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!
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 9, 2009
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:
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]:
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.
End sigh.
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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
U People Documentary (15 Min. Trailer): Race and Sexuality in Today's America
Today, I ran across a pleasant delight while taking a "break" from work - U People. U People is a multi-faceted conscious-raising project that bridges art and activism and provides a critical assessment of race and sexuality in America. "U People" -- a documentary that is an outgrowth of the broader project premiered on Logo February 7th and won the Jury Award at the IMAGE-NATION LGBT Film Festival in Canada.
I was able to catch parts of the documentary online at the Logo site but was unsuccessful in seeing the entire film (although they say the Full Documentary is present). By digging a bit further, I found this 15 minute trailer that provides a closer look at why YOU should be buying-watching-talking about this film. The U People website states that:
I was able to catch parts of the documentary online at the Logo site but was unsuccessful in seeing the entire film (although they say the Full Documentary is present). By digging a bit further, I found this 15 minute trailer that provides a closer look at why YOU should be buying-watching-talking about this film. The U People website states that:
the mission of the documentary is to dismantle the blanket categorization and ignorance inherent in the phrase "you people" by displaying unique individuals in possession of personal power and self-determination. It upholds the vision that camaraderie and sisterhood is vibrant and sustaining, though not always easy, among straight and gay women and gender non-conformists in the African diaspora.
For those of you interested in uncommon (read: non-media-driven) insight into the race and the same-sex marriage debate, I highly recommend the portion of the video from minute 9:09 on to the end.
U People Documentaruy: 15 Min. Trailer
Video sent by upeoplethemovie
The following is a 15minute trailer and excerpt for the U People Documentary. It tells the story of what happened behind the scenes of a not so typical music video shoot one spring weekend in Brooklyn. Where women across sexualities got together to create something that had never been seen before. This trailer is an overview of the film and highlights one scene that focuses on civil and marriage rights.
Music: Hanifah Walidah - Happy
Honey Larochelle - "Hold You Down
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
What do FDR's New Deal and Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan have in common?
Unfortunately, a lot.
A recent report by the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University projects that the relief purposed to come from the Economic Stimulus Plan will not benefit all groups to the same degree. Because of the racial stratification of occupations and employment opportunities, the jobs created in the stimulus package are designed for industries where blacks, in particular, are underrepresented (e.g., the construction industry).
In parallel fashion, the handouts of the New Deal disproportionately fell in the hands of white middle class America, as it funded the seeds of suburbanization and the post-World War II White Flight phenomenon through the National Housing Act of 1934 implemented by the Federal Housing Administration. These government handouts are largely responsible for the large black-white gap in wealth we still see today.
Fortunately, unlike the 20s, we currently have laws that criminalize racial discrimination in hiring and wage allotment. However, sociological studies show that the racial wage gap is largest in the private sector, particularly in occupations where earnings are decided by the capital of one's client-base. In a society, where both interracial friendships and interracial employment contracts are rare, it is not difficult to see where inequalities in earnings can be built into a client-driven pay scale.
What we essentially have is a prime example of institutional discrimination--the range of policies and practices of an institution that lead to the systematic disadvantage of members of certain racial groups (disparate impact). Not coincidentally, the mechanisms of structural racism operates among us invisibly and create an inertive force once activated.
We are only now seeing one of the many unintended consequences of the disproportionate subsidy of white suburbanization -- twenty-first century black foreclosure.
Analysts have noted that since 2004 black homeownership gains have been reversed and that even before this time rates of foreclosure were on a steady rise in areas with large minority populations. While the media likes to place the onus on blacks -- citing poor investment practices and bad credit, they forget that, unlike their white counterparts, black homeowners financed much of their American Dream through their own means. They also did not catch on to urban flight until the 80s and 90s, once housing prices in urban areas were prohibitively expensive and the rise in housing values (and therefore, escrow capital) had already begun to stagnate. Furthermore, predatory lending practices, redlining, and urban decline have largely eroded the capital out of their most valuable asset.
Thus, in times where the median black family income is dropping for the first time since World War II, there is little to bail people of color out of the depression they have entered into with the current economic crisis. According to United for a Fair Economy, black unemployment is equal to or exceeds that of the Great Depression of 1929 and has been indicative of an economic recession for the past five years.
Could the new millennium Economic Stimulus Plan be the 1930s New Deal all over again? In "Silent Depression: The State of the Dream 2009," United for a Fair Economy draws more parallels between these two periods than one would like. Lax lending standards, a housing and construction boom, and later foreclosure were all features of the 20s and 30s, much as they are features of our current economic situation.
How do we stop this cycle of structural racism? If the Economic Stimulus Plan goes into effect without oversight into how and to whom jobs are distributed, it seems unlikely that we will be able to do so. The time to be assertive, deliberate, and informed is now. Time is repeating itself: this time there are no excuses.
A recent report by the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University projects that the relief purposed to come from the Economic Stimulus Plan will not benefit all groups to the same degree. Because of the racial stratification of occupations and employment opportunities, the jobs created in the stimulus package are designed for industries where blacks, in particular, are underrepresented (e.g., the construction industry).
In parallel fashion, the handouts of the New Deal disproportionately fell in the hands of white middle class America, as it funded the seeds of suburbanization and the post-World War II White Flight phenomenon through the National Housing Act of 1934 implemented by the Federal Housing Administration. These government handouts are largely responsible for the large black-white gap in wealth we still see today.
Fortunately, unlike the 20s, we currently have laws that criminalize racial discrimination in hiring and wage allotment. However, sociological studies show that the racial wage gap is largest in the private sector, particularly in occupations where earnings are decided by the capital of one's client-base. In a society, where both interracial friendships and interracial employment contracts are rare, it is not difficult to see where inequalities in earnings can be built into a client-driven pay scale.
What we essentially have is a prime example of institutional discrimination--the range of policies and practices of an institution that lead to the systematic disadvantage of members of certain racial groups (disparate impact). Not coincidentally, the mechanisms of structural racism operates among us invisibly and create an inertive force once activated.
We are only now seeing one of the many unintended consequences of the disproportionate subsidy of white suburbanization -- twenty-first century black foreclosure.
Analysts have noted that since 2004 black homeownership gains have been reversed and that even before this time rates of foreclosure were on a steady rise in areas with large minority populations. While the media likes to place the onus on blacks -- citing poor investment practices and bad credit, they forget that, unlike their white counterparts, black homeowners financed much of their American Dream through their own means. They also did not catch on to urban flight until the 80s and 90s, once housing prices in urban areas were prohibitively expensive and the rise in housing values (and therefore, escrow capital) had already begun to stagnate. Furthermore, predatory lending practices, redlining, and urban decline have largely eroded the capital out of their most valuable asset.
Thus, in times where the median black family income is dropping for the first time since World War II, there is little to bail people of color out of the depression they have entered into with the current economic crisis. According to United for a Fair Economy, black unemployment is equal to or exceeds that of the Great Depression of 1929 and has been indicative of an economic recession for the past five years.
Could the new millennium Economic Stimulus Plan be the 1930s New Deal all over again? In "Silent Depression: The State of the Dream 2009," United for a Fair Economy draws more parallels between these two periods than one would like. Lax lending standards, a housing and construction boom, and later foreclosure were all features of the 20s and 30s, much as they are features of our current economic situation.
How do we stop this cycle of structural racism? If the Economic Stimulus Plan goes into effect without oversight into how and to whom jobs are distributed, it seems unlikely that we will be able to do so. The time to be assertive, deliberate, and informed is now. Time is repeating itself: this time there are no excuses.
Monday, February 16, 2009
"Leavin' the Hood": The Health Paradox of Integrated Neighborhoods
A fairly-recent article of Matthew O. Hunt highlights a rarely-recognized aspect of American racism: perceptions of racial discrimination are more likely in integrated settings. Below, I have included the reference and abstract of the study published in Social Psychology Quarterly.
Hunt and colleagues highlight three types of neighborhoods -- relatively homogeneous without non-whites , "integrated" (i.e., approx. 50-50 split), and relatively homogeneous and dominated by non-whites. Perceptions of discrimination is highest in neighborhoods that are relatively homogeneous without non-whites and lowest in neighborhoods that are relatively homogeneous with non-whites. "Leavin' the hood" may not be so psychologically pleasing after all, hmmph.
This finding echoes Thomas A. LaVeist's thesis from the early 90s with regards to infant mortality rates. LaVeist found that, within highly segregated metropolitan contexts, IMR rates for blacks were lower, but only if blacks were politically empowered (i.e., representation in local government) relative to their representation in the metropolitan area. On the other hand, black political empowerment had no effect on white IMR rates. For once, this isn't a win-lose situation.
Still, the critical questions remain:
Reference
Hunt, Matthew O., Lauren A. Wise, Marie-Claude Jipguep, Yzette C. Cozier, Lynn Rosenberg. 2007. "Neighborhood Racial Composition and Perceptions of Racial Discrimination: Evidence from the Black Women's Health Study." Social Psychology Quarterly 70(3):272-289.
Hunt and colleagues highlight three types of neighborhoods -- relatively homogeneous without non-whites , "integrated" (i.e., approx. 50-50 split), and relatively homogeneous and dominated by non-whites. Perceptions of discrimination is highest in neighborhoods that are relatively homogeneous without non-whites and lowest in neighborhoods that are relatively homogeneous with non-whites. "Leavin' the hood" may not be so psychologically pleasing after all, hmmph.
This finding echoes Thomas A. LaVeist's thesis from the early 90s with regards to infant mortality rates. LaVeist found that, within highly segregated metropolitan contexts, IMR rates for blacks were lower, but only if blacks were politically empowered (i.e., representation in local government) relative to their representation in the metropolitan area. On the other hand, black political empowerment had no effect on white IMR rates. For once, this isn't a win-lose situation.
Still, the critical questions remain:
- Do blacks in ethnically-dense neighborhoods just not recognize an event as discriminatory? Studies of low-income blacks would support this claim.
- Or do blacks in ethnically-dense neighborhoods not experience discrimination as much as their counterparts in integrated neighborhoods?
- Or is it really about the quality of contact? According to Hunt and colleagues, more evenly-mixed neighborhoods elicit less perceptions of discrimination than those that more skewed towards whites. Might a different kind of interracial interaction be happening in these neighborhoods?
In any case, all this leaves us with a complex public policy situation. Integration is often perceived as the savior to non-whites social and economic problems--whether it be residential, cultural, or social integration (assimilation). Yet, the dynamics of integration force both sides of the color divide to see the problem and, in doing so, raise tensions that are often only elephants in the room when we are all trying to "just get along."
Given that poor mental and physical health follow both perceptions of discrimination and residence within the structures that manifest discrimination (i.e., highly segregated neighborhoods, economic disadvantage), we need to literally change the quality of interracial contact within contemporary America for this lose-lose situation to become a win-win.
One way to change the quality of interracial contact within neighborhoods and other social spaces is to encourage a diverse groups of acquaintances. Social science research notes that contact alone is not sufficient to break down the negative stereotypes of non-whites that is ingrained in American culture. For instance, Jackman and Crane (1986) that simply having black friends and acquaintances does little to influence whites' policy attitudes towards blacks. Instead, she suggests that a diversity of contacts aides in the deconstruction of cultural stereotypes by providing multiple images of the "other". With a diversity of contacts, it is more likely that individuals who are separated by race but otherwise quite similar may come together.
Also, these images directly challenge stereotypes and provide a context to understand the social etiology of our cultural toolbox. In either case, during the process of interaction, a new bridge is constructed for otherwise estranged neighbors, colleagues, and peers to meet on equal grounds and build more stable relationships on top the class, gender, political, and civic platforms they both stand.
With each passing year, the cultural and social space for interracial contact expands wider. Yet, poor mental and physical health follow the footsteps of both past and future social structures. On the one hand, residence within the highly-segregated and economically-disadvantaged neighborhood structures manifested by historical and continued discrimination is detrimental to one's health. On the other hand, perceptions of discrimination generated by increasing levels of interracial contact is also detrimental to one's health. Clearly, we must literally change the quality of interracial contact within contemporary America for this lose-lose situation to become a win-win.
Reference
Hunt, Matthew O., Lauren A. Wise, Marie-Claude Jipguep, Yzette C. Cozier, Lynn Rosenberg. 2007. "Neighborhood Racial Composition and Perceptions of Racial Discrimination: Evidence from the Black Women's Health Study." Social Psychology Quarterly 70(3):272-289.
Little is known about the effects of social context or "place" factors (e.g., characteristics of local populations) on African Americans' perceptions and experiences of racism. Using data from 42,445 U.S. black women collected during the 1997 follow-up wave of the Black Women's Health Study, we investigated the association between neighborhood racial composition ("percent black" at the block-group level in 2000 Census data) and perceptions of racial discrimination. Perceived racial discrimination was measured using self-reports of the frequency of discrimination in "everyday" settings (e.g., being treated as if you are dishonest) and "lifetime" occurrences of discrimination on the job, in housing, and by the police. There was a linear inverse relationship between neighborhood percent black and perceived discrimination, i.e., higher percent black was associated with lower levels of discrimination. Our results support the conclusions that, relative to contexts in which blacks are a small minority, more evenly-mixed (i.e., integrated) contexts result in lower levels of discrimination (contact hypothesis), and mostly black contexts evidence the lowest levels of discrimination (ethnic density hypothesis).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
