Racialized Group Identities (Focus on Japanese in Hawai`i and Afrikaners)

Racial identity construction establishes a line which separates “us” from “them” by creating boundaries and assigning meaning to those boundaries and the people described by them. These boundaries and meanings can be asserted internally, by the group, or they may be assigned externally, by outsiders. They are created over time and are influenced by a mixture of historical, political, social and cultural factors which each affect identity construction by varying degrees and in different ways. Due to the influence of these factors, identity construction is an ongoing process; boundaries and meanings shift and change in light of new information, policies, norms and cultural ideals (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). In this post I will explain the importance of these historical, political, social and cultural factors to the development of racialized group identities by focusing on the racial identity formation of Japanese in Hawai`i and Afrikaners in South Africa. I will highlight the critical arenas in which construction occurred and use the examples to illustrate the importance of history to the creation of racial identity formation.

Racial identities are, in part, the products of interactions between social actors, and although construction may occur anywhere within the social realm, there are six arenas in which these interactions are critical to formation: politics, labor markets, residential space, social institutions, culture and daily experience (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007:170).  It is within these arenas that boundaries are created, defined, defended and broken down; it is also where meaning is ascribed, asserted and internalized—most often within several arenas at once.  It can be difficult to isolate the effect of one arena from another as they are often linked and overlap, as will be illustrated within the example of the Japanese in Hawai`i.

In order to discuss the construction of a group racial identity for Japanese Americans in Hawai`i, one must have an understanding of the history of the islands. The children of these white missionaries began sugar plantations, which would create a white oligarchy and change the racial and ethnic make-up of the islands forever. Due to the introduction of European diseases Native Hawaiians were unable to supply a large enough labor force, so plantation owners used their economic wealth and political power to bring in laborers from China, Japan and other Asian countries. Plantation owners segregated their housing by ethnic group because each group was given different wages and there was fear that these groups would unite and demand equal wages. In order to distinguish the various ethnic groups from one another, they instated a system of differently shaped identification badges (Kinzer, 2006; Okamura, 2008; Miyares, 2008).  Through their use of segregation and classification, plantation owners created two boundaries; the first was racial, between the Asian plantation workers and the white plantation owners which was reinforced by a large power differential, it drew a firm line between “us” and “them” (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007).  The second boundary was along ethnic lines and was reinforced by residential space; because ethnic groups were segregated in ethnically dense housing it reinforced ethnic divisions despite the small power differential between the groups (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007)

The first two generations of Asian laborers on the plantation maintained separate social institutions (often promoted by the plantation owners), such as houses of worship and very small amounts of outmarriage. By the third generation this began to change, the small power differential between the laborers resulted in the formation of a laborer culture, or “local” culture—although it would not totally erase the ethnic boundaries that had been established through segregation (Cornell and Hartman, 2007; Miyares, 2008). What resulted from this “local” awareness was a stronger understanding of the laborers’ position and status within the larger culture of Hawai`i, as well as the challenges and discrimination they faced (Cornell and Hartman, 2007).

By 1905 the Japanese population, with their large numbers (159,000 arrived between 1868 and 1907) had become had become competition for the resident white population (Okamura, 2000; Takaki, 1982). This resulted in an anti-Japanese sentiment that took hold of the islands in the early 1900s and remained in effect through World War II.  In the 1930s the question of “The Japanese Problem” was raised and concerns over Japanese loyalties flamed anti-Japanese sentiment.  This discrimination became part of the daily experience of the Japanese, reinforcing the boundary between not just powerful whites, but also other “local” groups (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). Although there was discussion of deporting or interning Japanese Americans during World War II, the citizenry of Hawai`i was not behind the movement, and many local Japanese even enlisted and served overseas.

When they returned Japanese veterans refused to remain second-class citizens as their parents were. These veterans were largely responsible for the “Democratic Revolution” of 1954 when the Democratic Party gained control of both houses of the territorial legislature from the Republican white oligarchy for the first time since their overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy (Okamura, 2000). It was this entry into politics which ultimately paved their path to the middle class by placing decreasing the power differential between whites and the Japanese. Japanese Americans did not join the middle class en masse until the 1970s. Currently, Japanese, along with Chinese and Koreans are at the top of the SES ladder. These groups have a high rate of intermarriage and intermarriage with whites, their boundaries being blurred by the now small power differential between them.

 Through this discussion of identity formation one is able to identify how construction occurred within the critical areas and how these arenas have continued to influence formation. It is also possible to see how these arenas overlap in their affect on racial identity formation, such as the labor markets and residential space. It was not any arena in particular which formed Japanese racial identity, but rather the combination. This is also evident in Afrikaner identity.

The history of the Afrikaners begins with the colonization of the southern tip of South Africa , the Cape of Good Hope, by Dutch, German and French settlers who described themselves as “Boers”. These colonizers began to move inland in an attempt to expand, interacting with assorted African people and in the process created a racial boundary between themselves and Africans; a strong sense of “us” versus “them” (Cornell and Hartman, 2007).  One aspect which was central to this boundary was a judgment of worth—the idea that Europeans were “fundamentally different from” and superior to Africans, the Boers often enslaved Africans as well (Cornell and Hartman, 2007:137).

After the British gained control of the Cape and the political arena in 1806 they began to reorganize Boer political and social institutions. They forced schools to teach English rather than Afrikaans and used English proficiency tests to exclude the Boer population for full civic participation, which reinforced the boundaries between the English and Boer/Afrikaner groups. Animosity between the groups was furthered by the ideological divide between the British’s liberal policies toward black Africans and the racist ideology of the Boer/Afrikaners. These cultural and ideological differences would ultimately lead to exodus of 12,000 Afrikaners from the Cape seeking a life outside of British rule (Cornell and Hartman, 2007).

            This migration resulted in two violent interactions, the Battle of Blood and The Boer War, both of which contributed for the formation of the Republic of South Africa (Cornell and Hartman, 2007). Another result of The Boer War was a more unified and nationalistic Afrikaner racial identity and in 1948 the National Party was voted in, giving Afrikaners political power which they used to enact apartheid. Apartheid was a rigid government enforced system of racial separation based on the racial boundaries created by the Boer/Afrikaner colonizers and supported by their white supremacist ideology. It established segregated residential spaces, social institutions and maintained boundaries through maintained of a large power differential (Cornell and Hartman, 2007).  

            The fall of Apartheid has found the power differential has shifted. Although in a color based system one would think that the boundaries between whites in South Africa would have blended, but this has not been the case. The English still hold the majority economic wealth which allowed them to maintain power, while Afrikaners, now competing in a more integrated job market, have found the power differential to be increasing in comparison to other whites and decreasing in comparison to Africans, Coloreds and Indians (Cornell and Hartman, 2007).

            By viewing racial formation through a historical lens it is possible to see how combinations of critical arenas are involved in the construction of a group racial identity; allowing one to see exactly how multidimensional identity formation is. Although racial identity construction of Japanese in Hawai`i and Afrikaners in South Africa occurs within the same critical arenas of politics, labor markets, residential space, social institutions, culture and daily experience, one is able to see how the formation of the two groups has been distinct to each.

REFERENCES

Cornell, Stephen and Douglas Hartmann. 2007. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Kinzer, Stephen. 2006. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawai`i to Iraq. New York: Times Books.
Miyares, I. 2008. “EXPRESSING LOCAL CULTURE IN HAWAI`I.” Geographical Review. 98(4), 513-531. 
Okamura, J. 1994. “Why There Are No Asian-Americans in Hawai`i: The Continuing Significance of Local Identity.” Social Process in Hawaii. 35:161-178. 
_____. 2000. “Race Relations in Hawai`i during World War II: The Non-internment of Japanese Americans.” Amerasia Journal. 26(2):117-141 
______. 2008. "Ethnicity and Inequality in Hawai'i." Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 
Takaki, Ronald. 1982. “An Entering Wedge: The origins of the sugar plantation and a multi-ethnic working class in Hawaii.” Labor History. 23(1):32-46.

Why Race and Ethnicity Continue to Matter

Karl Marx, Max Weber and Robert Park all argued that race and ethnicity would cease to matter, yet almost a hundred years later race and ethnicity are still indicators of life chances, still influence policy and law and are still used as justification for genocide, hatred and fear (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). Race and ethnicity have shaped the way the world is organized; they have contributed the formation of both global and local societies including establishing systems of privilege and denial (Dalmage, 2010a). The concepts of race and ethnicity are so imbedded in the structures of society that it is not just a matter of “seeing past race” or “moving beyond race” but looking at the way these concepts have been institutionalized and have shaped individuals, beliefs and ideals. In order to explain why race and ethnicity still matter, I will define these terms, explore their historical construction and discuss how this effects the current moment.

According to Cornell and Hartmann, ethnicity is a relational construct used to distinguish one group from another on the assumption that one group shares something that the other does not (2007:20). Ethnicity does not exist by itself, like all social constructions, it can only be seen in relation to what it is not, therefore it is a portion of the whole population with some perceived difference between itself and the remainder.  Cornell and Hartmann make an important distinction between an ethnic category and ethnic group, a category being ascribed to a portion of the population by outsiders and a group is when the ethnic identity is subscribed to by the population itself (2007:21).

Cornell and Hartmann define race as a “human group defined by itself or others as distinct by virtue of perceived common physical characteristics that are held to be inherent” (2007:25). Skin color, eye shape and hair texture vary across the globe, but these physical attributes have no meaning in and of themselves, only what we assign to it. We choose which physical attributes are important, organize people according these boundaries and then behave in a way which gives these categories meaning, thus creating races.  Proof of social construction can be found in the fluidity of the meaning we assign to these categories, changing them when it is in the best interest of those in power.

There are two major differences between race and ethnicity. The first is that while both are used to describe some perceived difference, ethnicity does not have to be hierarchical, while race is inherently hierarchical (Dalmage, 2010b). Cornell and Hartmann point out that race was generally assigned by a dominant group to a less powerful one as a way of othering (2007:28). This was by and large done by Europeans during their expansion and colonization and by the act of labeling and designating race they were establishing a social hierarchy—placing themselves at the top and labeling others as inferior, implying they had less worth.

The second difference is that ethnicity can be, and often is, assigned as a category, but frequently it is asserted by the group itself. An ethnic identity can be used to affirm a common culture, history and sense of community. Ethnicity is not necessarily about the power dynamic between ethnic groups, although it can be. In some cases a group can be both a race and an ethnicity, in they have been assigned a hierarchical place as a race, but have self identified as an ethnic group as well, subscribing to their own culture and shared history (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007).

According to Banton the academic classification of humans did not necessarily begin in an effort to establish a hierarchy of races, although one can see Eurocentric discrimination in the writings of people like Buffon and Kant (1987:46). It was in 1774, in Edward Long’s History of Jamaica, that placed what we would now refer to as racial groups into a hierarchy with, of course, white Europeans at the head (Banton, 1987:50). It was not until the 1830s that a real school developed which supported the idea that blacks were inherently inferior to whites and were a separate species developed (Banton, 1987:54). Most current academics have rejected the idea that there is any biological significance to race.

The construction of race as we know it began with expansion of European colonialism (Winant, 2001; Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). As Europeans arrived they brought with them ethnocentric ideals and a hunger for resources which provided the reasoning behind and the motive for deeming native peoples as different and inferior. Without doubt the construction of the black and white races is the best example of this.

Slavery existed in various forms prior to the chattel slavery that came with the Atlantic slave trade; some groups took prisoners of war as slaves, while for others it took a form closer to indentured servitude (Winant, 2001:53). As Europeans began transporting slaves from Africa to the New World, slavery became racialized—chattel slavery was permanent and transgenerational (meaning that slaves bore slaves) and Africans became identified with slavery (Winant, 2001:54). To be black was to be a slave and to be white was to be free, thus began the myth of white superiority.

As these varied ethnic groups of enslaved Africans journeyed to and arrived in the New World, they resisted their white captors in various ways: attempting mutiny on slave ships; creating maroon communities; or participating in what Winant calls “foot dragging” or work slowdowns (2001:60). As a result of these acts of resistance and the shared goal of attaining their freedom, blacks, although diverse racial category, also became an ethnic group (Winant, 2001; Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). In various countries this division of power associated with race effects the futures and life chances of their citizens up to the current day, creating a color line which marks the boundaries of race, and therefore power. These boundaries are patrolled by both blacks and whites, although for different reasons, as Dalmage states, “whites patrol to protect privilege, blacks as they struggle for liberation” (2000:34).

In the U.S. the imbalance of power associated with race is inextricably entwined in our history, culture and legislation. Europeans created a Eurocentric culture and norm to which others were, and still are, expected to assimilate (Cornell and Hartmann; 2007) Blacks were legislated as property, treated as livestock and denied citizenship, and after emancipation from slavery they were again subjected to legislated violence, segregation and discrimination under Jim Crowe. They were denied equal wages and education—even after defending their country in World War II, blacks were denied the G.I. Bill and affordable mortgages. By creating and supporting racist legislation and policy that perpetuated the white superiority myth for the past three hundred years, the U.S. has denied African Americans the ability to build economic, cultural and social capital, maintaining this racial power imbalance.  

In Africa the modern day effects of colonization and the construction of race by Europeans is also evident. Besides establishing the white superiority myth and racial borders, Europeans also established national borders; effectively shaping physical boundaries of African countries regardless of the cultures and language of the people they contained (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007:46). Colonizers cast their lots with various tribes, shifting the balance of power from one ethnic group to another or at times helping to establish new ethnic and/or racial divides (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007).

In South Africa whites established western cultural norms which Africans had to conform to in order gain legal rights, such as to hold property (MacDonald, 2006:96). They established an apartheid system, which legislated racial classification and segregation. Under the system a minority of whites retained power and citizenship while blacks were stripped of citizenship and relegated to ghettos or removed from the country. In 1990 the process of dismantling apartheid began, but it has left the country an extreme imbalance of power, as well as economic and cultural capital due to the increased access to wealth and education for whites (MSU, 2010). Even in the face of a new racially integrated government strong racial divisions exist, as MacDonald points out, new policy may dictate equality, but “…the ANC could not and can not [sic] prevent South Africans from harboring racial affinities” (2006:112).

            Race and ethnicity still matter because they are central to the organization of societies across the globe. They have established power dynamics which are still maintained by legislation, policy and public opinion and are so embedded in our society and individual lives that it can be hard see the influence they have on us. Ultimately, race and ethnicity still matter because power and privilege is still concentrated within the confines of race and as long as there is racial inequality race and ethnicity will be important.

REFERENCES

Banton, Michael. 1987. “The classification of races in Europe and North America: 1700-1850.” International Social Science Journal, 39(1):45-60.

Cornell, Stephen and Douglas Hartmann. 2007. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Dalmage, Heather. 2000. Tripping on the Color Line: Black-White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

----- 2010a. “Week Two Overview of Questions.” Retrieved June 15, 2010: http://roosevelt.blackboard.edu.

-----.2010b. “Week Three Overview of Questions/Comments.” Retrieved June 15, 2010: http://roosevelt.blackboard.edu.

MacDonald, Michael. 2006. Why Race Matters in South Africa. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Michigan State University (MSU). 2010. South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid. “Introduction.” Retrieved, June 16, 2010: http://www.overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=11

Winant, Howard. 2001. The World is a Ghetto: Race and Democracy Since World War II. New York: Basic Books.

The Relationship Between Whiteness, Citizenship, Racial Categories and Shifting Racial Discourse

             Whiteness has been synonymous with citizenship (if not legally, then in popular thought) in European colonized countries, like the U.S., South Africa and Brazil, since their inception. In the United States full civil, political and social citizenship has largely been restricted to free white men, denying the rights and protections of citizenship to white women, both free and enslaved blacks, Native Americans and aliens (Glenn, 2002). Across the globe, the Union of South Africa was formed and “founded on the premise that Africans would be denied voting rights in all but the Cape Colony,” connecting whiteness and citizenship for generations to come(Goodman, 2004:146).  In this post I will explain how whiteness has been inextricably tied to citizenship, both formal and substantive, through racial categorization. I will also discuss how shifting racial discourse affects the way societies view race which in turn affects racial categorization, whiteness and access to citizenship.

            Just as whiteness has been formed in opposition to non-whites, citizenship has been created in opposition non-citizens—both are social constructions which are fluid and shift to protect the rights and privilege of those in power (Glenn, 2002; Dalmage, 2011). In European colonized countries like the United States, South Africa and Brazil, whites formed new colonizer governments which would establish rights for themselves over those of the indigenous people, and create a claim on land, resources and labor (Glenn, 2002). Although all three began as colonies of a monarchy, each eventually established themselves as independent nations, consisting of citizens rather than subjects (Glenn, 2002).  Citizenship means that you have “full membership in the community in which one lives,” providing certain rights for the citizen in exchange for certain duties (Glenn, 2002:19).

            According to T.H. Marshall, citizenship has three types of rights: civil, political and social (Glenn, 2002). Civil rights are “the rights necessary for individual freedom,” which include freedom of religion, speech and thought, as well as the right to justice, to own property and the form contracts (Glenn, 2002:19). Political rights are the rights necessary to participate in the governance of the community, this includes the right to vote or exercise political power (Glenn, 2002).  Finally, social citizenship or the ability to have one’s basic needs met, this includes the right to some degree of economic security, ability to participate in society and to “live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society” (Glenn, 2002:19; Dalmage, 2011). Full citizenship is the ability to participate in all three of these rights. This makes social citizenship vital to being a full citizen because it is what allows individuals to turn formal rights into substantive rights—meaning without social citizenship, the ability to provide for yourself and your family and the ability to participate in social life, one is unable to exercise their other rights (Glenn, 2002).

            Substantive access to citizenship has often been curtailed by using racial categorization to control access to social rights either implicitly or explicitly. Racial categorization is more than just sorting individuals by shared phenotypes like skin color, hair texture or facial features; it is about creating systems of privilege and denial. Race is socially constructed, meaning that phenotype has no significance in itself, only what society attributes to it; therefore it is not fixed and can change according to the popular beliefs and discourse at the time. In the U.S. black Americans have explicitly been excluded from citizenship based on their race, as well as implicitly through Jim Crow and mass incarceration (Waquant, 2005; Alexander, 2010).        Although blacks were granted civil and political citizenship in 1870, after being deemed subhuman and incapable of citizenship during slavery, Jim Crow effectively barred them from social citizenship—many were unable to vote due to restrictive poll taxes, reading tests and violence (Glenn, 2002; Alexander, 2010). Today many African Americans are barred from full citizenship by state laws which limit the social rights of formerly incarcerated by supporting restrictive employment laws and rescinding the ability of those convicted of a felony to vote (Alexander, 2010). These restrictions are not explicitly based on race, but African Americans are disproportionately affected due to the denial of privilege based on race. The fluidity of racial categories can be seen in census categories (Nobles, 2004).

            Census categories themselves are a form of racial discourse (Nobles, 2004). The U.S. census enumerates by race, while the Brazilian census enumerates by color—both reflect political and popular ideas about race and the construction of difference (Nobles, 2004). Although their beliefs were grounded in the idea of white supremacy, both countries took different tactics to support it. Brazil promoted the idea that through intermarriage indigenous people, descendents of African slaves and European colonizers would meld into one white race—therefore color was more important to account for (Nobles, 2004). The U.S. took this approach when dealing with Native Americans, but when it came to other racial groups the prime tactic was exclusion (Nobles, 2004). The U.S. denied citizenship to non-whites, used miscegenation laws, exclusionary immigration policies,  and reconstructed ideas about familial lineage in order to exclude people of color from citizenship—because of this the identification of race was important (Pascoe,1996; Nagel, 2003; Nobles, 2004).

            If one takes the U.S. census as an example it is possible to see how popular ideas about race have been reflected in the census, which in turn affect government policy (Noble, 2004).  There were eighteen changes to the twenty censuses that occurred between 1790 and 2000 (Noble, 2004). One example is  how polygenists lobbied congress for, and received, the inclusion of the term “mulatto” in the 1850 census in order to support their claim that the offspring of two different races, black and white, would be infertile (Nobles, 2004; Dalmage, 2011). This both reflected one “scientific” approach to race at the time and had an influence on the way race was discussed in society. According to the “one-drop rule” which had dominated popular thought prior, and deemed anyone with “one-drop” of “black blood” black, the term “mulatto” differentiated between levels of blackness.

            Racial discourse is not only restricted to the census. It is also seen within policy. After the Civil Rights Amendment was passed in 1964 racial discourse began to move away from overt racism and the census was needed to identify whether historical inequalities were being addressed in a meaningful way through the group rights won by activists (Dalmage, 2011). As the U.S. moved into the 70s and 80s, neoliberalism began to take hold of policy, including a movement away from group rights and towards individual rights and racial discourse began to shift to colorblind ideology. Colorblind ideology states that society is beyond race and to have truly fair society we must omit race from our policies, including efforts to address historical inequality (Dalmage, 2011). Now right wing activists are asking if we even need to enumerate race in the census. Colorblind ideology works to defend white privilege by limiting citizenship through the family ethic and the idea of the deserving poor (Glenn, 2002; Dalmage, 2011).

            Colorblind ideology is informed by the neoliberal idea of personal responsibility. Everyone is responsible for their own lives and choices and no attention is paid to the circumstances under which you were born. The historical lack of access to citizenship and privilege blacks have had is discounted and instead there is a focus on “bad choices.”  Common arguments for larger amounts of black poverty are connected to ideas about the family ethic, what “good citizens” strive for: women who are chase and bound to the private sphere (home) and men who are breadwinners and bound to public space. Many African Americans do not fit into this ethic because due to the historical inequalities women have been forced to leave the home to work and men are often incarcerated, ironically often times for participating in the underground economy to provide for their families (Dalmage, 2011). Meanwhile white ethnics are used as a defense of neoliberal ideas and the family ethic. They are held up as people who have been discriminated against and through “hard work” have raised themselves up by their bootstraps and accomplished what blacks could not (Guglielmo, 2003; Maly, etal., 2010).  Of course, the fact that they were not denied citizenship for near 200 years is neatly forgotten.

            It is not difficult to see the myriad of ways that whiteness has been tied to citizenship. People of color have been explicitly denied citizenship based on their race and commonly held popular and scientifically held beliefs that they were inferior to whites. They have also been denied citizenship implicitly through racist policies like Jim Crow and the Rockafeller drug laws which have targeted African Americans, as well as through miscegenation laws and exclusionary immigration policies (Pascoe, 1996; Nagel, 2003; Alexander, 2010). One only has to look at current policy, like Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which allows police officers to ask anyone who looks illegal for their U.S. identification. If not in law, in popular thought to be American is to be white.
 REFERENCES

Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.

Dalmage, Heather. 2011. Lecture Notes, Global Whiteness, Roosevelt University. February 2011- March 2011.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 2002. Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor.

Guglielmo, Thomas. 2003. White on Arrial: Italians, Race, Color and Power in Chicago, 1890-1849. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hale, Grace. 1998. Making Whiteness. NY. Vintage Books

Maly, Michael, Heather Dalmage and Nancy Michaels. 2010. “The End of an Idyllic World: Race Memory, and the Construction of White Powerlessness.”

Nagel, Joane. 2003. Race, Ethnicity and Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nobels, Melissa. 2004. “Racial Categorization and Censuses.” In Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Language in National Censuses. Edited by David I. Kertzer and Dominique Arel.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pascoe, Peggy. 1996. “iscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of “Race” in Twentieth-Century America.”  The Journal of American History.83(1):44-69.

Waquant, Loïc. 2005. “Deadly Symbiosis.” Boston Review.

Zaal, Frederick Noel. 2008. “The Ambivalence of Authority and Secret Lives of Tears: Transracial Child Placements and the Historical Developments of South African Law.” Journal of Southern African Studies. 18(2):372-404.

Avoiding the Monoculture through Homeschooling?

I recently read the Newsweek article "Why Urban Educated Parents are Returning to DIY Education" at The Daily Beast. It grabbed my attention because my husband and I have been been discussing it as an option for when we have children. Since neither of us were enamored with our own school experiences and we both hold graduate degrees in differing fields, we feel it is a viable option for our family. Linda Perlstein's piece—an interesting read—reiterated some of the concerns I have heard about homeschooling such as the possible social and psychological effects on children and parents.

The concern I have heard voiced most often about homeschooling is that the social skills of these children may be retarded. Frankly, my social skills were retarded by attending public school (a very good one, in fact). Through peer bullying I learned that expressing dissenting opinions and unusual interests would result in name calling and isolation. Through in-class shaming by teachers I learned that saying, "I don't know," is a fault, and that asking for help is a weakness. I was constantly afraid of speaking up because I might be made fun of, or told I was wrong, or called stupid. What I learned in school was that if you wanted  to be left alone, you had to seem like everyone else.

The sociologist in me says that this is simply part of socialization, implicitly and explicitly giving students tools to navigate the larger society. I certainly learned what was acceptable and what was deviant. I suppose if I wanted to take a traditional route in life, the tools I learned in school would serve me well, but as I attempt to carve my own path I find it difficult to put those tools down. After all, when all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail.

I am not a fan of monoculture and what our public, and many private, schools are producing is a monoculture. Teachers are handed a test booklet and a overfilled classroom and told to make it work. Children and teens who do not learn the same way as the majority of the student body get left behind and told it is their default; while special, sensitive or curious students get beaten down. They have become factories, mass producing bodies for the service sector and managerial positions.A monoculture is great for standardization and mechanization, but what about innovation?

Homeschooling can allow for innovation. As a parent you can follow your child's curiosity wherever it may lead. Parents can tailor lessons to a child's learning style and inspire them to become their own teachers-- a feat most of us do not master until college or graduate school. I think one of the greatest gifts I could give my child is to deprive them of in-school socialization. Innovators are not afraid to ask questions, offer opinions or be wrong. Failure becomes a learning tool, not an ascribed status.

There seemed to be two primary psychological concerns for homeschooled children mentioned in the article. The first comes from Psychologist Wendy Mogel, who "wonders how kids who spend so much time within a deliberately crafted community will learn to work with people from backgrounds nothing like theirs." I would ask the same question about school students from the racially segregated suburbs (and yes I am also aware that many large cities are just as racially segregated--I live in one). We, unfortunately, do not live in a society which embraces diversity on a large scale, most schools give it the same lip-service corporations do, all talk and no real change or action. If you want your children to be able to interact with people from varied backgrounds, then make an effort. Commit to meeting with as many people as possible and to be candid and honest with question about race, religion and culture, regardless of whether your child is homeschooled. 


The second concern is that parents may spend "too much" time with their children. This, I take some issue with. I have never heard and adult say, "I just wish my parents did not spend as much time with me when I was a kid." Having recently lost my father, I know that memories are precious and the opportunity to create more for my children if a great gift. Yes, I agree that controlling your child's life through scheduling and demands for perfection can be crippling to a child, but that is just as large a concern in families who chose traditional education. I think that part of homeschooling is getting to know your child and their desires, interests and needs--not foisting yours upon them.


Finally, the effects on the parent. First of all I do not think everyone is cut out for homeschooling and there is nothing wrong with that. If it is not something you are interested in or suited to, than do not attempt it. I do think that for those of us who may choose to home school it is a disservice to assume it will lead to an unfulfilled life. I think that these arguments come down to a difference in perception. Happiness is not a fixed point, is very personal and looks different for everyone. If becoming a CEO for a Fortune 500 company makes you happy than good luck with that. It would make me miserable. I may find that teaching my children and writing blog posts make me happy. When we project our own very personal idea of happiness onto others, no one wins. 


All in all, I do not know if homeschooling is the route our family will take. We are no where near making that decision. Life changes quickly, and with it so do our desires and abilities. More than anything else I think children need to be taught how to be be happy and define success for themselves--that is one commitment I can put in stone.

"System D" and the Lack of Sociological Discourse in Popular Media.

Business Insider (BI) published the article "Forget China, 'System D' Is the World's Second Largest Economy", on the worldwide black market, or secondary economy, now dubbed "System D". I am always surprised (although I know I should not be) at how these stories never seem to address the "why" of the secondary economy. The article, and infographic below, frames the discussion through lost tax revenues and "black market entrepreneurs" who have higher profit margins than those in the legitimate economy.

What stories like this fail to look at is why the secondary economy exists. Yes, there are those who are driven by the prospect of high profit margins and are willing to take on the risk associated with large scale black market operations in order to obtain them, but I have no doubt that the majority (of people, not money) do not fall into this category. I think the larger issue is that those who work in the secondary economy  do so to support themselves and their families, because for one reason or another they are not able to within the primary economy. They may be barred by poverty, lack of education, lack of resources, former incarceration, racism, sexism, religious oppression or just plain prejudice.

When we look at countries with the largest black markets (see Shadow Economies all Over the World: New Estimates from 162 Countries from 1991-2007 an updated version of the IMF paper linked to in the article), we see corrupt and poor governments, with even poorer populations. We also see a concentration of brown and black peoples in most of these countries--which historically means countries and peoples who have been mined for resources and left to fend for themselves with alien cultures foist upon them.

If we look at the U.S. and who participates in the secondary economy we see, again, largely black and brown bodies who are barred from participation in the primary economy. We can look at several sociological papers and books written by Waquant, Pitts, Wilson.... and so on which point out that participation in the secondary economy is not usually by choice. Institutional racism has concentrated blacks and other minorities in certain geographic areas and then systematically denied those areas public services such as access to public transit, competitive schools, road repairs, etc. The private sector abandoned these areas as well, despite a real demand in the market for services. These things work in concert to bar involvement in the primary economy and, as if this is not enough, when caught participating in the secondary economy  these individuals are incarcerated. Incarceration, besides the abuse and emotional toll, means that one is further barred from participation in the workforce. It is no wonder the mass incarceration is considered the New Jim Crow.

As I read the comments on the BI article many point to high taxes and the "welfare state" as a reason for the secondary economy, I would have to argue the opposite. It because these governments do not provide basic services to these communities that secondary economy flourishes. The smallest secondary economies exist in countries with higher tax rates. Although I do not have the numbers to back myself up here, I am also willing to bet that the secondary economy in those countries, the U.S. included, are peopled by those segments of the population which fall through the cracks and are not provided their basic needs.

At the end of the day I suppose I am just thankful for my sociological education, that I can supplement popular media claims with sociological research and look at the "why." I just wish that as a society we tried to take a more holistic view of our problems and culture. Hopefully we will get there.

Why is it always Working Mom v. Stay at Home Mom?

Photo Credit: www.deadline.com

On Anderson today there was a segment inspired by a recent article that claims working mothers are happier than stay-at-home mothers (read the BBC story here). The description of the show reads:

Anderson is joined by a panel of moms who discuss the controversial new study that says moms with jobs outside the home are healthier and happier, and debate the issue of who is actually happier. Also, Anderson speaks with a mom who works outside the home who shares her extreme point of view, claiming that moms who stay at home are “lazy.” (Read more and see clips here)

I think that shows which frame the discussion of motherhood and work outside the home in the manner of working mothers versus at-home mothers do a disservice to both. In watching the segment it quickly became apparent that it was preying upon the insecurities of both populations--working mothers are bad mothers and stay-at-home mothers are lazy and unfulfilled. It only serves to further segment the female population, rather than focusing on the real issues surround work and motherhood.

• First, women are supposed to do it all. "You can have the career, family and time for yourself--and it's easy!" It sells magazines, but the truth is no one is perfect and at one time or another all of these areas will feel as though they are lacking. 
• Second, generations of women have fought for equality, which means a choice. To simply label one choice socially unfavorable is to discount their struggle. For many single and low-income mothers there is no choice in the matter. Work or your family starves. Likewise, many low-income families find that the cost of childcare is greater than their second salary, usually the mother's salary, and she is forced to stay home. 
• Third, there is a larger issue concerning the value of work in the home. Study after study show that women--regardless of their employment status--do the majority of work in the home. These are services that have real value, as anyone with an au pair, nanny, housekeeper, laundry service and/or personal assistant can attest. Why are they discounted simply because they are performed by a household member? If, in a "typical" (read stereotypical) husband/father in a relationship is only expected to have one job, why should the wife/mother be held to a different standard?

The is fact that the workplace is not built for women, in fact it is not even built for men who want to be more involved with the upbringing of their children. It is based on an old patriarchal system which does not work for most households. What we need to do instead of placing blame and accusations is fight for real change to the larger institutions. We need to learn to appreciate work done in the home, regardless of who does it--be it a stay-at-home mother, father or caregiver. We need to push for family flex time for all members of the family, in straight and same-sex households so that we do not have to choose between income and family. Foremost we need to remember why we work to begin with, for sustenance, personal fulfillment and to find happiness, regardless of where it lies.

The Rosie Show

Photo Credit: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com

A few months ago I found myself flipping through channels, and I landed on the OWN show "Rosie." I did not even know we had the channel. I have always been a fan of Rosie O'Donnell, not just for her talent, but also for her GBLT activism and breast cancer awareness work, so I decided to watch. Apparently, I was watching a rerun. She mentioned that she had received a lot of fan feedback asking, "Why so much gay stuff?" She then showed a short clip of all the mentions of the word gay (a few jokes, mentions of her S.O. and some audience/guest banter) and basically said, sorry, but I am just living my life. I watched the rest of the show and could not get the "feedback" out of my head.

"Why so much gay stuff?" I think a better question is: "Why so much straight stuff?"

Our society is built for heterosexuals (forgive me for the lack of intersectionalism in this post). When a straight woman discusses her upcoming plans for her wedding in Illinois, which does not allow gay marriage, is she told to knock it off with the straight stuff? When a man discusses an argument he had with his wife is he asked to tone down his heterosexuality?

Most Americans consider heterosexuality to be normal and, therefore, any other sexuality becomes "othered"--meaning that it is seen as abnormal. It is a sign of the privilege associated with heterosexuality. I can discuss my life with my husband without being told I am shoving my "lifestyle" down anyone's throat; yet replace the word husband with partner or wife and I am suddenly pushy and overly focused on sexuality.

The "gay stuff" questioned by O'Donnell's fans is just her life--discussing her significant other or sharing a common experience with another person. These are simple things that heterosexuals often discuss and take for granted, but that many in the GLBTQ community are unable to share with others out of fear of rejection, alienation and possibly violence. Everyone deserves the right to live their life without that kind of fear.

One often hears people state that having so many openly gay celebrities on television or in movies is a sign of how far our society has come, but the question "why so much gay stuff" is a sign of how far we have left to go. When will have reached equality? I think it is when everyone can go about their daily lives without being labeled an activist or extremist for doing so.

"It's okay to be gay."

Welcome

I had originally planned to begin this blog in May but, as it has a way of doing, life altered those plans.

My father died in June. A simple statement to write, although, it does not quite cover the effect it has had on my life, psyche and outlook-- but then, maybe for the initiated it does.

The loss of a parent, though experienced differently by everyone, does contain some universal experience.  When you lose a parent it is like you are initiated into a very large, very quiet club. Members know that there is nothing that can be said, nothing that can be done to "fix it." Most simply offer their sympathy, a shoulder and a safe quiet place. It is comforting to know that when I mention the bouts of seemingly unexplained crying, laughter and numbness it will be met with a knowing and non-judgmental smiles.

It reminds me that as unique as we like to thing we are, life is made up of universal moments and experiences. Almost everyone will feel love, grief and heartache and although everyone will have their own specific experiences, the general does exist. The general is what we draw from when we empathize with others and frankly I think that our society does not place enough importance on empathy. We tend to focus on our differences and what we think makes us individuals and dismiss the more universal cultural and social experience.

For me, this is the appeal of sociology. We can make general statements about the social world based on the commonalities; what is "generalizable." As sociologists we use scientific methods (analyzing and collecting quantitative and qualitative data, conducting observations, interviews, surveys and experiments) to determine what is generalizable about experience within a group or sub-group. We can then use these findings to have a greater understanding of the world around us.

I suppose the purpose of this blog is to keep writing, about the issues, research interests and events that I care about. I will aggregate writings from other blogs, news sources and books, as well as write original pieces and incorporate original work from guest writers. I hope the common thread between all of the pieces will be that they will allow the reader to see the larger picture, to look beyond their own lives and see how we all mold and are molded by the social world.

We are not as different as we think.