Tatum The-Complexity-of-Identity - ENG 101 W28
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Comments are due September 14, 2020 00:59
The Complexity of Identity: “Who Am I?”
This week I’m going to ask you to read, comment, and discuss Tatum’s The Complexity of Identity.
•Read the essay below noting the questions I’ve posed in the annotations.
•Answer one or two questions by creating your own comment
•Read through the responses of your classmates
•Respond to at least two of the comments your classmates posted.
Our discussion of this reading will last about a week. I’m going to ask you to create 2 comments for this discussion. One comment should reply to one of the prompt question I’ve posed below (Questions 1-4). The second comment should be a reply to one of our classmates.
If you have questions about using NowComment I’ve provided you with a link to a tutorial in our Blackboard Course Week 2. I look forward to your reading through your responses.
By Beverly Daniel Tatum
The concept of identity is a complex one, shaped by individual characteristics, family dynamics, historical factors, and social and political contexts. Who am I? The answer depends in large part on who the world around me says I am. Who do my parents say I am? Who do my peers say I am? What message is reflected back to me in the faces and voices of my teachers, my neighbors, store clerks? What do I learn from the media about myself? How am I represented in the cultural images around me? Or am I missing from the picture altogether? As social scientist Charles Cooley pointed out long ago, other people are the mirror in which we see ourselves.1
This "looking glass self" is not a flat one-dimensional reflection, but multidimension-al. How one's racial identity is experienced will be mediated by other dimensions of one-self: male or female; young or old; wealthy, middle-class, or poor; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or heterosexual; able-bodied or with disabilities; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist. ...
Consider the elements that Tatum lists here. If we look at the paragraphs to come how do these elements make us complex individuals? Why is it important for us to acknowledge this complexity in ourselves and others?
It is important for us to acknowledge this complexity in ourselves and others because it is who we are as a person and to accept others the way they are.
I agree with you, we have to acknowledge complexity in others and ourselves in order to be accepting and just have a good time. I really agree that we have to accept others as they are, not just acknowledge that they might be different than us or hold different views. If we can’t accept people as individuals, even if we disagree with them, then we aren’t ever going to grow as a society. It’s important to let people be who they want to be. After all, it seems like people’s identities aren’t fully their own doing anyway, from what this essay says about different circumstances and backgrounds and other uncontrollable things.
I agree with you, because I also think this makes us who were are as people. Since we are all different, we can learn to accept act other for who were are and respect the choices that we make regarding our identity. if everyone believed in the same things, the world would be a very boring place since it would be very uniform.
I agree with your statement because everyone around us has something unique about themselves. We have to acknowledge peoples opinions and respect the choices they make. It is a learning process when you open up your ideas and listen to what others have to say.
I agree with your statement. Acknowledging and interacting with our own and others complex identities allows us to be more accepting of differences. Our identities are both visible and invisible, adding to their complex nature. These individual identities interact in differing ways making our identities not only unique but highly complex.
I think we all agree that it is important to acknowledge complexity in ourselves and others. Acknowledging complexity in others is how we create good relationship to people around us. Accepting who we are is how we find ourselves and our purpose.
Loved the sentence ’It’s who we are’. It’s so true, people need to accept themselves too because of this judgmental society they start questioning themselves which lead to bad paths or clearly depression. Which is not good at all. People need to accept whatever they are, as they are!
I agree. We need to be able to know know who we are. I really liked what you said about acceptance. How we shouldn’t change ourselves nor others. I feel it’s in our human nature to be self-conscious and to worry about the option of others. We need to accept people as they are.
The variety of identities in our society is what makes us interesting! It’s important to have identity because we are wired to belong to a “pack”, or at least some kind of group. We tend to get lonely, sad, and even depressed if we feel we don’t belong anywhere. The mass following of Christianity, for example, has had a huge impact on the planet. In fact, all of the main religions have had a huge impact on history. Women have been fighting for rights for as long as we’ve been in a complex society- and for something that we cannot choose or change! Identity needs to be respected. Identity is something that only you can control, and you shouldn’t feel bullied or pressured to change. Acknowledging that we are all different and beautiful is so important because from conformity and senses of superiority, comes hate and a need to control others. How many people have been killed because of their sexuality? How many people have been imprisoned or beaten for having a different faith? How many people are discriminated against for their skin color or ethnicity?
Everyone has their own complex identity, and it is very important to acknowledge this complexity in ourselves and others because then we will be open minded to the world. We should always be happy to learn about different cultures and religions. Learning different things make a taste of a life.
I agree with you on how you said it will help us be open minded to the world. If we as individuals begin to acknowledge our complex identity as well as others it will help us view the bigger picture. We will learn how to see differences in each other as a good thing and not a bad thing.
-Aylin
We learn from our experiences and surroundings in life and we form our individuality from these experiences. It’s important that we acknowledge this complexity in ourselves and others so we can learn from one another. As well as becoming in tune with what we enjoy in life and what brings us joy.
If we were all the same, the world wouldn’t be as diverse as it is. There are many things going on in the world, but if we want change, we must learn to accept others as they are. If we want to feel or be accepted, who are we to say people can’t be different for what THEY believe in or come from. Whether it’s a different religion, sexual orientation, by wealth or even race. We should treat others the way we want to be treated.
What has my social context been? Was I surrounded by people like myself, or was I part of a minority in my community? Did I grow up speaking standard English at home or another language or dialect? Did I live in a rural county, an urban neighborhood, a sprawling suburb, or on a reservation?
Who I am (or say I am) is a product of these and many other factors. Erik Erikson, the psychoanalytic theorist who coined the term identity crisis, introduced the notion that the social, cultural, and historical context is the ground in which individual identity is embedded. Acknowledging the complexity of identity as a concept, Erikson writes,
We deal with a process "located" in the core of the individual and yet also in the core of his commu-nal culture…. In psychological terms, identity formation employs a process of simultaneous reflection and observation, a process taking place on all levels of mental functioning, by which the individual judges himself in the light of what he perceives to be the way in which others judge him in comparison to themselves and to a typology significant to them.2
Triggered by the biological changes associated with puberty, the maturation of cogni-tive abilities, and changing societal expectations, this process of simultaneous reflection and observation, the self-creation of one's identity, is commonly experienced in the United States and other Western societies during the period of adolescence.' Though the foundation of identity is laid in the experiences of childhood, younger children lack the physical and cognitive development needed to reflect on the self in this abstract way. The adolescent capacity for self-reflection (and resulting self-consciousness) allows one to ask, "Who am I now?" "Who was I before?" "Who will I become?" The answers to these questions will influence choices about who one's romantic partners will be, what type of work one will do, where one will live, and what belief system one will embrace. Choices made in adolescence ripple throughout the lifespan.
Integrating one’s past, present, and future into a cohesive, unified sense of self is a complex task that begins in adolescence and continues for a lifetime.... The salience of particular aspects of our identity varies at different moments in our lives. The process of integrating the component parts of our self-definition is indeed a lifelong journey.
Does our identity change and shift over time? What influences changes in our identities?
I believe that our identity can change overtime. There are many factors that can cause us to change our identities. We are constantly being influenced by others, whether it be family members, work colleagues, or people/ideas we see on social media. Our likes and dislikes are changing as well. Most people will try to live up to the standards of others, so it is more than likely we will change our perspective on how we view things. Our identities can be based off of how we think, the way we interact, or even the way we look. These factors can make us appear as completely different people, even though deep down we are still the same person as we were without these influences.
Hi Martyna,
I agree with you! our identities can be based off how we think, the way we interact or the way we look. I like how you said social media can be a factor as well because I think that is true especially now a days. Social media can be where you can learn from others as well and be aware of what is happening
I agree that social media plays a big role in the way people act. Many people act different on social media because they want the LIKES, they want to be judged. But only in a positive way. Now a days, people really do care what people say or think about each other. How would the world be if social media didn’t exist? Would people have more self confidence? Social media forces people to seek approval. When in reality, no one should seek approval of anyone just to make themselves feel good. People change on social media platforms.
I do think that our identities change, they change over time because we are growing up and becoming our own person.As we grow up we go through things that shape us into the person we are. For example culture, language, and religion influences a person’s identity because based on those things it changes the person’s perspective on the world and what kind of person they want to be/become
Hi Jessica,
I agree with your response in that as we grow in experiences our identity will shape and change. It is important to acknowledge that while we undergo life changes, we are in power of how we want to define our identity. Personally, I think identity is not a fixed concept rather a continuous developing one.
I like how you mentioned that culture, language, religion, etc influences a person’s identity! I think it’s funny how identity shapes us, but identity is who we are. I love how you mentioned that we are influenced or even inspired to change to be the people we want to become or follow. You’re right, identity changes over time based on our experiences and influences.
I agree with you that our identity change as we grow old. When we were young we only encounter our family, relatives and the people they know. We only meet very few people. They are the only people that shapes our identity. As we grow old and go to different places, our world becomes big. We meet different kinds of people. People with different personalities and beliefs. The factors that affect our identity increases and changes us.
Identity definitely changes over time. I believe that as you get older and experience more of life you truly find who you are and what your purpose is. You could be influenced by people, different ideas, and even seeing the world and the way others live. You can choose the person you would like to become in the future.
I agree with you that as we live, we gain more and more experience and that shapes us as people. I think that at our core, though, there are parts of us that don’t change that much. Almost like there’s a little piece of us that never ever changes, which keeps us as who we are, like our very basic personality, and core values, and things like that. So while we can definitely choose who we’d like to become in the future, I think that in some cases it would be hard for people to change into their ideal person, and in other cases it would be easy. On top of that, I think that it’s possible to change into someone that we wouldn’t want to become, by just bad luck or something similar. Hopefully that doesn’t happen to many people, though.
I agree with you. Our identities do change over time, whether we are aware of it or not. Throughout our lives, we have so many factors, including parents, friends, or even situations, that influence our daily decisions and life choices that change our lives. As you grow older, you start to realize that the things that you might be interested in are different than those around you, so you start building a life of your own, and you start accumulating things that are only special to you, because those are the things that make up your identity and that is what makes us who we are.
Our identities definitely change, and I like how you mentioned that it’s based off of experience and influences. This is totally normal and I love that you brought it up. It’s important to keep going through life being exposed to different perspectives, opinions, etc. because you never know what kind of person you’ll end up becoming!
I agree with you. I think that with more experience, the more you will learn about yourself. Our identities are influenced by other people and the world around us. I also believe that we decide who we will be in the future.
Our identities change over time as we have so many factors like communication, culture, weather, people, environment, language and even bad experiences. Just giving an example- you have a friend for a long time and suddenly you get to know he/she can’t be trusted, so from that friendly nature you nature turns to a close person just happy with being around with a few people. Even Right now I’m at a very different place as all my friends are back in India and I don’t have any friend here, a whole different situation and I personally know that I have changed a lot due to this and even the environment of just staying home for at least 6months now.
I definitely agree and relate to what you are experiencing. I just moved here to. I am a completely different person now compared to when I was in the Philippines. That factors that you said really affects our identity.
I believe that our identity will continue to expand over time throughout the different experiences we face in life. Our identity is shaped by the environment we are born into; however, I am a firm believer that no matter where we come from, you are in charge of how you want the world to see you. When we start identifying ourselves in a particular category , we start to categorize ourselves with other people and that is something to be aware of. There is a powerful saying in the book Atomic Habits by James Clear that I thought of after reading this story: “Every action you take is a vote for the type of person you wish to become. No single instance will transform your beliefs, but as the votes build up, so does the evidence of your new identity.”
I agree with you. I think that we are who we are, but also who we can become. I liked what you said about how our experiences will shape us. I think that is completely true. Our choices and the things we go through in life will definitely influence who we will become. I also really liked the quote at end of your post. I thought it was the perfect way to phrase it.
The things that we learn everyday. Our life experiences. The different kinds of people that we meet. These are just some of the factors that influence our identity. We are exposed to different things everyday and that can affect how we think. We change so that we can fit in. We change because we need to adapt and survive to this world. Our identity changes over time because it’s how we discover who we really are and who we want to be.
I believe our identity changes and shifts over time. The choices we make from who we once were, to who we are now. The things we learned, the challenges we have overcome, and our successes or failures. All of these influences make us who we are today and who we will become. I am not the same person I was five years ago and I will be a completely different person in the next five years. The choices we have and will make will influence our identities now and in the future. The people in our everyday lives are also a contributing factor. For example our friends and families. I also believe that our beliefs and morals can influence a change in our identities. I think a very important note to remember is that we decide who we want to be and although there are external factors that influence us, it is what we make of those influences that can make and change us.
Which parts of our identity capture our attention first? While there are surely idiosyncratic responses to this question, a classroom exercise I regularly use with my psychology students reveals a telling pattern. I ask my students to complete the sentence, "I am____________," using as many descriptors as they can think of in sixty seconds. All kinds of trait descriptions are used-friendly, shy, assertive, intelligent, honest, and so on-but over the years I have noticed something else. Students of color usually mention their racial or ethnic group: for instance. I am Black, Puerto Rican, Korean American. White students who have grown up in strong ethnic enclaves occasionally mention being Irish or Italian. But in general, White students rarely mention being White. When I use this exercise in coeducational settings, I notice a similar pattern in terms of gender, religion, and sexuality. Women usually mention being female, while men don't usually mention their maleness. Jewish students often say they are Jews. while mainline Protestants rarely mention their religious identification. A student who is comfortable revealing it publicly may mention being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Though I know most of my students are heterosexual, it is very unusual for anyone to include their heterosexuality on their list.
Here Tatum describes an excercise she conducts with her studnets. Try this out. Write down the prompt, “I am . . .” and give yourself five minutes to write. After the find minuets take a look at what you wrote.
In your comment us what you learned about by completing this exercise.
As I review my writing, I notice I responded similar to many of Tatum’s students. Expressing parts of my identity as being a women or being jewish. As a whole, I believe we tend to describe who we are based on the norm. We highlight attributes of self that seem less common or less accepted when in reality there are so many things that comprise us of who we are. We are influenced by numerous factors in our enviorment, but we decide the extent to which those factors play on our identity. We have the power to write our own story and to some extent control the course of it. Idenity is truly complex even in its simplest forms. As I have grown up and gained life experiences, I have seen my identity shape and grow. However, as I continue to ponder my identity I wonder if I would have responded differently if this question were asked by someone else. Do we describe our idenity in terms of the audience for the response.
I totally agree, I like how you mentioned that there are so many things that make us who we are, not just surface level attributes like religion, sexuality, race, gender, etc. You also mentioned that we have the power to write our own stories. I love that! I can tell you put a lot of thought into this response.
I also agree with you, I like how Cassidy said that “We have the power to write our own story.” because that way people will know us more. And let them know who we are. Nothing will stop us from telling our story because of our religion or anything else.
As I was doing this exercise, I found myself simply,, blanking out. How can I know so little about myself? Sure, I am Polish, I’m an artist, a student, a cis white girl. What else? I found it strange how I was grasping at straws, saying “I am a crazy cat lady”, but it was hard to find attributes about myself that “matter”. But, that’s the great thing about identity- whatever YOU think matters, is what matters. Whatever makes YOU proud, whatever you want to be known for, whatever you want to practice- that’s what identity is!
Blanking out is normal.. Not only you, but if I too try this I’ll blank at some point to even write about myself. We feel we know ourself which is sometimes not at all true. And it’s totally fine. And I really like what you said YOU think matters, is what matters. In this judgmental society we have to keep this sentence in mind always!
As I am doing this exercise I find myself being proud to be a woman. Yes, this doesn’t identify me completely but it does play a role in how I view myself and my identity. Since a young age I have learned that woman play a huge role in society, and we are important even though we are put in a subordinate group.
After completing this exercise I noticed that the responses felt very confident. The “ I am __”.
There was no room for a maybe. I also noticed that exercise was only asking me; how I described myself. Sometimes I feel like it’s in our human nature to constantly be worried about how others think of us, that we don’t always take a step back to see how we would like to view ourselves. I learned that I know more about myself than I think I do. However, it did take me a bit longer as time went on to come up with answers. There’s a lot I still don’t know about myself, but that’s a discovery I’m excited to make. For both the good and the bad.
Common across these examples is that in the areas where a person is a member of the dominant or advantaged social group, the category is usually not mentioned. That element of their identity is so taken for granted by them that it goes without comment. It is taken for granted by them because it is taken for granted by the dominant culture. In Eriksonian terms, their inner experience and outer circumstance are in harmony with me another, and the image reflected by others is similar to the image within. In the absence of dissonance, this dimension of identity escapes conscious attention.
The parts of our identity that do capture our attention are those that other people notice, and that reflect back to us. The aspect of identity that is the target of others' attention, and subsequently of our own, often is that which sets us apart as exceptional or "other" in their eyes. In my life I have been perceived as both. A precocious child who began to read at age three, I stood out among my peers because of my reading ability. This "gifted" dimension of my identity was regularly commented upon by teachers and classmates alike, and quickly became part of my self-definition. But I was also distin-guished by being the only Black student in the class, an "other," a fact I grew increasingly aware of as I got older.
While there may be countless ways one might be defined as exceptional, there are at least seven categories of "otherness" commonly experienced in U.S. society. People are commonly defined as other on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, and physical or mental ability. Each of these cate-gories has a form of oppression associated with it: racism, sexism, religious oppression/ anti-Semitism,4 heterosexism, classism, ageism, and ableism, respectively. In each case, there is a group considered dominant (systematically advantaged by the society because of group membership) and a group considered subordinate or targeted (systematically disadvantaged). When we think about our multiple identities, most of us will find that we are both dominant and targeted at the same time. But it is the targeted identities that hold our attention and the dominant identities that often go unexamined.
Here Tatum describes dominant and subordinate groups. According to our author, how do dominant and subordinate groups influence or impact one’s identity?
Feel free to review the section below on the Dominant and Subordinate before responding to this prompt.
Dominant and subordinate groups influence and impact one’s identity in many ways,in my own personal experience being a woman in a Mexican household we are seen as a subordinate group and it really impacted my identity and made me question my place in life from a young age. But even though I was put in this subordinate group from a young age I didn’t let it define me and I chose my own place.
In her essay. "Age. Race. Class. and Sex: Women Redefining Difference.” Audre Lorde captured the tensions between dominant and targeted identities co-existing in one individual. This self-described "forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two" wrote,
Somewhere, on the edge of consciousness, there is what I call a mythical norm, which each one of us within our hearts knows "that is not me." In america, this norm is usually defined as white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, Christian, and financially secure. It is with this mythical norm that the trappings of power reside within society. Those of us who stand outside that power often identify one way in which we are different, and we assume that to be the primary cause of all oppression, forgetting other distortions around difference, some of which we ourselves may be practicing. 5
Even as I focus on race and racism in my own writing and teaching, it is helpful to remind myself and my students of the other distortions around difference that I (and they) may be practicing. It is an especially useful way of generating empathy for our mutual learning process. If I am impatient with a White woman for not recognizing her White privilege, it may be useful for me to remember how much of my life I spent oblivious to the fact of the daily advantages I receive simply because I am heterosexual, or the ways in which I may take my class privilege for granted.
Domination and Subordination
It is also helpful to consider the commonality found in the experience of being dominant or subordinate even when the sources of dominance or subordination are different. Jean Baker Miller, author of Toward a New Psychology of Women, has identified some of these areas of commonality. 6
Dominant groups, by definition, set the parameters within which the subordinates operate. The dominant group holds the power and authority in society relative to the subordinates and determines how that power and authority may be acceptably used. Whether it is reflected in determining who gets the best jobs, whose history will be taught in school, or whose relationships will be validated by society, the dominant group has the greatest influence in determining the structure of the society.
The relationship of the dominants to the subordinates is often one in which the tar-geted group is labeled as defective or substandard in significant ways. For example, Blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than Whites, and women have been viewed as less emotionally stable than men. The dominant group assigns roles to the subordinate that reflect the latter's devalued status, reserving the most highly valued roles in the society for themselves. Subordinates are usually said to be innately incapable of performing the preferred roles. To the extent that those in the target group internalize the images that the dominant group reflects back to them, they may find it difficult to believe in their own ability.
When a subordinate demonstrates positive qualities believed to be more characteristic of dominants, the individual is defined by dominants as an anomaly. Consider the follow-ing illustrative example. Following a presentation I gave to some educators, a White man approached me and told me how much he liked my ideas and how articulate I was. "You know," he concluded, "if I had had my eyes closed, I wouldn't have known it was a Black woman speaking." (I replied, "This is what a Black Woman sounds like.")
The dominant group is seen as the norm for humanity. Jean Baker Miller also asserts that inequitable social relations are seen as the model for "normal human relationships." Consequently, it remains _perfectly acceptable in many circles to tell jokes that denigrate a particular group, to exclude subordinates from one's neighborhood or work setting, or to oppose initiatives that might change the power balance.
Miller points out that dominant groups generally do not like to be reminded of the existence of inequality. Because rationalizations have been created to justify the social arrangements, it is easy to believe everything is as it should be. Dominants "can avoid awareness because their explanation of the relationship becomes so well integrated in other terms; they can even believe both they and the subordinate group share the same interests and, to some extent, a common experience.” 7
The truth is that the dominants do not really know what the experiences of the subordinates is. In contrast, the subordinates are very well informed about the dominants. Even when firsthand experience is limited by social segregation, the number and variety of images of the dominant group available through television, magazines, books, and newspapers provide subordinates with plenty of information about the dominants. The dominant worldview has saturated the culture for all to learn. Even the Black or Latino child living in a segregated community can enter White homes of many kinds daily via the media. However, dominant access to information about the subordinates is often limited to stereotypical depictions of the "other." For example, there are many images of heterosexual relations on television, but very few images of gay or lesbian domestic part-nerships beyond the caricatures of comedy shows. There are many images of White men and women in all forms of media, but relatively few portrayals of people of color.
Not only is there greater opportunity for the subordinates to learn about the domi-nants, there is also greater need. Social psychologist Susan Fiske writes, "It is a simple principle: People pay attention to those who can control their outcomes. In an effort to predict and possibly influence what is going to happen to them, people gather information about those with power." 8
In a situation of unequal power, a subordinate group has to focus on survival. It becomes very important for subordinates to become highly attuned to the dominants as a way of protecting themselves. For example, women who have been battered by men often talk about the heightened sensitivity they develop to their partners' moods. Being able to anticipate and avoid the men's rage is important to survival.
Survival sometimes means not responding to oppressive behavior directly. To do so could result in physical harm to oneself, even death. In his essay "The Ethics of Living Jim Crow" Richard Wright describes eloquently the various strategies he learned to use to avoid the violence of Whites who would brutalize a Black person who did not "stay in his place." 9 Though it is tempting to think that the need for such strategies disappeared with Jim Crow laws, their legacy lives on in the frequent and sometimes fatal harassment Black men experience at the hands of White police officers.10
Because of the risks inherent in unequal relationships, subordinates often develop covert ways of resisting or undermining the power of the dominant group. As Miller points out, popular culture is full of folktales, jokes, and stories about how the subordinate - whether the woman, the peasant, or the sharecropper - outwitted the "boss." 11 In his essay "I Won't Learn from You," Herbert Kohl identifies one form of resistance, "not learning," demonstrated by targeted students who are too often seen by their dominant teachers as "others":
Not-learning tends to take place when someone has to deal with unavoidable challenges to her or his personal and family loyalties, integrity, and identity. In such situations, there are forced choices and no apparent middle ground. To agree to learn from a stranger who does not respect your integrity causes a major loss of self. The only alternative is to not-learn and reject their wodd.12
The use of either strategy, attending very closely to the dominants or not attending at all, is costly to members of the targeted group. "Not-learning" may mean there are needed skills that are not acquired. Attending Closely to the dominant group may leave little time or energy to attend to one's self. Worse yet, the negative messages of the dominant group about the subordinates may be internalized, leading to self-doubt or, in its extreme form, self-hate. There are many examples of subordinates attempting to make themselves over in the image of the dominant group-Jewish people who want to change the Semitic look of their noses, Asians who have cosmetic surgery to alter the shapes of their eyes, Blacks who seek to lighten their skin with bleaching creams, women who want to smoke and drink "like a man." Whether one succumbs to the devaluing pressures of the dominant culture or successfully resists them, the fact is that dealing with oppressive systems from the underside, regardless of the strategy, is physically and psychologically taxing.
Breaking beyond the structural and psychological limitations imposed on one's group is possible, but not easy. To the extent that members of targeted groups do push societal limits-achieving unexpected success, protesting injustice, being "uppity"-by their actions they call the whole system into question. Miller writes that they "expose the inequality, and throw into question the basis for its existence. And they will make the inherent conflict an open conflict. They will then have to bear the burden and take the risks that go with being defined as ‘troublemakers.’” 13
The history of subordinate groups is filled with so -called troublemakers, yet their names are often unknown. Preserving the record of those subordinates and their dominant allies who have challenged the status quo is usually of little interest to the dominant culture, but it is of great interest to subordinates who search for an empowering reflection in the societal mirror.
Many of us are both dominant and subordinate. As Audre Lorde said, from her vantage point as a Black lesbian, “there is no hierarchy of oppressions.” The thread and threat of violence runs through all of the isms. There is a need to acknowledge each other’s pain, even as we attend to our own.
In this short paragraph, the author ends with this sentence. “There is a need to acknowledge each other’s pain, even as we attend to our own”. How do you interpret the meaning of this sentence?
I think this sentence should only be taken at face value. It tells us that everyone has struggles, and it’s important to keep that in mind, which is an innocent enough statement. However, if we squint our eyes a little, it seems like the statement is almost telling readers to think less of their own struggles, since everyone else is suffering just as much as the reader might be. That is a bad implication. If someone is struggling with something, they should not be told that their suffering is just another drop in the ocean, nor that they should be actively worrying about other people’s issues instead of their own. The sentence is deceptively benevolent-sounding, but I think the implications of it are no good.
Yes Rishi, I agree with you because there is no one that is not struggling now everyone does struggles. I also liked how you mention that if someone is struggling they should only look for themselves.
Racism. Feminism. These are the main words that come to mind. I felt this when I read the sentence.
For those readers who are in the dominant racial category, it may sometimes be difficult to take in what is being said by and about those who are targeted by racism. When the perspective of the subordinate is shared directly, an image is reflected to members of the dominant group that is disconcerting. To the extent that one can draw on one's own experience of subordination - as a young person, as a person with a disability, as someone who grew up poor, as a woman - it may be easier to make meaning of another targeted group’s experience. For those readers who are targeted by racism and are angered by the obliviousness of Whites, it may be useful to attend to your experience of dominance where you may find it-as a heterosexual, as an able- bodied person, as a Christian, as a man-and consider what systems of privilege you may be overlooking. The task of resisting our own oppression does not relieve us of the responsibility of acknowledging our complicity in the oppression of others.
Our ongoing examination of who we are in our full humanity, embracing all of our identities, creates the possibility of building alliances that may ultimately free us all.
- See C. Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order (New York: Scribner, 1922). George H. Mead expanded on this idea in his book Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934).
- E. H. Erikson, Identity, Youth, and Crisis (New York: W. W. Norton, 1968), 22: emphasis in the original.
- For a discussion of the Western biases in the concept of the self and individual identity. see A. Roland, "Identity, Self, and Individualism in a Multicultural Perspective," in E. P. Salett and D. R. Koslow, eds., Race, Ethnicity, and Self: Identity in Multicultural Perspective (Washington, D.C.: National MultiCultural Institute, 1994).
- Anti-Semitism is a term commonly used to describe the oppression of Jewish people. However, other Semitic peoples (Arab Muslims, for example) are also subject to oppressive treatment on the basis of ethnicity as well as religion. For that reason, the terms Jewish oppression and Arab oppression are sometimes used to specify the particular form of oppression under discussion.
- A. Lorde, "Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference," in P. S. Rothenberg, ed., Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study, 3d ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995),446; emphasis in the original.
- J. B. Miller, "Domination and Subordination," in Toward a New Psychology of Women (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976).
- Ibid., 8; emphasis in the original.
- S. T. Fiske, "Controlling Other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping," American Psychologist 48, no. 6 (1993), 621-28.
- R. Wright, "The Ethics of Living Jim Crow" (1937), reprinted in P. S. Rothenberg, ed., Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study, 3d ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995).
- An article in the popular weekly magazine People chronicled the close encounters of famous black men with white police officers. Despite their fame, these men were treated as potential criminals. Highlighted in the article is the story of Johnny Gammage, who was beaten to death, by white police officers following a routine traffic stop in Pittsburgh. T. Fields-Meyer, "Under' Suspicion," People (january 15,1996),40-47.
- Miller, "Domination and Subordination," p. 10.
- H. Kohl, "I Won't Learn from You: Confronting Student Resistance," in Rethinking Our Classrooms: Teaching for Equity and Justice (Milwaukee: Rethinking Our Schools, 1994), 134.
- Miller, "Domination and Subordination," 12 .
Tatum, B. D. (2000). The complexity of identity: “Who am I?.” In Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Hackman, H. W., Zuniga, X., Peters, M. L. (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, sexism, anti-semitism, heterosexism, classism and ableism (pp. 9-14). New York: Routledge.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments