For our final classes this week, we are reading Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There by David Brooks. The concept behind this book was interesting. When we think about the bourgeois and the bohemians, we think of stereotypes. The bourgeois were the practical, business people who worked for corporations, went to church, and lived in suburbs. Whereas, when someone mentions the bohemians, we think of artsy individuals and intellectuals. They were more of the free spirits of society that did not abide by the tradition and convention that defined the lives of the bourgeois. However, in today’s society, Brooks explains, the bourgeois and bohemians are not completely differentiated anymore. Rather, they are mixed up. Brooks believes that this new upper class, which he calls bobos, represents both the liberal idealism of the 1960s and the self-interest of the 1980s. Brooks talks about the changes in upscale suburbs and bohemian downtown neighborhoods. It seemed as though each was mixed. In the suburbs people were drinking European coffees and listening to alternative music, whereas in the bohemian neighborhoods there were gardening stores that sold expensive towels. Companies who tend to market based on consumer trends quoted famous people, such as Gandhi. What Brooks was describing is basically a status change. The old stereotypes and categories people tended to make were no longer applicable. Previously, it was much easier to distinguish between these countercultures.
Today the lifestyles of the bourgeois and bohemians are mixed in more than one way. In this book, Brooks looked at consumerism patters, morality, work trends, and even people’s attitudes. His finding was basically that it was getting more and more difficult to distinguish between what were originally two types of people. Rather, these had been blended into a new “upper-class” and new norm. It seemed shocking that people were blending the attitudes of achievement and trying to climb the social ladder with the more rebellious attitudes.
This change in culture came about as a result of the information age. I found this comment by Brooks struck home with me because of what we have been discussing in this class and my other classes this semester. Ideas and knowledge are just as important if you want to be successful economically as capital and natural resources. In another one of my classes, we have been discussing about the changes in the business environment and how it is no longer enough to simply use a traditional business model. Rather, entrepreneurs and business managers need to innovate and connect those stakeholders on the fringe that have different ideas. It is important to include these external stakeholders and make the business more stable so that it can adjust to disruptive innovation and changes in demand and consumerism because our society is undergoing behavioral changes. Brook’s comment also relates, in part, to our class discussion the other day though. After watching Powaqqatsi, and a short clip by the filmmaker, we were discussion the pervasion of technology into society and changes from industrialization on a global scale. According to class consensus, technology was not negative, as the filmmaker would have stated; however, I can come to the conclusion that technology has assisted society in coming into a world of information that merges with the material world of money. Basically, today, we now need both our intellectual, human capital along with the artful and culture industry. In a sense, there is a new style of marketing that has arisen due to a new set of social rules. The combination of bohemian creativity and bourgeois ambition has created a society that values meaning over materialism and experience over acquisition. Reading this made me think of how much today’s society values studying abroad and more worldly experiences during our college educations. It also made me think of some examples that come from my parent’s lives. For example, my dad is a builder and he tells me of some of the upper-class customers he has that spend thousands on these “practical” items in their homes. They spend a lot of money on sturdy appliances because it is worth it due to its utility. After talking to them, he comments on how, to him, they seem elite based on how much they spend on particular items, yet they seem to oppose this upper class and are not as materialistic in the sense that they will not always spend thousands on items that are considered unnecessary, such as a hot tub or Jacuzzi. These members of society are affluent, yet, despite having money, are oppose to materialism. I guess that has to do with how they view money. Bobos see money as a means rather than an end in itself. It is not enough to simply be wealthy. Rather, they use money to obtain “necessities.”
It was also interesting to me how throughout this reading I found myself surprised that Brooks kept making comments about bobos as if they applied to all of society. Then, I realized that once I started writing this blog I was doing the same thing. I realized that this is because Brooks is simply correct that the new bobo class has codes that not only determine our social lives, but also govern our personal lives. Most companies market to this group. Though there are people that fall on either side of this class, but many people fall into this category. I found myself getting caught up on each comment that Brooks make throughout this book. I agree with what he is saying and found myself making associations with his comments and my own life experiences or personality traits of those I know or even values I have been taught in today’s education system.
This past week we watched clips from Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, and Naqotqatsi. These were much different than anything we have read or watched thus far. The first two films of this Qatsi trilogy have no dialogue. The second film, Powaqqatsi, is the one I want to focus on for the purposes of this blog. Powaqqatsi is a Hopi word that means ‘life in transition.’ This film focused on much of the conflict in less developed countries. It showed traditional ways of life and the effect of the transition to new ways of life introduced with industrialization and Western modernization.
The film captures images from rural areas of developing countries, then slowly switches to scenes of urban centers. Powaqqatsi has great depth to its scenes. With the combination of the music and powerful imagery as the camera scans the landscape, I found that I watched in a mindless manner. During the movie, I just watched, but did not truly think about the film until after it ended, which was weird for me. It seemed that the film was meant to be an overview of the entire concept of globalization. Each scene offered a little glimpse of life in that community. Without words, it kept personal bias out of the picture. Rather, the film was not about how people should or should not live, but gave an impression and insight into how life is changing. What made the film even more fascinating was the fact that it blended different cultures and lifestyles. It showed a global transformation and diversity. The film was a powerful portrayal of the effects that modernity is having on the less developed populations across the world that continue to live the same way that they did many years ago.
Scene after scene there were shots of people working. They look ragged, drained, and are performing difficult, back-breaking tasks. Some people are carrying heavy bags of dirt over their shoulders; others are carrying baskets on their heads, etc… In each scene, we see the effort required in these less developed countries, in order to industrialize in a shorter time period. The imagery used throughout the film was striking. Right from the beginning, we sit there in shock watching one of the fallen laborers being carried up the hill by some of the other workers. I feel like as a citizen of a developed country, I have not thought about the difficult working conditions some people face on a day to day basis. Learning about the Industrial Revolution and modernization in school, I always knew there were unsafe and strenuous working conditions. However, with so many people protesting working conditions in today’s society simply asking for an increase in pay or social benefits I found that it was easy to lose sight of the hardships people face globally in the workforce. Personally, this film was striking to me because it really caused me to draw out the differences between our society and those portrayed in the film that are playing “catch-up”. The filmmaker caught on camera the sacrifices that people were making in order to help build their modern society. In a sense, this idea of hard works seems to have been lost in our society today. Listening to my grandparents talk about work and then babysitting and even talking to the kids from the I Have a Dream Foundation it is very apparent that children and even my generation has lost quite a bit of the drive to work hard. We appreciate hard work, but many kids are driven by financial motivation, such as an allowance, just to complete simple tasks like taking out the trash. In the film, we saw even young children helping out with much more difficult and meaningful duties that contribute to the family’s health and even ultimately their survival. It further drove home the idea of how grateful we all should be and made me realize how much we really take for granted. I know that personally I have always made an effort to help out around the house and am very willing to participate in manual labor. However, we often do not think about how during our own industrialization, we faced the exact same hazards, trials and tribulations, and even hardships before we emerged as a stronger economic power.
I feel like what the Powaqqatsi film inspires is thought. It causes you to think, not about new concepts because those in the film are not new in any way, shape, or form, but rather it causes you to think from a different angle. It helps connect these growing communities to our own existence and history of industrialization. It helps you to empathize, yet simultaneously acknowledge the lack of a global education. When I watched the film and then thought back to my own childhood and then thought about the children at the I Have a Dream Foundation I realized how oblivious they are to all of this occurring. I know when I was taught about the Industrial Revolution I was taught about it in context of a “past” event. I never realized, until I was older, that it is something that is happening around the world in other countries even today. What this film explored well was the ancient ways in which people still live where manual labor is used instead of factories, and people are self-sufficient living off the land and working simply to maintain their lifestyle rather than produce on a large scale. The images are all equally moving. Close-ups of people’s expressions give the viewer the feeling that something wrong is occurring and the people seem helpless. They appear to be caught up in a cycle simply trying to stay alive. Watching the film even made me uncomfortable because it really opened my eyes to the truth about the poor quality of life that some of these people faced. It brought back the memories of my study abroad in Central America where I saw similar living conditions and the toll that industrialization was taking on the lives of the citizens there. This film was a familiar reminder and it made me feel uncomfortable to be sitting in a classroom, knowing I am that much more privileged than the people in the film.
This past week we watched clips from Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, and Naqotqatsi. These were much different than anything we have read or watched thus far. The first two films of this Qatsi trilogy have no dialogue. The second film, Powaqqatsi, is the one I want to focus on for the purposes of this blog. Powaqqatsi is a Hopi word that means ‘life in transition.’ This film focused on much of the conflict in less developed countries. It showed traditional ways of life and the effect of the transition to new ways of life introduced with industrialization and Western modernization.
The film starts with a dull, barren landscape. The area is congested with numerous people in a procession line (up and down) carrying heavy bags of dirt up a steep slope to a distinct location.
The film captures images from rural areas of developing countries, then slowly switches to scenes of urban centers. Powaqqatsi has great depth to its scenes. With the combination of the music and powerful imagery as the camera scans the landscape, I found that I watched in a mindless manner. During the movie, I just watched, but did not truly think about the film until after it ended, which was weird for me. It seemed that the film was meant to be an overview of the entire concept of globalization. Each scene offered a little glimpse of life in that community. Without words, it kept personal bias out of the picture. Rather, the film was not about how people should or should not live, but gave an impression and insight into how life is changing. What made the film even more fascinating was the fact that it blended different cultures and lifestyles. It showed a global transformation and diversity. The film was a powerful portrayal of the effects that modernity is having on the less developed populations across the world that continue to live the same way that they did many years ago.
Scene after scene there were shots of people working. They look ragged, drained, and are performing difficult, back-breaking tasks. Some people are carrying heavy bags of dirt over their shoulders; others are carrying baskets on their heads, etc… In each scene, we see the effort required in these less developed countries, in order to industrialize in a shorter time period. The imagery used throughout the film was striking. Right from the beginning, we sit there in shock watching one of the fallen laborers being carried up the hill by some of the other workers. I feel like as a citizen of a developed country, I have not thought about the difficult working conditions some people face on a day to day basis. Learning about the Industrial Revolution and modernization in school, I always knew there were unsafe and strenuous working conditions. However, with so many people protesting working conditions in today’s society simply asking for an increase in pay or social benefits I found that it was easy to lose sight of the hardships people face globally in the workforce. Personally, this film was striking to me because it really caused me to draw out the differences between our society and those portrayed in the film that are playing “catch-up”. The filmmaker caught on camera the sacrifices that people were making in order to help build their modern society. In a sense, this idea of hard works seems to have been lost in our society today. Listening to my grandparents talk about work and then babysitting and even talking to the kids from the I Have a Dream Foundation it is very apparent that children and even my generation has lost quite a bit of the drive to work hard. We appreciate hard work, but many kids are driven by financial motivation, such as an allowance, just to complete simple tasks like taking out the trash. In the film, we saw even young children helping out with much more difficult and meaningful duties that contribute to the family’s health and even ultimately their survival. It further drove home the idea of how grateful we all should be and made me realize how much we really take for granted. I know that personally I have always made an effort to help out around the house and am very willing to participate in manual labor. However, we often do not think about how during our own industrialization, we faced the exact same hazards, trials and tribulations, and even hardships before we emerged as a stronger economic power.
I feel like what the Powaqqatsi film inspires is thought. It causes you to think, not about new concepts because those in the film are not new in any way, shape, or form, but rather it causes you to think from a different angle. It helps connect these growing communities to our own existence and history of industrialization. It helps you to empathize, yet simultaneously acknowledge the lack of a global education. When I watched the film and then thought back to my own childhood and then thought about the children at the I Have a Dream Foundation I realized how oblivious they are to all of this occurring. I know when I was taught about the Industrial Revolution I was taught about it in context of a “past” event. I never realized, until I was older, that it is something that is happening around the world in other countries even today. What this film explored well was the ancient ways in which people still live where manual labor is used instead of factories, and people are self-sufficient living off the land and working simply to maintain their lifestyle rather than produce on a large scale. The images are all equally moving. Close-ups of people’s expressions give the viewer the feeling that something wrong is occurring and the people seem helpless. They appear to be caught up in a cycle simply trying to stay alive. Watching the film even made me uncomfortable because it really opened my eyes to the truth about the poor quality of life that some of these people faced. It brought back the memories of my study abroad in Central America where I saw similar living conditions and the toll that industrialization was taking on the lives of the citizens there. This film was a familiar reminder and it made me feel uncomfortable to be sitting in a classroom, knowing I am that much more privileged than the people in the film.
This past week we watched clips from Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, and Naqotqatsi. These were much different than anything we have read or watched thus far. The first two films of this Qatsi trilogy have no dialogue. The second film, Powaqqatsi, is the one I want to focus on for the purposes of this blog. Powaqqatsi is a Hopi word that means ‘life in transition.’ This film focused on much of the conflict in less developed countries. It showed traditional ways of life and the effect of the transition to new ways of life introduced with industrialization and Western modernization.
The film starts with a dull, barren landscape. The area is congested with numerous people in a procession line (up and down) carrying heavy bags of dirt up a steep slope to a distinct location.
The film captures images from rural areas of developing countries, then slowly switches to scenes of urban centers. Powaqqatsi has great depth to its scenes. With the combination of the music and powerful imagery as the camera scans the landscape, I found that I watched in a mindless manner. During the movie, I just watched, but did not truly think about the film until after it ended, which was weird for me. It seemed that the film was meant to be an overview of the entire concept of globalization. Each scene offered a little glimpse of life in that community. Without words, it kept personal bias out of the picture. Rather, the film was not about how people should or should not live, but gave an impression and insight into how life is changing. What made the film even more fascinating was the fact that it blended different cultures and lifestyles. It showed a global transformation and diversity. The film was a powerful portrayal of the effects that modernity is having on the less developed populations across the world that continue to live the same way that they did many years ago.
Scene after scene there were shots of people working. They look ragged, drained, and are performing difficult, back-breaking tasks. Some people are carrying heavy bags of dirt over their shoulders; others are carrying baskets on their heads, etc… In each scene, we see the effort required in these less developed countries, in order to industrialize in a shorter time period. The imagery used throughout the film was striking. Right from the beginning, we sit there in shock watching one of the fallen laborers being carried up the hill by some of the other workers. I feel like as a citizen of a developed country, I have not thought about the difficult working conditions some people face on a day to day basis. Learning about the Industrial Revolution and modernization in school, I always knew there were unsafe and strenuous working conditions. However, with so many people protesting working conditions in today’s society simply asking for an increase in pay or social benefits I found that it was easy to lose sight of the hardships people face globally in the workforce. Personally, this film was striking to me because it really caused me to draw out the differences between our society and those portrayed in the film that are playing “catch-up”. The filmmaker caught on camera the sacrifices that people were making in order to help build their modern society. In a sense, this idea of hard works seems to have been lost in our society today. Listening to my grandparents talk about work and then babysitting and even talking to the kids from the I Have a Dream Foundation it is very apparent that children and even my generation has lost quite a bit of the drive to work hard. We appreciate hard work, but many kids are driven by financial motivation, such as an allowance, just to complete simple tasks like taking out the trash. In the film, we saw even young children helping out with much more difficult and meaningful duties that contribute to the family’s health and even ultimately their survival. It further drove home the idea of how grateful we all should be and made me realize how much we really take for granted. I know that personally I have always made an effort to help out around the house and am very willing to participate in manual labor. However, we often do not think about how during our own industrialization, we faced the exact same hazards, trials and tribulations, and even hardships before we emerged as a stronger economic power.
I feel like what the Powaqqatsi film inspires is thought. It causes you to think, not about new concepts because those in the film are not new in any way, shape, or form, but rather it causes you to think from a different angle. It helps connect these growing communities to our own existence and history of industrialization. It helps you to empathize, yet simultaneously acknowledge the lack of a global education. When I watched the film and then thought back to my own childhood and then thought about the children at the I Have a Dream Foundation I realized how oblivious they are to all of this occurring. I know when I was taught about the Industrial Revolution I was taught about it in context of a “past” event. I never realized, until I was older, that it is something that is happening around the world in other countries even today. What this film explored well was the ancient ways in which people still live where manual labor is used instead of factories, and people are self-sufficient living off the land and working simply to maintain their lifestyle rather than produce on a large scale. The images are all equally moving. Close-ups of people’s expressions give the viewer the feeling that something wrong is occurring and the people seem helpless. They appear to be caught up in a cycle simply trying to stay alive. Watching the film even made me uncomfortable because it really opened my eyes to the truth about the poor quality of life that some of these people faced. It brought back the memories of my study abroad in Central America where I saw similar living conditions and the toll that industrialization was taking on the lives of the citizens there. This film was a familiar reminder and it made me feel uncomfortable to be sitting in a classroom, knowing I am that much more privileged than the people in the film. This film was very moving and truly gave insight into the differing priorities across civilizations today especially with the movement toward modernization.
The film from this past week, Manufactured Landscapes, was quite different from the previous readings and films we have watched thus far. Many of the material we’ve covered deals with issues with our education system, poverty, and social inequality. This film ties in, however, it is the work of a renowned artist, Edward Burtynsky, who travels across China to capture the effects of the massive industrial revolution China experienced. Burtynsky visits numerous “manufactured landscapes” such as e-waste dumps, dams, factories, and factories. One of the sites that was particularly striking was the Three Gorges Dam. This dam has displaced over a million people and is bigger by 50% than other dam in the world. Below is a clip I found about the dam. It outlines some of the controversy behind the dam itself. The dam has become one of the most expensive water projects ever built. It has the equivalence of 20 nuclear power plants and is considered one of China’s most prestigious projects. However, that does not mean it hasn’t had significant detrimental environmental consequences. This dam has polluted the Yangtze River with waste and toxic materials. It has divided the river, decreasing its size. However, its effects were not simply environmental. Rather, the building of the dam has had social costs for the communities that dam replaced. Some of these costs have included relocation and safety. This dam is a perfect example of what I have heard frequently in my environmental and economic classes here at UNCA, as well as in the media. What I mean by this is that with an overwhelming drive towards economic growth countries have put forth effort to grow and these economic profits before the needs of the citizens. China has been developing extremely rapidly and is a major producer in the global economy.
The dam was not all that was surprising to me in this film, though. Over the years, I have seen that so many of the products I pick up and buy have been “made in China”. Since this realization and through my education, I have altered my habits as a consumer. Consequently, the majority of the products I buy are from within the country. Regardless, not all of them can be because of what I can afford, as well as the fact that many things have been outsourced. Simply, I have become more aware of the processes that products go through in the production process. Despite a personal growing understanding of where our products and services come from, my curiosity has not changed regarding the Chinese mentality about the products that they are manufacturing on such a large scale. Burtynsky seems to address that question for me in the opening scenes of his film. The camera slowly scans across the aisles of the work place, people’s faces, and the manufacturing process. It all seems very cold, emotionless, and simply structural. The people perform their duties as though they are robots and many of their facial expressions reveal a sense of apathy. The workers seem to just be completing their duties to get by in their own lives. In my own work environment I am not used to a workplace that is less dynamic. At work, I am encouraged to talk and express my opinion because there is always more you can add and it is like a family. Obviously not all work places are like that and I do understand that what Burtynsky is showing us is not your average family business, but large scale factories, but still it is just weird to me that no one working makes eye contact with one another. It is too industrialized for my liking and I think with an environment like this people lose their personality and become emotionless.
The entire time I was watching this film, I found myself noticing the piles of coal, closely aligned buildings, high rises with air conditioners in every window, and polluted waters of the dam. As an environmental major and economics minor my thought processes about all of the industrialization are complicated. I think this film brings light to the environmental degradation of our environment for economic purposes. Yet, simultaneously, it shows the possibilities for economic growth, efficiency, and profit. The imagery Burtynsky uses is quite powerful, so we not only see the industrialization and growth, but also how some of the land has become a dumping ground for waste. The costs and benefits are quite significant on both sides. I think a film like this is meant to shift our consciousness about the issues out there. Personally, I felt that it shined light on the inhumanity of industrialization. Industrialization can make lives more efficient and cost-efficient,; however, it can have safety and human health impacts. It can also result in the relocation of people from their homes. I thought the movie was interesting to say the least. When thinking about my own life while watching his film I could not help but think about the I Have a Dream Foundation. Growing up, I did not have people telling me all about industrialization happening in countries around the world, such as China. Rather, as I grew up, I learned to seek out the information. Even now, it is a controversial issue because there are views that everyone needs to be environmentally conscious and stop such rapid industrialization, but at the same time there can be opposing views that these other countries need to be given the opportunity to industrialize and grow economically. However, there are also many views in between and altering from those I listed. Regardless, I feel like children should be exposed to these issues when younger. It will be difficult to not slant the issues toward one bias or the other, but I think that it will help raise awareness of the issues. A more environmental education needs to begin at a younger age and I think it will help children develop to understand the larger scope of issues in our world. The film itself was very interesting to me and I am not saying it is something that a young child should be required to watch, but it was eye opening and helped me gain a new perspective on the controversy and issues we face globally.
A conviction of a crime has stigma that accompanies it. Often, many people assume that if someone is a convicted felon they are “bad” and that their crime defines who they are as a person, to some extent. Consequently, this can cause people to distrust those that have committed a crime. It is easy to let a person’s past limit their future. Most people think there should not be double jeopardy, meaning someone can’t be charged for the same thing twice. However, isn’t that what society is doing to people who have been convicted of a crime? In Marked, this week’s reading by Devah Pager, Pager brings to light the consequences of criminal activity and the adverse effects on personal image.
Today, on nearly every job application candidates are asked whether or not they have previously been convicted of a crime and if so, when, and for what reasons. Regardless of what the crime is, when a person, especially an employer, sees a “yes” answer to that question, they will likely make an immediate judgment about that individual’s character. I know that personally, if I walked into a room where the only other person was a convicted felon I would most likely feel uncomfortable and jump to conclusions about that person’s morals, values, or even their character. This stigma that is ingrained across the majority of society. Growing up, children are told to stay away from strangers. We are taught to proceed in our lives with caution because people will not always be working with our interests in mind. We are aware of dangers. Personally, at home and at school, I feel as though I was taught about the law and criminal activity in a very black and white manner, meaning committing a crime was “bad” and abiding by the law is “good”. Now that I am older, I see that there is gray area. When I say this I am not stating that it is completely acceptable to commit a crime. There is a fine line that exists. However, as Pager points out, this negative stigma in regards to felons results in denied access to jobs, loans, housing, and other goods that many people take for granted. Pager announces that the U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Is this really a shock though? I have never looked at the numbers previously, but I believe what Pager’s points are properly justified. Mass incarceration has had its effects on the labor market.
This chart is from 2001. However, it still sheds light on the mindset of some employers who are faced with the decision of whether or not to hire an ex-convict.
Though committing a crime is by no means excusable, we do not always know the full story. At times, there can also be false conviction. This is not always the case, obviously, but our justice system is not flawless. Finding a job is extremely important not only because of its value as an income provider and therefore a means for survival, but also because it is a strong predictor that a person will not be drawn back into crime. It would not be right to assume that there is inequality in employment for ex-offenders simply based on the fact that there is stigma, but rather there are other elements that foster what ultimately is inequality in opportunity. The three elements Pager identifies are: selection, transformation, and credentialing. Credentialing is what I discussed above. It is the idea that the negative connotation associated with incarceration allows damaging credentialing to occur in what is a credential society. This is a concept that is difficult to escape, as it even is pervasive in our childhoods. Furthermore, selection is the person convicted never had the motivation to get a job in the first place, even before they were incarcerated. Finally, transformation is the idea that the criminal activity and resulting time served affected the individual in a way that renders them unable to enter the labor market.
Pager performed a study that was limited to white and black males with and without a criminal record. She finds that a criminal record is a strong barrier to obtaining employment. Furthermore, there is an even greater disadvantage for those black men who are ex-offenders. According to Pager, prisoners will re-enter jail because they are compelled back to crime. Often, people rule out race as a determinant in life opportunities. However, not only have I seen firsthand that race can contribute to unequal opportunity, but also, we have seen in numerous readings this semester that race plays a significant role in determining your life opportunities. This could simply be due to lack of access to certain resources or even parenting style. Nonetheless, race plays an important role, especially in education. It is sad to think that many blacks with no criminal record had relatively similar chances of obtaining a position with a company as a white ex-offender did. In Marked, Pager proves that race again is significant in the labor market. It seems as though ex-offenders get stuck in a vicious cycle due to an inability or extreme difficulty in obtaining even a low-level job. Basically, according to Pager, the social cost of high unemployment should be of public concern. Despite the fact that I agree with Pager that society needs to take a step to do something different to break this cycle of unemployment for those who were previously incarcerated, how can we expect employers to take the first step and employ these people? Hypothetically, I know that if I were a private sector employer I would fear the negative consequences that could arise from hiring an ex-offender. Employers conceivably could risk liability and theft. For these individuals is it worth it to take that risk simply for the public and social good of giving that convict a job? It could also steer away customers that are not understanding of the company’s efforts to make a difference on a societal level. So, I guess the question we come to is what to do when a strong trend exists in mass incarceration and simultaneously this is having a negative effect on those ex-offenders. I can’t say that I truly have the answer, but I do see the need for change and agree with Pager’s key points in her powerful book, Marked.
*I was unable to find this video on youtube.com or put this in my blog in another way. However, I recommend watching this short 3 minute clip presented by the national geographic. It discusses the struggle ex convicts faced when attempting to re-enter the job market.
* Below is another link that is worth checking out. It corresponds with Pager's book quite well.
What is a living wage? This week’s film, Waging a Living, really inspired me to think about the range in quality of life across society. Watching this film was heartbreaking. It can be easy to focus on your personal situation rather than think about the working poor struggling to pull themselves up by their boot straps in a system pushing them back down. In this film, we follow four different people and their families while they work overtime attempting to make ends meet. Many of these families simply wanted to provide shelter, food, and the basic necessities. If they splurged to have a Christmas dinner, presents, or pay for a doctor’s visit and medicine, they would fall into even greater depths of debt or even end up homeless and unable to afford even the necessities.
According to the film, the federal minimum wage has remained at $5.15 per hour since 1997. However, since then it has risen slightly. In North Carolina, the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I don’t think the point of the film is to tell us that the minimum wage needs to be raised or even that we need universal health care. Rather, the film is a glimpse into the reality of working class citizens living on low wages and without health care. For one single woman with two children who recently went through a divorce, her reality involves having approximately $15,000 worth of credit card debt and a daily struggle to make ends meet. Another woman lives in fear of raises and promotions because when she does she loses federal aid, such as food stamps and Medicaid. To her, this seems like she is hustling backwards. Many working class citizens are stuck in this vicious cycle. They feel trapped. However, does that mean we should raise the minimum wage?
If I simply answered that question based upon the fact that so many families are struggling to get by on a minimum wage today, I would say yes. No one wants others to suffer and live in fear of an inability to support themselves or their family. However, there are consequences to raising the minimum wage and, honestly, I am not sure if raising the minimum wage will be the most effective solution. Though I am not an economist, I think it is safe to say that if the minimum wage rises based on a federal mandate, prices for goods will increase. With a federal mandate to raise a wage, companies will be less willing to internalize these costs of production. As a result, instead of taking the monetary equivalent of the percent increase in wages out of the company’s profits, they will increase the price of their products or services. Consequently, people will be unable to afford these products. In a sense, this is not completely negative because some of these products could have a high elasticity. Elasticity is a measurement of how the change in one economic variable could affect the others. So, in the context of raising the price of a good or service, if a product is elastic then its demand can fluctuate, meaning that if the price is too high, it could be deemed unnecessary to buy that particular product. However, when a product is inelastic, they its demand will not sway much, if at all, when other factors, such as price, are changed. So what does this mean? Basically, if prices are raised, this can cause those, even with higher wages, to remain stuck in their working class social status unable to escape the vicious cycle because of an inability to afford even the basics and get out of their rut. With a higher wage, it is plausible that qualifications could rise, increasing the difficulty of those without experience or an education to break into the job market. Another thing we also have to remember that a minimum wage was never meant to support an entire family. As the film shows, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to support a family on a minimum wage, especially if a health issue or something of that sort arises. The focus needs to be shifted away from an increase in minimum wage if we want to make a difference in the lives of people struggling to get by. That is not to say that increases in minimum wage should not happen. Regardless, we need to look at the larger picture, such as income for these families and change our government programs to accommodate them better.
I don’t think that people should stay on the federal aid system. Part of the American dream is to better yourself and achieve your goals. However, if you remain on the system, that seems like simply settling. The system is designed to help you get by, not help you achieve your life goals. Furthermore, minimum wage should be a starting point, not a dictator of your future. I think this film was empowering in the sense that it truly brings light to a poorly run system that is not effective in helping people support themselves. People who are of poor, working class social status are not all lazy and content just barely getting by with slight assistance from federal aid. So, restructuring our government system would be the first step in creating effective assistance for those struggling.
Consolidated State Minimum Wage Update Table (Effective Date: 01/01/2012)
At the beginning of the semester, in my first blog, I began my blog by referencing the book Unequal Childhoods by Annette Lareau. However, at that time, I had not met any of the children at I Have a Dream Foundation and had only begun some of the other class readings. Consequently, my understanding of the true meaning of the issues raised in the book was not even close to complete. I found that taking a second look at the book, since it is this week’s class reading, was quite interesting as I read with a new perspective and more knowledge about the problems our education system creates along with a greater understanding of the developmental process of children. Lareau uses her own studies of individual children and their parents to explain how social class strongly impacts family life. She also argues that one’s economic class influences how children cultivate skills, regardless of their race. One of her main points, and the key point I want to discuss in this blog, is that parents of various social and economic classes utilize different parenting tools.
Lareau believes there are two distinct parenting styles: Concerted cultivation and achievement of natural growth. At first, the suggestion that there are two different ways in which parents raise their children rubbed me the wrong way. This seemed like too much of a generalization because obviously no two parents raise their children the same way. It made me think back to my own childhood and how, especially when I was very young, the variance in household rules always struck me. Sometimes I was jealous that some of my friends could do things that I was unable to and other times I found myself frustrated that there were so many rules. However, when I took a step back to truly comprehend what Lareau was claiming I realized there are characteristics of parenting that spread across families and are very closely tied to their economic status. I don’t think parenting can be broken down as simply as she does in this book. Nonetheless, her points were definitely discussion starters that made me think differently about childhood development. The over-simplification of ideas is something that would have been difficult to avoid and her thoughts are provocative, just like the other authors we’ve read thus far that have over simplified in their interpretations of concepts, such as how racism is defined.
However, if we analyze parenting according to Lareau, concerted cultivation is the parenting style that middle class families use. What is concerted cultivation? Well, Lareau believes that this style is one that involves a great deal of structure. Often, parents enroll their children in numerous events and involve them in numerous scheduled activities, such as sports and music lessons. They also have much more intense verbal interactions with their children. By this I do not mean more yelling, but rather there are simply more explanations behind decisions and middle-class parents are more likely to ask their children how their days were or ask about their day to day lives. They also are much more likely to intervene in their children’s activities, including school (if the child seems to be struggling or has an issue), in order to make their child’s life more convenient and accommodate their needs. It seems like this parenting style has its benefits, especially in the sense that it helps the children develop social skills and improve their ability to deal with adults. Middle-class children, though, are more likely to whine and demand things, or even complain they are bored. This is a problem because this parenting type tends to allow children to believe they can get their way. They don’t have to put as much effort into obtaining goals. I think that our society seems to favor this style because it seems to reward the interpersonal skills and other skills it teaches. Despite my belief that society favors one of the styles over the other, Lareau is quick to point out that each of the parenting methods have their strengths and weaknesses.
Personally, I find that I can relate to the “concerted cultivation” style of parenting. My early childhood was spent involved in numerous sports, dance, and music lessons. At times I almost felt as though I had no free time. When I did have down time I would often complain of boredom because I was so accustomed to my parents and others planning out my daily activities that I was too lazy to do so on my own. However, they also taught me a lot about how to talk to adults and how to handle myself in social situations. It helped me develop a close relationship with my parents in particular.
On the contrary, Lareau describes the working-class parenting style as the accomplishment of natural growth. With this style, the parents focus on merely the basics. Rather than focusing on extra-curricular activities, they make their goal as head of the house to provide for their children. These parents make their priorities the responsibilities of making sure their children have a roof over their head, are appropriately clothed, clean and healthy, and are fed adequate amounts of food. From working in Builders Club and seeing the child to parent interactions that occur as children are being picked up and are at their homes outside of the I Have a Dream Foundation, I find that this is often the case. For me, it was especially noticeable with the Builders Club that I worked for because I spent much more one on one time with the children. There were instances where you could tell the parents were even struggling to provide the basic needs of the children. However, many of these children are much more independent and able to entertain themselves because they are accustomed to having so much unstructured time. From some of the short conversations I’ve had with the children at IHAD regarding their school days, I can tell that many of them are used to finding things to do with their time. Even on days like today when they don’t have school and I drive by, I see them playing outside their houses together. Much more of their time is unstructured.
One of the difficulties I have with identifying the two parenting styles goes back to the fact that it can be difficult to make the distinction between who is middle class and who is considered working-class. There are obviously people that can strongly fit under one category or the other, but there are others that fall in the middle. Despite all of this, I think that it is beneficial to look back at Lareau’s model and see the benefits and weaknesses that accrue from each.
Last week along with this upcoming week, the focus of the class discussions are Paulo Freire’s novel Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Looking through critiques before reading the book I found a commonality among complaints that said that the book was inaccessible. This of course made me nervous. After reading the book, I found this to be true to some extent. It took re-reading several sections to obtain some understanding of Freire’s key points. However, I did find it quite interesting.
Paulo Freire believes individuals should form themselves rather than be formed by others. Though, he simultaneously recognizes that there are limiting situations that can hold individuals back. These situations block people because of an overall resistance coming from the oppressing classes. These oppressive classes want to protect their power. Freire discusses freedom from oppression as something that “is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion” (47). Individuals are not meant to live in a naïve consciousness where they are aware of their oppression, yet do nothing about it. Rather, Freire strives for a method of learning where people think and reflect. One of the issues we face as a society is our tendency to simply reproduce or repeat information. We don’t internalize and truly learn it. I agree with this, but want to turn the attention to our education system. I find that, from personal experience, and witnessing the actions of others, much of our education simply requires us to memorize and relay the facts. Often, there is excessive lecturing. Even in today’s colleges, our own humanities program, and such, the class revolves around a lecture. One of the things I value and enjoy about the Honors program and typically UNCA more so than other schools is that there is analysis of the importance of what is taught. Connections need to be made to our present day lives. Many of the historical events that we have learned about have continue to affect our day to day lives. A good teacher, in my opinion, is one who encourages you to truly learn material. However, this is not generally the case. Typically, as we have learned from other readings thus far this semester, standardized testing determines the course curriculum. Some teachers’ jobs depend on how well their students perform on these exams and consequently, they teach to the tests rather than allow creativity in the classroom. Personally, I agree with Freire that people need to reach a reflective state, including in the classroom learning.
Freire believes that the bank concept is pervasive in our education system and is an instrument of oppression. When he describes the “bank” he is likening students to containers. They are receptacles or empty bank accounts. The teacher is the one making deposits (of knowledge). Freire disagrees with this notion simply on principle that it is dehumanizing. I agree with this. Education, in a sense, is structured in a way that allows the persistence of oppressive attitudes and practices in society. We are taught to think in a black and white manner. Certain actions are right. Others are wrong. We are taught to adapt “better” to actual situations, rather than overcome them. To Freire, this would be a perfect example of the pervasiveness of a dominant / passive or oppressor / oppressed mindset. It has become a norm.
Freire believes learning occurs from the inside out. He presents the idea that there are two distinct moments of the new pedagogy. The first is when you become conscious of reality. This is simply when you realize that as the oppressed, your life is being determined by decisions of those higher up in the hierarchy (the oppressors). The second part of this is when the oppressed act on initiative to stand up against their oppression. Friere explains that a common problem is that people will recognize their oppression, but rather than fighting against it, they adapt to it. He makes the point that the oppressor “can only cease to be the oppressor by understanding that the oppressed are not just an abstract concept”. Freire seems to have a distinction between the oppressed and oppressors. He argues that these members of upper classes, also known as oppressors, strive to maintain the oppressive situation simply because it works to their advantage. I am not sure if I agree with this stance. I agree that the structure of society seems to push the oppressor / oppressed relationships. However, I feel like he sees the issue as one that is too black and white. The situation is more complicated than that. In hypothetical scenarios and some extreme cases I feel like there can be one person who is oppressed and another interacting with them that can be considered the oppressor. In reality, though, the issue can be more in the gray area. It is very easy to fall into a situation where you do “what’s right” because it feels right. In most cases, what’s “right” has been determined by those around you. Those people include your teachers, family, and friends. So, although I feel as though it can be difficult to say one is being oppressed or oppressing and that their actions are clearly right or wrong, I agree that mutual understanding is necessary. Friere introduces the concept of dialogicity. This is the essence of education as freedom in practice. As human beings, we become who we are through our words, actions, and furthermore, our reflection on these. The goal is to try to learn from another, and as the famous saying says “walk in their shoes”. Learning should not be mechanistic. Rather, people should integrate into the lives of others and try to understand their language, thought process, and actions. Freire’s dialogical theory includes collaboration, union, organization, and cultural synthesis. I agree with him that we need to overlook and unite to work past the framework for society. In today’s society people will work towards a particular cause, but then abandon those supporters later. We see this frequently in politics. Often, people simply will temporarily relate to others because it benefits them in their quest to seek their own goals and interests. I think it is interesting to look at society in this context and I further appreciate that Friere, just like other authors we’ve read (Nussbaum, Appiah, Tatum, etc…) has recommended meaningful conversation and truly stepping in another person’s shoes and uniting with them to make a change.
I didn’t get to go to I Have a Dream to volunteer this week; however, this week’s readings along with last weeks were enough to open my eyes even further to our dysfunctional educational structure and the oppressor / oppressed relationships it is creating and keeping in place.
