Gene,
What can I say? Guilty as charged! And, thanks for the commentary.
Highest regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Matusov
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 11:46 PM
Subject: Stereotyping
Dear Victor and everybody-
I just want to attract your, Victor, attention that when you use patterning in a negative connotation, you call it "stereotyping" but when you use it in positive, you call it "regarding" (see below my marking your text). I argue that in both cases the teacher uses a certain generalizing pattern for developing his/her expectations for future interactions with the students. Granted that some generalizing patterns are pragmatically better than others, some are more accurate than others (accurate is not the same as pragmatically good!), but it is nothing to do with the generalizable patterns, themselves. "Stereotyping" (literally meaning "solid printing" in Greek+French/Latin) as a process of orientation in and structuring of social relationships is extremely useful (although like any useful thing it can become very harmful as well). Moreover, stereotyping is unavoidable (unless we play with words) because it is the basis of any human activity and interaction.
Many of my students are afraid to do any generalizable observations on children during their teaching practicum to avoid "stereotyping". However, it is easy to demonstrate that they privately do them anyway and just do not want publicly share. For me, this is an issue of "unsafe learning environment" that prevents critical thinking in a public space. I think that rehabilitation of the term "stereotyping" can promote a safe learning environment in some public spaces.
What do you think?
Eugene
PS Victor, I agree with your 3 steps of evaluation of stereotyping and like them a lot. Very interesting..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 5:54 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Working and upper classes
Gene,
Very interesting indeed.
1. I'll grant you - conditionally - your argument on stereotyping. That is, I regard the core of validity of your argument to be the sentence, "I think that stereotyping like biasing is the core of any organism." In other words, the stereotype is the expression of intention (judgement) within the relationship we form with the individual or group considered. Stereotyping goes beyond the "patterning other's people behaviors and actions to develop certain expectations for other people's actions and prolepses for communication with them" by implying the kinds of relations we intend to project into our interactions with these other people. A teacher who stereotypes his 3rd world students as childlike primitives whose uncontrolled libidos are responsible for their impulsive absenteeism from lessons is proposing a very different teacher-student relationship than, say, a teacher who regards his students as rational adults or near-adults whose life-conditions involve priorities that may periodically be more important than class attendance, e.g. baby-sitting when both parents are attending important social events. The same pattern, different stereotypes, and different relations between stereotyper and stereotyped. Seen in this light, your concluding statements, "Biases have to be revealed and thought through; stereotypes have to also revealed and tested,"is a matter of 1. testing whether the pattern detection is statistically justified, and, 2. evaluating (criticizing) the relationships implied by the stereotype in terms of our objectives, e.g. what kind of students will be produced by paternalistic, authoritarian teacher-student relations and is this kind of student one of the objectives of the course, and 3. evaluating the relationships implied by the stereotype in terms of the social and cultural matrix of the student-teacher relation under consideration.
2. This (see below) relates well to several of the stereotypes from the earlier lists, and suggests that they are, as you wrote, a part of a larger pattern. It is especially interesting because, unlike most of the other stereotypes, it emphasizes a distinction between working class and upper class behavioral patterns. In light of what I wrote above, I wonder what these lists say about us!
4. (or whatever number) Middle-class people often explain other people's motives by reference to "choices" and "choice making" while working class people refer to "necessity" and upper class old moneys refer to "destiny" (which some people may call "privilege"). By the way, in its own turn, this defines how differently people discipline their children: middle class people discipline their children through organizing "choices" for their children, working class discipline their children through organizing "necessities" for their children, upper class people discipline their own children through organizing "destinies" for their children (W is a good example of such disciplining).
Regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Matusov
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: Working and upper classes
Dear Victor and everybody-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 3:03 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Working and upper classes
Gene,
This kind of stereotyping is highly suspect - but it's fun to do.
Victor, I think that the notion of "stereotyping" (like "bias") is one of the most misunderstood and mistreated. It has bad reputation and rightfully so when it is rigid and used disrespectfully to other people. However, critique of stereotyping also comes from old positivism urging to eliminate stereotyping (and biases) to be "fair" and "objective" (or namely dead J). Stereotyping is patterning other's people behaviors and actions to develop certain expectations for other people's actions and prolepses for communication with them. I think that stereotyping like biasing is the core of any organism - it means to be alive. To address the problems with stereotyping and biases, one needs to master them (to avoid to become a slave of one's own stereotyping and biases) rather to eliminate them (which is never possible unless one commits suicide). Biases have to be revealed and thought through; stereotypes have to also revealed and tested.
So do not be afraid of stereotyping - just do it responsibly (like drinking!)
Victor, I was "meditating" on your three points (very-very good points) and found one more that relate to your points (they all seem to relate to each other which probably mean that they are aspects of bigger patterns).
4. (or whatever number) Middle-class people often explain other people's motives by reference to "choices" and "choice making" while working class people refer to "necessity" and upper class old moneys refer to "destiny" (which some people may call "privilege"). By the way, in its own turn, this defines how differently people discipline their children: middle class people discipline their children through organizing "choices" for their children, working class discipline their children through organizing "necessities" for their children, upper class people discipline their own children through organizing "destinies" for their children (W is a good example of such disciplining).
What do you think?
Eugene
Marx's disdain for the "timidness" and "hypocrisy" of the middle-classes fits both lowest and highest class valuations of Middle class "culture." I don't know if you can imagine the extreme contempt implied by the term, "bourgeois," or,even better, "petty bourgeois" in left and right-wing circles. One of the more enduring successes of the effort of the left-wing kibbutz movement here was rejection of "bourgeois" politesse in interpersonal relations. Talking straight without diplomatic concern for the feelings and beliefs of others, "dugri" is still regarded as right-practice by large sectors of Israeli society.
Here are a few additional stereotypes for distinguishing upper and lower class custom from that of the middle classes.
1.. A cavalier attitude towards contractual responsibility: The middle-classes pay their bills promptly, while upper and lower classes will do all they can to postpone payment.
2.. A cynical regard for the workings of society and for the motives of "those that work them." (This is something of a synthesis of 1: Disrespect of many middle-class values and manerisms, 7: Respect of direct speech and direct (physical) actions.and 8: "Us vs. them" mentality; and somewhat contradicts 2: Respect of traditions and authority.)
3.. High regard for the role of fortune, "luck," in determination of one's fate. As opposed to the "hard work" strategy of most members of the middle-classes. (This is another aspect of 4, Belief that "people are born who they are" rather than "become who they are".)
Hochschild isn't the first to have made the observation that there is more resemblence between upper and lower class cultures than either have with the culture of the middle-classes. A much experienced private soldier put it this way: "The best ranks in the army are at the very bottom or the very top; at the bottom no one bothers giving you orders and at the top there's no one to give you orders." What do you think of that?
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Matusov
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:48 AM
Subject: Working and upper classes
Dear Peter and everybody-
Thanks a lot, Peter, for very useful article. Recently I read several interesting books discussing certain cultural alliances between working class people and upper class people (so-called "old moneys"). Of course, such discussions involve certain overgeneralizations and rigidity (like discussions of any social groups) but I think they reflect certain true tendencies in their "cultural models" (or ideologies). I definitely recommend the following book for all xmca-ers interested in the issue:
Lubrano, A. (2004). Limbo: Blue-collar roots, white-collar dreams. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Here, I extracted several common features of working class and upper class' cultural models:
1.. Disrespect of many middle-class values and manerisms.
2.. Respect of traditions and authority.
3.. Value of honor. It is interesting that the movie Titanic has distorted historical truth by portraying passengers (especially upper class male passengers) fighting with each other for access to the lifeboats. In reality, this behavior was exceptional if non-existent (I personally checked the documental sources). Rich males guided by the honor rule "women and children first" were the highest among drowned (about 70% in first class and 90% in second class), while only 4% first class and 20% second class women drowned. I agree with Fareed Zakaria (a rather conservative author) that if the movie had portrayed the truth, it would have been unbelievable for middle class audience.
4.. Belief that "people are born who they are" rather than "become who they are". You have to be born into working class and upper class to be in your class. Middle class life-style always involves certain metamorphosis that each generation has to go through. Unlike working and upper (old money) classes, middle class status is never guarantee simply by birth.
5.. Deep anti-intellectualism, anti-credentialism, and anti- (formal, bookish) education. Bush was not stupid when he "proudly" exposed his C in Yale - it did appeal to working class people.
6.. Patriarchy and machismo. Respect of physical force and physical power. Alfred Lubrano, a working class rooted journalist, confessed that he often mentally checks if he can beat up any newly met male.
7.. Respect of direct speech and direct (physical) actions. This is limited in upper class people who prefer direct speech with equal or below and diplomacy with more powerful others. Middle class folks use diplomacy with everybody which is often perceived by working and upper class people as hypocrisy.
8.. "Us vs. them" mentality. It is interesting that for both working class and upper class people, "they" are overlap. For working class, "they" are bosses - managers - which are often middle class. For "old moneys" upper class, "they" are "new rich" middle class. Middle class has more "classless", non-adversarial mentality of "smoothness" and "niceness".
It can be argued that although working class people and middle-class people may often have common interests, their cultural models are very different and often incompatible. Also, although working class and upper class economic interests are often at odds, their cultural models are often more compatible than ones of middle class. Arlie Hochschild, the author of the article that Peter cited below, raised a very good question of when and why interests take over cultural models for working class people.
What do you think?
Eugene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Farruggio [mailto:pfarr@uclink4.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:01 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: false consciousness
To me the question of false consciousness is the key to why there has been no workers' revolution in the US, despite the fact that it has had a large powerful working class for more than 100 years. I agree with Marx that "being determines consciousness" which means that the natutre of one's relationship to capital and income-producing property is what sets the tone for how one views the world and the particular social/economic/political system. Middle class people see the world very differently than working class people (including Bourdieu's "habitus" and all that), and the bourgeoisie sees things very differently from all of the above. But I also agree with Marx about the dastardly role of false consciousness among the working class (cleverly cultivated and manipulated by the bourgeoisie, as explained by Gramsci) in duping people into accepting values inimical to their own welfare.
Here's an interesting recent study that documents once again how it works in electoral politics. This is just a snippet from the intro, along with one link to a discussion of the larger study. I have more material on this for interested parties.
Cheers,
Pete Farruggio
UC Berkeley Sociologist Arlie Hochschild answers the question, "Why are 50% of Blue Collar White Males Planning to Vote for Bush in 2004, Even When He is Picking Their Pockets and Stealing the Futures of Their Children?"
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
"George W. Bush is sinking in the polls, but a few beats on the war drum could reverse that trend and re-elect him in 2004. Ironically, the sector of American society now poised to keep him in the White House is the one which stands to lose the most from virtually all of his policies -- blue-collar men. A full 49 percent of them and 38 percent percent of blue-collar women told a January 2003 Roper poll they would vote for Bush in 2004." -- Arlie Hochschild
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16885
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************
At 11:36 AM 12/24/2003, you wrote:
Thanks for another great thought-provoker, Eugene. I will be away from computer for the next days but I want to slip in a thought in this thread because I have been giving this problem of false consciousness some thought, especially in respect to workers, but also all social classes. My experience has generally confirmed the idea that a key driver of people's political and social consciousness is the relationship they have with property - their own, and that of others. Just measuring income and assets in dollar totals loses much of the dynamics of this relationship. In my opinion it is property (of which money is one form) that really constitutes membership and aspired membership in a social class. Property comes in various forms; capital (loosely, objects that can be worked on or with that can produce saleable products) at one end of the spectrum and personal property with negligible value (mundane clothes, dishes, etc.) at the other. Its the relationship people and families have to the first end, to capital (money-making property) that I think has the deepest effects on working people and everyone else. These relationships come in many, many forms, from outright ownership, to owing a substantial debt to be the caretaker of some property, to owning a capitalist business, to working for a capitalist and identifying with their capital and methods of business. Aspirations for shifting one's class position - for example, quitting one's job and owning one's own business - also play an enormous role. When major aspects of the capitalist property system break down, or especially, alternate between stability and mass misery, working people begin to restructure their conception of property - personal, private and public - and under those conditions, begin to lose their false, individualistic consciousness and gain a much more realistic sense of the socio-economic system they are collectively trying to live in. Under such conditions, mass working class consciousness often begins to emerge. Attitudes about social issues undergo deep transformations as the oppressed engage in struggle; notions of emancipation and freedom become paramount. Rich capitalists, of course, would see this process in just the opposite way - when the workers begin to think of property and social change in a socialist way, they are losing their minds. The essential idea I am suggesting here is to view people's relationships with property as a key to comprehending core features of their political, social and cultural consciousness. As their relationships with property change, so does their consciousness.
Best,
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST