Soc. Ch. 7 Rejecting Oppressive Relationships: The Logic of Cultural Pluralism for a Diverse Society

Attitudes about Diversity

Examining how Americans have responded to immigration is a good way of understanding our historic response to societal diversity, as it has been the primary source of the United States' diversity Gordon (1964) and Brooks (1996) have described four ideological perspectives with regard to ethnic diversity: Anglo conformity, melting pot, pluralism and separatism

To Americanize -

to dress, talk, think, behave, and conform fully to the white majority - was easier for those with white skin

Review of Diversity perspectives

--Anglo conformity demands that all people become Americanized by accepting traditions and norms based primary on white northern European customs --Separatists say that human differences will always cause conflict and will never disappear; therefore, people of different groups should stick together with their own --"Melting pot" advocates ignore differences to avoid problems, and believe American identity should become homogenous --Pluralists encourage individuals to identify themselves in terms of their heritage in addition to identifying themselves as Americans

Cultural pluralism

--Pluralism refers to the equal coexistence of diverse cultures in a mutually supportive relationship within the boundaries of one nation In the 1920s, pluralists insisted that people in a diverse society such as the United States should have the right to preserve their cultural heritage and not be forced to abandon it to conform to a dominant culture --Pluralism is based on "equality of opportunity for all people, respect for human dignity and the conviction that no single pattern of living is good for everyone" --Proponents of this perspective argue that diversity is not a difficult to be overcome, but a positive attribute of a society --Pluralists believe that their identity is shaped by their racial or ethnic heritage as well as by American culture, so they may identify as Italian American, African American, Chinese American, etc

Terry's Tactics For creating social change

1. Engage in dialogue with those in power to convince them to implement a proposed change 2. Organize a confrontation of some kind: a march, a sit-down strike, or a rally 3. Apply economic pressure to those individuals or organizations unwilling to change 4. Initiate or support research designed to examine data relevant to the issue being confronted 5. Establish an inside-outside alliance in which a member of a decision-making body collaborates with a group demanding change 6. Resort to violence to demonstrate frustration and to dramatize the need for change

The case for pluralism

2. Impact on Self-consciousness and Self-determination --Being perceived as "different" hampers a positive self-consciousness required to feel confident In the ability to determine goals and achieve them --It is difficult for people to develop a sense of personal pride and believe they can achieve their goals when they feel their abilities are constantly being doubted 3. Necessity for Human Interdependence --A complex society relies on technology, cooperation, and division of labor, and as that society becomes more complex, people inevitably become more dependent on each other --The dominant group has traditionally not been concerned with the problems of minorities - "those people" - but these problems do not remain confined to the minority group when they are ignored ----E.g. In the 1950s and 1960s drug abuse began to increase in urban ghettos, and today have become a significant problem for white suburban youth --In a diverse, democratic society, citizens must advocate for and practice pluralistic attitudes to ensure the society functions effectively and is a good place for all

The case for pluralism (cont)

4. Recognition of Diversity as an Ideal --Diversity constitutes the best possible situation - some of the best art, music, and literature in the United States is the result of diversity, and incorporating the languages of other cultures has contributed to the emergence of English as a world language --Diversity is helpful in problem solving - if we all thought exactly the same way, we would only generate similar solutions --Diversity is valued by the natural world because it supports innovative responses to new conditions 5. Current Existence of Diversity --America is the most diverse society in the world, so it only makes sense that we value it rather than deny that it exists --If we accept and embrace diversity, we can use this reality to capitalize on its many advantages

Why should American society become pluralistic

Although Anglo conformity remains the dominant perspective in American society, advocates of pluralism argue that this perspective is inappropriate and have organized their support for this perspective into five major themes 1. Anglo Conformity is a Failure --To require conformity based on race, religion, or other human differences in a society with such diversity is by nature unrealistic and illogical --Anglo conformity is inherently unjust to those who cannot conform adequately because they are not white or Protestant --Minorities suffer disproportionately from health related metrics, unemployment rates, welfare rates, underfunded schools, unsafe neighborhoods, and lack of access to goods and services based on their race, gender, social class, disability and sexual orientation

Anglo conformity

Anglo conformity began with English colonists efforts to maintain particular American values, norms and standards, and requiring others to conform to the same Anglo conformity requires that immigrants stop speaking native languages and use only English as soon as possible, abandon their ethnic heritage, customs, ceremonies and traditions, and adopt American ways to be similar to everyone else Immigrants of color could never become white, so they could never achieve the goal of Anglo conformity: to look and act just like members of the white majority For most of the country's history, the process of Americanization has expected individuals to also adopt the ideals of Anglo conformity

BIA Boarding Schools

In the late 1800s, the Bureau of India Affairs created boarding schools to Americanize Native American children At first, these schools were established on reservations, but BIA officials fear that being too close to parents meant Indian children would return home and "go back to the blanket" - return to Indian values and behaviors As a result these school were moved from away from reservations, and Indian children were not allowed to return home, even on weekends These efforts were largely a failure, as the emphasis on conformity, uniformity and individual achievement were too contrary to intrinsic India values

Terry's Matrix of Pluralism and Oppression

Is it necessary to be actively involved in change in order to be a pluralist? Terry developed a matrix: --If someone hold prejudice and actively asserts them, they are considered a bigot --If someone holds prejudice but do not act, they accept the status quo, and thereby perpetuate prejudice in society writ large --If someone rejects prejudice ideals, but fails to act, they to have accepted the status quo and are also responsible for perpetuating prejudice in society --Only when someone rejects prejudice, and actively seeks to eliminate this perspective from society, have they actually helped to reform society and ascribed to pluralist ideals Put simply, unless someone is a proactive part of the solution to reforming prejudice in society, they remain part of the problem

Immigrant groups that benefited from Anglo conformity

Northern European ethnic immigrants to the United States were able to more easily achieve Anglo conformity To Americanize - to dress, talk, think, behave, and conform fully to the white majority - was easier for those with white skin When immigrants of color rejected their heritage and native language and imitated white behavior, they still could not overcome the disadvantage of their skin color Some Americans of color with lighter skin opted to claim white skin - "passing for white" Although some were successful, they paid a heavy psychological price

Arguments for and against Pluralism

Opponents of pluralism insist that emphasizing groups in a society will encourage identification with a group rather than with the nation, and this will create animosity between those who identify with a group and those who simply consider themselves "American" Pluralists argue that their perspective allows individuals to decide for themselves to what extent to embrace their cultural heritage while choosing how much of other cultures or the dominant culture to incorporate into their identity Critics assert that any level of individual identification with a cultural group inflates the importance of that group and exacerbates the potential for conflict between groups - it is best to identify as simply "American" Proponents suggest that the most successful societies throughout history have embraced pluralistic ideals, and that pluralism is consistent with both democratic principles and the American values of individuality and freedom

People of color in the "Melting Pot"

People of color questioned the "melting pot" concept - not only was it not inclusive to them, they weren't sure they even wanted to be included --"Melting" seem to imply giving up their ethnic identification in order to be acceptable to white people A common expression of the "melting pot" today is the argument that people should be color blind - that we should ignore a person's skin color --"When I look at you I don't see color, I just see an American" People of color are often offended by the color blind approach, arguing that it implies a negative attitude about race - a white person must pretend a person of color is white in order to be comfortable associating with them

The Separatist Perspective

Perhaps the most pessimistic of all the perspectives of diversity, separatism is the belief that different racial and ethnic groups ought to be apart; they should have their own places and "be with their own kind" --Separatism is based on the premise that ineradicable exist between groups of people and that differences inevitably cause hostility - the best a person can hope for is a peaceful coexistence where "others" are merely tolerated This perspective has been supported at times by both majority AND minority groups --E.g. Following the Civil War, white separatists advocated for African Americans to be relocated to African, and some Americans helped former slaves in creating a new African nation called Liberia There are still separatist groups in American today, but they attract few followers and most, such as the Aryan Nation or Black Muslims, are perceived as hate groups

summary

Statistics illustrate the current diversity in the United States, and Terry's up/down metaphor is one way to understand what it means to be a member of an advantaged or disadvantaged group and how group members view each other. The four historic perspectives on diversity in America include Anglo conformity, the "melting pot," separatism, and pluralism. Advocate for pluralism have created a compelling rationale for promoting that perspective in our diverse society. Six strategies to achieve social change include dialogue, confrontation, economic pressure, research, inside-outside alliances, and violence, and individuals typically take one of four perspectives on the need to take action for social change.

Terry's "Up/Down" Metaphor

Terry insists that "ups" don't know much about "downs," as they do not regard them as socially important - they are "dumb ups" when it comes to understanding issues affecting "downs" --By contrast, "downs" know a great deal about "ups" because it is necessary for their survival and success It is tempting to believe that is someone is "down" in one category, that they would be more sensitive to "downs" in another category, but this is not the case --E.g. People living in poverty can be racist, people of color can be homophobic, gays and lesbians be prejudice against immigrants, etc

Valuing individual differences

The United States has always consisted of people from different races, culture, and religions If we value our own uniqueness, it is only logical that we would also value the uniqueness of others Many believe that pluralism is the best perspective on diversity, as it is the only perspective that values differences as an asset to society However, as Eck (2001) point out, "diversity alone is not pluralism" - pluralism must be created and practiced

Diversity in the United States

The United States is arguably the most diverse society in the world, and becoming increasingly more so - in 2005, Texas became the fourth state to have more people of color among the population than white people --In six other states, people of color represent more than 40% of the population --People of color represent the majority of the population in all 100 of the countries largest cities Whites have been the majority group since the founding of the nation, but by 2043 they will become the minority One in 10 Americans were born in another country, and 1 in 4 children in the United States are children of immigrants In 2010, 15% of new marriages were interracial, with 86% of Americans saying they support interracial marriage - 12% of youth today identify themselves as interracial Due to these changing demographics, it is crucial for Americans to understand the needs and aspirations of diverse groups in order to ensure the future success of the United States

America as a "Melting Pot"

The idea of America as a "melting pot" is that immigrants would not need to give up their ethnic heritage, but that ethnic differences would blend into the dominant culture The "melting pot" would create a new American identity made up of the cultures and customs carried to America by all immigrants The idea of America of a "melting pot" was very attractive in intellectual, artistic, and political circles, but many still neglected to include people of color, such as blacks, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans The highly selective "melting pot" concept still other welcomed mostly northern European ethnic groups - even darker-skinned white ethnic groups continued to be excluded --E.g. Greeks and Italians Americans embraced the "melting pot" metaphor, but Anglo conformity continued to be reflected in government policy and educational programs

A final argument for Pluralism

To maintain Anglo conformity reinforces the current fear and hostility that certain groups have for each other and perpetuates conflicts between them However, changing societal attitudes to a pluralistic perspective offers hope - human being have always encountered problems and conflicts, but in a diverse society, conflicts and problems are more likely to be resolved if people have pluralistic attitudes Studies show that pluralistic attitudes are increasing among younger Americans from all racial and ethnic groups In a recent survey, three statements about outcomes from America's growing diversity attract the strongest support: 1. Americans will learn more from one another and be enriched by exposure to many different cultures 2. A bigger, more diverse workforce will lead to more economic growth 3. Diverse workplaces and school will help make American businesses more innovative and competitive

How has the majority responded to diverse groups?

Today, despite the media coverage we are often exposed to, the majority of Americans appear to accept diversity --This is quite different than historical American society, as we have seen in previous Chapters Terry (1993) describes the relationship of dominant and subordinate groups using an "up/down" metaphor - to determine who is up or down in a society, observe which groups have the most wealth, status and power --In the United States, historically the "up" group has been defined as white, male, middle or upper class, Christian, nondisabled and heterosexual --Conversely, a "down" belonged to one or more of these groups: people of color, female, lower class, non-Christian, disabled, and homosexual, bisexual or transgender