Dr. Cathy Cohen - Day Two Keynote Address

Sewell Done Gone Global

Mannheim, Germany

My first view as I leave my apartment building in the morning for a run

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, you read it. Sewell done gone global! Haha...I just had to say it -- it rhymes in a funny way. Well, folks I am out here in Mannheim, Germany. "Mannheim, Germany!" You say, "What's there?!" Me! And Ivan, my colleague from IU. And the University of Mannheim, where I am teaching a graduate-level seminar in quantitative methods to assess the social construction of race, the social causes of racial inequality, and the societal consequences of racial diversity.

So, that's the boring stuff. The interesting stuff is that body is in such haywire that I have taken to napping in the middle of the day, usually early evening but sometimes late afternoon. I am getting up from one of those naps right now, so I will be up for a bit more before I settle into a work rhythm. Now, those who know me are raising an eyebrow here because Abigail never naps in the day. Crap, Abigail rarely sleeps. Well, Mannheim is changing all that. My sleep patterns have been arrested by the traveling gods, and I feel like a 15 year old again. Haha!

Tomorrow, at 8am, will mark my first month in Mannheim, so I wanted to put some words out there in cyberspace that would commemorate this moment. For this first month, I will throw out the words, "make it simple". Yes, a professor-friend of mine is infamous for saying this to me. But Abigail, stuck in her esoteric mind, just never fully got it.

Well, now, my entire life is making it simple. From teaching to an international audience that has a very non-American framework for processing issues of race. To figuring out how to carry 24 Liters of mineral water (without bubbles) and apfelschorle (apple juice with bubbles) home in a bookbag designed to carry a notebook computer and some leaflets. To talking slow, inserting exaggerated pauses in my speech, and refraining from slang, humor, and mumbling (which are all classic Abigail linguistic styles) because the Germans were taught British English, not American English. And lastly, to saying the phrase, "Sprechen Sie Englisch?" [Do you speak English?] a lot, so that I do not get a migraine at the end of the day from trying to share my broken German to the world.

So, this month has been a lot about just making my life simple. I now have:

*** a simple way of waking up in the morning (i.e., drawing the curtains from all my windows, so that the bright sun (or gray clouds) greets me cheeringly in the morning; no more alarm clocks);

*** a simple routine in the morning (i.e., eat a banana, exercise, shower, sift through some work, rush to lunch before a hunger headache sets in);

*** a simple way of gauging how many layers to put on (i.e., stick head out the window; no more news, can barely understand it anyways, not because of the language, but because converting Celsius to Fahrenheit doesn't come naturally for me yet)

*** and a simple way to meet new people (i.e., "Hallo, Ich komme aus Bloomington. Wie heiss du?" = Hello, I come from Bloomington. What's your name? = well, this only works with the university folks. for the rest of the Mannheimers, I just tell them I am an American. that tends to get things rolling)

So, basically my life has become a lot more simple and a lot more complicated all at the same moment. So is living!

For those of you who are interested, please follow my blogging about my travels at Sewell Done Gone Global (http:\\sewelldonegoneglobal.blogspot.com). So as not to bombard people, I will not be uploading those automatically to facebook or any other social networking site. You've just got to be there to experience. Bookmark me!

Until next time!

another look at the bio professor-killer

I just found it ironic that of the six persons that were shot in the recent Huntsville killings, four of them were biologists of color. Check out this blog by Doctor Cleveland at dagblog.com that raises a question the media seems to think is unimportant (or too sensitive). Doctor Clevaland states,

On the other hand, the media has had no interest at all in the question of race, although Bishop shot almost every non-white faculty member in the department. (She also shot and wounded two white victims, a professor and a staff member.) She killed both African-American professors in the department (one of whom was too junior to have had anything to do with Bishop's tenure decision). She killed the department chair, who was ethnically South Asian. A Latino faculty member was wounded. There may only be two non-white faculty left in the department. Whether she intended it or not, Amy Bishop effected a racial purge of the Alabama Huntsville biology department. But the press isn't interested in asking whether or not she intended it. Perhaps the question isn't exotic enough.

I think the question -- that is, whether the shooting was motivated by race
-- is a fair one.

Non-whites comprise about a third of the U.S. population. However, their representation in the field of biology field is far from this. According to the National Science Foundation, of the 46,280 faculty with doctorate degrees in biology, agriculture, or life sciences who work in educational facilities as of 2003,only 5,510 (11.9%) are Asian, 1,550 (3.4%) are Hispanic, and 1,230 (2.7%) are Black (NSF rounds the numbers in tens for privacy purposes).

I may be wrong, but the Huntsville Biological Sciences department seems to be a typical microcosm of a Research I biology department. In all, there are 14 non-retired professors, 4 emeriti professors, 3 adjunct professors, and 1 retired professor. Mathematically, we would expect 2.7 Asians, 0.7 Hispanics, and 0.6 Blacks. With 2 Asians, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Blacks, the Huntsville department would be considered diverse.

Now, considering that Dr. Bishop managed to kill all of the black professors, kill half of the Asian professors, and injure the only Hispanic professor, I would say that the issue of race has to be raised. If not in the question of motive, in the question of effect. Further, considering that only only one of the 8 remaining white professors were brutalized, I would then start to ask some questions about who was targetted. For instance, critical questions might be: Were all faculty members present at the meeting? Or not? Was the meeting closed to Dr. Bishop? Or was she invited in? How often did the faculty members that were killed/maimed meet together? Was it on a weekly basis? Monthly basis? Or rarely?

The answers to these questions would give the reader more information to ascertain the circumstances around the event. Right now, we have to write her off as "crazy", "mental", or "stressed". But if I were a betting man, I'd say that those people were targeted. If not because of race itself, because of some role that they played in the department. Possibly the fact that she was being denied tenure for the second time may reveal some more of the story. Maybe one or more of the victims had established a rapport with her, (positive, neutral, or negative) so they became blameful in her twisted mind.

In any case, this stressed-out tenure story is weak on all fronts. Since I have been in graduate school, I've seen many a professor go through the tenure process, some who didn't make it. None of them have become homicidal. And the stress of tenure process shouldn't be accepted as an excuse to lose respect for humanity. Further, as the details of her troubling past are revealed, maybe we will see that she was given the benefit of the doubt too many times. I've never heard of someone accidentally shooting someone. Even people who kill people in a car accident get sentenced criminally. Some family had enough money, wealth, or prestige to get this woman off. Now innocent people must pay the consequence.

Sorry, no sympathy here.

the beginning of the end of 2009: three promises for 2010

it's been over 3 weeks and 3 days since i first presented the ideas for plan c of my dissertation...in 2010, i promise to stick to plan c -- and plan c only -- and push hard to finish the analysis for my dissertation.


it's been over 7 months and 10 days since i last blogged...in 2010, i promise to blog even when i think that what is on my mind is not blog-worthy.


it's been over 3 years and 9 months since i broke up with my last girlfriend...in 2010, i promise to work through the hard times of the relationship in which i am currently and let her hold me when i am down.


i could provide a laundry list of things i "promise" to do as is usual with many new year commitment lists. yet, for the sake of brevity and my sanity, i will just focus on these three. i choose these three because...


first, i would like to move past this economically-impoverished-but-supposedly-high-status phase of my life. i love the fact that being in graduate school allows me to soak up all the knowledge i can carry at time, BUT graduate school is only for a season. and the season is nigh passed. it is time to stick to an idea and see it through to the end. my goal is to write the shortest dissertation possible, and even then, it will probably be too long. lol.


second, while i am trying to usher this economically-impoverished-but-supposedly-high-status season out, i need to maintain my connection to the outside world. the past six months or so, i have been a(n almost) complete hermit. i spent three months in the bay area, passed my qualifying exams, and formalized my relationship with a long-term dating partner of mine, and yet few people actually know these things. i will say that i am a private person, but in this instance, i have let the ball drop for too long. my bad! as i step into the next phase of my life, i will make sure to reach out more in the way i best know how to -- writing.


third, my relationship life is finally stable, and i like that. my connection here provides me a place to be authentic, raw, and uncovered without fear. many a graduate student may have told you about all the criticism and rejection they face. it's simply a fact of our life. yet, humans were designed to be nourished and thrive in places where they are accepted. so, my bruised ego needs somewhere to go when journal-reviewers and professor-mentors give me the stiff arm and cold shoulder. i may be stoic, but in the end i am only human. i am grateful to have someone who is willing to suffer my eccentricities and at the same time push me to better than i currently am.


with that, i sign off this christmas day. a merry day to you and yours!

Pam's House Blend - Decomposing Difference: Biology and Identity...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10967/decomposing-difference-biology-and-identity-in-the-transgender-debates-over-authenticity

Decomposing Difference: Sex vs. Gender in the Transgendered Debates

Ran across a blog by bLaKtivist titled The Little Transmasculine Identity, THAT COULD today. Glad I am reading this page; glad that critical voices regarding female masculinities are being circulated.

I remember reading Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg for the first time when I was 18. It completely shaped my idea of a masculine woman, as I had no other representation of such persons in my life. The stone butch identity is the one I tried to personify for a while until I came to Bloomington and was able to break away from the butch/femme dichotomies of the South and the expectations I had built up of myself in others. I must admit though, I could never pass as a stone butch; my facial features are too soft. The best butch I ever became was a "soft" one. haha.

In my younger years (I'm really not as old as I sound), I hung with a number of masculine-identified women -- all of them expressing female masculinities in their own distinct ways. Although I found it difficult to be ambiguously gendered (e.g., people would refer to me as "sir" until they looked at my credit card) and had no special affection for the female-me, I found it difficult to actually transcend gender (e.g., by assuming male pronouns consciously) as my hair grew longer. Certain of my friends are aware that this has been a disturbing matter for me, as it provoked my self to question whether I truly was indeed a masculine woman. This point brings me to the focus of this blog: addressing the sex vs. gender distinction in debates about the authenticity of the gendered sex of transgendered persons, particularly FTMs.

The sex/gender distinction is parallel to the biology/identity distinction. For me, the search for truth has always been along the identity dimension, not the biology dimension, and thus raises the issue of how I gender identify rather than whether I wanted to become male or not.

I believe when people say that "butch" is a dying breed they are lamenting the death of the butch gender identity, not the death of females who embody physiologically male traits (e.g., aggression, muscular physiques, angular facial features, hairiness, deep voices). This is an important point to delineate, as the term "butch" is a sociohistorical construction while females who embody physiologically male traits have existed since the beginnings of time. According to Judith Halberstam, "masculinity" is taken to be "a naturalized relation between maleness and power." As such, butchness is just another social form of masculinity, one that identifies women who may embody natural male traits and assert power in certain relations.

So, should the death of the butch be lamented? Might the term "butch" be a socio-historical construction that captured the realities of masculine-identified women who were openly gay in the 50s/60s/70s (and maybe even 80s)? Might, with the success of the gay identity/gay rights movement (despite the struggles still ahead of us), this reality have changed, such that highly-visible masculine-identified women need not take on a hard, stone mentality to survive the aggression/oppressions of a heteronormative, sexually-repressed Western society?

I think not (to the first question), and I think so (to the second and third questions). Society has changed, due to strategic action on the part of gays and their allies, to allow the open expression of a wider continuum of masculine identities. Thus, the factors that connote the degree of maleness we embody biologically are molded during our lifetime under a particular set of social arrangements regarding sexuality (think the 70s sexual revolution condoning the free expression of sexuality).

To the extent that the "butch" identity was available to persons born in the 70s/80s/90s as a model for enacting maleness and power, this gender identity has been expanded because of both the more relaxed social environment we now live in and the unique interpretation of masculinity comprised by men and women of the 70s/80s/90s cohorts. The resultant identity set is what bLaKtivist refers to as "transmasculinities".

The problem arises not in the relative authenticity of the identities within the transmasculine identity set (which includes "butch"), but rather in the Western world's obsession with (presumed) biological binaries. Frankly, the tomboi, AG, dom, etc. has always existed (although without an articulated identity) as has the continuum upon which persons embody male and female traits.

If the biological differentiation of male and female at birth is taken as fact, then even transgendered men (FTM) are still female, even post-op. Thus, any effort to exclude them from participation in female-centered circles is betraying the very set of assumptions upon which the exclusionary decision was built.

On the other hand, if we embrace the idea that identities, particularly gendered ones, exist upon a multi-dimensional continuum, then the MTF and FTM can be welcomed into sex- or gendered-centered spaces without problem. For instance, the masculine-identified lesbian and FTM can occupy the same space as representatives of a particular point within the sex continuum, although along different gendered dimensions of sex.

I am not a gender/sexuality scholar, but it would seem to me that recognizing sex/gender as both CONTINUUMS (not binaries) and DIMENSIONS of a larger social system of domination built upon genitalia differentiations and gendered roles would go a long way into building a community of non-normative sexualized bodies and gendered identities that we all so badly need.

Sigh: Sociologists Dealing with Attributions of Racism

A response to how sociologists "deal" with race launched a heated exchange on Scatterplot at the end of February regarding attributions of racism. I was disappointed at the defensiveness present in the Scatterplot response to the “trauma” post and at the dismissiveness present in their response to the NY Post picture overall (not to say that all bloggers were defensive or dismissive, respectively, at one or all issues presented). In response to a healthy discussion already in place at Scatterplot, Skinny Malinky's original "trauma" post states:

I mean to pause and remember the force of the accumulated and collective traumas of racism, and to think about what sort of failure it is for sociology to refuse a consideration of that force, and to what new traumas that failure contributes.

As a POC who grew up in the Deep South (not to say this identity is definitively linked to the subsequent clause, but to provide sociological context to me saying that: Upon seeing the cartoon, I felt that I was the monkey the police were shooting , and my stomach turned as a result), I was keenly upset the day the picture was posted. I wrote up a long email rant and was prepared to send it out to EVERYONE I knew. Then, I checked myself, sent out only the picture to people in my inner circle, and let folks deal with it emotionally in their own ways. Still, I wanted everyone to be upset and to finally make the racial connections with the watermelon imagery, the death threats, and other racist imagery that have been employed against Obama throughout his campaign.


Still, the world we live in today with regards to things “racial” is one where no one wants to feel responsible for racial inequality. For this reason I empathize with the words of Attorney General Eric Holder: We are a “nation of cowards.” It is time we stop running from this truth.


Also, the world we live in today is one where no one wants to be called a “racist” explicitly or implicitly, especially people who feel they themselves are well-intentioned, objective, or un-invested in a particular set of actions. I believe this to be the position the Scatterplot poster felt the Sociology blog had been put in by the interpretations represented in the original “trauma” post.


Nonetheless, if we are to move beyond our cowardly/colorblind/faultless society, a new understanding of racism must gain currency in contemporary America: Racism is not about intentions. In fact, the most virulent forms of racism occur invisibly, as an inert structural force.



This inert structural force embodies both cultural symbols of whole peoples (e.g., blacks as monkeys (see Joseph Grave’s The Emperor’s New Clothing), Jews are rats (see Maus), or Muslims as terrorists) and the context of lived realities (e.g., racial residential segregation, racial differences in the quality of educational opportunities, racial profiling). The consequences brought about by this inert structural force is the "trauma" Skinny Malinky referred to in his/her post. As Grace Cho states [quoted by Skinny Malinky]:

an unspeakable trauma does not die out with the person who first experienced it. Rather, it takes on a life of its own, emerging from the spaces where secrets are concealed. [emphasis added]

While some racism is rooted in intention, narrowing the definition of racism as such dismisses the trans-institutional (Waitzkin's Second Sickness) and multi-dimensional (Blank, Dabady, and Citro's Measuring Discrimination) nature and consequence of racial hierarchy and the distribution of resources according to racial identity. Even in the Jim Crow era (and before then), this kind of institutional discrimination/structural racism was at work. See DuBois in The Philadelphia Negro and Omi and Winant in Racial Formation in the United States for earlier articulations of this perspective.



I apologize as a sociologist who studies race/ethnicity for my silence on this matter. I needed time to not speak from a gut-reaction sadness and anger. Moving forward, I have only a few words for sociologists "dealing" with attributions of racism.

• First, expect to be offended and leave with hurt feelings when discussing issues of race in America. Use these moments to reflect critically on how you (and others) got to that point.


• Second, we, across all positions of the racial hierarchy, contribute to the inert structural force of racism. This is "our" problem; not "theirs": If one of our body parts is wounded, the whole body fails to function optimally.


• Third, the only way to move forward is to talk, write, and argue about it. It is when one voice (collectively or individually) defines what race/racism is that we have an insurmountable problem.

End sigh.