extremely hard to get up to where the first class was born into. This is not to say that this process is impossible, more that it's important to realize the disparity in effort levels required to lead comfortable lifestyles...for some it's natural and requires little work, for others it may take their whole life to get there.
What I found different about Zweig's view of the social classes was how he considered influence and power to be the determining factors in establishing/defining the classes. Rather than income, which most people tend to agree is the major seperator, power and influence between groups leads people in directions beyond their income. For instance, a working class person who puts in a lot of overtime to get extra money for amenities is not quite at the same level as a professional putting in a normal amount of hours and getting paid the same. Additionally, the professional is more likely to have control over their day-to-day work lives and are in charge of more decision-making. These ideas make a lot of sense and helped me to re-frame my perception of classes. I too thought that income was the sole determinant, but I can see and agree with Zweig's definitions and better understand the relationships that are formed within our society resulting from these relationships.
Zweig goes on to divide the classes and define each of them. The lowest level he describes are the working class, comprised of blue collar employees who have little say in their day-to-day operations. Next are the middle class, these people earn enough to have more amenities and carry more power and decision making capabilities than the working class. The middle class is broken into three subcategories: self-employed, professional and supervisors. The final class is the capitalist class, which makes the final decisions and has the most persuasion. The Economist's article describes how these differences were created and how they have changed over the last few decades. Again, these classes are changing and the results seem to be leading the US towards more inequality.
Stephen McNamee discusses how these varying classes affect our lives before we even have a chance to understand what's happening. The idea of the silver spoon is very much real and is proven through statistics. Basically, people who are born in a higher class don't need to work as hard to maintain that level of comfort; whereas, people born into lower classes need to work extremely hard to get up to where the first class was born into. This is not to say that this process is impossible, more that it's important to realize the disparity in effort levels required to lead comfortable lifestyles...for some it's natural and requires little work, for others it may take their whole life to get there.
What I found different about Zweig's view of the social classes was how he considered influence and power to be the determining factors in establishing/defining the classes. Rather than income, which most people tend to agree is the major seperator, power and influence between groups leads people in directions beyond their income. For instance, a working class person who puts in a lot of overtime to get extra money for amenities is not quite at the same level as a professional putting in a normal amount of hours and getting paid the same. Additionally, the professional is more likely to have control over their day-to-day work lives and are in charge of more decision-making. These ideas make a lot of sense and helped me to re-frame my perception of classes. I too thought that income was the sole determinant, but I can see and agree with Zweig's definitions and better understand the relationships that are formed within our society resulting from these relationships.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Where's the Rulebook for Sex Verification? / The Gendered Society
Alice Dreger and Michael Kimmel take the opportunity to discuss gender classification and the biological/physiological aspects of it. Dreger wrote the article in response to Caster Semenya, a world class runner who competes with other women from around the world. She has drawn a lot of attention because her gender identity has been called into question by the I.A.A.F. (a track organization). They were questioning whether she 'qualifies' to be considered a woman or if she is actually a man.
Dreger goes on to discuss the minute differences between male and female characteristics down to the chromosomal level. She discussed chromosomes, hormones, genitals and other chemicals present in both male and female bodies that scientists are trying to use to inform their decisions regarding where the line between male and female is. There is no point where a human has more of one thing than another or any specific part to them that is unique to their gender. It's absolutely possible to be born feeling a part of one gender, only to discover that you're internally different due to varying levels of certain hormones/chromosomes. "A few years ago, I got a call from Matthew, 1 19-year-old who was born looking obviously male, was raised a boy, and had a girlfriend and a male typical life. Then he found out, by way of medical problems, that he had ovaries and a uterus" (Dreger, p. 123).
I never knew there were so many variables to consider when attempting to identify a gender. The fact that there is no black and white answer leaves judgement up to people who decide what characteristics are most important to them and their definition of gender. So, although science can help to inform their decisions, it cannot be the one to draw the line; instead, it's done subjectively by humans. This makes the entire process sort of arbitrary and makes me wonder if we should consider dropping the labels all together. While some people may choose eventually to switch genders, many are born with differences that they had no choice over. It seems insanely unfair to try to make a 2-gender mold that everyone has to fit nicely into.
Dreger goes on to discuss the minute differences between male and female characteristics down to the chromosomal level. She discussed chromosomes, hormones, genitals and other chemicals present in both male and female bodies that scientists are trying to use to inform their decisions regarding where the line between male and female is. There is no point where a human has more of one thing than another or any specific part to them that is unique to their gender. It's absolutely possible to be born feeling a part of one gender, only to discover that you're internally different due to varying levels of certain hormones/chromosomes. "A few years ago, I got a call from Matthew, 1 19-year-old who was born looking obviously male, was raised a boy, and had a girlfriend and a male typical life. Then he found out, by way of medical problems, that he had ovaries and a uterus" (Dreger, p. 123).
I never knew there were so many variables to consider when attempting to identify a gender. The fact that there is no black and white answer leaves judgement up to people who decide what characteristics are most important to them and their definition of gender. So, although science can help to inform their decisions, it cannot be the one to draw the line; instead, it's done subjectively by humans. This makes the entire process sort of arbitrary and makes me wonder if we should consider dropping the labels all together. While some people may choose eventually to switch genders, many are born with differences that they had no choice over. It seems insanely unfair to try to make a 2-gender mold that everyone has to fit nicely into.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Human Rights, Diversity, and Citizenship Education
James Banks wants to change the way we teach our citizens about human rights. Rather than simply memorizing laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he urges us to immerse ourselves in the subject matter in order to internalize the concepts. Rather than surrendering our individual cultures to create a monoculture, we should embrace our differences and realize that being different is what we all have in common! Why not form a nation state on the notion that we're all unified by our differences?
I believe Banks comes very close to accomplishing the task of re-focusing our views of what it means to be a citizen in today's modern world. I never before thought that there should be a balance between patriotism to one's homeland and patriotism to the rest of the world, but i makes sense if one wishes to truly be a global citizen. This article has certainly made me view what it means to belong in a different way and has made me realize that my world should encompass more.
I believe Banks comes very close to accomplishing the task of re-focusing our views of what it means to be a citizen in today's modern world. I never before thought that there should be a balance between patriotism to one's homeland and patriotism to the rest of the world, but i makes sense if one wishes to truly be a global citizen. This article has certainly made me view what it means to belong in a different way and has made me realize that my world should encompass more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)