Kayla Derby
February 28, 2018
Response Paper #2: Co-creating Identities
1. B. Provide TWO examples from Van Ausdale & Feagin (1996) to describe how preschoolers use racial concepts with their peers.
One way that preschoolers used racial concepts with their peers was by using race to include and exclude others, according to research done by Van Ausdale & Feagin (1996). A striking example of this is when Carla, a “white” (782) three year old moves her cot away from Nicole, a four-and-a-half year old “African/biracial” (782) girl. When the teacher asks why she moved Carla says that ‘“Niggers are stinky. I can’t sleep next to one”’ (782). Van Ausdale and Feagin (1966) explain, “Exclusion of others can involve … removing oneself from the presence of unwanted others” (782). In this example, Carla uses race, specifically a racial insult, in order to exclude Nicole. She bases the movement of her cot off of her conception of Nicole’s race and the meaning of her race. This example not only shows that preschoolers recognize race, but also that they use it to include, or in Carla’s case exclude, others based on their perception of other kids’ races.
Another way that Van Ausdale and Feagin (1996) claim that preschoolers use racial concepts is by using race to control others (786). An example of racial control is shown in an interaction between two four year olds, Brittany (white) and Michael (Black). In this interaction Michael tells Brittany that he has a white bunny at home, and she responds that this is not possible because he is Black and Black people cannot have white rabbits (787). Van Ausdale and Feagin (1996) explain that Brittany had created a rule about race, that “‘Blacks can’t have whites”’ (787). She then used this rule “to dominate interaction with another child” (787). This example shows that children recognize race and use race as a basis for social rules and control. Brittany believes she has the power to tell Michael what color rabbits he can and cannot have because of her rules about race that tells her that “‘Blacks can’t have whites” (787). She controls Michael based on her perceptions and rules surrounding race.
2. Draw from Lareau ([2003]2007) to explain:
a) How do family practices shape kids’ behaviors in institutional settings, like schools?
Lareau ([2003]2007) explains that middle class families engage in a family practice which she calls “concerted cultivation” (349) while working class families engage in “the accomplishment of natural growth” (350). Concerted cultivation is characterized by family practices which “deliberately try to stimulate their children’s development and foster their cognitive and social skills” (352). Lareau ([2003]2007) explains that this includes enrolling their children in numerous extra curricular activities where they have extended contact and practice interacting with adults (356). Middle class children also are encouraged to “reason…and solve problems through negotiation” (351). Parents teach them these skills but talking to kids and negotiating with them, rather than ordering them to do things. Finally, middle class children develop “a sense of entitlement” (352) from these family practices, meaning that they feel that institutions such as schools and doctors should work for them, and they advocate for themselves to get what they want. This is obvious in their behaviors in institutional settings. Kids who have a sense of entitlement are likely to demand a teacher’s attention when they need help, or make sure their concerns are heard by a doctor.
The accomplishment of natural growth, on the other hand, is characterized by “long stretches of leisure time, child-initiated play, clear boundaries between adults and children, and daily interactions with kin” (Lareau [2003]2007:350). Children in working class families play more independently with other children or extended family members, and orders from parents are not up for negotiation. The family practice of of accomplishment of natural growth leads to what Lareau ([2003]2007) calls a “sense of constraint” (353) in institutional settings. She describes that this constraint made children less likely to try to make institutions work for them, and were more likely to accept the directions of authority figures (350). For example, kids who have a sense of constraint are less likely to demand the teacher’s attention when they need help.
b) Why do different family practices result in the reproduction of social inequality?
While each family practice has its benefits and drawbacks, and neither is better than the other, they do have consequences for social inequality. Lareau ([2003]2007) points out that working-class families who practice the accomplishment of natural growth are at a disadvantage because their family practices are not the hegemonic practices. Lareau ([2003]2007) says, “These children and their guardians interact with central institutions in the society, such as schools, which firmly and decisively promote strategies of concerted cultivation in child rearing” (350). While kids who are raised with practices related to the accomplishment of natural growth are often more independent and know how to do things for themselves, like navigate public transportation, this cultural capital is not as valued by institutions. Lareau ([2003]2007) points out that “the middle-class strategy of concerted cultivation appears to have greater promise of being capitalized into social profits” (358). Because institutions place higher value on the practice of concerted cultivation, kids raised by families who practice concerted cultivation have an advantage. This further reproduces social inequality because the cultural capital gained by children in working-class households is not seen as valuable by larger institutions, whereas children raised by families who practice concerted cultivation are gaining skills that will help them succeed in institutions. One example of this is that middle-class children spend their free time in extracurriculars while working-class children spend their free time playing independently. While independent play gives children immense amounts of creativity and self-sufficiency, institutions, like college, value extracurriculars more. This could lead to children with a history of extracurriculars being chosen for a highly coveted college spot. This difference in valuation of family practices by institutions reproduces inequality.
3. Using the study by Bettie ([2002]2011) OR Kwon (2015), provide two examples to explain the concept of intersectionality.
Intersectionality is the theory that people have multiple social identities, and from these social identities we are, simultaneously, oppressed and privileged. Bettie ([2002]2011) provides a good example of intersectionality in her essay “Exceptions to the Rule.” The first way she does this is by not only studying working-class, upwardly-mobile students — but specifically focusing on working-class, upwardly-mobile girls, as they have a unique experience because of their gender. She reports that previous studies do not take an intersectional approach because they “presume that boys’ educational experiences and opportunities are in all cases better than girls’ rather than exploring the unique set of challenges girls face” (). In her study, Bettie ([2002]2011) did not simply presume that girls would struggle more in school or have worse educational outcomes because they were girls. Instead she looked at the ways in which, the working-class girls’ gender privileged them in the school setting, saying “feminine norms allowed girls to forgo the delinquent paths their working class brothers felt compelled to follow when they engaged in rituals of proving masculinity” (271). Bettie’s ([2002]2011) intersectional approach allowed her to research the ways in which class and gender interact, rather than assuming that boys and girls of the working-class had the same experience simply because of their class identity.
Additionally, Bettie ([2002]2011) studied the ways in which class and race intersect in the experiences of Mexican-American, working-class girls. She found that while white, working-class girls and Mexican-American, working-class girls sometimes had different experiences because of race. Her focus on the ways race intersects with class and gender allowed her to come to the conclusion that “the greater salience of race over class (in a society that lacks a discourse on class) means that white girls’ mobility is less encumbered in some ways than Mexican American girls’” (271). If Bettie ([2002]2011) had simply focused on the experience of working-class girls, without considering the ways in which the social identity of race intersects with both gender and class, she would have missed the unique experience that comes with the intersectionality of identity.
4. Based on the Espiritu’s (2001) interview data, why do Filipino parents treat their daughters and sons differently?
Espiritu (2001) proposes that Filipino parents treat their sons and daughters differently. This is largely tied to their gender expectations and white supremacy in the United States. Espiritu (2001) argues that “gender is key to immigrant identity and a vehicle for racialized immigrants to assert cultural superiority over the dominant group” (415). In her study she found that Filipino parents challenge the dominant cultural group (white) by using their daughter’s sexuality. In the title of Espiritu’s piece you can see this challenge to the dominant cultural group. “We Don’t Sleep Around Like White Girls Do” proposes that while Filipinos may be seen as culturally subordinate because of race, they can challenge the dominant cultural group’s superiority by using their daughters’ lack of promiscuity. This makes Filipino daughters’ activities more closely monitored because their innocence and not “sleeping around” is tied to the status of the overall group. Espiritu (2001) summarizes this idea well, saying, “because women’s moral and sexual loyalties were deemed central the maintenance of group status, changes in female behavior, especially that of growing daughters, were interpreted as signs of moral decay and ethnic suicide and were carefully monitored and sanctioned,” (428). Filipino parents monitored their daughter’s bodies more than they monitored their sons because it was not boys’ morality which was crucial to the larger group and cultural identity.
5. Using Miller (2016):
a) How do young women use “sexual drama” to enforce normative femininity?
Miller (2016) argues that young women use “sexual drama” (722) in order to enforce normative femininity, and to “prove” their own normative femininity. They use this sexual dramas in two ways. The first is by using the word “slut.” Miller (2016) argues, “the ‘slut’ achieves its rhetorical power through abjection (Butler 1990), allowing girls to claim their own normative femininities by repudiating others for their sexual deviance” (725). Normative femininity in the United States is marked by ideals of purity and innocence. By calling other girls sluts, they assert their ideals of normative femininity by naming what’s not — sexual promiscuity. Also, in calling girls sluts they define their own femininities — asserting that they are not like those girls. This type of sexual drama/bullying allows high school girls to test/navigate the boundaries of acceptable sexual behavior. In addition to bullying each other by using the word “slut.” Miller (2016) also shows how their use of “lesbian” to bully each other enforces normative femininity. She says “girls’ homophobic rumors reinforced to those sharing them the importance of conforming to normative feminine ways of dressing and acting” (730). The girls in Miller’s (2016) study used “homophobic rumors” to prescribe norms of feminine presentation including how girls should act and dress in order to “properly” present femininity. Girls used “sexual drama” to proclaim their own, normative femininity, “naming what kind of girl they are by naming what kind of girl they are not” (738). Sexual drama served as a way to police themselves and other girls and to define what femininity was, and importantly, what it was not.
b) How do schools contribute to this type of bullying?
Miller (2016) asserts that schools contribute to this type of bullying because they do not talk about gender or sex in classes, leaving it up to the girls to figure out for themselves. She declares, “When young women are given limited and contradictory information about gendered sexuality, it is no wonder they use sexual drama to make sense of and negotiate its complicated terrain,” (740). Sexual drama and bullying are used by girls as a way to work out their own definitions and expressions of gender and sexuality. This problem of bullying and sexual drama which could be mediated by schools if they provided sexual education classes that were inclusive and non-hegemonic. Additionally, if girls were involved in more open conversations about sex and gender in a structured setting, they would be less likely to need to bully other girls in the way Miller (2016) describes.
6. Based on the readings, provide a “tweet” (a short but striking point or question) directed to one of the above authors.
@SarahMiller given the lack of non-hegemonic sex ed in schools, what are some pop culture resources (movies, tv, etc) that could give girls examples of alternative presentations of femininity