{quotes} The author started off this article with the conversation between himself and lawyer who was described as "more of an activist kind" (p1). This made me believe that their thoughts would be very similar but it struck me as to how much this woman did not know about situations that he was involved in even though she was an "activist lawyer". For example, talking about the IMF and how he wanted to abolish third world debt. The woman was confused not even knowing what IMF stood for, it was really interesting because maybe a lot of these "activist lawyers" aren't as up to speed as we would assume they would be. I mean the fact that these countries are paying back their debts three times over but never really getting anywhere because of the insane amount of interest these wealthy countries are enforcing is astounding.
The concept of debt is really interesting. He kept going to back to that woman's comment, "surely one has to pay one's debts" (p4). He gives the overwelming example of the malaria issue in Madagascar and how the government couldn't owe the IMF and therefore it had to cut its "mosquito eradication program" and that because of it many people died. You have to wonder what that means for debts. These debts cause lives. Is it really worth it for a moral victory? These third world debt countries tend to be attacked or conquered by European countries to which they are in debt. They used an example of Haiti. This country was one of rebellion by slaves and eventually freedom and human rights. But France decided to make them pay for damages leading this country back down to poverty ever since. Bringing back to the idea of what debt helps? This is an example of a moral victory and a country that could have been much more than it is today but because of that word 'debt', "Haiti has been a synonym for debt, poverty, and human misery ever since" (p6).
I think that this this quote was quite moving. The author asks, "What is the difference between a gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you give him a thousand dollars for "protection money", and that same gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you provide him with a thousand-dollar loan?" (p7). Ultimately there is not difference, or is there? The common denominator will always be the gun. Yes this gangster could let you go or he could not. He is running a "regime" and that gun is holding the power of you so he can get what he wants. It would not be a very effective regime if he never got his money would it ? Debt seems to start a chain reaction. One person owes someone something and then that brings up other people wondering who owes them. Lending money never seems to come with an sort of sympathy. It makes you wonder if the whole situation just sets up evilness. I think what the author is trying to get across is the act of "debt" loses the morality in the world. It makes people cold and unsympathetic and in a constant state of thinking people owe them something. He backs this up by saying, "the way violence, or the threat of violence, turns human relations into mathematics will crop up again and again..." (p14).
As much as I agree with him on the situation of 'debt' and how it turns people violent and unsympathetic I can't say I 100% disagree with the "activist lawyer" not because she thought of it in a moral way but because I do not see exactly how the world would work without them. If banks gave out loans and then never got paid back then what? Where would the money be? There would be essentially no more banks and no more loans right? Same thing with student loans. If we did not pay them back then would there more student loans to give? I think I'm a bit confused on his stance in terms of his idea of how exactly to control this situation. I understand the morality of it and the way we could go about 'debt' better but how exactly does he believe we should handle it?
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
"The Futile War on Drugs" by Currie and "We Always Stood On Our Own Two Feet" by Coontz
[quotes] The Coontz article and the Currie article were both really interesting and both had some common themes. The Coontz article had to deal with the American Family. How we have this ancient view on how the American Family is and what it is based on. The article talks about how we think the American Family is based on "self reliance". It is evident throughout the article that this is not true. I feel like as Americans we have this idea that we should pride ourselves on the idea of the "American Dream". Meaning the notion that if you work hard you can gain success. This is an idea that essentially is a little far fetched. We think that if we rely only on ourselves we can be successful but this article shows that it is almost impossible not to rely on other things (aka government) to get us to where we are today. We have this idea that there are two kinds of families. The 'frontier family' or the '1950s suburban family'. These families are seen as hard working and self reliant. This is not the case at all. Both relied on assistance but it never seemed that way because it was not addressed. "The 1950s suburban family, however, was far more dependent on government handouts than any so-called "underclass" in recent U.S history." (p221). This family was given so much assistance by the government, basically getting them to their "American Dream" status. It talked about men getting Federal GI benefits which allowed them to get an education and improve upon their jobs while still being able to have a family and children. I cannot even imagine how anything would be possible without this. This alone made life so much easier. Also the wartime money went into creating many new jobs. I feel like this is one of the things making the lower class look bad. You have all these opportunities coming for the middle class, allowing education and better employment and yet it is essentially pushing the lower class deeper into poverty. They are not getting the same opportunities and have fewer and fewer job opportunities.
The Currie article deals with the drug crisis in America. Drug use in American worsened with, "one of the most radical shifts in economic opportunities in American History"(p353). As the economy worsened the drug crisis increased. I feel like it ties into the Coontz article talking about self reliance and the actual use of assistance for the American family because this article states that urban opportunities declined while suburban opportunities increased. Currie states, "Thus while New York City lost 95,000 jobs during the seventies, its suburbs gained almost 500,000." (p353). Meaning that the middle class is looking like it is thriving because the lower class is basically struggling. The jobs became less and less in urban places where most of the lower class society lived because it was all they could afford. These jobs were going to middle class suburban areas leaving the urban communities with nothing. Hence why the urban communities started the excessive drug use. They had to make their money somewhere and with the decline in jobs people were struggling to make ends meet. The article talked about how the jobs decreased for young men and increased for older men (typically older men meaning middle class suburban men) (p355). These young urban kids had nowhere to turn but selling drugs to make a profit. It also talked about the difference between the classes saying, "the bottom fifth of Americans lost about 12 percent in income between 1977 and 1990 while the top fifth gained over 30 percent-and the top 5 percent gained nearly 50 percent" (p361). So basically what we are seeing here is the idea that not only where the '1950s suburban family' not self reliant but because the middle class was helped so much it essentially harmed the lower class even more than normal. The middle class was thriving because the lower class was failing, sending many to a life of drugs just to make a living. What was seen was very different than what was actually going on. The Middle class was not self reliant, quite the opposite, they were actually dependent on aid from things that the government was doing for them. And what the government was doing to help the middle class was actually making things worse for the lower class and creating a drug crisis along the way.
The Currie article deals with the drug crisis in America. Drug use in American worsened with, "one of the most radical shifts in economic opportunities in American History"(p353). As the economy worsened the drug crisis increased. I feel like it ties into the Coontz article talking about self reliance and the actual use of assistance for the American family because this article states that urban opportunities declined while suburban opportunities increased. Currie states, "Thus while New York City lost 95,000 jobs during the seventies, its suburbs gained almost 500,000." (p353). Meaning that the middle class is looking like it is thriving because the lower class is basically struggling. The jobs became less and less in urban places where most of the lower class society lived because it was all they could afford. These jobs were going to middle class suburban areas leaving the urban communities with nothing. Hence why the urban communities started the excessive drug use. They had to make their money somewhere and with the decline in jobs people were struggling to make ends meet. The article talked about how the jobs decreased for young men and increased for older men (typically older men meaning middle class suburban men) (p355). These young urban kids had nowhere to turn but selling drugs to make a profit. It also talked about the difference between the classes saying, "the bottom fifth of Americans lost about 12 percent in income between 1977 and 1990 while the top fifth gained over 30 percent-and the top 5 percent gained nearly 50 percent" (p361). So basically what we are seeing here is the idea that not only where the '1950s suburban family' not self reliant but because the middle class was helped so much it essentially harmed the lower class even more than normal. The middle class was thriving because the lower class was failing, sending many to a life of drugs just to make a living. What was seen was very different than what was actually going on. The Middle class was not self reliant, quite the opposite, they were actually dependent on aid from things that the government was doing for them. And what the government was doing to help the middle class was actually making things worse for the lower class and creating a drug crisis along the way.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Media Magic- Mantsios
[quotes] To me this article was not new information but more detailed in terms of class. I am a film major and a communication minor so media is a big part of my life. I have even taken communication classes on the subject, like Mass Media & Society. It tended to deal with more broad topics though and not as much on class. Which is why I thought this article was interesting since it has to do with my interest in media. I have to agree with the idea that, "mass media is arguable the most influential in molding public consciousness." It is something that is around us literally 24/7. We get exposed to it at a young age and I feel it molds the way we think about things like class. "The media plays a key role in defining our cultural tastes, helping us locate ourselves in history, establishing our national identity, and ascertaining the range of national and social possibilities". The media tends to shape our thoughts as we grow up on who we are as a person, where we fit in, how to feel about different kinds of people, etc.
The article talks about how we fit in as a class and how we see other classes. Classes such as the poor. We are told through media that the poor "either do not exist", are "faceless", are "undeserving", a nuisance, and "should only blame themselves". I think just referring to them in these ways makes already creates us as the "superior". It creates such a wide gap in between the classes and depicts them as foreign and undeserving. The media only aids this idea by either ignoring them or bringing them up in a negative light. They also talk tend to talk about them as the "other" and mostly showing images and stories of minorities and immigrants when talking about poverty. Mantsios saying this best by stating, "the flip side to creating a sense of "we", or "us", is establishing a perception of the "other". I mean the news stories we tend to see about poverty center tend to showcase minorities, when in reality much of the poor are white. It is something that unless you look into it this can really mold your mind. We have this thought that if the media tells us something that it must be true and it is essential that we find sources elsewhere. Not to say that the media is always false and deceiving because there are many instances where it is not true but it does happen quite a bit.
While the media also paints the picture of the wealthy and the middle class we must acknowledge that they, "do not share the same interests or worries". These are two separate classes depicted in two separate ways. When we think wealthy class we think wall street, whereas the media paints the middle class as less privileged but yet never seen to blame the wealthy for that. The middle class blames the poor for creating an economic mess which never allows them to advance to the wealthy, they never seem to blame the wealthy though. This social class system is created largely through media and tends to reflect it in popular culture. We see so many TV shows that do not know how to deal with the issue of class or deal with the way the media shows them to. Although, there are some shows that have got it right and have addressed class the way it should it. It is not shied away from but actually addressed and dealt with. And then you have those shows that either do not address what is right in front of them or play into the media's stereotypes of class.
The article talks about how we fit in as a class and how we see other classes. Classes such as the poor. We are told through media that the poor "either do not exist", are "faceless", are "undeserving", a nuisance, and "should only blame themselves". I think just referring to them in these ways makes already creates us as the "superior". It creates such a wide gap in between the classes and depicts them as foreign and undeserving. The media only aids this idea by either ignoring them or bringing them up in a negative light. They also talk tend to talk about them as the "other" and mostly showing images and stories of minorities and immigrants when talking about poverty. Mantsios saying this best by stating, "the flip side to creating a sense of "we", or "us", is establishing a perception of the "other". I mean the news stories we tend to see about poverty center tend to showcase minorities, when in reality much of the poor are white. It is something that unless you look into it this can really mold your mind. We have this thought that if the media tells us something that it must be true and it is essential that we find sources elsewhere. Not to say that the media is always false and deceiving because there are many instances where it is not true but it does happen quite a bit.
While the media also paints the picture of the wealthy and the middle class we must acknowledge that they, "do not share the same interests or worries". These are two separate classes depicted in two separate ways. When we think wealthy class we think wall street, whereas the media paints the middle class as less privileged but yet never seen to blame the wealthy for that. The middle class blames the poor for creating an economic mess which never allows them to advance to the wealthy, they never seem to blame the wealthy though. This social class system is created largely through media and tends to reflect it in popular culture. We see so many TV shows that do not know how to deal with the issue of class or deal with the way the media shows them to. Although, there are some shows that have got it right and have addressed class the way it should it. It is not shied away from but actually addressed and dealt with. And then you have those shows that either do not address what is right in front of them or play into the media's stereotypes of class.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Bourdieu Article
I struggled quite a bit with the Bourdieu article. Most of the terms used were foreign to me. I do not know much about capital or the forms of it. I tried my best to get through the article with some sort of understanding of capital and the forms of it. The article talked about cultural capital. Which comes in three forms; embodied state, objectified state, and institutionalized state. Embodied state being, "in the form of long lasting dispositions of the mind and body". How I understand this is this is the capital that we acquire consciously and subconsciously meaning the things you acquire yourself and also the things that were passed on to you (things you inherit). Embodied state is not something that everyone gets. Yes you can work on it earning your own forms of capital but you may never get anything by inheritance like others will. Inheritance is a way that could change your class or at least enhance it in some way. The second form is objectified state which is, "the form of cultural goods (pictures, books, dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc)". This is the form of capital which means that it is possessions that you physically own. These are things that you could sell or keep due to cultural value. This could also help rank you higher in class. Not only because of the economic worth but the cultural worth of the object. The last form of cultural capital is institutionalized state which is, "a form of objectification which must be set apart because it confers entirely original properties on the cultural capital which it is presumed to guarantee". This is a capital that is valued in terms of academic credit of an individual. This is not necessarily a physical thing but it can still weigh a lot when it comes to ranking class. This form of capital makes people regard you in a certain way. If you have that academic credit for example you are seen as more highly educated and therefore ranked higher by some people. This form of capital regards academia and intellect higher than physical possessions.
Cultural capital has a way of being acquired. Although it depends solely on "the period, the society, and the social class". Each form of capital is seen differently through different times and by different classes. Social capital is a little different. It relies less on physical possessions and more on relationships between individuals and groups. It is an idea that states basically that it is an advantage for a person to partake in social networks and forming connections. These social networks can alter your class quite a bit in the sense that some networks can enhance your class standing and other can lower it. It can be argued for example that social capital groups for the poor can actually help capital output (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Definitions.2C_forms.2C_and_measurement). I believe that different types capital can affect the class system in a substantial way. Especially, if used correctly, social capital can be used to an advantage in the class system.
Cultural capital has a way of being acquired. Although it depends solely on "the period, the society, and the social class". Each form of capital is seen differently through different times and by different classes. Social capital is a little different. It relies less on physical possessions and more on relationships between individuals and groups. It is an idea that states basically that it is an advantage for a person to partake in social networks and forming connections. These social networks can alter your class quite a bit in the sense that some networks can enhance your class standing and other can lower it. It can be argued for example that social capital groups for the poor can actually help capital output (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Definitions.2C_forms.2C_and_measurement). I believe that different types capital can affect the class system in a substantial way. Especially, if used correctly, social capital can be used to an advantage in the class system.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Kozol Article
The Kozol article was a real eye opener. It showed the other side of the situation when it comes to poverty and what comes along with it. When we think (myself included) of poor people or homeless people it is a sudden thought of almost disgust or sometimes even fear. They are looked down upon and assumed that it is there fault for why they are like this. Our minds automatically go to drugs and alcohol and even diseases. I think this article brought up some great facts and I think it sunk in more because it was from first hand accounts. These are the people who are living in these impoverished areas and are telling their own experiences and the experiences of family and friends.
The divide between the classes are really eye opening, especially with this account. It opens with the idea that you can get on a train in New York and start off in one of the richest neighborhoods with the wealthiest people in the country and in nine stops end up in one of the poorest sections of the country. It is startling how close in proximity these places are. As the article went on it talked about one place in New York that had a staggering rate of people with HIV and AIDS. They also had a high rate of depression among children and children who had a great deal of fear and anxiety. At first glance we automatically expect this. Judgment comes right away. But what they go on to explain is that much of this is not their fault. HIV and AIDS are passed down from parent to child. So that when the children are born they already are infected with the disease. They are born without a fighting chance. How can one be judgmental of a child for having AIDS which could not be prevented.
It is also sad how the only thing the state can do in the winter months is hand out sleeping bags. These people do not have heat and have small children who in cold winter months may not make it through the night. I also think that the opinions between upper class and the poor are appalling. The quote from the professor at NYU was interesting. She said, "If poor people behaved rationally they would seldom be poor for long in the first place" (p21). This is really unsettling. Looking back at all the accounts throughout this article it just seems so naive. To say that the little boy who has no money and yet shares his only piece of pizza with a homeless man because God says to share is irrational behavior? Or the woman who was previously a cocaine addict who now helps addicted women and their children? I feel like people are constantly getting the wrong message from these people. Being homeless or poor is not everyone's fault. There are circumstances that lead to this. This article was very telling when it came to discussing how different classes view other classes and specifically lower classes.
The divide between the classes are really eye opening, especially with this account. It opens with the idea that you can get on a train in New York and start off in one of the richest neighborhoods with the wealthiest people in the country and in nine stops end up in one of the poorest sections of the country. It is startling how close in proximity these places are. As the article went on it talked about one place in New York that had a staggering rate of people with HIV and AIDS. They also had a high rate of depression among children and children who had a great deal of fear and anxiety. At first glance we automatically expect this. Judgment comes right away. But what they go on to explain is that much of this is not their fault. HIV and AIDS are passed down from parent to child. So that when the children are born they already are infected with the disease. They are born without a fighting chance. How can one be judgmental of a child for having AIDS which could not be prevented.
It is also sad how the only thing the state can do in the winter months is hand out sleeping bags. These people do not have heat and have small children who in cold winter months may not make it through the night. I also think that the opinions between upper class and the poor are appalling. The quote from the professor at NYU was interesting. She said, "If poor people behaved rationally they would seldom be poor for long in the first place" (p21). This is really unsettling. Looking back at all the accounts throughout this article it just seems so naive. To say that the little boy who has no money and yet shares his only piece of pizza with a homeless man because God says to share is irrational behavior? Or the woman who was previously a cocaine addict who now helps addicted women and their children? I feel like people are constantly getting the wrong message from these people. Being homeless or poor is not everyone's fault. There are circumstances that lead to this. This article was very telling when it came to discussing how different classes view other classes and specifically lower classes.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
About Me
Hi!
My name is Lauren. I am a film major and communication minor. I am in my last semester here at RIC and am set to graduate in May. I am taking this class as an elective. I find this subject very interesting and I am curious to know more about it. I am basically a very laid back kind of person. I enjoy anything film related, a film nerd some might say. This past summer I spent working and just hanging out with friends. I love being outside so many days were either spent at the beach or by the pool. I also love traveling! I went quite a few places this past summer. This summer coming up me and my two best friends have planned a trip to England and Ireland, as sort of a graduation gift to ourselves. I am very excited to be going! I am ready to learn a lot from this class, I think it will be a great class.
My name is Lauren. I am a film major and communication minor. I am in my last semester here at RIC and am set to graduate in May. I am taking this class as an elective. I find this subject very interesting and I am curious to know more about it. I am basically a very laid back kind of person. I enjoy anything film related, a film nerd some might say. This past summer I spent working and just hanging out with friends. I love being outside so many days were either spent at the beach or by the pool. I also love traveling! I went quite a few places this past summer. This summer coming up me and my two best friends have planned a trip to England and Ireland, as sort of a graduation gift to ourselves. I am very excited to be going! I am ready to learn a lot from this class, I think it will be a great class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)