SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER @davidtuetken - Tumblr Blog

Now that we know about these different forms of discrimination, it is important to ask the question of “why?”. Why do employers discriminate based on a minor aspect of one’s resume? An article from business insider suggests that human resource specialists are unconsciously bias when deciding who to hire (Lebowitz). This would make sense considering most HR specialists go through a great deal of resumes when hiring and in most resume audit studies, the number of resumes used as data for inequality is small compared to the number sent out. Business insider says that companies are more likely to hire people who “are similar to us”, and also are more likely to base decisions on “stereotypes of people’s skills” (Lebowitz). Assumptions of people’s skills based on stereotypes is a form of inequality. The article also mentioned the third reason for hiring discrimination, which is “anyone who is perceived as a threat to our status” (Lebowitz). Different cultures, ages, ethnicities, and sexual orientation could be perceived as a threat to someone who has little exposure to different backgrounds. I believe that in order to fix discrimination in labor market, we need to encourage intercultural communication at early ages.

These resume audit studies do a great job at providing “real world” data that we can use. Theories of social inequality help us to understand these hiring practices. Since we have a better understanding of what these are, I believe we will be better equipped to deal with the issue and in turn strive for a better and more diverse workforce.

davidtuetken

Hey Mike,

Nice work here. In my opinion, corporations that engage in this kind of discriminatory hiring should receive a lot more of the blame for perpetuating stereotypes and legitimizing discrimination than they seem to get. It becomes a kind of vicious cycle that leaves a lot of qualified people out of work and struggling for reasons that have nothing to do with their abilities. I think it’s pretty telling of this that there is so much public misconception about the effects of affirmative action programs, and why they came about in the first place. People with privilege are quick to rationalize a degree of comfortable thinking about the nature of inequality in a way that offends them the least, and this is fueled by public perception that gets perpetuated in part by the irresponsible hiring practices of many of the kinds of corporations that you’ve descibed.

keylae

Why Equality May Never Happen

In Uses of the Underclass in America, Herbert Gans claims that the role of lower class, under educated citizens benefit the upper-class in many ways. Gans explains “perhaps the most important economic function of the undeserving poor today is that their mere presence creates jobs for the better-off population, including professional ones” (Gans, 1994: 317). Basically, under educated people, who happen to mostly be minorities, are needed to fulfill jobs that require less educational experience. Without them the elite cannot profit and get jobs that have a higher yearly salary.

Another reason why educational equality may never happen is because of interest convergence. The theory suggests “because racism advances the intersects of both white elites (materially) and working-class Caucasians (physically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it” (Delgado and Stefancic, 2017: 8). Not much is done in terms of attempting to eradicate discrimination because the use of it benefits white upper-class citizens. Keeping low-class minority students in impoverished areas with bad school systems will make it harder for them to for them to go to a four-year college. Inevitably, the students will fall behind and fill the roles of lower end career such as jobs in the service industry. Sadly, this will disable them to advance economically and socially. Overall, educational inequality will be hard to abolish completely when it is deeply rooted in the advancement of one specific race. Since America is ruled by the white upper class, they would not genuinely attempt to close the educational gap since it benefits them so much.

davidtuetken

Keyla! We dance one final time!

This is a really well conceived and executed project all around. I feel like this particular passage is a pretty complete distillation of the reasons that education inequality, and pretty much all social inequality, persists. Whenever there are interests to be protected by the ruling class, they will do what they can to make sure that the systems that they are benefiting from stay in place (sometimes without even realizing it). I think that if there is any hope in bringing about reform, it starts by talking about it as much as possible, making sure it stays in the conversation until it starts to seep in to the national consciousness (kind of like the term “the 99%” has since the Occupy movements, or how movements towards legislation in individual states eventually led to marriage equality). I hope that’s what you’ve started here.

By Dave Tuetken, for Professor Keller’s SOC 336 Social Inequality Class

The structures and systems that perpetuate the circumstances that lead to social inequality in America, and all over the world, are strong and enduring. The foundations that these systems are built upon are fortified as to preserve the social and economic interests of those who would benefit from such kinds of inequality, with regards to those who might be less fortunate or less privileged. Within these systems, the human capital that the individuals on the unequal end of this equation possess is often regarded as inconsequential to those who would benefit from the protraction of their circumstances. Where this human capital, as well as an individual’s sense of dignity and worth, is challenged, a necessity to express an interpretation of the oppressive forces weighing down upon them is a way of redefining and reclaiming said capital. Examining the character and urgency of this kind of expression, as it is manifested in various mediums of socially conscious art, may yield more insight into the nature of social inequality, and provide a more encompassing approach to understanding social problems for what they really are.

All kinds of realizations of social inequality are expressed through various artistic expositions. Collected in Antonia Darder’s 2011 article entitled Embodiments of Public Pedagogy: The Art of Soulful Resistance, we are offered a kind of mini-anthology of stories of social inequality and the varying forms it can present itself in, be it with respect to race, gender, sexual orientation, or economic status. Racial and gender inequality inform the theatrical performance art of Maria Elena Gaitan. The privatization of the prison system is illustrated in John Jennings visceral, politically charged drawings. Evan Greer is an openly gay musician whose songs address oppression based on sexuality. The wide scope and far ranging motivations exemplified in these portraits conceptualizes social inequality as a kind of cultural identity in itself, with artistic expression providing a vehicle for an individual to realize themselves both as individuals and as members of the larger societal structure. From a sociological standpoint, it also presents the opportunity for a reappraisal of analytical approaches. Much like gender and class distinctions were updated and redefined in Julie Bettie’s study of Mexican-American young women growing up in the modern era, as well as the multi-faceted and elementally compendious reassessment of racial inequality that is provided in Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s Critical Race Theory, not to mention as Kimberle Crenshaw’s theory of Intersectionality, a new sociological approach is taking shape. As Darder herself puts it, “their art, driven by a commitment to social justice and human rights, is a clarion call of resistance to the destructive impact of economic exploitation and cultural domination in the world today” (Darder, 780).

When considering artistic expression in any context, one must consider the role that subjectivity plays in both the aesthetic and abstract sense. This is entirely critical whenever any suggestion of social inequality is presented artistically. There is always the potential for disconnect between the intent of the artist and any semblance of sociological context. The misinterpretation of this intent, as well as the potential for projection, is an ever-present threat to the methodological credibility of sociological qualification. Establishing positionality with regards to what are often subversive tendencies of artistic expression can be difficult. Even in the example of socially conscious children’s books, discerning whether the intended audience is adults or children is not always obvious (Singer, 2011). While a direct interview with the artist of a particular piece may be useful in establishing a clearer dimension to a given research question, a sociological explanation of a particular artistic piece must be contextualized by existing sociological theories in order to be recognized as legitimate. It should be said that perhaps reliably collected results in this arena may one day form the basis of a new theory in which social inequality is better understood.

In achieving a better understanding of artistically expressed social inequality, and potentially qualifying the implications, one must recognize the kinds of “spaces” that the artists exist in. As sociologist Michel Laguerre mapped out the abstract and geographical “spaces” that racial minorities may find themselves existing within, as a social group in their own right, artists exist within their own kinds of “spaces.” The characteristics of Laguerre’s minoritized spacing was always shaped respective of majority and mainstream social norms, and the spacing of socially conscious artists should be considered in the same manner. In railing against their perceptions of structurally created social inequality, as well as their own marginalization by the mainstream as a social group, an artist is essentially railing against the very system that is responsible for fostering said inequality. Where the artists identify themselves as existing outside of social norms, they are effectively creating a “space” all of their own, secluded from the mainstream. Within these spaces is an enclave in which artistic expression can more easily flourish, and considered collectively, the existence of multiple spaces across social and political boundaries create a social institution all in itself (Peters, 2015).

Just as artistic expression with regards to social inequality comes about as a response to the movements of society, society responds to artistic expression in various ways as well. While the idealism expressed through these kinds of art often coincides, and in many cases informs the kinds of social movements that have led to legislative action over the last few years (for example; marriage equality), there are no direct examples of art in itself resulting in bringing about these kinds of changes. However, one way of measuring this kind of response is in observing the characteristics of the gentrification of urban areas, places where social street art is often prevalent. Gentrification, or the commodification of urban areas based on attributes that appeal to an individual’s need for social capital, is often viewed by artists as a kind of co-opting of authenticity concerning the ideals and circumstances of social inequality (Lindner and Meissner, 2015). Gentrification has taken effect in cities throughout the world, and the response of the artistic communities is often less than welcoming for what they view as an approximation of cultural credibility. In Amsterdam, a series of city sponsored initiatives were enacted, aimed at encouraging the expansion of burgeoning street art mediums. Much of the art that the city was trying to encourage was art that arose in response to social and political change within that specific urban environment. The willingness of the city to embrace such art movements was met with widespread skepticism from the artists that were responsible for it. What the city saw as a realization of “cosmopolitan citizenship,” the artists saw as commoditization on the path to gentrification, an exploitation of their vision and expression used for what could be considered as contrary to the cause (Lindner and Meissner, 2015). In the classic Marxist sense of things, the artists felt that their social capital, and by extension, their human capital had been exploited for the economic capitalist gains of the city, where the end goal of gentrification was to lure higher income earners to live there, and spend more money. In outlining such a disconnect between artistic expression and the actual acceptance of social outsider art in a mainstream context, an additional demonstration of artistic expression as a social identity construct in its own right is presented.

In the past few decades, a sub-field of sociology has emerged that would teem tailored to the kinds of abstractions and subjectivities that are pervasive in the discussion of socially conscious art. Visual sociology can be described as the use of various visual mediums, such as photography, film, or televison, in the study of society (Harper, 1988). The potential benefits of studying sociology using these methods lies in their immediacy with the observable world. As sociologist Douglas Harper outlined in his article entitled Visual Sociology: Expanding Sociological Vision, “many sociological categories are based on observable phenomena, and indeed, many of these can be understood better if frozen in a photographic image than they can if written about in a field memo” (Harper, 1988). Harper was specifically referring to the medium of photography in this instance, but his logic can be applied to presenting visual sociology as an extension of one of the disciplines most widely employed methods--ethnography. Where the firsthand accounting that an ethnographic study provides for is largely considered within the field to be a valuable means of acquiring data, visual sociology provides the opportunity for participation by a larger number of people. A more diverse set of interpretations provides for a clearer context with regards to an individual researcher’s positionality and a potentially richer set of resources to work with.

Visual sociology is not without its critics. Many sociologists denounce the field as being scientifically unsound, citing the ambiguity of the value of the empirical data that would be collected (Parkin and Coomber, 2009). However, it could be argued that visual sociology does not necessarily have to function contrary to good science. Rather, it builds upon scientifically informed existing social theory, and in extending this measure of participation back to the general public, visual sociology is continuing the spirit on which the entire discipline was founded upon. Sociology came about as a means to understand inequality and the structures that perpetuated it in the industrial era of the mid 19th century. The theories of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber, among others, were formulated in the hopes of drawing attention to social inequality, and with the intention of bringing about positive changes to them.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER