{quotes} "Deep change does not begin in the political process or with single issues; it begins among ordinary people deciding to change their circumstances" (Greider, 253). The articles at hand deal with this issue of class and how exactly America understands the division of it. Greider's article talks about moral economy and our problem with the idea of class in America and how to fix it. He talks about moral economy being and economy that "serves people and society first". He goes on to talk about how in this country capitalism causes "destruction of family and community, democracy, nature, and equality". Capitalism is a problem in this country. It causes what he calls 'abundance'. Meaning that goods and wealth exist in our society but it tends to get away from most people which leaves them with anxiety in order to keep up with life. He goes on to talk about how we need to fix this society. It cannot happen through the government because they always seem to not get it right. He says it needs to be fixed by society itself. The government can encourage positive change but society is the ones that need to do it. Society need to dream a little and put those dreams to work. For examples he says, start new companies, reform existing ones, and start new financial institutions. Society needs to be the one to change this. I mostly agree with where he is going with this but it is also difficult in a way. While I agree that society does need to take the reins on this, I also think government help is necessary. He is asking people to start new companies or reform old ones but it is difficult when an abundance of America is working class. They work to make ends meet how is he suggesting they are able to start new companies. It just does not seem feasible. Government help would be essential.
Zweig's article goes over the six points about class. He talks about what needs to be changed about the idea people have of class and the way it is represented. First issue he talks about is how we need to change people's understanding of class. He states that many people see class in terms of "rich and poor" and they need to see it in terms of "worker and capitalist". Class needs to be broken down by power not by "wealth, income, or life style" (Zweig, 2). This tends to separate class from race and gender and that is something that it should not do. His second point was about two problems in American politics. That it makes us focus to much on race and we loss sight of class and that the "political target gets confused". When race gets involved with class we tend to lose sight of the divide. Many people hear poor and think Black when in reality most poor people in America are white. When it comes to politics we tend to blame the rich as the "the source of America's political misdirection". When in reality its really the capitalist class and their aim for a profit, not caring who gets in their way even if its the rest of America. Some of the other points he makes focus around pinpointing what class exactly is and having the country acknowledge it. Society needs to know what it is and how it not only affects us locally but globally too. Zweig talks about how we have to be aware of global economy and how class effects us on a global scale. It can cause job loss, cheap labor, and capital flight. Overall class is discussed in both of these articles. Telling us how much society is affected by it whether we acknowledge it or not and how we need to be part of the change. We need to bring class into the lights and help fix the whole class structure if we essentially want to fix America.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
Jenson Chapters and Hooks article
{quotes} These texts clearly have a great deal to do with the class divide between working class and other classes, specifically dealing with higher education. The Bell Hooks article "Where We Stand: Class Matters" talked about a young woman's struggle with higher education in terms of race and class. Raised in a working class home she did not quite fit in when she got to college because it was clash of classes. She did not conform to the class standards of these wealthy girls she went to school with and they could not seem to figure out why. It also showed how the people around her viewed her class. She stated, "almost everyone around me believed working class folks had no values" (35). They did not understand where she was coming from and did not want to try and understand it therefore making her feel very uncomfortable. She later talked about her class in terms of how it affected her education. She said, "Slowly I began to understand fully that there was no place in academe for folks from working class backgrounds who did not wish to leave the past behind" (36). It is a struggle for working class people because they are stuck in a really difficult stop .
They are from working class families who have a set of values that are quite different from other classes. Working class values community more than individualism. This becomes a problem when you get mixed in with other classes in higher education. They do not understand where you are coming from and they are not going to conform to you so either you assimilate into the middle or upper class values or you don't. Which leaves you with two options either leaving everything you know and conforming to a new set of values or being an outcast. These people who move into a new class have a sense of sadness because it forces them to go against what they grew up with and also it distances themselves from their friends and families who just can't grasp this new culture. They have a problem when crossing culture happens.
Jensen states in chapter 6, "the less cultural capital they have form previous schooling, the more they face a tangle of extracurricular psychological, sociological, and cultural confusion". These people are not usually looking for a change in culture just a change in work. So the question lies in how do we deal with this? These college dreams threaten the working class identity. These people usually have to cope with it in one of three ways; distancing, resisting, or building bridges. When we get to the middle class we see a, "cultural emphasis on becoming through individual achievement". This means using self actualization whereas in working class self actualization may be "incomprehensible". The struggle between individualism (middle class) and community (working class) is evident. America seems to be heading more towards the idea of individualism and less with community making issues for the working class. Although this also creates the problem that we are losing social capital because of it. The class issue here is problematic when it comes to higher education. Working class students are finding it difficult to move ahead in the world without losing their sense of identity.
They are from working class families who have a set of values that are quite different from other classes. Working class values community more than individualism. This becomes a problem when you get mixed in with other classes in higher education. They do not understand where you are coming from and they are not going to conform to you so either you assimilate into the middle or upper class values or you don't. Which leaves you with two options either leaving everything you know and conforming to a new set of values or being an outcast. These people who move into a new class have a sense of sadness because it forces them to go against what they grew up with and also it distances themselves from their friends and families who just can't grasp this new culture. They have a problem when crossing culture happens.
Jensen states in chapter 6, "the less cultural capital they have form previous schooling, the more they face a tangle of extracurricular psychological, sociological, and cultural confusion". These people are not usually looking for a change in culture just a change in work. So the question lies in how do we deal with this? These college dreams threaten the working class identity. These people usually have to cope with it in one of three ways; distancing, resisting, or building bridges. When we get to the middle class we see a, "cultural emphasis on becoming through individual achievement". This means using self actualization whereas in working class self actualization may be "incomprehensible". The struggle between individualism (middle class) and community (working class) is evident. America seems to be heading more towards the idea of individualism and less with community making issues for the working class. Although this also creates the problem that we are losing social capital because of it. The class issue here is problematic when it comes to higher education. Working class students are finding it difficult to move ahead in the world without losing their sense of identity.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Articles on Women
{quotes} These few articles on women were quite interesting. Some reconfirmed my thoughts on certain situations and others shocked me. I thought there was an interesting difference between not only gender issues but racial issues too. The article by Ransby about women and Hurricane Katrina was appalling. Looking back at the situation of Katrina we know that things could have been handled better. What I never knew was the the race issues that went on in the aftermath. Ransby talks about how most who were left behind and who were treated poorly were poor and Black. The ones who were the least helped and had the fewest resources were poor Black women (Ransby, 616). They are basically saying that these Black poor women who are typically single mothers are being looked at as unworthy of aid and that we should be unsympathetic which is astonishing. Everyone in the wake of this storm should be helped not just people with money or of a certain race. It went on to talk about how some say that they were trying to push poor black women and their children out of the city after this. They were trying to make a new city without the black poor (Ransby, 620). Instead of helping these people recover, find new shelter, make money, etc they thought maybe they could push them out and recreate the city with their own guild lines of who should live there in order to make it a better place. This was an article that targeted women, specifically bringing up the racial difference in terms of a national disaster and just how they are treated. It certainly does not help their case that they are women.
The other articles we read also dealt with women in regards to wage, work schedules, and prostitution. The article "Minimum Wage" discussed how many women struggle to make ends meet. Most of these women are single mothers who have only their paycheck to rely on. Women being the large majority of minimum wage workers (2/3) (NWIC, 1). It talks about how we need to increase minimum wage to help these women make ends meet and be able to close the gap between men and women in terms of wages. This also ties in with the article "Working Mothers in a Double Bind". Which discusses flexible schedules and wages. Working mothers need the flexible schedules because they are the ones who need to take care of the kids. Even though they are the ones who needs the flexibility the most they are the least likely to receive it. Gender plays a role here again as does race. Men are more likely to have flexible hours. It also states that Blacks and women are less likely to have flexible jobs and equal opportunity (McCrate, 17). Race and Gender seem to come together here. Black people and women are less likely to have the opportunities in work that white men do.Taking it one step further, Black women seem to have even less of an opportunity for flexible work schedules.
Zeroing in on our own state in "An Uneven Path", we see that we have a huge problem with helping women economically. Things that were set up to help low income women, especially single mother women has decreased drastically over the years. With budget cuts to these sort of programs it has sent women far below the poverty line. These women rely on these sort of things because their jobs pay minimum wage which we have discovered is not enough to keep a one paycheck family afloat. The cost of living is far to high for the amount of money they get paid. We need to help support these working mothers and help with generating the increase of minimum wage. This will not only help them but it will essentially help the economy because the more they make the they spent and put back into the economy and we know Rhode Island needs the help! All these articles are intertwined dealing with not only women but bringing in ideas of gender and race and how it affects things economically. Women need help and need to be allowed to close the gap on wages, and job flexibility.
The other articles we read also dealt with women in regards to wage, work schedules, and prostitution. The article "Minimum Wage" discussed how many women struggle to make ends meet. Most of these women are single mothers who have only their paycheck to rely on. Women being the large majority of minimum wage workers (2/3) (NWIC, 1). It talks about how we need to increase minimum wage to help these women make ends meet and be able to close the gap between men and women in terms of wages. This also ties in with the article "Working Mothers in a Double Bind". Which discusses flexible schedules and wages. Working mothers need the flexible schedules because they are the ones who need to take care of the kids. Even though they are the ones who needs the flexibility the most they are the least likely to receive it. Gender plays a role here again as does race. Men are more likely to have flexible hours. It also states that Blacks and women are less likely to have flexible jobs and equal opportunity (McCrate, 17). Race and Gender seem to come together here. Black people and women are less likely to have the opportunities in work that white men do.Taking it one step further, Black women seem to have even less of an opportunity for flexible work schedules.
Zeroing in on our own state in "An Uneven Path", we see that we have a huge problem with helping women economically. Things that were set up to help low income women, especially single mother women has decreased drastically over the years. With budget cuts to these sort of programs it has sent women far below the poverty line. These women rely on these sort of things because their jobs pay minimum wage which we have discovered is not enough to keep a one paycheck family afloat. The cost of living is far to high for the amount of money they get paid. We need to help support these working mothers and help with generating the increase of minimum wage. This will not only help them but it will essentially help the economy because the more they make the they spent and put back into the economy and we know Rhode Island needs the help! All these articles are intertwined dealing with not only women but bringing in ideas of gender and race and how it affects things economically. Women need help and need to be allowed to close the gap on wages, and job flexibility.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Mike Rose- The Mind at Work
{quotes} This text is basically about him discussing the difference of classes in terms of jobs. He talks about how just because you come from the working class and have more labor related jobs does not mean that you do not have the same intelligence as upper class jobs. He talks about how these working class jobs use a lot of cognition and the divide is not as big as we thought between the classes in terms of jobs. He says that the working class jobs use a lot of intelligence and critical thinking even though we tend not to think so. He begins talking about a guy named Frank who works for the Railroad. Frank is part of the working class and you can tell he values his job and values working hard because that is how he feels can contribute to the world he says, "Work hard, nobody likes a half assed man". He talks about how the working class feel like this is how they are valuable. He stated, "jobs provided a means of doing something in the world", like they had something to offer.
He then goes on to talk about his mother who was a waitress for most of her life. We tend to think of waitressing as a low class job that does not take much skill but this is wrong. He talks about how it involves "intelligence embedded in social interaction, routines of service, and emotional dynamics". This type of work takes much more than we would assume. They are constantly multitasking and looking at the bigger picture. He talks about how the job filled her economic need but it also filled a cognitive, social, and existence need. Basically he is saying that when we think about a low class job like waitressing we think that it does not involve any sort of skill or intelligence but it involves both. This work, "calls for strength and stamina, memory capacity and strategy, heightened attention, ability to take stock, prioritize tasks, and make decisions on the fly". In terms of cognition it requires 'mindfulness' which means seeing the bigger picture which would be the entire restaurant and therefore being able to multitask. She must be keep her mind knowledgeable and alert. She must also tailor herself to the needs of the customers whether it be emotional or 'gender stereotypical scripts'. It is a tactic to increase her economic gain. This customer interaction interweaves cognitive processes and emotional dynamics. He states, "memory draws on emotional material to aid in storage and recall". She lastly stated that the fact that the job was fast paced meant that her mind could never stay idle which is good because you always want to keep the mind moving.
Lastly he looked at the occupation of hair styling. He talks again about gender and how it is primarily a woman's profession. Once again it is not a highly regarded profession in terms of cognition but he proves that wrong again. He talks about how hair styling relies heavily on analysis and technique. They must consider so much when doing hair. For example, length, style, texture, face, bone structure, eye color, skin color, etc. They acquire this skill over many years of training, observation, and classes. He talks about how there is a technical and mechanical dimension in what they do. They must also have good communication with clients. He states this is important in "cognition, cultural, and linguistics aspects". He also states, "The competent stylist negotiates an understanding of the literal and the symbolic content of a clients request". Overall he states cognition has a lot to do with this profession. They must think through things, decide what will work on certain hair and what won't. Aesthetics and communication are big in this profession, it is much more than just a simple job it requires much more than society thinks.
He then goes on to talk about his mother who was a waitress for most of her life. We tend to think of waitressing as a low class job that does not take much skill but this is wrong. He talks about how it involves "intelligence embedded in social interaction, routines of service, and emotional dynamics". This type of work takes much more than we would assume. They are constantly multitasking and looking at the bigger picture. He talks about how the job filled her economic need but it also filled a cognitive, social, and existence need. Basically he is saying that when we think about a low class job like waitressing we think that it does not involve any sort of skill or intelligence but it involves both. This work, "calls for strength and stamina, memory capacity and strategy, heightened attention, ability to take stock, prioritize tasks, and make decisions on the fly". In terms of cognition it requires 'mindfulness' which means seeing the bigger picture which would be the entire restaurant and therefore being able to multitask. She must be keep her mind knowledgeable and alert. She must also tailor herself to the needs of the customers whether it be emotional or 'gender stereotypical scripts'. It is a tactic to increase her economic gain. This customer interaction interweaves cognitive processes and emotional dynamics. He states, "memory draws on emotional material to aid in storage and recall". She lastly stated that the fact that the job was fast paced meant that her mind could never stay idle which is good because you always want to keep the mind moving.
Lastly he looked at the occupation of hair styling. He talks again about gender and how it is primarily a woman's profession. Once again it is not a highly regarded profession in terms of cognition but he proves that wrong again. He talks about how hair styling relies heavily on analysis and technique. They must consider so much when doing hair. For example, length, style, texture, face, bone structure, eye color, skin color, etc. They acquire this skill over many years of training, observation, and classes. He talks about how there is a technical and mechanical dimension in what they do. They must also have good communication with clients. He states this is important in "cognition, cultural, and linguistics aspects". He also states, "The competent stylist negotiates an understanding of the literal and the symbolic content of a clients request". Overall he states cognition has a lot to do with this profession. They must think through things, decide what will work on certain hair and what won't. Aesthetics and communication are big in this profession, it is much more than just a simple job it requires much more than society thinks.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Waging A Living
This film was really upsetting. I think as Americans we have this notion that if we work hard we will succeed and be able to live the "American Dream". Meaning that we will be successful and financially stable. Able to afford to live comfortably and have some of the nicer things in life. This is quite untrue as we can see throughout this film. Like for an example, the first lady we see that says that she has been at her job for 13 years and can barely afford to make ends meet. The only way that happens is if she puts in overtime, which clearly she relies on heavily. It also showed how her daughter has cancer and can't afford to get the treatment that gives her a better shot at living. It was truly heartbreaking to watch. The fact that these people can't even afford the cheapest housing they can find because of their low wage jobs is horrible. These are people who should be living the "American Dream" but how is that possible when technically they are following the guidelines and getting nowhere. They work hard everyday but can't get far in life because their low wage jobs barely make ends meet never mind ever being financially stable. Which adds so much stress to the lives of these people and does not allow for an easy life.
I think I related this film a lot to Kozol's article "Amazing Grace". In the article he talks to people in some of the poorest cities and how they also are low wage earners yet are not bad people like is stereotyped. I feel like when we think of people who struggle we generally assume it is because of some mistake they made in their life or because we think they are low lives and do not try. Well we see this is very wrong in both instances. We have Kozol's article following people who do what they can to make ends meet. These people are hard workers and work at low wage jobs. They are not bad people. He even talks about the people who have to go to the unaccredited hospitals and wait for days just to get treated. It is like the first ladies daughter in the film. If she was not in that situation and had the financially stability she might not be looking at death within a year. Other people who have her disease and get treated have a much better shot at living and how is that far just because she was not lucky enough to be put in the same situation as them.
It is just really sad to know that people are living like this in this country. People who are trying their very hardest and working their hardest and virtually getting nowhere because of these low wage jobs. The cost of living is higher than the money they earn at these jobs. They can never get ahead, never create a better life, and follow the "American Dream" because the 'American Dream" essentially does not exist. These people who are trying to work harder to chase this dream will not get to far and it is not because they are not doing it right because they are but if this country is only offering them these low wage jobs and no benefits and no way to get ahead then they will be in this position until the day they die. These stereotypes of these low wage workers are constant and yet people do not get an accurate idea of them whatsoever.
I was reading some articles online about low wage jobs in America and how they are fairing in the declining economy and I found this one interesting. It talks about low wage jobs of today and basically discussed the 'grim outlook' for them. These jobs are not leading anywhere. Not allowing for advancement within the company and not seeing an increase in wages anytime soon.
http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20130324/BIZ/303240032/Survey-Low-wage-employees-report-grim-outlook
I think I related this film a lot to Kozol's article "Amazing Grace". In the article he talks to people in some of the poorest cities and how they also are low wage earners yet are not bad people like is stereotyped. I feel like when we think of people who struggle we generally assume it is because of some mistake they made in their life or because we think they are low lives and do not try. Well we see this is very wrong in both instances. We have Kozol's article following people who do what they can to make ends meet. These people are hard workers and work at low wage jobs. They are not bad people. He even talks about the people who have to go to the unaccredited hospitals and wait for days just to get treated. It is like the first ladies daughter in the film. If she was not in that situation and had the financially stability she might not be looking at death within a year. Other people who have her disease and get treated have a much better shot at living and how is that far just because she was not lucky enough to be put in the same situation as them.
It is just really sad to know that people are living like this in this country. People who are trying their very hardest and working their hardest and virtually getting nowhere because of these low wage jobs. The cost of living is higher than the money they earn at these jobs. They can never get ahead, never create a better life, and follow the "American Dream" because the 'American Dream" essentially does not exist. These people who are trying to work harder to chase this dream will not get to far and it is not because they are not doing it right because they are but if this country is only offering them these low wage jobs and no benefits and no way to get ahead then they will be in this position until the day they die. These stereotypes of these low wage workers are constant and yet people do not get an accurate idea of them whatsoever.
I was reading some articles online about low wage jobs in America and how they are fairing in the declining economy and I found this one interesting. It talks about low wage jobs of today and basically discussed the 'grim outlook' for them. These jobs are not leading anywhere. Not allowing for advancement within the company and not seeing an increase in wages anytime soon.
http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20130324/BIZ/303240032/Survey-Low-wage-employees-report-grim-outlook
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Black Wealth, White Wealth
{quotes} I thought that this article gave some interesting facts. I think the fact that it talked about the difference between economics of white and blacks without linking it to racism but instead to class was interesting. We started out talking about the 10 highest paid people and stating that at least half of that list was made up of African Americans. With people like Oprah and Michael Jackson. But then to go on and talk about how barely any African Americans made up the Forbes list was shocking. I couldn't understand what the difference was. The article then talked about the difference between income and wealth. How people like Oprah and Michael Jackson were rich because of their income. Wealth was a whole other story. Wealth dealing more with, "access to life chances" (p2). Whereas income is money over time wealth is your stock of assets owned at a particular time (p3). Having this wealth can create opportunities that many other do not have and it is something that generally is passed down from generation to generation.
This wealth creates a bit of inequality between the races. The article states that, "wealth reveals a particular network of social relations and a set of social circumstances that convey a unique constellation of meanings pertinent to race in America" (p3). The article basically talks about how the economic issues in American between races does not only stem from racism but also from class. There are many examples of the setbacks of African Americans and why they don't share the abundance of wealth that Whites have. One of the examples given is the fact that economic transformation never happened. The Homestead Act never made the freed slaves into a land owning class. Because of the racial discrimination they were never allowed to enter the housing the market the same way as other races. Also how the FHA were more apt to give loans to white people and even if you could afford home ownership you were assigned to central city communities. Which ended up cutting them off from investments in their homes leaving them to decrease in value and therefore not deemed desirable by the FHA. Another example of economic hardship was the inability to get a mortgage. "When it comes to mortgages blacks are rejected far more than whites". I was astounded when I read that the poorest whites were more likely to get approved than the African Americans with the highest incomes.
So essentially there was no way for Blacks to build on their wealth. They were in a losing situation. There was nothing to pass on to their children and therefore they could help build future wealth either. Eventually even the gap between black and white incomes started to grow wider. It is something that started from the very beginning and is why things are the way they are today. I found it interesting when the authors wrote about it being almost like a domino affect. Starting out with slavery. Whites essentially got a head start on wealth because they were always land owners. Even the poorest white men could gain land and Black could not. Even if they did have some sort of savings they had to use it to buy their freedom so white people were always economically one step ahead. And this continued through the years with every setback Whites moved forward because they had the opportunity to whereas there always seemed to be a barrier for African Americans. Whether it be Housing, being approved for loans or mortgages, getting jobs, joining the military, the unfairness of social security, or even just getting paid equally to the white man. I find that class does play a role in this in a sense. Class typically affects where you are in the world and what kind of job you get, what kind of place you live in, etc. But I cannot agree that racism has nothing to do with it. We cannot make this entirely a class issue. They even give the example of self employment. This is supposed to go hand in hand with the 'American Dream'. Self Employment is the American way. However, African Americans find the hardest time with this out of all the races (p45). They talk about how, "discrimination and violence have punctuated black entrepreneurial efforts of all kinds" (p45). So what they are saying is that Blacks have the hardest time with this and yet it is not connected to class because they talk about how the other races have an easier time with self employment, how they do not have that extreme stereotype branded on them and therefore it is easier to find employment. Overall, I found the article interesting and learned a few things I did not know.
This wealth creates a bit of inequality between the races. The article states that, "wealth reveals a particular network of social relations and a set of social circumstances that convey a unique constellation of meanings pertinent to race in America" (p3). The article basically talks about how the economic issues in American between races does not only stem from racism but also from class. There are many examples of the setbacks of African Americans and why they don't share the abundance of wealth that Whites have. One of the examples given is the fact that economic transformation never happened. The Homestead Act never made the freed slaves into a land owning class. Because of the racial discrimination they were never allowed to enter the housing the market the same way as other races. Also how the FHA were more apt to give loans to white people and even if you could afford home ownership you were assigned to central city communities. Which ended up cutting them off from investments in their homes leaving them to decrease in value and therefore not deemed desirable by the FHA. Another example of economic hardship was the inability to get a mortgage. "When it comes to mortgages blacks are rejected far more than whites". I was astounded when I read that the poorest whites were more likely to get approved than the African Americans with the highest incomes.
So essentially there was no way for Blacks to build on their wealth. They were in a losing situation. There was nothing to pass on to their children and therefore they could help build future wealth either. Eventually even the gap between black and white incomes started to grow wider. It is something that started from the very beginning and is why things are the way they are today. I found it interesting when the authors wrote about it being almost like a domino affect. Starting out with slavery. Whites essentially got a head start on wealth because they were always land owners. Even the poorest white men could gain land and Black could not. Even if they did have some sort of savings they had to use it to buy their freedom so white people were always economically one step ahead. And this continued through the years with every setback Whites moved forward because they had the opportunity to whereas there always seemed to be a barrier for African Americans. Whether it be Housing, being approved for loans or mortgages, getting jobs, joining the military, the unfairness of social security, or even just getting paid equally to the white man. I find that class does play a role in this in a sense. Class typically affects where you are in the world and what kind of job you get, what kind of place you live in, etc. But I cannot agree that racism has nothing to do with it. We cannot make this entirely a class issue. They even give the example of self employment. This is supposed to go hand in hand with the 'American Dream'. Self Employment is the American way. However, African Americans find the hardest time with this out of all the races (p45). They talk about how, "discrimination and violence have punctuated black entrepreneurial efforts of all kinds" (p45). So what they are saying is that Blacks have the hardest time with this and yet it is not connected to class because they talk about how the other races have an easier time with self employment, how they do not have that extreme stereotype branded on them and therefore it is easier to find employment. Overall, I found the article interesting and learned a few things I did not know.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Barbara Jensen: "The Invisible Ism" and "Belonging vs. Becoming"
[quotes] I found the Jensen chapters quite different. I think that she addressed some things in a different way and gave different things to look at. She begins by basically talking about the classes and classism. She agrees that it is hard for us to admit that we have different classes in this country. She goes onto split them into four categories: rich, middle class, working class, and the poor. I think it was interesting when she stated that "economic power, not culture is the spine of class". Now I know she later goes on to talk about how culture does still play a big role but it was interesting to hear that she talked about the main division of the classes boils down to economics.
She goes on to talk about culture in this chapter and talks about the differences of working class and middle class. Saying the working class culture depends on the region, ethnicity, gender, race, and other factors. I found her story really telling too about the religious "coming of age" party for the two girls. One being from a working class family and the other a middle class family and the differences she encountered. I think it was good to see her paint the picture of the differences for us but without forcing the stereotypes but saying that though each was different they were both good in different ways. The working class family being more about emotional connections and laughter whereas the middle class was less about that but the girl was more educated and connected to why this was all happening. Although I found it interesting when she stated that "each celebration was right to the people who attended it and would feel uncomfortable at the other". I feel like this is why we have these defined lines of class though. If classes were to mix more and traditions and ways of live were to blend we would not need to spread around these ideas of the classes.
Stating that I also thought her statement on this subject was quite correct. She states, "Classism is destructive, it divides American working class and middle class people from realizing they have much more in common with each other than they do with the upper class". This is entirely correct and it is something that should be addressed more. Working class and middle class should be enjoying more of the common ground that they have with each other because it is much more than they share with the upper class.
I also found the second chapter interesting. I liked the idea of this sense of "belonging vs. becoming" and Jensen talking about how this is part of the difference between Working Class and Middle Class. Middle Class is centered around "becoming". They believe in working hard, ambition, and essentially survival of the fittest they are always looking to become something and they never just live in the "now". The middle class want this sense of individuality whereas the working class are much happier with a community. They value "belonging" much more than "becoming". They are all about living in the "now" and creating a sense of "us" which really helps because their community tends to span a bigger variety of people in terms of race, gender, ethnicity. I think that Jensen talks a lot about the differences between the two classes but that they do have some common ground that should be used to abolish these class stereotypes.
She goes on to talk about culture in this chapter and talks about the differences of working class and middle class. Saying the working class culture depends on the region, ethnicity, gender, race, and other factors. I found her story really telling too about the religious "coming of age" party for the two girls. One being from a working class family and the other a middle class family and the differences she encountered. I think it was good to see her paint the picture of the differences for us but without forcing the stereotypes but saying that though each was different they were both good in different ways. The working class family being more about emotional connections and laughter whereas the middle class was less about that but the girl was more educated and connected to why this was all happening. Although I found it interesting when she stated that "each celebration was right to the people who attended it and would feel uncomfortable at the other". I feel like this is why we have these defined lines of class though. If classes were to mix more and traditions and ways of live were to blend we would not need to spread around these ideas of the classes.
Stating that I also thought her statement on this subject was quite correct. She states, "Classism is destructive, it divides American working class and middle class people from realizing they have much more in common with each other than they do with the upper class". This is entirely correct and it is something that should be addressed more. Working class and middle class should be enjoying more of the common ground that they have with each other because it is much more than they share with the upper class.
I also found the second chapter interesting. I liked the idea of this sense of "belonging vs. becoming" and Jensen talking about how this is part of the difference between Working Class and Middle Class. Middle Class is centered around "becoming". They believe in working hard, ambition, and essentially survival of the fittest they are always looking to become something and they never just live in the "now". The middle class want this sense of individuality whereas the working class are much happier with a community. They value "belonging" much more than "becoming". They are all about living in the "now" and creating a sense of "us" which really helps because their community tends to span a bigger variety of people in terms of race, gender, ethnicity. I think that Jensen talks a lot about the differences between the two classes but that they do have some common ground that should be used to abolish these class stereotypes.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Debt- Graeber
{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?
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 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)