Nature vs. Nurture
(or rather)
 Nature via Nurture in regards to Preconceived Notions and Racial Stereotypes

An analysis of the quotes referenced in the following articles:

Blink in Black and White by Malcolm Gladwell

"The giant computer that is our unconscious silently crunches all the data it can from the experiences we've had, the people we've met, the lessons we've learned, the books we've read, the movies we've seen, and so on, and it forms an opinion. That's what is coming out in the IAT. The disturbing thing about the test is that it shows that our unconscious attitudes may be utterly incompatible with our stated conscious values" (Gladwell, 354)

and

See Baby Discriminate by Po Bronson & Ashley Merryman

"Children naturally try to categorize everything, and the attribute they rely on is that which is the most clearly visible. We might imagine that we're creating color-blind environments for children, but differences in skin color or hair or weight are like differences in gender - they're plainly visible (Bronson & Merryman, 358)

     One of the most obvious and deleterious behaviors that every human being takes part in is racial stereotyping. Whether they believe it or not, there are different aspects in one's life where categories play a major part, and these two articles accurately address and bolster this argument. The perpetual debate regarding Nature vs. Nurture with regards to this topic is also a heavily studied concept, as it attempts to bolster the contention that humans aren't inherent bigots...

      

      With regards to the "Nurture" side of the debate, the first article looks at this topic from an interesting psychological standpoint, addressing the influence of the unconscious on one's conscious choices. The article delves into the details of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and the fascinating results that it yields. One of Gladwell's main points, as seen in the quote above, is that our biases are largely based on the associations that we make in our lives based on our various life experiences, and whether we claim to be unbiased, our unconscious conditioned responses will show our true colors. The second article takes a look at both sides of the Nature and Nurture debate. This article describes many different observations and studies that have been conducted in an attempt to understand the point at which children develop their racial stereotypes. The article discusses the fact that even from a young age, (6 months old), children are more likely to react differently to things that seem unfamiliar to them, (i.e. a baby is more likely to be caught staring intently and curiously at another baby of a different racial background). One of the most salient points made, as shown in the quote above, that certainly relates to children's future stereotypes, is that children inherently categorize things that are noticeably different. They often do this as a learning process for themselves, being that it allows them to identify and group things together. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because there are no negative connotations or associations that are made with any of these categorizations, but it is in the nurture side of the debate, where we find the true birthing of one's stereotypes. There are studies described in the article that touch upon the fact that parental involvement regarding conversations about race have a strong influence on the child's upbringing. In one experiment, parents who actively conversed about race, and how there shouldn't be any negative associations made with it, had major impacts on their children's racial beliefs in the future. On the other hand, other parents who felt uncomfortable speaking with their children about issues of race, and felt that ambiguous comments such as "Everybody is equal" should suffice, had children that had more negative associations regarding race. Even though humans have a natural tendency to categorize, it is our environment that has a major influence on how we think of those categories...

     Both of these articles were really eye-opening for me, due to the fact that I had never heard of the IAT before, and I truly never thought about racial stereotyping occurring at a young age, until now. While reading the first article, I thoroughly enjoyed taking the sample tests, as I found it immensely intriguing to see the difficulty level keep increasing with each test. Due to the preconceived notions that I have that were conditioned from societal beliefs, it was in fact interesting to see how I would answer the associations on the test slower when trying to combat my unconscious impulse with moral reasoning. I am a person that remembers many things in my life with the help of associations, and I've always thought of it as a talent and a good thing. It certainly can be at times, but when it comes to associations involving race - based on the movies, shows, and advertisements I've seen, and the conversations I've overheard - it is truly difficult to differentiate between that almost seemingly inherent impulse and how I really (morally) feel about someone or something. The second article was very interesting to me as well, for many reasons. Firstly, I was astounded with the fact that many parents refused to take the time to speak to their children about something as important as race - because they were uncomfortable - that's utterly ridiculous! As the article shows, parents have a major influence on their child's behavior and beliefs, and not taking the time to ensure that their child is aware of racial differences and the moral obligation they have as a human to ensure that all people are treated equally is a major injustice to their child and society as a whole...Secondly, due to the fact that as a child, I never saw anyone as less than me due to their skin color, (I was the "rare" caucasian child that had friends that were Indian and "Black"), I guess I didn't have biases at the time. Growing up in a rather diverse area of the country, I had the privilege of being part of the cliche "melting pot" - or rather "salad bowl", as they like to call it now (more of an amalgamation of different people with different aspects rather than a coalescence of all people into one kind of being). Looking back in retrospect now, I do believe that I was in fact part of the culture of students that (due to the increased diversity, observed more division among my friends), as the article discussed. There were many different ethnicities in my high school, but there was one instance that I recall that really blows my mind now thinking about it...

      My friends and I were walking into the cafeteria for lunch one day, and it dawned on me, every table in the entire room was categorized in some way, not by routine, but by association and familiarity. There were of course, class divisions that took place - some freshman sitting in the corner trying to "find their place", and some seniors by the door eager to get to their cars and escape, but there were often further subcategories as well. The only time that class would be irrelevant was when the students found others of similar racial categories. But I digress...as my friends and I walked in (all being caucasian), we went to sit at the table near the food line, that (unbeknownst to us freshman at the time) was typically occupied by the "Black" students that would cut class and sit there most of the day. When we went to sit at the empty table, one of the caucasian lunch monitors mentioned something to us discreetly as she walked by..."I would get up and move if I were you" - We all replied with a quick "Why?" And her response was simple - "Firstly, that group of kids doesn't let anybody sit here, especially white freshman, and second, if you sit here, and the administrators come through, they may think you're part of their group, and you'll get on the administrations' bad side"... At the time we simply thought, no problem, and got up. When doing so however, we never thought "oh, we definitely don't want to be associated with "them"". But at the same time, we did move because we didn't want to be associated with them - we had impulsively responded to the understanding that "black" delinquent students could spell trouble for us...We never even realized all of the associations that took place during that quick encounter, most of which did nothing but place a specific minority group in a place lower than ourselves, and we were only freshman...

      As I said before, these articles show the important role that our environment plays in our societal views of race. With regards to the Nature vs. Nurture debate, there is one aspect that we do have some control over...our environment. In my opinion, we definitely need to alter the way we think as a society and be more comfortable to have conversations revolving around issues of race, otherwise we are going to be living in a world that is filled with bigots holding many negative preconceived notions, not because humans are inherently bad, but because they've been conditioned based on our negative views within society. 

The Contingencies Associated with a Physical Disability

An analysis of the following quote referenced in the following article:

"Public Transit" by John Hockenberry

"All around me, crowds of commuters with briefcases and headphones walked by, stepping around me without breaking stride. If I had worried about anything associated with this venture, it was that I would just be in the way. I was invisible...by stepping around me as I slid, two steps at a time, down toward the tracks, they created a quarantined space, just for me, where even the air seemed depraved" (Hockenberry 316)

      Disability is a topic that is too often overlooked in terms of diversity studies due to the inaccurate colloquial belief that it isn't as important an issue as concepts such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. This article delves into the story of one's mans experiences corresponding to his paralysis and the fact that he is bound to a wheelchair. He first describes the laborious task of hailing a cab while in New York, and the challenges that he faces with the many different types of "cabbies". He describes the types of people that he encounters and, (according to them), how terribly difficult it is for them to take the time to assist him by putting his wheelchair in the back of their car. He points out the abhorrent truth that too often people don't offer to help others due to the fact that they don't want to be inconvenienced! He also describes the arduous task of taking on numerous stairs as he rides the subway. As seen in the quote above, even though he is in plain sight of all those he encounters, he feels entirely invisible. Those who actually take the time to notice him either do so with utter disdain, or seldom the case, with the intention of assisting in some way. This fact of feeling "in the way" and "invisible" due to either inaccessible options or societal views of his disability, is one of the author's main points throughout his article. He mentioned that he even took the time to record the audio of his experiences on the subway so as to make a radio special regarding public transportation. To his surprise, he describes that his audio would more likely reflect the the correlation associated with willingness to assist others and race. He mentioned that those who he believed to be "white" ignored him almost always, and those who he believed to be "black" continuously offered to help him in some way. Throughout the entire article, he touches upon the fact that those who could be considered part of a minority group are the ones that treat him more like a human, and less like an inconvenient aberration. 

      While reading this article, I felt angry at both society and myself. While reading about the difficulties of hailing a cab, I was reminded of the trepidation everyone faces on those crowded streets, but I was blind to the fact that in the author's case, it was even more challenging. While reading about his subway endeavors, I remembered how intense and intimidating it can feel to be on those platforms, but until now, couldn't imagine or fully understand how difficult it might be for one who is disabled. While reading, I truly began to question some of the choices that I made while in that rough hustle-and-bustle city, and whether or not I should have acted differently... Being from New York originally, and having gone to college and some grad school literally where he was describing truly brought me back to the "New York" mentality. People aren't seen as caring or altruistic in NYC. Instead, they are seen as fast-paced go-getters that need everyone to get out of their way so they can get their stuff done. However, in my opinion, I had naively believed that this mentality might change for those who are "disabled", but I guess that doesn't even sway their moral compass...

      It really astounded me that so many cab drivers refused to take the time to get out of their cabs and place his wheelchair in the trunk. It's not that difficult, and they are still making money off of a customer! I was also astonished to hear that people literally stepped over and past him, as if he was not there at all...I understand what that's like as it has happened many times to me if I had dropped my books or something, but I would think it would've been different for someone who is "disabled"...The article presented me with a vastly different perspective on life, that I would have otherwise been entirely oblivious to. Often when I see a person in a wheelchair or with some sort of other physical disability, I feel some sort of inherent desire to assist in some way, yet at the same time, am faced with the paradoxical contention that maybe they don't want to be helped. For example, there was one time when a women in a wheelchair was attempting to cross a busy intersection, (slower than the traffic had anticipated), and I kindly asked if she would like me to push her along to help get her there faster. She replied with a moderately frustrated, "I can manage...I'll get there when I get there. They can all shove it"... One part of the article that supported this idea was seen when the author stated at the end that he "believed he could do it", without help from anyone, although he was pleased that he was at least acknowledged by some. Even though some "disabled" people may not want to feel that others pity them and thus feel obligated to help them, they don't want to be invisible and disregarded as inconvenient and in the way. There is also another important fact in this article that, in my opinion, showed the power of community. This was seen when he described those who actually respected him, acknowledged him, and took the time to assist him. Those who belong to minority groups, and might have some empathetic understanding of what he is going through to some extent were the ones more likely to help him. As mentioned before, he stated that those who were "black" offered to help him, and in addition, described the story of the Egyptian cab driver that helped him twice. One amazing thing that I think can be taken from the cab driver's story is the fact that due to his heinous crime of setting a bomb in the World Trade Center, no one in society, besides the author, would know that he actually was a kind, helpful, and respectful man at one point. Even someone who has the audacity to commit such a terrible crime had better morals than many other cab drivers at the time...

      I think this article truly speaks to the problems that "disabled" people face in our society. There are many constraints that society places, with too few solutions to assuage any of these issues. We avoid helping somebody because it could be seen as an inconvenience. Taken even further, we frequently try to disregard their existence due to the fact that they may make us uncomfortable or unsure of how to react. Too often do we ask the question, what is wrong with these people, rather than what do we need to change in order to make life more accessible. Too often do we take for granted the ability to complete commonplace tasks and not offer to help those who may be struggling. Education and awareness about these issues is truly the only way to combat these travesties, and I certainly look forward to learning more ways to make a difference... 

A Perspective on Education via Social Class

An analysis of the quote referenced from the following article:

Class and the Transition to Adulthood by Annette Lareau & Elliot B. Weininger

"To varying degrees, middle class parents and their children form a collective in which concerted action on the part of each family member is carefully directed toward a shared goal over the course of the child's high school career. Among working class and poor children, by contrast, parental involvement appears to be substantially rarer" (Lareau & Weininger, 299)

      When discussing some of the most salient issues found in today's society, it is seldom seen that educational opportunity isn't brought into the conversation. Educational opportunity is a concept that can correlate with a myriad of topics interrelating to issues of diversity; whether they be race, disability, or social class, education is influenced by the entirety of one's "identity" in our society. The article mentioned above particularly focuses on education and "transitions into adulthood" through the perspective of social class, primarily with regards to the "poor" and "middle" classes. One of the most important points made in the article revolves around the colloquial idea that it is difficult to achieve educational success if you don't come from an educated background. The article describes the arduous task that many students from "poor" backgrounds face when it comes to success in school. Whether it be lack of resources, parental unfamiliarity with educational concepts, or lack of inherent motivation on the part of the students, it seems very challenging for members of the "poor" class to achieve success. Juxtaposed against this image of a "poor" child, is the hidden, yet inherent truth that many of these students are truly bright individuals, but due to societal constraints, (like I said before) be it money, resources, lack of parental involvement, or people simply overlooking them, they aren't recognized and thus, are more likely to fall out of their successful pathways. The article also describes the debacle faced by members of the "middle" class; touching upon the paradoxical fact that parents are more likely to be involved, albeit negatively influencing their child's level of responsibility within their educational constructs. In the past, it was very common for parents to become involved in their child's education (talking to their teachers, guiding them on certain pathways, helping them with work) - of course, up until a certain age cohort. However, recently the concept of a hovering or "helicopter" parent is becoming the norm for many members of this "middle" class. The article delved into the fact that students find themselves unprepared and unaware in terms of decision making, which certainly takes their independence into question. Overall, this article discusses several important aspects regarding education in our society today, and gives the "educated" reader a perspective of the difficulties that many others face. Education is certainly a highly regarded aspect of society, but the ways in which we are dealing with equitable accessibility and pragmatic opportunity certainly could use some parental involvement and persuasion... 

      I felt a strong connection while reading this article, being the first member of my immediate family to have graduated from a four-year institution. When going through the article and hearing the different stories about the level of involvement from parents, I couldn't help but make the connection with my own upbringing. The idea of a "helicopter parent" was exactly the way in which my mother had raised my two siblings and I. Coming from a divorced family from the city, my mother strongly valued education, and the success that came along with it. Therefore, she made it one of her top priorities to ensure that my sisters and I obtained the best education available. Even though at the time I may have been unaware, my mother was behind the scenes contacting my teachers and guidance counselors all the way up until my junior year of high school to ensure that I was on the right track. I am most grateful for all of her efforts, because thanks to her, I am where I am today. Additionally, while reading, I started to realize the aspects in my own life that greatly differed from the article. Not to say that I am the outlier, (because I would like to believe that all parents would like to ensure the success of their children), but due to my parents divorce in my pre-adolescence, my family was part of that "poor" class for a while. Due to my life experience, I actually didn't understand why the article only described "middle" class and educated parents as the one's who became involved. My mother was neither of these, (not to say that she wasn't and isn't extremely intelligent and has the impromptu ability to learn topics and concepts better than those educated folks), yet she understood what was needed to help me succeed and saw it through to the end. Now, another pragmatic realization taken from my life experience is that for quite some time, I was unaware of how to make certain choices about my education - in fact, I wasn't sure if I was taking any of the right classes or what path at all I aspired to be on. All I knew was what my mother had taught me - "if you have questions, ask - somebody is bound to know, and if you don't like their answer, or it isn't necessarily good enough, go to someone else...until you fully understand what it is you're asking, then you can make an 'educated' decision (I always enjoyed that pun) - you can always learn more". And so I did, and I certainly enjoy being an aberration in society's view. 

This article provided a lens through which the reader was able to gain a bit of understanding into what it may be like having to deal with educational struggles influenced by one's social class. Ironically, the more educated society becomes concerning these issues, the more apt we are to be able to assuage some of the problems associated with them. Being an aspiring higher education administrator, I truly desire to live in a world where every student has the best opportunity available to them so that they can be the best that they inherently yearn to be. 

Wonderful talk that I watched regarding an awesome perspective on "disability"

What is Disability?

An analysis using quotes from the following two readings:

Disability Definitions: The Politics of Meaning by Michael Oliver

"As far as disability is concerned, if it is seen as a tragedy, then disabled people will be treated as if they are victims of some tragic happening or circumstance...if disability is defined as social oppression, then disabled people will be seen as the collective victims of an uncaring or unknowing society rather than as individual victims of circumstance" (Oliver, 167)

and

A World of Their Own by Liza Mundy

"Because they don't view deafness as a disability, they don't see themselves as bringing a disabled child into the world. Rather, they see themselves bringing a different sort of normal child into the world. Why not bring a deaf child into the world? What, exactly, is the problem? In their minds, they are no different from parents who try to have a girl. After all, girls can be discriminated against. Same with deaf people" (Mundy 174)

      These two articles discuss perspectives as they relate to the concept of "disability". The former article addressing the abhorrent fact that as a society, we deem disabilities as travesties, and the latter article contradicting this conjecture by giving an example of a justifiable argument. 

      

      The first article touches upon the negative connotations that we give to those with "disabilities"and highlights the salient and impactful nature that definitions have when used to identify people. As the quote exclaims above, one of the main arguments in this reading is that as a society, we have deemed disabled individuals as not only different in accordance with societal norms, but we have also degraded them to a level described as those who are "less fortunate" or "worse-off" than others. This unjust fact is proven later in the reading, when describing the types of questions that were asked in a 1986 census survey attempting to accurately identify "disabled" people; some questions included: "Can you tell me what is wrong with you?", "Do you have a scar, blemish or deformity which limits your daily activities?", and "Are your difficulties in understanding people mainly due to a hearing problem?". Analyzing these questions, it is evident that we were clearly belittling folks with disabilities, as we were blaming problems they may face in society on the fact that they had some sort of disability. One of the most enlightening contrasts to these questions were the questions formulated later on in the article that address the ultimate cause of disability as due to the social and physical environments within society. Some of these questions read: "Can you tell me what is wrong with society?", "Do other people's reactions to any scar, blemish or deformity you may have, limit your daily activities?", and "Are your difficulties in understanding people mainly due to their inabilities to communicate with you?". The restructuring of these questions further justifies the need to change our preconceived notions that disabilities are a problem with the individual, we should instead recognize that societal views, reactions, and accommodations are the true problems...

      The second article delves into the lives of two deaf women who desire to have a baby, but not just any baby, they express their wish to have a deaf baby. This article opens up an entirely new perspective as it shows that what could be desirable differs from family to family. As seen in the quote above, one of the main points in the article is the fact that these two parents want to bring a child into the world that is normal according to them - not what society deems normal.Throughout the reading, the author describes what their lifestyle has been like already having one child that is deaf, and why they desire to have another. The article discusses the fact that there is a community of people that individuals who are deaf belong to, there is a rhythm and a way of life that is very different from those who can hear. These two women want to have a child that will "fit" into this same community (this larger family as is it often referred to), and grow up with the same lifestyle as they have now. From their perspective, it will be easier to raise a child in an environment that they can all share together; just as a new parent faces the trouble of discerning whether or not they are actually doing a good enough job, this task is exponentially more challenging if the parent does not have the same experiences as their child. One of the most powerful statements in this article can be seen at the end, when describing their baby boy's results of his hearing test. Although he is not entirely deaf, it is decided, and understood that he is in fact certainly "deaf enough" to belong to the community with which these two women had desired him to be in. This reading truly hones in on the fact that there are many different communities within our world, none that should be considered better than another, just different. 

      These two articles pose a powerful flip in one's though process as it relates to feelings of disability and belonging. I found the first article truly inspiring, due to the fact that as I was reading the questions from the census, I felt that society was persecuting those individuals, and I was hoping for a change. As I was reading, I found myself understanding more and more about how easily it is to place people in a category that is "below" yourself without even knowing that you had done so. I was frustrated to see more examples of how, as a community, we tried to identify the "bad/wrong" things that people had, rather than the ways in which we can accommodate them, or not react negatively toward them. While reading this article, I couldn't help but introspectively analyze the fact that whenever I would see somebody who is wheelchair bound, or cannot walk, or cannot speak, I inherently began to feel bad for them. It's definitely important that I am establishing an awareness for this, and that I consciously act to change it... 

      With regards to the quote from the second article, the most powerful aspect is the statement reading "a different sort of normal". The thought of disability is like most issues of diversity, very ambiguous, and thus open to subjectivity. Definitions of "normal" differ from one person to the next dramatically as I began to realize once I finished reading this article. As an avid listener of music and moderately-professional DJ for 4 years now, I immediately thought of the hindrances associated with not being able to hear, and in the beginning, had thought that what they were doing to the newborn baby could be considered wrong or unethical. It somewhat reminded me of the debacle that some parents face when choosing the sex of a child who is born a hermaphrodite. Who is to say that the baby wouldn't want to hear and experience life different from the choices of his mothers? After finishing the article though, I realized that they would in fact allow their child the ability to hear if he desired in the future, and that they weren't necessarily being selfish, but instead trying to bring someone into this world that would be able to have the same experiences as them. I also realized that it isn't the most horrible thing to not be able to hear, and that instead of my myopic view of missing out on music, these individuals obviously live very happy lives. The comparisons that the reading made to people choosing whether they want a boy or a girl, or any of the other aspects contingent on the different specifications that can be requested from a sperm donor, really made me question what the difference in this situation was anyway...They have a truly valid point - just like their quote says above - what's the problem...why does it matter? They do not feel that they are missing out on life, just living a different lifestyle. It's this pragmatic switch in perspective that really is amazing in my opinion, and I look forward to reading more articles like this one.

      One powerful situation in my life that directly relates to these articles took place a couple of years ago, when I was helping run an exercise called "Target/Non-Target". This exercise involves having people stand on one side of a line corresponding to different prompts given by the facilitator. The group started out as male on one side and female on the other, and as the risky exercise entails, the categories delved deeper in both meaning and risk factor. At one point, the facilitator said "I consider myself fully-abled" (while pointing to one side), and "I consider myself not fully-abled" (pointing to the other side), and everyone's attention, as well as their physical body language, shifted towards the one male student who was in a wheelchair in our class...He quickly moved over to the side that was designated for "fully-abled" folks, and the room was floored. Everyone stared at him while quickly attempting to hide their astonishment, and to those that were on the other side, whether it was for the fact that they had glasses, or had learning "disabilities", they stared at him as well - in awe. After the exercise concluded, and we debriefed, (this debrief being the only time that the students could talk during the entire exercise), the class was eager to hear this one student's "justification". He simply stated that he may be in a wheelchair, but he does not consider himself to be "disabled". He claimed that he could still live the life that he wanted...I was really excited that this happened, as one of the major points of the exercise is to gain a better understanding of everyone and to challenge preconceived notions and conditioned responses due to societal "norms"...

      I enjoyed these articles very much, as I found them to be truly enlightening...I think that gaining an understanding of people's different perspectives, giving you an empathetic experience is the only real way to somewhat understand what life feels like for that person... 

What is Social Class?

An Analysis using quotes from the following readings:

What's Class Got to Do with It? by Michael Zweig

"We tend to think about class in terms of income, or the lifestyles that income can buy...[But class can be better understood] as mainly a question of economic and political power...Power doesn't exist alone with an individual or a group. Power exists as a relationship between and among different people or groups. This means that we cannot talk about one class of people alone, without looking at relationships between that class and others" (Zweig, 130)

and

More or Less Equal? featured in The Economist

"The classic tool for measuring inequality is the Gini coefficient. The higher it is, the less equal the society. In America the coefficient climbed steadily from 0.395 in 1974 to 0.47 in 2006 before dipping slightly to 0.463 in 2007" (134)

      

      The concept of money can be interpreted as a moderately objective concept, however the concept of power, albeit contingent upon money, is astoundingly subjective in nature. These two readings touch upon the different classes that we have constructed in society, originally based on income. The first article discusses how class is something that is usually overlooked in our society, (compared to other "identities" such as race or gender). The author goes on to simply describe that class is one of the types of an individual's identity that is not always apparent. One person cannot look at another, (most of the time) and accurately discern which class they belong to. The most salient point that Professor Zweig is trying to convey involves the concept of power. As seen in the quote above, he believes that class cannot only be defined solely based on the monetary aspects, but through the understanding of one's economic and political power. He goes on to describe the intricate levels of class and the hierarchy that has been established in society. Examining the ambiguous concept of "class" through something as objective as monetary value can be challenging, but by introducing an inherently malleable concept, such as power, we can look at "class" through a new perspective. Through his analysis, Professor Zweig delves into this idea of class, and we gain an understanding that one's power over another in the workplace, such as a supervisor or manager, may drastically change their "class"designation, even though there may not be extreme salary differences. This directly challenges the naive contention that one has to make drastically more money than another to be part of a different class. Another salient point that can be taken from this article is the fact that power, class, and status are all relative concepts. In order to have discern what the class structure in our society really is comprised of, it is necessary to take into account everyone that is involved, (as also shown in the quote above). 

      The second article discusses class from a very literal perspective, focusing on statistics and numerical findings to describe the strict divide between the rich and the poor in society. One of the major points in the article is the fact that as a whole, we have ultimately constructed a society in which "classes" are present, yet the ability to move toward the "top" is extremely challenging and highly unlikely. The article also describes how many wealthy Americans have certainly been benefitting from the financial occurrences over the past several decades. Through interpretation of the information shown in the quote above, one can see that class inequality in American society has certainly increased over the past few decades, as the Gini coefficient has moved closer toward the value of "1". The article goes in depth about the growing gap between the "elite" and the average, further bolstering the colloquial argument that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The article also explains the pragmatic realization that although many folks believe that they will end up "well-off" it is very rare that they truly end where they had believed they would. The author describes that whether a person is born into a lower-class family, or they are middle-class and believe that they will make it big some day, the chances of that actually happening are extremely slim, and are even more rare for minorities of those lower-class families. 

      Many people are strong believers in the "American Dream", contending that they can and will make it big someday starting from very little. Although this wonderfully optimistic cliche may have some validity, a more pragmatic conjecture has been shown in these two articles. I enjoyed the first article very much, as I found it truly interesting to see "class" taken from a different perspective, especially one as intriguing as power. I never thought of class in that way, and in fact, I don't actually know very much about the literal class structure of our society, so this article was truly eye-opening. I also found the intricacies associated with the many subcategories in each class to be really thought-provoking as well, due to the fact that money isn't the only establishing factor when dealing with class. I also enjoyed the second article due to its simplicity with cold-hard facts. Many people don't pay attention to the fact that class is a major identity for many people. Based on the fact that it cannot be accurately "seen" on someone, (unless in extreme cases on both sides of the spectrum), it is seldom brought up. In my opinion, "class" has become another example of one of the categories that we have made for people. Whether or not one can barely support their family or embellish their lifestyle with a superfluous amount of things shouldn't be a determining factor for what "class" they fall into. It's interesting that when we think of class within a society, we don't think of talents, abilities, skills, or integrity, but instead how much "stuff" somebody has or someone's net worth. This conditioned belief of "class" is the wrong type of "class" that we should be categorizing people into...In the past, people were revered not because they had millions of dollars, but because they made a difference, they had influence, and they impacted society in some way. It is insane to think that we live in a world in which we have allowed the top 10% of society to be immeasurably wealthier than the remaining 90%! This literally creates power-hungry humans - driven towards money and greed, rather than civility, equality, and honesty.

     These articles reminded me of another exercise that I did with my class, and it's one of my favorites. It's called the Star Power game, and it involves gaining access into groups based on the monetary value that you acquire through the bartering of chips. Once the three "groups" are established, the facilitator gives the group with the most points total control of the rules and the game entirely. It is always fascinating to see how those who gain access into the "elite" group use this opportunity to make rules that solely benefit them. Three observed and salient points that we draw from this exercise are as follows: (1) Each of us may be more vulnerable to the temptation to abuse power than we realize (2) persons who are promoted rarely remember those they leave behind (3) power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Never once when I've facilitated this game has the group in power said, "Let's make everyone part of our group, and everyone's equal". Instead, they always bolster their own growth, and seldom take into consideration of the needs of those "below" them.

      Money is purely objective, but the influence that it has on us as a society is anything but equitable...

Thanks for reading! Come back soon!

Apropos of the readings speaking about Gender roles, I found this the other day, and was appalled...

Click the link below to see terribly misogynistic advertisements of the past

Atrocious Advertisements of the Past

What is sex? What is gender?

An analysis of sex and gender using quotes from the two articles below:

The Gendered Society by Michael S. Kimmel

"If gender varies across cultures, over historical time, among men and women within any one culture, and over the life course, can we really speak to masculinity and femininity as though they were constant, universal essences, common to all women and to all men? If not gender, must be seen as an ever-changing fluid assemblage of meanings and behaviors. In that sense, we must speak of masculinities and femininities, and thus recognize the different definitions of masculinity and femininity that we construct. By pluralizing the terms, we acknowledge that masculinity and femininity mean different things to different groups of people at different times" (Kimmel, 118)

and

Where's the Rulebook for Sex Verification by Alice Dreger

"Sex is so messy that in the end, these doctors are not going to be able to run a test that will answer the question. Science can and will inform their decision, but they are going to have to decide which of the dozens of characteristics of sex matter to them" (Dreger, 124)

      Going along with the perpetual problem that humans have this desire to categorize everything, gender and sex always cause strong debate. The first article describes the many predispositions that humans are faced with regarding the thought of gender in society. Delving into the fact that men and women are regarded as being "interplanetary" beings, Professor Kimmel truly shows the strict divide that we have created between the two genders. By referring to each other as the "opposite" sex, we really are creating a line that should not be crossed without consequences. He also touches upon the "biological determinism" and "differential socialization", (nature and nurture) aspects of gender construction. He talks about the fact that yes, there may be differences biologically between men and women from birth, but that they're not as radically different that we should deem them opposites. The article goes on to describe how immediately from birth, we are treated differently, and ultimately given ideas on how we should be or act in order to fit into the mold. He also opens up the reader's mind to the inevitable truth that throughout history, only women have been studied based on their gender, whereas masculinity studies are seldom seen. He discusses the fact that within society, a man's actions are never researched for correlations related to his gender, but instead other factors, whereas a women's actions may be looked into regarding hormonal imbalances, female socialization, and femininity. We learn that, as a society, we never bring masculinity to the foreground, but instead focus on the characteristics of femininity and being a women. Very similar to the idea of "whiteness as an unmarked category", we act as if gender should only be applied to women, leaving men unaware of the impact of their gender on different aspects of their lives. The article really shows that fish truly are the last to discover the ocean...The main points that the article describes are that men and women are not that different, yet society arbitrarily dictates what are appropriate characteristics for a man and a woman, even though there are many different perspectives depending on geography, sexual orientation, etc., and thus an unspoken set of guidelines, or rulebook, has been conditioned into our thought process. 

      This idea directly connects to the second article, in which Professor Dreger discusses the trepidation one can feel when being labeled one gender or another, and how we have constructed an illegitimate "rulebook" for the "game of sex". Just as in the aforementioned article, this article describes how "sex" was simply described by basing it on the natural biology. She delves further into the debacle however to describe that the biological intricacies can in fact be very abnormal. Professor Dreger goes on to describe how simply looking at a person's chromosomes is certainly not at all an accurate representation of their biological sex due to the many abnormalities that can and do often occur relating to hormones, genes, or organs. The main point that the author makes in her article describes how in order to make a decision on one particular person's sex, the doctors may be influenced by their scientific findings, yet their decision will ultimately be made based on their subjective choices of what characteristics are salient. Even though there may be many difficulties in making these decisions, we will always subjectively decide based on our own beliefs, and categorize based on what we believe to be important...

      These two articles really opened up my eyes to the truth about is sex and gender. Having been a psychology major, I was aware of the biological differences, and some of the preconditioned psychosocial constructs, but these two articles enlightened me to think about sex and gender much differently. Regarding the first article, I found it amazingly interesting to realize that as a society, we do in fact tend to look at things from a feminine perspective, and seldom research the masculine influences. As a male, I was amazed to sit back and introspectively analyze the fact that I didn't even realize this contention! I truly was a fish in the water, until I read this! In addition, while reading the article, there were many moments where I was truly intrigued by the in-your-face facts that are so easily overlooked. One of them was that as a society we do truly refer to the other as the "opposite", inherently making it impossible to have overlapping traits. Another was that we never look at the differences among men and among women, but due to the "opposite" belief, we think that the only comparison we can make is between the two. Fascinating! The only conjecture that I would contest in this article is seen in part of the quote I stated above. I understand his idea that it may be necessary to pluralize in order to understand that there are many differences influenced by different situations, yet I feel that by having the terms still be categorically different, still having the words "masculine" and "feminine" as the root, doesn't assuage the turmoil, but instead just adds to the ambiguity of it all. I feel that he may have found a potential solution to his problem of not addressing the differences among men and among women, but those terms do nothing for the differences between, in fact they make the lists of each longer, just drawing a bigger line between them. Don't get me wrong, I loved the article, but that was the only part that I was unsure about...

      The second article also made me realize how difficult it is to truly categorize a human being. The past articles I've read have addressed the difficulties of labeling based on race and ethnicity, yet gender is just as complicated. After hearing about all of the overlapping characteristics and biological predispositions that a person can have, and then hearing the story of the South African runner, it is an amazingly arduous task to try to assign a category, yet for some reason we feel that must do it...A concept I still don't understand. What bothers me about this concept is that even with moderately identifiable scientific evidence, humans will use their own opinions to ultimately decide...I guess I will just have to keep reading to find out how subjective we can be as a society...and maybe the other aspects of my life that I've overlooked...

      These two articles really reminded me of several different occurrences in my life recently. The first being an exercise that I did with my class discussing the idea of multicultural leadership, and the second being a quick reminder of gender roles as I was shopping for Father's Day cards.

 

      One powerful exercise that I did with my class was a role-play exercise in which my two Teacher's Assistants acted out a scene as I narrated. One was male, and one was female, and the exercise entailed the man walking into the room first, followed by the woman, the man sat on a chair and put his feet up on the table, the woman sat on the floor, the man took a sip of water, nodded, then the woman drank her water, and then the man ate a cookie, nodded again, and then the woman ate her cookie. After the demonstration I asked the class what they thought, and as expected, based on my preconceived notions of what Western society thinks that scene depicted, I got a litany of words describing how misogynistic the male character was, and how terrible he treated her. My favorite reaction was when one of the female students just stood up, and with a grotesque look on her face exclaimed, "disgusting"... After I obtained the list of words, I told them the truth about the scene, describing that this was a culture where women and the earth are valued, men walk in front of women to sacrifice themselves for them, they cannot touch the earth directly as women can, being that the men are not worthy, and the men test food and drinks before the women in case they are poisoned...The class was floored, and they looked at me and then the list of words, and just said, "Oh, that's not what we thought", or "I would have never thought of that"...The entire time I was reading the first article, I thought of that exercise, and how we have constructed what society should look like. My class didn't see a powerful woman kneeling on the floor, but instead a servant, and they didn't see an unworthy man protecting that women in power, but instead a "misogynistic pig", as one student also stated. 

      The other instance in my life that related to these articles of what "gender" is occurred last night, while shopping for Father's Day cards. I was looking at the cards, and truly enjoying the fact that I had never been looking at them from a diversity perspective until this class. The cards ranged from alcoholic beverage jokes, to half-naked women, to motorcycles, to golfing, to hunting or fishing, to handy-work. While perusing, I looked at my girlfriend and said, "Sweetheart, look at all these cards - golf clubs, tools, fish, deer - what has society come to that people think this is what is manly or representative of a father" - she just looked at me and said, "Yeah, that's how it is, plus it's Walmart hun..." In addition, the back of the store had a bin that said "Movies for Dad - Cheap! $2.49!" - and what did the movies encompass - Horror films, martial arts films, westerns, crazy intense action sequence films, the bond movies, and movies with half naked women on the cover... I think it's really interesting to see how we just overlook all of these little nuances that society presents to us, and just accept them as they are. I personally wouldn't have wanted any of those cards or gifts if I was a father, I truly would have loved the one card that said, "Hey, you know all that stuff you do... I see it, I appreciate it, and I love you more than you know". Society really has a hold on us, and if we don't change or at least attempt to influence the change, we're going to just keep having these same issues...

      The more articles I read for this class, the more I feel that we are truly ignorant as a society, and it fascinates me, because in a world where our intellectual ability is literally infinite, we focus on learning so many things besides those aspects that truly effect all of us everyday. This is why I am so excited to co-teach a class on Social Justice and Diversity this coming fall to college students, because I have the chance to hopefully influence the minds of future generations, with the hopeful intention of having some impact on issues of diversity...

Thanks for reading again!

Real Indians & Fake Wizards

Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America

by Eva Marie Garroutte

Quotes from the text to be analyzed:

"Most people would recognize the full-blood Indian who was enrolled in a federally recognized tribe as an Indian, even if the individual was adopted at birth by a non-Indian family and had never set foot in Indian country nor met another indian. Mixed-race individuals, by contrast, find their identity claims considerably complicated. Even if such an individual can demonstrate conclusively that he has some Native ancestry, the question will still be raised: Is the amount of ancestry he possesses "enough"?" (Garroutte, 68)

"Few, if any, Native Americans, regardless of upbringing in rural, reservation, or urban setting, ignore their own and other Indians' blood quantum in everyday life. Those whose physical appearances render their Indian identities suspect are subject to suspicious scrutiny until precise cultural explanations, especially blood quantum, are offered or discovered" (Garroutte, 72)

In this reading, the author is describing the difficulties of establishing one's identity as a Native American. Put simply, the most salient aspect of a person's identity according to governmental procedures and documents is that of blood quantum. The article delves into the fact that each individual that claims their identity as "Native American" needs to have a "sufficient" amount of Native American ancestral blood. Some laws require between a one-fourth and a one-half blood quantum to be considered a Native American. It has been stated however, that the only true Native Americans are those that are the pure-bloods. This article also touched upon the one-drop rule, (used since the end of the civil war to determine if an individual is considered African-American or not based on their hypodescent), and compared it to the intricacies faced when attempting to establish Indian identity. The article perfectly describes the juxtaposition of these two identity crises. In the former, African Americans are forced into a certain category even with the smallest amount of blood quantum, whereas in the latter, the individuals who desire a Native American identity need to justify why their amount of blood quantum should suffice. 

The article takes a turn away from the biological contentions, and toward the cultural and social contexts in which this identity crisis occurs. According to the text, many Indians find themselves being labeled and ostracized solely based on their skin color. There is a generalized view of what a Native American "should" look like, and if a person does not meet those standards exactly, they are cast away as an outlier, shunned away from the society that they want to be a part of and the larger nation that refuses to accept them as they wish to be. The text even states that many Native Americans are aware of their actions, and their potential deleterious effects, yet there seems to be no stopping the behavior, because it has been established as the norm.

Upon reading this article, I experienced a myriad of emotions ranging from anger, disgust, confusion, and ultimately pragmatic realization. When first learning about the laborious task of claiming one's identity as "Native American" I became appalled. Just as my trepidation was expressed in my last post, it seems to continue into this one due to a recurring theme of dehumanization. I truly cannot fathom why it is so difficult to allow a person to claim their own identity based on their upbringing and belief system. Once again, the "dominant" members of society have established such intense rules that it is physically impossible for a person to claim their own identity. It is absolutely atrocious that the process has become easier to actually just be forced into some arbitrary category, and whether or not you'd actually be accepting of it, is besides the point. 

The first aforementioned quote stated at the beginning of this post truly disgusts me based on the fact that it takes away all human rights, and places people into categories analogous to labeling and breeding of animals. The latter part of that quote truly shows how apathetic humans can become, based on the fact that even if a person desires to be part of something, and has fully immersed themselves in that specific culture, we would actually deny them that desire based on preposterous criteria. As interesting as this may sound, this quote truly brought me back to the fantasy world of Harry Potter created by J.K. Rowling. I found this quote to be analogous with the debacle that "mud-bloods" faced when trying to fit into the world. When trying to fit into the "human" world, they don't belong, as they are passionate about being part of the wonderful world of magic and wizardry, however, when fully immersed in their dream culture among other wizards, they are moderately shunned for not being true wizards. The character Hermione is a wonderful example of this paradox, and in my opinion, bolsters the argument that the quote above is terrible. She is very passionate, and not even having been an offspring of wizards, finds herself incredibly intrigued and skilled with the magical arts, so much so that she becomes one of the top students in her class. Drawing the bridge between fantasy and reality now, it is terribly irresponsible and truly detrimental to refuse somebody the ability to identify and be a part of something that they truly feel they belong to. Hermione's example also can play into the second quote above as she is constantly called a "filthy mud-blood" by other wizards. It is truly appalling to see that as members of society we don't always accept others into our culture solely based on minor differences. It shouldn't matter if a person doesn't necessarily look exactly the part, because if they are passionate about something enough, they may be more fit for the particular identity than a person who could have been born into it and takes it for granted. 

Another quick real-life example related to this can be drawn from a time when my family actually went to temple. Being from a half-jewish//half-catholic family, there were times when I truly didn't know what religion was and as a result really wasn't too passionate about it. I didn't know much about rules, but instead family traditions. I didn't know how to speak Hebrew, but I had a general understanding of what the blessings meant. Anyway, I digress, and want to say that I find it fascinating that in terms of religion, we are so accepting of those who could potentially want to be passionate about it, however we are so quick as a society to jump down one's throat concerning identity. Who cares if a person wants to identify as something that they feel is truly them?! How dare we take that away from them...All we are doing is showing people how to exclude and this deleterious circle will perpetually continue until somebody wakes up...

Anyway, there is another part of the article that I found particularly interesting, as it directly addresses the question that I had posed during class two days ago...In regards to me stating that we should just stop categorizing people all together, I guess I have come to the pragmatic realization that there obviously is a justifiable reason for it as well. When explaining why somebody made a decision based on another's skin color, there is a part of the text that states, "We like people to know who's doing those accomplishments, like getting scholarships" (Garroutte, 71). After reading that, I have to say Dr. McGough, that I guess I am beginning to understand. Identity categorization may potentially cause stigmas, yet at the same time, it gives people something to look for, to honor, and to be appreciative for. This is but a tiny example of how there is much more for me to learn in terms of diversity studies, and I am certainly growing more and more eager to do so!

Thanks for reading...

Awesome talk about diversity

What is "Race"? What is "Identity"? 

An analysis using two readings from the text highlighted below:

"Race" and the Construction of Human Identity by Audrey Smedley

and

Who is Black? One Nation's definition by F. James Davis

"What seems strange to us today is that the biological variations among human groups were not given significant social meaning...No structuring of inequality, whether social, moral, intellectual, cultural, or otherwise, was associated with people because of their skin color" (Smedley, 49)

Written from an anthropological standpoint, the author was able to explore the concept of "race" from a perspective in which it is seldom discussed. This reading truly opened my eyes to the contingencies associated with the human desire for power and the need to belong. This author describes how throughout the course of history, human's have changed their perception of "race" drastically. As human nature dictates, we easily identify with categories, and therefore different niches were established in the past - but they were ones that were purely objective, and dramatically different from today's perspectives. The text explains that there were three original categories used in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid -  and individuals were put into these cohorts based on geography and/or biological dispositions. This matter-of-fact mentality that humans had during this time was truly conducive to human development, as no one group was perceived as better than another, just different. Mere variances were simply regarded as such, and these differences only meant that one group came from another area of the world. It is truly intriguing to think that at one point in history humans as a society were objective - how easily we are manipulated as time progressed...The reading later goes on to discuss how some dominant groups in society needed to find a way to denigrate the masses in order to remain in power, while paradoxically justifying these unethical actions. Somehow, once power came into the picture, human morality was immediately questioned, and as anticipated, power prevailed. 

They say that power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, and once the "dominant" groups within society found a way to maintain their power, it would forever justify the litany of immoral acts that were to come. Taking a look at society today, we are completely opposite from the objective nature of the past. According to the text, "American society had made 'race' (and the physical features connected to it) equivalent to, and the dominant source of, human identity, superseding all other aspects of identity" (Smedley, 51). It is truly appalling to see that when given the opportunity to be subjective, humans will take the road leading towards truly negative connotations. Never in the past had race been considered a terrible thing. Women and men were revered for their intelligence, occupations, and contributions to society as a whole, not by the color of their skin. A further vilification regarding this aspect can be seen in the second reading regarding the "one-drop rule". Once society had deemed "black" as negative, drastic measures were taken to ensure that identification of the "lesser kind" was examined with the utmost detail. Davis states, "In the south, it became known as the 'one-drop rule, meaning that a single drop of 'black blood' makes a person black" (Davis, 58). This rule further justifies the fact that as humans, we strive to find what is "better", not accept anything less, and belittle all other things that don't fit into that contrived category. Ironically, we are entirely mistaken, as this was the beginning development of the complete opposite of the identification of a perfect society.  What's even more bothersome to me concerning this is that society is actually taking the time to identify people - talk about inhumane - we were fully stripping humans of their right to have a voice - ultimately an unpleasant foreshadowing to a dismal future...In my opinion, this could be analogous to identifying animals, as they cannot speak for themselves...

These two readings truly made me feel angry at the way the world has turned out to be. My trepidation may be visible in the aforementioned paragraphs, due to the fact that while reading and writing, some sort of value-driven fire built up and ignited at some point, but I digress. In today's world, you would think that we'd be educated and sophisticated society, yet instead, we've turned into a categorical society bereft of morals. We still judge based on skin color, and if we are unsure, we inquire so that we may acquire adequate understanding to bolster our preconceived notions of someone's "race". This is unbelievably ignorant. 

As an educator, I find that awareness and knowledge is truly the key to solving any problem, and thus I believe that moving forward, I am very excited to learn more and more about topics of diversity. I hope that I may assist in passing on the knowledge that will help to assuage our conditioned "racist" thoughts. I admire the objective ways of the past, and truly despise the negative subjective world in which we live in today. I almost feel that if we could all go back to the age during childhood when skin color never mattered, we would all be in a more pleasant place...

For an awesome example of how terrible preconceived notions of people can be, here is a link to an amazing video that I've watched many times called "The Danger of a Single Story"... Enjoy!

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=the%20danger%20of%20a%20single%20story&safe=off 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg