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 

Thanks for checking out the blog! Posts to come soon....until then, enjoy the word cloud of diversity that I made!