Defining Deviance, Otherness, & Difference Spring 2010

Published 7 April 2010 current students 5 Comments

Post your comments for this week’s readings, questions, and position statements here.

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

5 Responses to “Defining Deviance, Otherness, & Difference Spring 2010”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Maya D 7 April 2010 at 11:17 am

Maya Dougherty
Position Statement
“Those [homogeneous practices of local television news organizations] appear to advance a mythology about race and class—a mythology which will preclude the kind of understanding necessary to attain the tolerance and compassion that must precede the elimination of racial prejudice and discrimination in the United States.”
I strongly agree that the media’s negative portrayal of minorities is a substantial contributor to the perpetuation of racism in the United States. The television news has ultimate power in framing the perceptions of its viewers. Most Americans are informed about the world through the local news and do not seek to critically analyze the information splashed in front of them on the television. Unfortunately, television news has continually marginalized minority voices and when minorities are seen they are negatively depicted. Therefore the public has been socialized through the media to fear minorities and sees them as “others.”
There are a number of American’s, like USD suburbanites, who do not have much contact with minorities. Their only experience with and knowledge of minorities comes from what they see on the news. If one were to believe everything one saw on the news one would believe that minorities are dangerous, uneducated, lazy, and a host of other negative qualities. One of my roommates once said, “My biggest fear is being raped by a black man.” I was appalled by her statement but not surprised, because it is one of the fears about black males that has been perpetuated for a century by the news. These frames are so embedded in the American mind that they are hard to diffuse, even with solid empirical evidence that refutes the media’s depictions.
I agree with Campbell that the media has the ability to dispel the myths that it has perpetuated for so long. Dispelling these myths would be a huge step towards decreasing racism in the United States. However I am skeptical. How will the media be able to change its professional bias, that marginalizes and criminalizes minorities, when the media doesn’t even see itself as racist and maintains that racism is a thing of the past?

Reply
2 Kiko B 12 April 2010 at 11:39 am

Position Statement

“The most serious problems of America’s cities- economic despair, social malaise, educational negligence, political ineptitude- hardly lend themselves to the routines of local TV newsrooms; those are problems which cannot be addressed 30-second news stories. By ignoring the historical and social causes of their cities plights, local television news organizations contribute to stereotypes which do little to accurately explain the reality of American racial inequities.” – Campell
It is undoubtedly true that the most serious problems in America are those pertaining to the economy, social system, and education. So often people in the media associate criminal acts with race, and further associate race with social economic situations. Unfortunately it is a common misconception that races are the cause of both advantages and disadvantages in a socio-economic spectrum, but the fact of the matter is that races fall victim to the social and economic inequalities that are wrongly portrayed as effects, rather than causes, in the media.
The biggest mistake people and the media alike make is that they see racial classification as a cause rather than an effect. Too often people believe, for example, that black people are uneducated, violent, and poor, and as a result can only live in bad urban areas. The fact of the matter is that these situations are all an effect of historical reference, bread out of racial inequality dating back to the first non-white person to arrive in America. Too often the black community finds itself as the poster child these situations when it is not only their reality but also the reality of Latinos, Asians, Whites and others alike. To add insult to injury, the news media are not only in denial that racism still exists, but they reinforce these stereotypes with the criminal stories that land on prime time news and the ways in which these stories are told.
On an economic level, those who do have the resources such as wealthy CEOs and politicians are the ones at fault for creating and maintaining this racial divide. The first problem is the fact that many have denied that race is even an existing problem in modern day America (don’t even get me started). As a result, they assume that lower class citizens, who they assume are all non-white, have put themselves in their current situations. But what is one thing that both a drug dealer and a CEO of any race can agree on? C.R.E.A.M. (cash rules everything around me). For those stuck in unfavorable situations, more often than not, it is because the money simply isn’t there.
The economic leaders of America have failed in reducing poverty and its associating crime and increasing education that could ultimately lead to a better income. Instead, they continue to push these communities down as they turn away from them thinking it is a lost cause. Because there is no money to help these communities, they get worse, and as they get worse they get less appealing for those with the resources to invest in the situation. Needless to say, it is a downhill spiral.
The media lend no helping hand in the situation by portraying communities in a state of poverty as the areas with the highest reported crime rates- “reported” being the operative word. It is too often that we hear about a murder or a drug heist in the worst of our communities that it is no wonder they have such an unappealing reputation. Who can really blame someone for not wanting to take the time and money to invest in such situations? Not only are the people of these poverty-stricken areas victim to the portrayal of the media, but also the impressions of the upper class citizens who are turned off from the idea of providing aid.
So what is the result? As the situation gets worse, people get hungry; desperate. The lack of financial resources leads to the lack or failure of public education made available to people in these communities. This then leads to their professional failure. Lack of job opportunities will result in odd jobs, money being paid under the table, and more often than not the classic “hustle” towards drugs and drive-by. For those who fall victim to the ugly ways of working for cash, it usually leads to incarceration. For the others who are just making it by, they are brought back to square one; the lack of financial resources.
This is why men and women are killing each other before they reach the age of 25. This is why so many children are growing up without fathers. This is why it is so hard for honest people to get out of the “hood.” All the while the media is just eating it up. With their 30-something second news stories, the news media subtly re-enforce what we think we already know about people of color living in poverty. It’s almost as if we can’t rely on the media for change, but how can we rely on our citizens if their impressions of these communities rely so strongly on the media for “legitimate” information? Like the unanswered question of the chicken and the egg, what will come first: resourceful citizens’ discarding media-enforced stereotypes and taking action, or the media discarding these stereotypes because of the productive action of resourceful American citizens? Unfortunately for many, the answer will come too late.

Reply
3 Greta 14 April 2010 at 3:02 pm

Position Statement – The Latest Fight Over the Foreskin, By Roni Caryn Rabin

“Physicians reject any comparison between male and female circumcision because, they say, male circumcision does not injure men or impair any physiological or sexual functioning. But critics say a double standard prevails: though female genitals cutting is also rooted in cultural traditions, it is prohibited by law and considered a human rights violation. These critics object to circumcising boys for the same reasons many find female circumcision loathsome: they believe parents have no right to permanently alter the genitalia of a baby who cannot consent, boy or girl, and that far from being a useless flap of skin, the foreskin, which is densely filled with nerve endings, serves a function, protecting and lubricating the head of the penis and maintaining its sensitivity, much like an eyelid does.”

I completely and utterly agree with the Physicians stance in terms of rejecting any comparison between female and male circumcision. How can one even compare the two? First of all, there is a reason why “female circumcision” is commonly referred to as female genital mutilation. The key word here is mutilation aka to mutilate: to inflict violent and disfiguring injury (New Oxford American Dictionary). Moreover, it is important to note that male circumcision does not harm men in virtually any way, shape or form, but rather it has been found to help men in many ways. It has been found to reduce a man’s risk of acquiring the HIV virus, it has been found to improve men’s hygiene, etc. On the contrary, female circumcision has the opposite effect on women. It has absolutely no benefit to women. All it does, in fact, is harm and injure women, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Not only are many women forced to undergo female circumcision during which trauma is be one main problems, however infection and extreme amounts of pain are common after and during a female circumcision. Furthermore, as noted on womenshealth.gov there are several long-term health problems after a woman has undergone circumcision. Some of these consist of: problems going to the bathroom, not being able to have sex normally—in some cases female circumcision “leaves women with scars that cover most of their vagina. This makes sex very painful. These scars can also develop into bumps (cysts or abscesses) or thick scars that can be uncomfortable”— problems with gynecological health—“painful menstruation. They may not be able to pass all of their menstrual blood. They may also have infections over and over again”—increased risk of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, problems getting pregnant/problems during pregnancy and labor, and many more. I understand that in the statement above, the critics are by no means saying that female circumcision is good, however they are comparing it to male circumcision as if they were similar, which they are not at all. They are saying that parents do not have the right to circumcise their baby “boy or girl” without the child’s consent etc. This is where I completely disagree. One cannot put boys and girls together in this case. Male circumcision and female circumcision are opposites. One cannot discuss them and argue points by attaching them or relating them in any way, shape, or form. When it comes to a male circumcision, the parents have the full right to decide whether or not they want to circumcise their son. Why not? Its fully beneficial to their son; it does not harm him in any way. Especially in today’s American society, in which males are in many cases assumed by women and men to have been circumcised, what is the harm in circumcising men? And how can one even try to argue that female and male circumcision are even the least bit similar?

Reply
4 Shaylyn 10 May 2010 at 12:04 pm

Position Statement:
The Latest Fight Over the Foreskin: Rabin

Though female and male circumcision is a very controversial subject, we must all arguments into account. Cultural implications must be addressed when discussing topics such as these. Male circumcision is a prominent ritual in the Jewish faith and has been carried out since Biblical times. It is a, “very personal choice for many people, laden with cultural, religious and historic overtones wrapped up in issues of identity and sexuality” (p.1). Though in the United States, male circumcision is practiced in all faiths and is seen as a preventive method for contracting infections and diseases. It is not as culturally embedded as it is in the Jewish faith. It is not a viable option for men of this faith because it would be seen as disrupting the social and religious framework of this culture. The United States is currently questioning this practice and making the argument prominent if it humanely incorrect, due to many young men not having the option when they are born. Female circumcision or mutilation is also culturally prominent in countries, but completely unacceptable and is considered inhumane treatment in the United States. Countries such as Africa practice this tradition, and it is not questioned.
The United States it seems to me is always concerned with health and hygiene first rather than looking at the situation from a cultural standpoint. Why is this? Well, we have become obsessed with this thought of avoiding “dirty” practices that demote our position in cleanliness. Another point to mention why circumcision is becoming so widely accepted is, “Being without a foreskin was said to boost hygiene, and become a badge of the educated and upper class” (p. 2). In a country full of history and tradition, why is this particular subject that is so rooted in cultural and tradition so taboo?

Reply
5 Shaylyn 10 May 2010 at 12:18 pm

Position Statement 2:
Fabricating the “Brown Peril”: Davis

Though female and male circumcision is a very controversial subject, we must all arguments into account. Cultural implications must be addressed when discussing topics such as these. Male circumcision is a prominent ritual in the Jewish faith and has been carried out since Biblical times. It is a, “very personal choice for many people, laden with cultural, religious and historic overtones wrapped up in issues of identity and sexuality” (p.1). Though in the United States, male circumcision is practiced in all faiths and is seen as a preventive method for contracting infections and diseases. It is not as culturally embedded as it is in the Jewish faith. It is not a viable option for men of this faith because it would be seen as disrupting the social and religious framework of this culture. The United States is currently questioning this practice and making the argument prominent if it humanely incorrect, due to many young men not having the option when they are born. Female circumcision or mutilation is also culturally prominent in countries, but completely unacceptable and is considered inhumane treatment in the United States. Countries such as Africa practice this tradition, and it is not questioned.
The United States it seems to me is always concerned with health and hygiene first rather than looking at the situation from a cultural standpoint. Why is this? Well, we have become obsessed with this thought of avoiding “dirty” practices that demote our position in cleanliness. Another point to mention why circumcision is becoming so widely accepted is, “Being without a foreskin was said to boost hygiene, and become a badge of the educated and upper class” (p. 2). In a country full of history and tradition, why is this particular subject that is so rooted in cultural and tradition so taboo?

Reply