Final paper (Who Am I? Part II/Learning Analysis). this is ONE approximately 10 page
paper
There are 3 parts to the paper. I will break them down below.
PART I - INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Using Section II. IDENTITY CATEGORIES: GENDER, RACE, AND CLASS of the
outline distributed on February 25th, you will:
• Describe the impact
of gender, race, and class in your life. Please describe how
your identity within each of these 3 categories impacts both your 1) daily
experience, and 2) your life outcomes (what kind of job you will have, how
much money you will make, where you will live, who you associate with, etc).
• You will begin with what you wrote in your Who Am I? Part I paper, however you
will re-write based on what you’ve learned this semester as you interrogate the
assumptions you had on the first day of class. Please use the readings, class
discussions, videos, and other class activities to help you identify what you
have learned this semester about gender, race, and class in your life. [This part
of the paper will be approximately 4 pages long.]
PART II - STRUCTURAL LEVEL
Using Section II. AMERICAN SOCIAL STRUCTURES of the outline distributed
on February 25th, you will:
• Identify the
2 institutions/groups that have had the greatest impact in your life
through the messages they send about who you are. Examples are: school,
family, peers, the media, religious organizations, and more.
• Once you identify and describe your chosen institutions/groups, please describe in
detail what their messages have taught you about 1) who you are, and 2) how
they have formed your worldview (the lens through which you see the
world). For instance: How does your lens determine what you see and how you
view others within the categories of gender, race, and class? Again, please use
the readings, class discussions, videos, and other class activities to help you
examine both the messages and your lens. One useful question to ask: What
was invisible to me before taking this class? [This part of the paper will be
approximately 4 pages long.]
PART III - CHANGE
• Please use the
Johnson (2001) article [ATTACHED] as a springboard to talk
about how you plan to move forward with the information you have learned in
our class this semester. Please talk about the opportunities you have to create
change in our world. Please note: We will use the Johnson article to talk about
change in our final class meeting on Wednesday, May 6th. We will discuss
examples of opportunities to create change. [This part of the paper will be
approximately 2 pages long.]
Introduction:
My name is Shalan, I’m from Saudi Arabia. I’m a freshman Finance student currently
partaking my second semester. Being an international student in the US has taught me a lot about
gender, race and social class. Everything here is America is different from back home in Saudi
Arabia. From the culture and the way of life to the behavior. The perceptions here are different
because of the democracy that is vividly present here. Despite the fact that my race is not so
much loved in the country due to the obvious conflicts with Muslim states, I feel at home and I
love studying in this institution as segregation and discrimination is highly discouraged here by
the school polices.
Gender:
Gender is just a name. All people are equal. The institution does not allow any form of gender
discrimination. Being a male student, am just like my fellow female students. We share a lot in
discussions and debates. The situation is not different from back home is Saudi Arabia. With
globalization and technological advancements, the world has learned of the importance of the
girl child and nowadays children are treated the same. When I first joined this school, I was a bit
worried on issues of gender and I did not know how to identify myself with others. However,
with the orientation, I quickly learned that we were all equal. The school management is always
on the fore front in protecting personal rights and they do not condone any forms of
discrimination. Thus, I appreciate all people and interact with the equally despite their gender.
It’s one of my strengths. I believe that my self-identity has never at any one point been in
conflict with how others identify me because of gender.
Race:
This being an international school, students are from different races. The natives here understand
and appreciate that. We form a great community and share great ideas from all over the world.
Never have I felt out of place. When I joined the institutional, I somehow felt out of place. But I
quickly learned to identify myself with the other races. I realized that this was a cosmopolitan
school and every one was treated with the dignity they deserved. My race has never been a
subject for discussion, neither has it ever been a subject for debates. We all relate fairly well and
I love interacting with other cultures to learn their way of life and compare it with mine. The
students here are welcoming and warm. I believe that it is an advantage to have students from
different cultures and they learn a lot from each other. I am now in my second semester and I feel
like I have already learned a lot to appreciate other people’s races. My self-identity has never
been in conflict with how others identify me. I feel appreciated just like I appreciate myself. My
school mates and friends value my race and always want to hear more of what we value and what
we do. I fell totally in place.
Social class:
There are social classes in almost every setting. Here at school, it is not explicitly defined
but social classes exist. We consider the natives as being of higher social classes and the
international students (like me) as being of lesser classes. Of course the school policies forbid
this and this is why it is never in the public domain. No one will ever tell you that you belong to
a certain social class. You just feel it within yourself. There are instances where you can clearly
differentiatethe students. For instance, most of the native students drive big cars to school and
they live in posh neighborhoods. They however do not discriminate against the others who
cannot afford such luxuries. Social class here is not about how poor you are but how much you
spend. It is about how much money you have for use rather than how much you make or you are
given. If you are able to spend a lot especially on friends, then you belong to a different social
class. Personally, I understand of the existence of social classes in the school and community but
it has never affected my way of life. My self-identity has never been in conflict with how others
identify me due to my social class.
Conclusion
Gender, race and social class have had much impact on my daily experiences as an
international student. The culture of People in the US is quite different from our culture back in
Saudi Arabia.Race has never been a great issue to me the school as being an international school,
the students are used to people from different races. At the same time, social classes are a
privilege of the few who define them and understand what they are. Personally I think that we
being students, social class is not a priority. We read the same books and do the same exercises
despite the wealth in our pockets.
READING 59: What Can We Do?
letters to the editor and op-ed columns can raise
awareness of the issues locally, regionally, and
nationally ....
Use the lessons you have learned
from this discussion and make a difference.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
Does Cogan's description of "Capitol Hill culture" fit with your assumptions about how
government works? What surprised you in her
description? What didn't?
2. Does the information in Cogan's article make
you feel any more comfortable about pursuing "everyday activism" on issues important to
you? Why or why not?
NOTES
1. American Psychological Association. (1995). Advancing
psychology in the public interest: A psychologist's guide to
participation in federal policy making. Washington, DC:
Author.
2. Wells, W. G. (1996).
Working with Congress: A practical guide for scientists and engineers. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
3. Lorion, R. P., & Iscoe, 1. (1996). Reshaping our views
of our field. In R. P. Lorion, 1. Iscoe, P. H. DeLeon, &
G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Psychology and public policy
(pp. 1-19). Washington,
DC: American Psychological
Association. Truman, D. B. (1987). The nature and functions of interest groups: The governmental
process. In
P. Woll (Ed.), American government: Readings and cases
(pp. 255-262). Boston: Little, Brown.
4. Ceaser, J. W., Bessette, J. M., O'Toole, L. J., & Thurow, G.
(1995). American government: Origins, institutions, and
public policy (4th ed.). Dubuque, lA: Kendall/Hunt.
5. Nickels, 1. B. (1994). Guiding a bill through the legislative process (Congressional Research Service Report for
Congress, 94-322 GOV). Washington, DC: Library of
Congress.
6. Key, V. O. (1987). The nature and functions of interest groups: Pressure groups. In P. Woll (Ed.), American
government: Readings and cases (pp. 266-273). Boston:
Little, Brown.
7. American Psychological Association, 1995 (see note 1).
Wells, 1996 (see note 2).
8. Drew, E. (1987). A day in the life of a United States Senator.
In P. Woll (Ed.), American government: Readings and cases
(pp. 487-497). Boston: Little, Brown. Vincent, T. A. (1990).
A view from the Hill: The human element in policy making on Capitol Hill. American Psychologist, 45(1), 61-{)4.
9. American Psychological Association, 1995.
485
10. Wells, 1996.
11. Rundquist, P. S., Schneider,
J., & Pauls, F. R (1m).
Congressional staff An analysis of their ro~ functionS.
and impacts (Congressional Research Service Report for
Congress, 92-90S). Washington, DC: Library of Ccogress,
12. Redman, E. (1987). Congressional
staff: The surrogates of power. In P. Woll (Ed.), American government:
Readings and cases (pp. 452-461). Boston: Little, Brown.
Rundquist, Scheider, & Pauls, 1992.
13. Vincent, T. A., 1990, p. 61 (see note 8).
14. Bevan, W. (1996). OIl getting in bed with a lion. In R P.
Lorion, I. Iscoe, P. H. Deleon, & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.),
Psychology and public policy (pp. 145-163). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. Nissim-Sabat,
D. (1997). Psychologists, Congress, and public policy.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(3).
275-280. Wells, 1996 (see note 2).
IS. This is the rationale for including briefing memos
throughout this [discussion].
16. For example, Wilson, D. K., Purdon, S. E., & Wallston, A.
(1988). Compliance to health recommendations:
A theoretical overview of message framing. Health Education
Research,3,161-171.
17. American Psychological Association, 1995 (see note 1).
For more information on how to write an effective letter,
the reader is referred to the information brochure written
by the APA titled: Calkins, B. J. (1995). Psychology in the
public interest: A psychologist's guide to participation in
federal policy making. Washington, DC: APA. Available at
www.apa.orglppo/grassroots/sadguide.html.
READING
59
What Can We Do? Becoming
Part of the Solution
Allan G. Johnson
The challenge we face is to change patterns of exclusion, rejection, privilege, harassment, discrimination, and violence that are everywhere in this
society and have existed for hundreds (or, in the
case of gender, thousands) of years. We have to
begin by thinking about the trouble and the challenge in new and more productive ways ....
Allan G. Johnson is a professor of sociology at Hartford College
for Women.
486
SECTION TV: Bridging Differences
Large numbers of people have sat on the sidelines and seen themselves as neither part of the
problem nor the solution. Beyond this shared trait,
however, they are far from homogeneous. Everyone
is aware of the whites, heterosexuals, and men who
intentionally act out in oppressive ways. But there
is less attention to the millions of people who know
inequities exist and want to be part of the solution.
Their silence and invisibility allow the trouble to
continue. Removing what silences them and stands
in their way can tap an enormous potential of energy for change ....
MYTH 1: "IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS
WAY, AND IT ALWAYS WILL"
If you don't make a point of studying history, it's
easy to slide into the belief that things have always
been the way we've known them to be. But if you
look back a bit further, you find racial oppression
has been a feature of human life for only a matter
of centuries, and there is abundant evidence that
male dominance has been around for only seven
thousand years or so, which isn't very long when
you consider that human beings have been on the
earth for hundreds of thousands of years.' So when
it comes to human social life, the smart money
should be on the idea that nothing has always been
this way or any other.
This idea should suggest that nothing will always be this way or any other, contrary to the notion that privilege and oppression are here to stay.
If the only thing we can count on is change, then
it's hard to see why we should believe for a minute
that any kind of social system is permanent. Reality
is always in motion. Things may appear to stand
still, but that's only because humans have a short
attention span, dictated perhaps by the shortness
of our lives. If we take the long view-the
really
long view-we can see that everything is in process
all the time.
Some would argue that everything is process, the
space between one point and another, the movement from one thing toward another. What we may
see as permanent end points-world
capitalism,
Western civilization, advanced technology, and so
on-are
actually temporary states on the way to
other temporary states. Even ecologists, who used
to talk about ecological balance, now speak of ecosystems as inherently unstable. Instead of always
returning to some steady state after a period of
disruption, ecosystems are, by nature, a continuing
process of change from one arrangement to another. They never go back to just where they were.
Social systems are also fluid. A society isn't some
hulking thing that sits there forever as it is. Because
a system happens only as people participate in it, it
can't help being a dynamic process of creation and
re-creation from one moment to the next. In something as simple as a man following the path of least
resistance toward controlling conversations (and a
woman letting him do it), the reality of male privilege in that moment comes into being. This is how
we do male privilege, bit by bit, moment by moment. This is also how individuals can contribute
to change: by choosing paths of greater resistance,
as when men don't take control and women refuse
their own subordination.
Since people can always choose paths of greater
resistance or create new ones entirely, systems can
only be as stable as the flow of human choice and
creativity, which certainly isn't a recipe for permanence. In the short run, systems of privilege may
look unchangeable. But the relentless process of
social life never produces the exact same result twice
in a row, because it's impossible for everyone to participate in any system in an unvarying and uniform
way. Added to this are the dynamic interactions that
go on among systems-between
capitalism and
the state, for example, or between families and the
economy-that
also produce powerful and unavoidable tensions, contradictions, and other currents of
change. Ultimately, systems can't help changing.
Oppressive systems often seem stable because
they limit people's lives and imaginations so much
that they can't see beyond them. But this masks a
fundamental long-term instability caused by the
dynamics of oppression itself. Any system organized around one group's efforts to control and
exploit another is a losing proposition, because it
READING 59: WhafCan
contradicts the essentially uncontrollable nature
of reality and does violence to basic human needs
and values. For example, as the last two centuries
of feminist thought and action have begun to
challenge the violence and break down the denial,
patriarchy has become increasingly vulnerable.
This is one reason male resistance, backlash, and
defensiveness are now so intense. Many men complain about their lot, especially their inability to
realize ideals of control in relation to their own
lives.? women, and other men. Fear of and resentment toward women are pervasive, from worrying
about being accused of sexual harassment to railing
against affirmative action.
No social system lasts forever, but this is especially true of oppressive systems of privilege. We
can't know what will replace them, but we can be
confident that they will go, that they are going at
every moment. It's only a matter of how quickly,
by what means, and toward what alternatives, and
whether each of us will do our part to make it happen sooner rather than later and with less rather
than more human suffering in the process.
MYTH 2: GANDHI'S PARADOX
AND THE MYTH OF NO EFFECT
Whether we help change oppressive systems depends on how we handle the belief that nothing we
do can make a difference, that the system is too big
and powerful for us to affect it. The complaint is
valid if we look at society as a whole: it's true that
we aren't going to change it in our lifetime. But if
changing the entire system through our own efforts
is the standard against which we measure the ability
to do something, then we've set ourselves up to feel
powerless. It's not unreasonable to want to make
a difference, but if we have to see the final result
of what we do, then we can't be part of change
that's too gradual and long term to allow that. We
also can't be part of change that's so complex that
we can't sort out our contribution from countless others that combine in ways we can never
grasp. The problem of privilege and oppression
requires complex and long-term change coupled
We Do?
487
with short-term work to soften some of its worst
consequences. This means that if we're going to be
part of the solution, we have to let go of the idea
that change doesn't happen unless we're around to
see it happen.
To shake off the paralyzing myth that we cannot,
individually, be effective, we have to alter how we see
ourselves in relation to a long-term, complex process of change. This begins by altering how we relate
to time. Many changes can come about quickly
enough for us to see them happen. When 1 was
in college, for example, there was little talk about
gender inequality as a social problem, whereas now
there are more than five hundred women's studies
programs in the United States. But a goal like ending
oppression takes more than this and far more time
than our short lives can encompass. If we're going to
see ourselves as part of that kind of change, we can't
use the human life span as a significant standard
against which to measure progress.
To see our choices in relation to long-term
change, we have to develop what might be called
"time constancy," analogous to what psychologists
call "object constancy." If you hold a cookie in front
of very young children and then put it behind your
back while they watch, they can't find the cookie
because they apparently can't hold on to the image
of it and where it went. They lack object constancy.
In other words, if they can't see it, it might as well
not even exist. After a while, children develop the
mental ability to know that objects or people exist
even when they're out of sight. In thinking about
change and our relation to it, we need to develop
a similar ability in relation to time that enables us
to carry within us the knowledge, the faith> that
significant change happens even though we aren't
around to see it.
Along with time constancy, we need to darify
for ourselves how our choices matter and how they
don't. Gandhi once said nothing we do as individuals matters, bUt that it's vitally important to do it
anyway. This touches on a powerful paradox in
the relationship between society and individuals.
Imagine, for example, that social systems are trees
and we are the leaves. No individual leaf on the tree
488
SECTION IV: Bridging Differences
matters; whether it lives or dies has no effect on
can't foresee; they don't happen unless we move, if
only in our minds. As pioneers, we discover what's
much of anything. But collectively, the leaves are
possible only by first putting ourselves in motion,
essential to the whole tree because they photosynbecause we have to move ill order to change our
thesize the sugar that feeds it. Without leaves, the
tree dies.
position-and
hence put perspective-on
where
So leaves matter and they don't, just as we matter
we are, where we've been, and where we might go.
This is how alternatives begin to appear.
and we don't. What each of us does may not seem
like much, because in important ways, it isn'tmuch.
The myth of no effect obscures the role we can
play in the long-term transformation of society,
But when many people do this work together, they
But the myth also blinds us to our own power in
can form a critical mass that is anything but insigrelation to other people. We may cling to the belief
nificant, especially in the long run. If we're going
that there is nothing we can do precisely because
to be part of a larger change process, we have to
we subconsciously know how much power we do
learn to live with this sometimes uncomfortable
paradox.
have and are afraid to use it because people may not
like it. If we deny our power to affect people, then we
A related paradox is that we have to be willing
don't have to wony about taking responsibility for
to travel without knowing where we're going. We
how we use it or, more significant, how we don't.
need faith to do what seems rightwithoutnecessarThis reluctance to acknowledge and use power
ily being sure of the effect that will have. We have
comes up in the simplest everyday situations, as
to think like pioneers who may know the direction
when a group of friends starts laughing at a racist,
they want to move in or what they would like to
sexist, or homophobic joke and we have to decide
find, without knowing where they will wind up.
whether to go along. it's just a moment among
Because they are going where they've never been
countless such moments that constitute the fabric
before, they can't know whether they will ever arof all kinds of oppressive systems. But it's a crucial
rive at anything they might consider a destination,
moment, because the group's seamless response to
much less the kind of place they had in mind when
the joke affirms the normalcy and unproblematic
they first set out. If pioneers had to know their desnature of it in a system of privilege. It takes only
tination from the beginning, they would never go
one person to tear the fabric of collusion and apanywhere or discover anything.
parent consensus. On some level, we each know
In similar ways, to seek out alternatives to
we have this potential, and this knowledge can emsystems of privilege it has to be enough to move
power us or scare us into silence. We can change the
away from social life organized around privilege
course of the moment with something as simple as
and oppression and to move toward the certainty
visibly not joining in the laughter, or saying "1 don't
that alternatives are possible, even though we may
think that's funny." We know how uncomfortable
not have a clear idea of what those are or ever
this can make the group feel and how they may
experience them ourselves. It has to be enough to
ward off their discomfort by dismissing, excluding,
question how we see ourselves as people of a certain race, gender, class, and sexual orientation, for
or even attacking us as bearers of bad news. Our siexample, or examine how we see capitalism and
lence, then, isn't because nothing we do will matter,
the scarcity and competition it produces in relation
our silence is our not daring to matter.
to our personal striving to better our own lives, or
Our power to affect other people isn't simhow oppression works and how we participate in
ply the power to make them feel uncomfortable.
it Then we can open ourselves to experience what
Systems shape the choices people make primarily
happens next.
by providing paths of least resistance. Whenever we
When we dare ask core questions about who we
openly choose a different path, however, we make
are and how the world works, things happen that we
it possible for others to see both the path of least
READING 59: Wbat CaD We Do?
resistance they're following and the possibility of
choosing something else.
If we choose different paths, we usually won't
know if we're affecting other people, but it's safe
to assume that we are. When people know that alternatives exist and witness other people choosing
them, things become possible that weren't before.
When we openly pass up a path of least resistance,
we increase resistance for other people around that
path, because now they must reconcile their choice
with what they've seen us do, something they didn't
have to deal with before. There's no way to predict
how this will play out in the long run, but there's
certainly no good reason to think it won't make a
difference.
The simple fact is that we affect one another
all the time without knowing it. When my family
moved to our house in the woods of northwestern
Connecticut, one of my first pleasures was blazing
walking trails through the woods. Some time later
I noticed deer scat and hoofprints along the trails,
and it pleased me to think they had adopted the
trail I'd laid down. But then I wondered if perhaps
I had followed a trail laid down by others when I
cleared "my" trail. I realized that there is no way to
know that anything begins or ends with me and the
choices I make. It's more likely that the paths others
have chosen influence the paths I choose.
This suggests that the simplest way to help others make different choices is to make them myself,
and to do it openly. As I shift the patterns of my
own participation in systems of privilege, I make
it easier for others to do so as well, and harder for
them not to. Simply by setting an example-rather
than trying to change them-I create the possibility of their participating in change in their own
time and in their own way. In this way I can widen
the circle of change without provoking the kind of
defensiveness that perpetuates paths of least resistance and the oppressive systems they serve.
It's important to see that in doing this kind of
work, we don't have to go after people to change
their minds. In fact, changing people's minds may
play a relatively small part in changing societies.
We won't succeed in turning diehard misogynists
489
into practicing feminists, for example, or racists
into civil rights activists. At most, we can shift the
odds in favor of new paths that contradict the core
values that systems of privilege depend on. We can
introduce so many exceptions to the paths that support privilege that the children or grandchildren of
diehard racists and misogynists will start to change
their perception of which paths offer the least resistance. Research on men's changing attitudes toward
the male provider role, for example, shows that
most of the shift occurs between generations, not
within them.' This suggests that rather than trying to change people, the most important thing we
can do is contribute to the slow evolution of entire
cultures so that forms and values which support
privilege begin to lose their "obvious" legitimacy
and normalcy and new forms emerge to challenge
their privileged place in social life.
In science, this is how one paradigm replaces
another.' For hundreds of years, for example,
Europeans believed that the stars, planets, and
sun revolved around Earth. But scientists such as
Copernicus and Galileo found that too many of
their astronomical observations were anomalies
that didn't fit the prevailing paradigm: if the sun
and planets revolved around the Earth, then they
wouldn't move as they did. As such observations
accumulated, they made it increasingly difficult to
hang on to an Earth-centered paradigm. Eventually
the anomalies became so numerous that Copernicus
offered a new paradigm, which he declined to publish for fear of persecution as a heretic, a fate that
eventually befell Galilee when he took up the cause
a century later. Eventually, however, the evidence
was so overwhelming that a new paradigm replaced
the old one.
In similar ways, we can see how systems of privilege are based on paradigms that shape how we
think about difference and how we organize social
life in relation to it. We can openly challenge those
paradigms with evidence that they don't work and
produce unacceptable consequences for everyone. We
can help weaken them by openly choosing alternative
paths in our everyday lives and thereby provide living
anomalies that don't fit the prevailing paradigm. By
490
..
SECTION IV: Bridging Differences
PERSONAL
ACCOUNT
,I
Parents' Underestimated Love
"Coming out of the closet" to my parents has been the
most liberating thing that I have done In my life because
having my homosexuality discovered by my parents was
my biggest fear. Although I didn't grow up in a particularly homophobic environment, innately I knew that homosexuality was different and wasn't accepted because
of rigid social norms and religious doctrines. I lived in
anguish of being exposed and of the consequences that
would come with being the queer one.
Keeping the secret from my traditional Salvadoran
parents created a wedge that made it difficult for me to
bond with my parents and have them participate fully in
my life. I became a recluse and avoided much parental
interaction to avoid questions about girlfriends. During
my teenage years, girlfriends were expected from a
"good and healthy" boy such as myself. I felt that my
lack of interest in girls would have led to probes from my
parents, and plus, I wasn't the typical macho boy who
was into sports, cars, etc .... I was the "sensitive type.·
To avoid any suspicion, I limited my interaction with my
our example, we can contradict basic assumptions
and their legitimacy over and over again. We can add
our choices and oUI lives to tip the scales toward new
paradigms that don't revolve around privilege and
oppression. We can't tip the scales overnight or by
ourselves, and in that sense we don't amount to much.
But on the other side of Gandhi's paradox, it is crucial
where we choose to place what poet Bonaro Overstreet
called "the stubborn ounces of my weight":
STUBBORN OUNCES
(To One Who Doubts the Worth of Doing Anything
[[You Can't Do Everything)
You say the little efforts that I make
will do no good; they will never prevail
to tip the hovering scale
where Justice hangs in balance.
I don't think
parents. I felt that if I opened up to them, my sexuality
would be questioned and questions like "Are you gay?·
would follow. Being an academic overachiever in high
school made things easier for me. Whenever the question was asked of why I didn't have a girlfriend, I had
the perfect excuse, "I'm too busy with school to focus on
girls ... do you want a Playboy or an honor student?"
During my sophomore year in college I took a bold
step and moved out of my parents' house. My move
facilitated my "coming out" to my parents because the
possibility of being kicked out of the house when I told
them I was gay wouldn't loom over me. I didn't know if
my parents would kick me out, but I couldn't run the risk
of finding out. One year after moving out, I "came out,"
Ironically it didn't come as a surprise to my parents,
and frankly it wasn't a big deall After years of living in
fear of rejection and shame, my parents aocepted and
reaffirmed their love and support. I underestimated the
power of my parents' love.
Octavia N. Espinal
I ever thought they would.
But I am prejudiced beyond debate
In favor of my right to choose which side
shall feel the stubborn ounces of my weight."
It is in such small and humble choices that oppression and the movement toward something better
actually happen.
DISCUSSION
QUESTIONS
1. In a sense, Allan Johnson's discussion highlights the paradoxes inherent in the efforts to
create social change. What are those paradoxes,
and how does Johnson resolve them?
2. What would Johnson's advice be to someone
who wants to make a difference in society? Can
it be summarized in a sentence or two?
Central Argument of Lober
According to Lober, human nature is not constructed by their biological genetics or
structure but it is developed gradually from social experiences, environmental social processes
and culture that can be dialogued as a root cause for gender discrimination in every society.
Gender discrimination can be regarded as a process of socialization and perceptions created in
every society about distinctions in male and female. Roles of women are described as feminine
to contribute in domestic work, wearing colorful bright cloths and engaging in specific
workplaces and violation of these rules attracts public attention as violation of social norms and
traditions. On the contrary, Men are masculine and strong to take more control on economic
growth and political affairs [Judith Lorber (1994)].
Roles of Gender
The human personalities clearly reflect their social norms and culture. Unfortunately, we
have not yet completely evolved from a male dominant society in which roles of men and
women are predefined because of perceptions about specific gender injected in human minds by
social environments. The discriminated roles of men and women in professional workplaces,
educational careers, sports selections and clothing stereotyping indicate the role of civilization
and community in establishing gender inequality. Religious beliefs, legislative policy making
and social norms tend to strengthen the human perceptions about variations in the roles of men
and women in mainstream socialization.
From the early childhood, little baby girls are taught to explore specific talents and
educational forums that are not ‘boyish’ in society which impacts the role of women in economy
and technological advancements [Shankar Vedantam (2013)]. Women have less interest in
technology and innovative businesses because they have pre-defined way of selecting their
education and ambitions. Women have different roles in their interpersonal and professional
relationships due to which are considered more prone to domestic violence and societal
harassment.
The inadequate and deficient decision making abilities and goal oriented enthusiasm in
women in the professional organizations is because they are not supposed to be giving decisive
inputs when it is important. The dominance of male in corporate businesses and careers puts
barriers to performance and participation of female gender. Core responsibilities of women in
American culture are to pay heed to their children upbringing and to provide emotional support
to men and women are considered weak to take strong decisions [Lisa Miller (2014)]. Women
who have children are supposed to be less competent in jobs because of their diverted attention
towards upbringing of their babies whereas men with children are considered more professional
and responsible with mature thinking with higher pay rates [David Leonhardt (2014)].
Men are considered to be more analytical and problem solving in terms of statistical
evaluations, mathematical techniques and scientific theories and so does the professors of these
subjects are rated highly by the students during student evaluation and feedback. Women
instructors in colleges and schools are preferred in very few subjects such as fashion designing or
cooking classes and majority of educational system is dominated by male community [Amanda
Marcotte (2014)].
The dominance of men in sports, professions and educational institutions is majorly
injecting the increased relaxations and luxuries to men as compared to women. This difference in
roles of genders in society is majorly because of the perceptions and thinking processes of people
in society where gender roles and passions are not defined according to their nature but in line
with socialization.
I was already familiar with the information that stereotyping in the roles of women in
workplaces, sports selection and clothing is imposed upon human behaviors through social
factors such as media such as news, movies and music. Literature text also develops a way to
promote gender discrimination in educational courses and reading materials. However I was
surprised to learn that these factors are more responsible to gender inequality as compared to
natural and biological structure of the body and mind. I always thought that human desires and
passions are controlled mainly by their natural body structure and needs but a detailed insight to
social factors surprised me and made me revise my ideologies.
Conversation with a homeless
Human Attitudes, Behaviors and Perceptions are shaped by the environmental and social
experiences. Apart from learning in the environment, genetic and biological factors also
primarily control the personality traits within individuals. Human nature promotes the sense of
communicating with each other to share information and mental thoughts with each other to live
in harmony and to help in evolution of human race. Considering the importance of conversation,
I experienced a meeting with a homeless person who perceived the worldview on various
subjects differently from me which taught me many lessons about diversification in values,
beliefs and human attributes.
Similarities in Experiences
After introductory formalities and investigation of upbringing background of the
homeless, I shifted to explore personal experienced events, beliefs, and various ideologies about
life of the person in a friendly manner.
The homeless had a very clear view about
technologically advanced and modern world that it is causing further unrest in human race by
providing an intense sense of competition and race to earn more money. Businesses concerned
about increasing their operational productivity regardless of the harms caused by the
environmental pollution by the waste material of these large industries. He further discussed that
his workplace management is focused to increase their capital and they are least concerned about
the harm they cause to nature and stress they cause due to extra burden on their employees. I had
the similar ideology about the mental rest that he described during the conversation that humans
must not worried about the higher class luxuries carved by humans. Enough food to eat, a house
to live and peace of mind are three main objectives a man must achieve because increased
economic conditions come with increased desires and wished. He said that a family is the most
precious thing a person could ever have and he must strive with full strength to achieving a
balance in professional and personal life spending considerable time with the family members.
According to that person, religious, gender and political differences have no place in human lives
and the concept of one love for all humanity must be installed and accepted with open heart by
every individual because it will expand the space to restructure social norms shaped due to
capitalist media that injects their opinions on everyone. These are few ideologies and perception
I share with this man especially about maintaining a balance in career and family.
Differences in Opinions
I talked to him about the political leaders he supported in the past and those he supports
currently. In the response, he looked at me with a very sarcastic smile and explained that the
political leaders have nothing to do with the interests of poor and underprivileged class. The only
role of politics is to uproot hatred in humans and they bring wars to nations to meet political
objectives. He had once tried to reach a political leader in his local area but the person did not
listen to his concerns enthusiastically. I had complete different views about politics because I
believed in the participation in political activities proactively because we are the one who give
right to leaders to rule over us and impose their policies. We decide political class so we must be
concerned about their selection and functioning so to help the improvements in the corrupt
system rather lying back and cursing them.
The homeless person, I conversed with, illustrated his mountaineering expeditions he
used to engage in every year in Himalayas every year where he exposed himself to the extreme
cold conditions with less water and food on the mountains with high death rate in order to
challenge his abilities and core of human experiences of survival. I did not agree with his views
on mountaineering because I thought giving away your life on mountains like this is not worth it.
One should go out and praise the existence of natural beauty but it must be in limits. He said
when he left home, he had to face very difficulties to establish himself financially and when he
had achieved his goal of economic establishment, he felt a sense of contentment and
accomplishment which he would never forget which is why he keeps exposing himself to
extreme adventures to learn more about his own personality because it is the worst and
challenging time in the life of humans when they learn exponentially more.
Learning during the Conversation
I learned about my partner in conversation that he had a very hard time leaving his home
due to some reasons he did not share and it had impacted greatly in the formulation of his
personality traits. He was a very adventurous person with most of his views against the social
norms and political establishment in the community because of his hardships during the time
when he was trying to establish himself and no governmental or public support assisted him to
gain his objectives. He believed in the importance of family in human life and the mental peace
family support brought with it. The person was a very emotionally stable individual after facing
hard times with no moral or emotional support. His personality was very extrovert and friendly
in nature because of his various meetings and dealing with professionals and individuals in
workplace as well as daily routines in the community place he lived in. All the motivation he
had to gather to achieve excellence in his work or to pursue newer mountaineering projects was
intrinsic type of motivation which was driven due to internal instincts due to zero family support.
He had more respect for human relationships than money or commercialized surroundings
around him.
After meeting with the homeless conversational partner of mine, I had discovered a
whole new dimension of myself. I felt that the positive attitude for social acceptance is only
possible by communicating with other people and sharing views and ideas with others opens up
newer perspectives towards thinking about life. It also taught me how diversified and relative
human beliefs and ideas are and it is the beauty of co-existence of these distinctive beliefs that
makes a system reliable and critically thinkable. The similarities in the views made me believe
that I am not the only one who has these views and I am not the only one with this story but
every one shares some attributes with others in some way and the disagreements are part of
human lives and they must be negotiated with an approach to learn something from it.
I had the privilege to volunteer for eight hours in the Shepherd’s Table which was
initiated in 1983 as a soup kitchen and had the basic mission to provide food to the hungry
homeless people in the neighborhood area but due to its excellent services to the community, it
gained friendly help from the society and people from around the corner including shopping
markets, food retailers, property dealers, religious congregants, and governmental official
sources. This help from the community came in the form of donations, food equipment, training
professionals for the workers that transformed the whole mission of the Shepherd’s Table into
becoming multipurpose community center that now provides health facilities, shelter facilities,
drug awareness, counseling and psychological grooming facilities to the homeless people to
contribute positively in the services of humanity.
I went to the nearest Shepherd’s Table unit and told the staff that I wanted to volunteer
for eight hours and they happily agreed to it and allowed me to help in cleaning the dining room
and kitchen, helping marginally with cooking food, and placing the food in its place. I felt very
uncomfortable in the beginning because I had never volunteered in such cleaning work before
but as the time passed I started to feel more comfortable with the staff and the homeless people
coming for food. I started to interact with people within the staff and the shelter less people
coming in for help. There were two chefs in the staff that had the responsibilities of cooking and
distributing the food and both were very friendly to me and they encouraged me for taking part
in social sector. The chefs told me about the evolutionary success behind the idea of the
Shepherd’s Table that most of the people care about the homeless and want to help them but they
need trustworthy organizations that can find deserving homeless people and identify them and
people will happily help these organizations with transparent systems and motivational missions
and working capacities.
I interacted with the chefs during my services to cook food and when I settled the food in
its place, I had the brightest opportunity to meet homeless people directly that had come to this
place for help. The staff of the Shepherd’s Table was very friendly to the homeless and served
them food as if they were serving to their family with utmost respect and sincerity. The homeless
people seemed like having no trouble or complaint about being so poor and homeless because
they did not care much about being rich as they had built their own social life with few people
around them and settled their daily life schedules in a way that they did not get enough time to
think about their troubles much. The discussions on the dining table were mainly about the
quality and taste of the food with small jokes wandering around on each other’s personalities.
The Kitchen staff told me that super markets and food retailers sent them enough food in
donations to help all hungry people in the community. The Shepherd’s Table has professional
teaching staff in their units that taught basic living antiquates to the homeless and trained them to
apply for a job to improve their lifestyles and financial conditions. The Shepherd’s Table stayed
open during the weekends and public holidays because the food and basic lifestyle needs of the
poor are associated with this non-profit organization. When I conversed with the homeless, most
of them told me that although they were having a very difficult life but they had found pleasure
living the way they were and they showed no concern for finding a job and making their future
lives and financial statements secure. They had the view that if we think that life is all about
making money and securing financial status in the society, then we all would be making a big
mistake. Money had very low value for these priceless people.
I personally think that our lives should not be very focused on earning money and
stabilizing our economic status but the concept of spreading love for humanity and living in
unity with brotherhood ties is what lasts forever with peaceful impacts. These homeless people
and Kitchen’s staff also had the same ideology with no concerns towards finding themselves a
job and taking part in economic competition but their main inspiration was to help others and
live in harmony. Another thing they had in common with me is the extrovert and social nature in
their personalities because almost everyone amongst the homeless had this habit of saying things
onto the faces of others rather keeping emotional things hidden within their hearts. They had this
great habit of speaking up and discussing things in detail that helped them in strengthening their
ties and social bonds with each other.
The one thing that completely differs between their lives and mine is the awareness to
political and national things happening around and the policies and opportunities in the society
that had the potential to changing or impacting our lives. These people had absolutely no idea of
what bills is Congress passing or the dynamically growing poverty in the country because all
they cared about was their social lives and they were passing their days by eating food and
sleeping and then eating again. These people considered the government to be a playing kit for
the rich that had no reason to help poor class and the contribution of the poor in the politics and
mainstream media cannot help the country because it has always been like this and it will stay
like this where governments will only lend hand to rich and put poor lives in more misery upon
which I would not agree with them. I believe that it is the contribution of general public in
politics and governmental affairs that has the potential of leading things towards betterment.
I have learned the value of serving others and I have found it very satisfying to be helping
others without the expectation of receiving anything in return of this service. The daily life stress
can be relieved by helping others and by voluntarily working in the social sector. The
conversation with homeless and underprivileged class opens up perspectives to evaluate such as
the minimized value of economics and money in daily lives and the maximized value of
friendship and humanity.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment