POP mod 2

Brooks, D. (2020). The Culture of Policing is Broken. Themis Group. The Culture of Policing is broken (themisgroup.org) (Links to an external site.) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/how-police-brutality-gets-made/613030/ - this one!

As David points out, removing or reducing police resources will in fact have the opposite effect and likely lead to greater incidence of unnecessary use of force. The answer lies in the refocusing of police culture as well as management and operational strategies and tactics. A new approach based on Community Consent rather than police enforcement is more likely to produce the kind of police guardianship that most communities desire. 80 percent of respondents said they think the country is spiraling "out of control," and people are more worried by police than by protesters. Now, after George Floyd was killed in 2020, 57 percent of Americans believe that. According to a June Monmouth University poll, 76 percent of Americans now think racism and discrimination are "a big problem," up 25 points since 2015. In January 2018, more registered voters said they opposed Black Lives Matter than said they supported it. Now supporters outnumber opponents by a 26-point margin. The killings of the past few years and the Black Lives Matter movement, which has arisen in response to them, have given all Americans an education in the systematic mistreatment of black people by police forces across the country. Videos of police brutality are washing across everyone's phones: videos of cops running over young women with police horses, pushing down old white men for no reason, rushing into crowds of peaceful demonstrators, and raining blows on young people and reporters. Videos that show the deadness in the eyes of an officer as he kicks a young woman in the face, a woman who is just sitting there peacefully on the street. But the evidence suggests that the bulk of the problem is on a different level, neither individual or systemic. The problem lies in the organizational cultures of some police forces. In the forces with an us-versus-the-world siege mentality. In the ones with the we-strap-on-the-armor-and-fight culture, the ones who depersonalize the human beings out on the street. All cruelty begins with dehumanization—not seeing the face of the other, not seeing the whole humanity of the other. A cultural regime of dehumanization has been constructed in many police departments. In that fertile ground, racial biases can spread and become entrenched. But the regime can be deconstructed. Casey Delehanty, Ryan Welch, Jack Mewhirter, and Jason Wilks have studied the relationship between militarization and public safety. In The Washington Post, Mewhirter and Welch wrote about their findings: "When a county goes from receiving no military equipment to $2,539,767 worth (the largest figure that went to one agency in our data), more than twice as many civilians are likely to die in that county the following year." Problems are more likely to be seen as acts of war. The person on the other side of the equipment is rendered less visible. Then there is the constant presence of unacknowledged fear. As Seth Stoughton, a University of South Carolina law professor, wrote in The Atlantic in 2014, police officers "shoot because they are afraid. And they are afraid because they are constantly barraged with the message that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it." They're in somebody else's space. They don't know what onlookers are going to do. They often feel like they are desperately trying to impose order on chaos. And so, in moments like the ones we've been witnessing in the past weeks, it all becomes us-versus-them. Some officers no longer see a human being. They see a perp. We all construct reality according to the way we see the world. If the culture around you induces you to see others not as fully human, but as objects, that's how you're going to see them. Cops are human, and live on the jagged edges of a society that has deep racial disparities. The social construction of the reality too many officers inhabit is a core problem here—when the woman sitting cross-legged on the street is not a daughter or a sister, when the man on the ground is not a Christian or a neighbor—some officers start to see them as just objects they can kick or crush. Fewer cops does not mean less brutality. Officers often use force more when they are tired. Culture is invisible but all-determining. The police forces that have done well in reducing crime do not train their officers to see themselves as superheroes attacking bad guys. They have a stronger community-service ethos. Camden, New Jersey, became something of a model for reformers a few years ago when the entire police department was disbanded. It was replaced with a county-level agency less encumbered by union rules, which then hired more cops—411 officers, up from 250—and moved them out of their cars and back to walking the beats. Newark has handled the past few weeks reasonably well in part because it has not militarized its force, but also because in 2014, the city created the Newark Community Street Team, consisting of community leaders who take a public-health approach to violence and, in moments of tension, work to prevent looting and violence.

Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 11(1), 1-7.

Constructivism proposes that each individual mentally constructs the world of experience through cognitive processes while social constructionism has a social ratherthan an individual focus (Young & Colin, 2004). It is less interested if at all in the cognitive processes thataccompany knowledge my understanding is that while they may share common philosophical roots, social constructionism isdistinct from interpretivism. In common with constructionists, interpretivists in general focus on the process by which meanings are created,negotiated, sustained and modified (Schwandt, 2003). Proponents share the goal of understanding the world oflived experience from the perspective of those who live in it. Both arose as a challenge to scientism and havebeen influenced by the post-modernist movement. Interpretivism differentiates between the social and naturalsciences and has as its goal the understanding of the meaning of social phenomena. While interpretivists valuethe human subjective experience, they seek to develop an objective science to study and describe it. There isthen a tension evident between objective interpretation of subjective experiences. In other words, they attempt toapply a logical empiricist methodology to human inquiry. Schwandt (2003) views symbolic interactionism as aninterpretative science. Constructionists view knowledge and truth as created not discovered by the mind (Schwandt 2003) and supportsthe view that being a realist is not inconsistent with being a constructionist. One can believe that concepts areconstructed rather than discovered yet maintain that they correspond to something real in the world. This isconsistent with the idea of Berger and Luckmann (1991) and the subtle realism of Hammersley (1992) in thatreality is socially defined but this reality refers to the subjective experience of every day life, how the world isunderstood rather than to the objective reality of the natural world As Steedman (2000) notes, most of what isknown and most of the knowing that is done is concerned with trying to make sense of what it is to be human, asopposed to scientific knowledge. Individuals or groups of individuals define this reality. Berger and Luckmann (1991) view society as existing both as objective and subjective reality. The former isbrought about through the interaction of people with the social world, with this social world in turn influencingpeople resulting in routinisation and habitualization Additionally this objectivity is continuously reaffirmed in the individual'sinteraction with others. The experience of society as subjective reality is achieved through primary, and to a lesser extent, secondarysocialisation. The former involves being given an identity and a place in society. Indeed, Burr (1995) suggeststhat our identity originates not from inside the person but from the social realm. Socialisation takes placethrough significant others who mediate the objective reality of society, render it meaningful and in this way it isinternalised by individuals (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). This is done through the medium of languag Berger and Luckmann (1991) maintain that conversation is the most important means of maintaining, modifyingand reconstructing subjective reality. Subjective reality is comprised of concepts that can be sharedunproblematically with others. In other words, there is shared meaning and understanding, so much so thatconcepts do not need to be redefined each time they are used in everyday conversation and come to assume areality which is by and large taken for granted. If it is accepted that researchers themselves construct a social world rather than merely representing someindependent reality, then this is the source of tension between realism and relativism (Hammersley & Atkinson,2007). Realism and relativism represent two polarised perspectives on a continuum between objective reality at one endand multiple realities on the other. Both positions are problematic for qualitative research. Adopting a realistposition ignores the way the researcher constructs interpretations of the findings and assumes that what isreported is a true and faithful interpretation of a knowable and independent reality. Relativism leads to the conclusion that nothing can ever be known for definite, that there are multiple realities, none having precedenceover the other in terms of claims to represent the truth about social phenomena. For Hammersley (1992) the solution is to adopt neither position but one midway between the two, one that heterms subtle realism. This acknowledges the existence of an independent reality, a world that has an existenceindependent of our perception of it, but denies that there can be direct access to that reality, emphasising insteadrepresentation not reproduction of social phenomena. Representation implies that it will be from the perspectiveof the researcher, thereby implicitly acknowledging reflexivity, which is acknowledgement that researchersinfluence the research process. In terms of social constructionism, the arguments in relation to relativism are similar to those outlined earlier.Relativism maintains that because there are multiple realities, there are multiple interpretations of those realities.This leads in the opinion of Bury (1986) to a circular argument, in that there is no way of judging one account ofreality as better than another. Craib (1997) in particular ridicules social constructionism for its alleged positionon the realist-relativist argument and views it as a comforting collective belief rather than a theoretical position.He engages in what Hammersley (1992) terms a nihilist argument, namely the contention that because socialconstructionism is itself a social construct, then it has no more claim to be advanced as an explanation than anyother theory. r (1995) this is linked to power, in that it tends to be the morepowerful who are the most successful at having their version of events predominate. This suggests that socialconstructionism supports the idea that people can indeed be agents of change but nonetheless, Burr (1995)argues that this is one of the least developed areas of constructionism. Additionally, his arguments assume that all social constructionists hold arelativist position. As outlined earlier, this is not so. Social constructionism accepts that there is an objective reality. It is concerned with how knowledge isconstructed and understood. It has therefore an epistemological not an ontological perspective. Criticisms andmisunderstanding arise when this central fact is misinterpreted. . Social constructionism that views society as existingboth as objective and subjective reality is fully compatible with classical grounded theory, unlike constructionist grounded theory which takes a relativist position. Relativism is not compatible with classical grounded theory.Social constructionism as influence by Berger and Luckman makes no ontological claims. Therefore choosingconstructionist grounded theory based on the ontological assumptions of the researcher seems incompatible withthe idea of social constructionism. How this stance has influenced and remodelled grounded theory into socalledconstructionist grounded theory will be the subject of another article.

feminism in waves lecture

First Wave The first wave of feminism occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries in the US and the UK. The first wave started in 1848 in New York, with the Seneca Falls Declaration (Links to an external site.). The focus was on woman's suffrage, equal contract and property rights for women, and opposition to chattel marriage (Links to an external site.). Needless to say there was not a real focus on the lives of non-white women, although there were Black women who participated Second Wave The second wave of feminism started in the 1960s and continued into the early 1990s. The focus was on the connection between women's cultural and political inequalities. "The personal is political," was a well-known slogan. It was largely essentialist. Sexuality, reproductive rights, and equal rights were also an important focus of the second wave. As in the first wave, there was not a huge emphasis placed on the lives and experiences of women of color or on lesbian women. However, both group were active and started groups of their own. Third Wave The third wave of feminism started in the mid-1990s and addressed the failures and the essentialism of the second wave. It also critiqued the whiteness of the second wave. It was informed by post-colonial and post-modern theory and thought. The third wave deconstructed many feminist ideas including "universal womanhood," body, gender, sexuality, and heteronormativity. The use of new terms like "grrls" arose as women constructed themselves as subjects rather than objects of sexist patriarchy or hegemonic masculinity. (More on hegemony in a future week!) Fourth Wave The fourth wave of feminism began in 2012 and is still evolving. There is a shift back to the realm of public discourse due largely to social media. Problems around how society genders, and is gendered, are the focus. This is a constructionist model. The fourth wave of feminism speaks in terms of intersectionality. The marginalization of women is therefore related to the marginalization of other groups and genders. The fourth wave is part of a larger consciousness of oppression along with sexual orientation, racism, classism, ableism, and ageism. New forms of social media support gender-bending and the leveling of hierarchies. It is a work in progress. Socialist feminists knew that class and capitalism played a role in their oppression as women. Reformist feminists tried to change gender roles and the circumstances of women by working on the inside, trying to get legislation like the Equal Rights Amendment passed. Radical feminists came at gender oppression from a variety of angels that ranged from separatism from men to solidarity among women. African American women knew race was also integral to their experience as women. Lesbians knew their experiences were also shaped by their sexual identity. Women, Womyn, or Womxn? To discuss the intersectionality of womanhood itself, some fourth wave feminists have begun to spell "woman" in new ways in order to be more inclusive. "Womyn" and "womxn" are two popular substitutes. Wimmin, wimyn, and womin have also been used. "Womyn" was first used in 1976 at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. The festival celebrated cisgender women's accomplishments in music and art. It removed "man" from "woman," and thereby challenged the biblical idea that women were a subset of men. However, womyn was considered too white and too much a liberal-feminist word for some women and feminists. It was also seen as transphobic. Womxn is a more recent alternative. Alternative spellings of "woman" or "women" offer a form of resistance, a way to avoid patriarchal linguistic norms and include more people. You can learn a little more about this from an interesting article in the New York Times (March 14, 2019) titled What Do Womxn Want? (Links to an external site.) Food for Thought: How is the language and spelling of "woman" an example of social constructionism? What do you think it accomplishes? Who do you think should decide how "woman" is spelled? Could this also be seen (in it's historical origins) as a kind of essentialism? What difference does it make if we understand this in constructionist or essentialist terms?

Foster, J. (2018). Key feminist theoretical orientations in contemporary feminist practice. In S. Butler-Mokoro & L. Grant (Eds.) Feminist perspectives on social work practice: The intersecting lives of women in the twenty first century (pp. 33-58). Oxford University Press. Foster_Key Feminist Theoritical Orientations in Contemporary Feminist Practice.pdf

Liberal feminism "problem of sexism is rooted in unequal access" 34 The basic tenets of political liberalism have become embedded in mainstream American political consciousness, including the belief in the largdy unfettered rights of the individual, and the rights to liberty, privacy, and equal opportunity, as well as the right to pursue happiness. At the core of this philosophy is the belief that, unlike in monarchies or feudal societies, in the United States, "all men are created equal," and thus legal, economic, and social privileges should not be distributed in a society based on the accident of one's birth, but rather according to one's merit 37 words, liberal feminism in its singular focus on sexism at the expense of all other forms of inequalities, and in its reformist, equal rights approach, has been taken to cask, as have other feminist orientations that we will summarize later, for positing a homogenous notion of "woman," one whose meaning is seemingly unchanged by historical period or culrural context, despite the emphasis on social constructcdncss of gender inequaliry. For example, says Mann, Radical, lesbian, and cultural feminist theoretical perspectives h, "at chc root," the very fabric of social life is organized by a large-scale system of power called "patriarchy" chat includes, but is not limited co, the denial of women's equal rights. In ocher words, for accivisc-cheoriscs in this current of feminist thought, the problem of women's ineq,ualicy is not simply in the face chat men dominate all major social institutions, but chat these institutions, our interpersonal rdationships, as well as our very consciousness, arc-at their core-organized by a set of beliefs, values, and practices chat put men and masculinity at the center of what is good, right, and even acknowledged about human life, while marginalizing women and femininit Gilman theorized that the original and primary bonds between humans arc between mothers and children, and early human males used violence veiled as protection and affection to intervene in and usurp these primary bonds that excluded them Most famously theorized by Adrienne Rich (1980), "compulsory heterosexuality" refers to the legal, social, and cultural mandates that require women be straight in order afford men in patriarchy access to women's sexual, reproductive, and economic labor. Rich famously postulated that all women exist along a lesbian contimmm, sharing intimate bonds with other women in some form, sexual or otherwise, only to be forced, whether through coercion or outright violence, to turn their attention and affection away from other women and toward men in the service of patriarchal demands. Indeed, for Rich, and others in this theoretical tradition, compulsory het Radical and lesbian feminist theory, while attending at times to the intersections of sexism and heteroscxism, have noncthdcss also faced incense: criticism-like liberal feminist theory-for minimizing the incc:rsc:ccions of inequalities, and thus cssentializing "woman" and casting "women's issues" as those of privileged white women only. Marxist and socialist feminist theories Like radical feminist theoretical perspectives, Marxist and socialist feminist theoretical perspectives understand women's second-class status as a function of largescale social organizations of power and privilege, in this case the organization of the economy, and most specifically, the gender division of labor in the system of capitalism in its various forms. Rather than positing women's inequality as a matter of lack of access to equal rights in an otherwise liberal democracy, Marxist and socialist feminists argue that men's systematic exploitation of women's cheap and free: labor both in the form of housework and childcare: in the family, and low-wage and otherwise: unequally rewarded work in the paid labor force, is the dc:cc:rminant factor of women's oppression, just as they would argue it is for people of color, and th� ----white-working.classcs.{Hartmann Nonetheless, for sure, both Marxist and socialist feminist theories, like radical and lesbian feminist theories, move beyond the lcvc:l of the: individual rights framework that undc:rgirds liberal feminist theories to deal head on with, in this case, the massive structural inequalities c:ndc:mic to capitalism. multiracial feminist theories particularly as illuminated in black feminist theory (e.g., hooks, 1981) and Chicana feminist theory (e.g., Moraga & Anzaldua, I9i9) which called ouc the racist, ethnocentric, and classist bias in white, middle-class U.S. feminist theorizing, femi• nist theory today-though still a widely diverse body of knowledge-understands gender as one of "multiple and overlapping forms of oppression" (Andersen, 2015, p. 397). This new paradigm has come to be known as "multiracial feminist theory"(Baca Zinn & Dill, 1996). 1. result of the fact that gender is socially constructed within a matrix of domination( Collins, 1990) at the macro level of social institutions and structural arrangement 2. as a result of these macro intersections of �equalities, some women, as well as some men, experience what Deborah King called multiple jeopardy (1988), meaning the overlapping effects of being members of more than one subordinate group in the matrix of domination. 3. the recognition of the overlapping and simultaneous operations of macro structures, and the subsequent implications for supposedly unified notions of gender and universal experiences of gender oppression for women and gender advantage for men, lead multiracial feminist theorists to suggest that the very posi· -----tions of oppressor.and-oppressed ar�.also-socially.constructcd and change over time, -and also in the course of one individual's daily life; at any given time, an individual may experience oppression based on one axis of inequality, hue simultaneously act as a perpetrator on another. 4. multiracial feminist theory ex-plicicly foregrounds the connections between social structure and women's agency and rejects the conceptualization of women as passive victims of sexism, unable to make choices on their own behalf to consciously and effectively resist conditions of inequality 5. , in bringing to the fore the experiences and analyses of women of color who are oppressed, but also those who exercise privilege, multiracial feminist theory directly challenges social theorists, including feminise che�rists, co redefine "who is an intellectual," and pushes feminism co further reject "singular and exclusionary modes of thinking" The incellecrual roots of multiracial feminist theory are deep and can be traced co the: nineteenth century critical race theorists such as Du Bois, who was among the: first: co theorize the links between the social construction of racial identity cacegoric:s, including an explicit theory of white identity and privilege, co a social system of global white supremacy rooted in an emergent global capitalism postmodernist feminist and queer theory Here, postmodernists theorize the primacy of discourse, or the collection of a cultures symbolic communication, whether encoded in written text, be it religious text, popular culture, academic texts, or other systems of signs, such as film or YouTube, and discursive rdations, meaning human beings' active engagement with -and resistance to discourse, as the engine of power, surveillance, and control -----in-postmodern-society-(Foucault; 1975).-To,understandand-rcsist�thc:sc-rclations-0f.power, postmodernists engage in "deconstruction of knowledge," or the analytical work of uncovering the political history of a set of ruling ideas as they are situated in institutional and discursive contexts; in other words, as French philosopher Michel Foucault conceptualized it, a kind of "genealogy" and "archaeology," or a tracing of the origins and a digging up of the hidden roots of various forms of knowledge For feminist and queer postmodernist theorists, if inequality is a matter of the discursive construction of controlling "truths" about gender and sexuality by dominant groups, then a central job of theory is to "deconstruct" what we think we know about social reality and show the multiple and historically specific ways in which knowledge has been produced to _legitimate gendered and sexualized power, whether in scientific discourses that pathologizc: women and LGBTQpcople, or in religious discourses that legitimate patriarchy, or in legal discourse, say, that criminalizes black people, or in the discourses of popular culture that normalize brutality and sexual violence against women and girls Herc, more than any other theoretical orientation so far, feminist and queer postmodcrnism problematizes commonly accepted notions of sex, gender, and sexual identity categories, both the cultural meanings and the very boundaries between identity categories, as well as their inter• sections ,vith a range of other identities of privilege and oppression criticisms - too micro transitional and postcolonial feminist theory transnational/postcolonial feminist theory is informed by neo-Marxist critiques of the rise of global capitalism, the wealth of analysis of critical race theorists on the rise of global white supremacy, the enormous contributions of women of color and Third World feministi and their analysis of intersectionality, and heavily influenced the contributions of feminist postmodernism reviewed here, including assumptions about the multiplicity of power and the centrality takes a critical look at both the positive and negative impacts of globalization on both dominant and subordinate groups around the world from the perspective that current global power rdations arc the result of historical trajectories that emerged from earlier periods of imperialism, colonialism, slavery, and industrial capitalism that have and continue to produce multiple oppressions and multiple sites of resistance for people living in the global South, as well as for those global South diasporic communities currently situated in the global North. Among other things, what makes postcolonial perspectives �erent from earlier global per• spcctivcs on inequality is not just the analyses of more contemporary forms of global capitalism, but the particular commitment co deconstruct the identity categories of global geography as part of understanding how global inequality works Equally important, these same kinds of social constructions of non-Western women as "others" in need of rescue from overly oppressive cultural traditions, religions, and nationalisms have been routinely used byWestern feminists themselves, in paternalistic ways that ignore the agency andself-determination of non-Western women. In doing so, this ideological construe•tion lends a kind of moral authority to Western feminists that serves as a form ofunearned emidemem at the expense of non-Western women, and reinscribes thedominancc..of.U.S. and European hegemonic relations under the cover of globalfeminism (e.g., Mohanty, 1984; Spivak, 1987).

Kendi 24-55

assimilationist - one who is expressing the racist idea that a racial group is culturally or behaviorally inferior and is supporting cultural or behavioral enrichment programs to develop that racial group segregationist - one who is expressing the racist idea that a permanently inferior racial group can never be developed and is supporting policy that segregates away that racial group antiracist - one who is expressing the idea that racial groups are equals and none needs developing, and is supporting policy that reduces racial inequity DuBois on double consciousness 29 "what Du Bois termed double consciousness may be more precisely termed dueling (italics) consciousness" "between antiracist and assimilationist ideas" 29: "assimilitionist ideas are racist ideas. Assimilationists can position any racial group as the superior standard that another racial group should be measuring themselves against, the benchmark they should be trying to reach. Assimilationists typically position White people as the superior standard" 31"if the problem was in our behavior, then Reagan revolutionaries were not keeping Black people down - we were keeping ourselves down" 31 "assimilationists believe that people of color can, in fact, be developed, become fully human, just like White people" oof 31 "segregationist ideas cast people of color as 'animals,' to use Trump's descriptor for Latinx immigrants - unteachable after a point" 31 "antiracist ideas are based in the truth that racial groups are equals in all the ways they are different, assimilationist ideas are rooted in the notion that certain racial groups are culturally or behaviorally inferior, and segregationist ideas spring from a belief in genetic racial distinction and fixed hierarchy" !!!! 32 "antiracist policies are geared toward reducing racial inequities and creating equal opportunity" 33 "the White body rejects the Black body assimilating into the American body - and history and consciousness duel anew" 34 "the White body no longer presents itself as the American body; the Black body no longer strives to be the American body, knowing there is no such thing as the American body, only American bodies, racialized by power" 35 "race - a power construct of collected or merged difference that lives socially" 37 "but for all of that life-shaping power, race is a mirage, which doesn't lessen its force. We are what we see ourselves as, wheter what we see exists or not. We are what people see us as, whether what they see exists or not. What people see in themselves and others has meaning and manifests itself in ideas and actions and policies, even if what they are seeing is an illusion. Race is a mirage but one that we do well to see, while never forgetting it is a mirage, never forgetting that it's the powerful light of racist power that makes the mirage" - CONSTRUCTIONISM p 40 on the creation of race hierarchies 41 "races were never meant to be neutral categories. Racist power created them for a purpose" 42 "the root problem - from Prince Henry to President Trump - has always been the self-interest of racist power" 43 "to redirect the blame for their era's racist inequities away from those policies and onto people" biological racist - essentialism 44 "one who is expressing the idea that the races are meaningfully different in their biology and that these differences create a hierarchy of value" biological antiracist - "one who is expressing the idea that the races are meaningfully the same in their biology and there are no genetic racial differences" sexism and epigenetics? microaggression v macroaggression p 47 "a persistent daily low hum of racist abuse is not minor" !!!! "abuse accurately describes the action and its effects on people: distress, anger, worry, depression, anxiety, pain fatigue, and suicide" microaggressions - > racist abuse Darwinism and racism "genocidal eugenics-driven policies" survey of the human genome - quote of quote - all human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9 percent the same - Clinton - "common humanity" "RACE IS A GENETIC MIRAGE" 53 quote of quote - "people are born with ancestry that comes from their parents but are assigned a race 54 "imagining away the existence of races in a racist world is as conserving and harmful as imaginging away classes in a capitalistic world - it allows the ruling races and classes to keep on ruling" 54-55 antiracism quote!

Eversman, M.H. & Bird, J.D.P. (2017). Moral panic and social justice. Social Work, 62(1), 29 - 36. DOI: 10.1093/sw/sww068 Eversman & Bird_Moral Panic & Social Justice.pdf THIS ONE SEEMS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO DISC

at times, potentialthreats to social cohesion become exaggerated in the service of supporting suppressive poli-cies. British sociologist Stanley Cohen referred to such periods as moral panics, which assignunwarranted blame and stigma to sociopolitically weaker, unpopular groups. Understanding how moral panics influence perceptions of social pro-blems and resultant policies will enable social workers to identify whether particular societalgroups are unjustly targeted. By synthesizing theoretical and empirical literature on moralpanics in U.S. policy arenas relevant to social workers (such as illicit drugs, sexuality, andimmigration), this article offers guidance for practitioners, policy advocates, and researcherson assessing their presence. Typically facilitated by highly salient and sensation-alized media accounts, the social problem becomesdefined in a manner that is exaggerated and dispro-portionate to its "true"extent, ultimately revealingunderlying societal tensions and concerns such asracism, prejudice, sexism, and homophobia Moral panics require four components: an enemy,a victim, a perceived or actual threat or consequencestemming from the actions of that enemy, and asocietal consensus to act. Enemies typically consist ofsocial groups that are "easily denounced, with littlepower and preferably without access to the battle-fields of cultural politics"(that is, racial minorities,socially marginalized or otherwise stigmatized orfeared groups) Herdt (2009b) argued that sensational languageand images are used in discourse to elicit an intenseemotional reaction that increases public concern andhostility. A goal of this discourse is to stoke anger andconstruct a common enemy as immoral, dangerous,and warranting control. As such, proponents of themoral panic can unify otherwise disparate groups andbuild consensus toward action (Herdt, 2009b). Link-ing the problem with the immoral behavior of anunpopular or feared social group provides an addi-tional dimension to its threat, fueling hostility and jus-tifying calls for harsh, punitive "solutions"includingnew legislation and judicial rulings (Cohen, 1972),which in turn legitimate the generated concern and hostility. To illustrate the components of moral panicwe explore its occurrence in three U.S. policy arenas—illicit drugs, sexuality, and immigration—affectingpopulations relevant to social work. With the declaration of the federal War on Drugsin the early 1970s, drug moral panics in the UnitedStates have served to support interests vested in theprison industrial complex and politically conserva-tive values while simultaneously misrepresentingthe drug problem These crack era policies, which necessitated tre-mendous growth of the criminal justice system (theprison industrial complex), were a function of media-generated moral panic surrounding what was essen-tially cocaine smoking. Although the overall rate ofincarceration in the United States is the highestamong the most populous countries in the world(Statista, 2015), the numbers also reflect dispropor-tionate incarceration rates of populations of color;for example, African Americans comprise 13 percentof the U.S. population and use drugs at rates similarto other races but account for roughly 30 percent ofdrug-related arrests and nearly 40 percent of those instate or federal prisons for drug offenses The crack moral panic also served to obscure thedecline occurring in many U.S. cities and urbanneighborhoods during this era by depicting struc-tural problems such as unemployment and grow-ing poverty as caused instead by crack use andlifestyle choices of "surplus"individuals—largelymale African Americans (Chiricos, 2006). Mediacoverage enabled policymakers to define the crackepidemic as caused by widespread immorality andpathology rightly addressed by heightened crimi-nalization and expanding the criminal justice sys-tem, approaches that were politically easier thantackling structural problems such as urban povertyand unemployment (Cobbina, 2008). Sexual moral panic emerges as a means ofsanctioning individuals whose sexuality deviatesfrom socially constructed norms Constructions of gay men as inher-ently feminine and lesbians as inherently masculinehave further cast homosexuals as threatening tradi-tional gender norms, which became increasinglyimportant for maintaining gender stratification inpost-World War II America Referredto as the "Lavender Menace,"its connection to theRed Menace exploited and leveraged overlappingcultural fears about threats to the United States(C. Davies, 2008; Dowsett, 2009; Herdt, 2009a).This growing focus on homosexuality became linkedto emerging concerns regarding "sexual perverts,""sexual psychopaths,"and sex crimes despite no sig-nificant or explicit sex crimes involving gay men orlesbians (Fejes, 2000). contributed to stereotypes of gay men and lesbiansas psychologically unstable and threats to childrenand families. Such views were also reinforced bythe American Psychiatric Association's (APA's) cat-egorization of homosexuality as a mental disorderin the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders (DSM) published in 1952 (APA, 2015;Herek, 2012). The rush to near total bans on gay marriage onstate and federal levels had all the hallmarks of amoral panic; the primary argument was that grantinggay and lesbian people the right to marry was a slip-pery slope that would erode traditional Americanfamily values, and arose amid increased concernabout the growth of single and teenage parents,dependence on social welfare programs, divorce,and changing gender norms as more women enteredthe workplace Over the last half of the 20th century, fears of the"homosexual menace"influenced numerous cam-paigns and policies aimed at decreasing the politicalpower and civil rights of LGB individuals. Despiteprogress toward increased rights for LGB popu-lations, such as the 2015 Supreme Court rulinglegalizing gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015),antigay beliefs and the construction of LGB popula-tions as deviant persist. Legislating such moral devaluation of LGB popula-tions has serious implications regarding protectionsagainst discrimination and warrants ongoing scru-tiny by social workers and those interested in socialjustice issues. MORAL PANIC AND LATINO/A IMMIGRATIONDespite Americans'celebration of the United Statesas "a nation of immigrants"and a "melting pot"ofdiverse cultures, there is a long history of demoniz-ing specific immigrant groups in the form ofracial hostility and discrimination Moral panic has long infusedU.S. immigration policies with racialized fear,from the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and the Sedi-tion Act of 1798, to the Chinese Exclusion Act of1882, to internment of Japanese Americans duringWorld War II (Hammond, 2011; Zatz & Smith,2012). Furthermore, these policies typically affectlegal immigrants by denying children basic services,breaking up families, and weakening communities—all of which contributes to undermining the ideals ofAmerican democracy By attending to the components of moral panic,social workers can more effectively analyze socialproblems and explore the antecedents of contro-versial or discriminatory policies, informing effortsto change them.

Morton, K. (2019, February 11). What is a dominant narrative? Reclaim Philadelphia, https://www.reclaimphiladelphia.org/blog/2019/2/11/what-is-a-dominant-narrative

"Dominant narrative can be used to describe the lens in which history is told by the perspective of the dominant culture. This term has been described as an "invisible hand" that guides reality and perceived reality. (source)" The idea of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' is an example of a dominant narrative. Most likely it's something that we've heard and accepted on some level, whether we're aware of it or not. It's a key element to the 'American Dream' - if you work hard enough, you can succeed. Meritocracy - the assumption that people rise and fall in society based on their merit. So from there, we would strive to do our best on our own which is essentially Individualism - the idea that the individual works best on their own, and should focus on individual achievement. I want to point out that bit about dominant narratives being created from the perspective of the dominant culture - essentially the most privileged (and therefore powerful) in a situation. From the perspective of the powerful and privileged, America is a place where if you work hard, you can succeed. (for the privileged that working part can be replaced by 'inheriting wealth'). But for those of us who don't inherit wealth and do need to work hard, our chances of succeeding get smaller and smaller the less privilege we have due to inequality in America regarding race, gender, economic status, ability, etc. The incredible power of a dominant narrative is that it is widely accepted, which means it's constantly being repeated and amplified - by other people, our parents, our friends, the media. Narratives around gender roles, body types, power, family, immigration, age, ability are all around us. They repeat to us who is dangerous, who is a hard worker, who is lazy, who is attractive, who deserves power. Even if we become aware of them and resist them, the world around us is still playing them on loop and holding us to those narratives. And ultimately all of these narratives define who has worth - who is valuable. Personally, I've struggled to let go of the dominant narrative that says women should support others and focus on others' needs, at the expense of their own. There's also an expectation that women should take on large amounts of emotional labor in relationships and collectives.

TEDxEuston. (2012, April 12). Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie- We should all be Feminists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc

"we have evolved, but it seems to me that our ideas of gender have not evolved" (8:48) "start raising children differently!!" (12:29) "why should a woman's success be a threat to the man?" "the problem with gender is that it describes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are" (19:19) "culture does not make people, people make culture" (28:02)

dom narr

A dominant narrative can be used to describe the lens in which history is told by the perspective of the dominant culture. This term has been described as an "invisible hand" that guides reality and perceived reality

Kendall, M. (2020). Solidarity is still for white women. In Hood Feminism. Viking. http://aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=2156583&ebv=EK&ppid=Page-__-12

Solidarity is still for white women white feminism - our problems are more important than the greater injustices being experienced by women of color "a one-size-fits-all approach to feminism is damaging" 3 "no woman has to be respectable to be valuable" 4 (sex workers etc) reproductive health for women centers on cisgender able-bodied women (white women) "the sad reality is that while white women are an oppressed group, they still wield more power than any other group of women - including the power to oppress both men and women of color" 4 not exact - tears of white women have cause the death of many Black men "THERE'S NOTHING FEMINIST ABOUT having so many resources at your fingertips and choosing to be ignorant!!!!!" other women have their own forms of feminism, formed by their experiences, I can't think my form is the same as other womens' because it just isn't and it ignores intersectionality and stories the feminism internal problem is not addressing this! "a willingness to accept that some places are not for you" "white privilege knows no gender" white feminism - "about benefiting white women at the expense of others" "sometimes solidarity is just that simple. Step up, reach back, and keep pushing forward." 15

Singer, J. (2020, July 19). Both/And or Either/Or: Social Work & Policing. [Podcast]. The Social Work Podcast. The Social Work Podcast: Both/And or Either/Or: Social Work and Policing Singer, J. B. (Producer). (July 19, 2020). #127 - Both/And or Either/Or: Social Work and Policing [Audio Podcast]. Social Work Podcast. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkpodcast.com/2020/07/socialworkpolicing.html

The either/or perspective, articulated by UCLA social work chair Laura Abrams and University of Houston social work Dean Alan Dettlaff in a June 18, 2020 open letter to NASW and Allied Organizations, argued that "social work can either continue to invest in and collaborate with police OR affirm that #BlackLivesMatter." This letter was signed by over 1,400 social workers (full transparency, I was one of the signatories) and delivered to NASW. The Both/And perspective was articulated in a Medium.com post on June 30, 2020 by Darlyne Bailey, Charles E. Lewis, Steve Burghardt, and Terry Mizrahi. They argued that "we need to break from binary slogans of 'defunding' and replace them with a transformative platform tied to reinvesting in social services, training guardians not warriors, and ending all forms of racial injustice in law enforcement, sentencing, incarceration, parole and probation." Because in many communities, social workers are already viewed as a form of policing. So when we think about collaborating with police, Our view is that we can't build trust in communities. We can't be effective in responding to situations if we're walking into communities hand-in-hand with the very people who've been terrorizing those communities for decades. So we believe we need to discontinue any form of collaboration with law enforcement. And then as Laura articulated, the Black Lives Matter movement has organized around the platform to defund the police. And we believe that we as a profession, need to stand with them. So our Either or approach stated that social work can either continue to invest in and collaborate with police or we can affirm that Black Lives Matter. And the way to do that is supporting the Black Lives Matter platform to deepen the police. We do believe, as Charles and Terry's letter mentioned, that we need to take away from one to gain and another. But the reason that I really support the, the defunding the police movement is, first of all, that is the slogan and the cry and the position that the Black Lives Matter has taken the movement and people who are day to day affected by violent, lethal policing that has not affected my life as a white woman. So who am I to say that's not the right slogan or that's not the right pitch. But there's no institution that has been as lethally violent as policing in America toward the Black community and communities of color. And that's why I do think at this time, while we need to question a lot of where social work stands, focusing on the funding, the police is a policy agenda that I strongly believe social work should endorse. And it does matter what our leaders say. And to date, there have not been a public endorsement by ns w, or our other leaders on defending the police or beyond. We support Black lives. Yeah, I think that's an important conversation. And I think, you know, for the most part, the conversations that I've seen of people talking about social workers being more equipped as a responder are responding to nonviolent situations. I think in a lot of cases, that's the response that's being talked about going into nonviolent situations. But I think we also need to, as a field part of what Laura and I have talked about is that just because we're trained as social workers, I think we need to acknowledge that that doesn't mean we're not going to continue to see some of the same racist outcomes that we see in policing the differences that social workers don't have guns. YES: Putting people in cages shouldn't be the solution to society's problems. We need to start talking more about how harm, not just how harmful policing is, but how harmful incarceration is. And when I think about this bigger idea, abolition isn't about just closing police departments. It's about ultimately rendering them obsolete. And that's about what divestment and reinvestment in communities about is about. It's about gradually divesting from law enforcement and reallocating those funds to what really creates public safety. Police don't make communities safe. What really makes community say is well-funded public schools, access to mental health services, housing for all who need it, employment opportunities, expansion of the safety net. That's what we should be allocating funds for in our communities.

National Equity Project. (n.d.) The lens of systemic oppression. National Equity Project. https://www.nationalequityproject.org/frameworks/lens-of-systemic-oppression

The lens of systemic oppression is a lens we intentionally employ to sharpen our focus on the ways in which any given form of oppression (race, gender, class, language, sexual orientation, etc) may be negatively impacting people's ability to make progress on the things they care about and/or preventing individual or collective action toward the achievement of a particular goal. The Lens of Systemic Oppression assumes that: All negative forms of prejudice and/or bias are learned and therefore can be unlearned. Oppression and injustice are human creations and phenomena and therefore can be undone. Systemic oppression exists at the level of institutions (harmful policies and practices) and across structures (education, health, transportation, economy, etc) that are interconnected and reinforcing over time. Oppression and systematic mistreatment (such as racism, classism, sexism, or homophobia) is more than just the sum of individual prejudices. Systemic oppression is systematic and has historical antecedents; it is the intentional disadvantaging of groups of people based on their identity while advantaging members of the dominant group (gender, race, class, sexual orientation, language, etc.). Systemic oppression manifests in economic, social, political and cultural systems. Systemic oppression and its effects can be undone through recognition of inequitable patterns and intentional action to interrupt inequity and create more democratic processes and systems supported by multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual alliances and partnerships. Discussing and addressing oppression and bias will usually be accompanied by strong emotions. Questions You Can Ask: How are people talking about the problem they are trying to solve? Is the conversation being had in a way that could lead to productive action? Who are the people affected by the current inequity being discussed and are they at the table? What are the specific disparities/inequities we are seeking to eliminate? How do we understand the forces behind the inequity we see? What forces are perpetuating the disparities we seek to address? What barriers are in the way of achieving an equitable outcome? What are the population and geographic targets for our effort? Specifically, for whom and where are we trying to make a difference? What will equity or racial equity in our OUTCOME look like? How will we KNOW we have made progress? When do we expect to see results? What is our timeframe? What are the potential UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of our proposed solutions/actions? Do the proposed solutions ignore or worsen existing disparities for the group in which we are focused? Who has power here? What is power based on here? How are relationships and power differentials affecting the truth that is told and constructed at any given moment? Where and how does each person locate himself or herself in a conversation? How are oppression, internalized oppression and transferred oppression playing out right here, right now? (In this school, in this group, in this organization, in this district?) What will I do about it? How safe is it here for different people to share their truth? Does the truth telling connect to shared purposes and commitments for action? How can I build the alliances necessary here to move forward? How is leadership constructed here? What forms does it take? Who is missing? What can we do to make room for different cultural constructions of leadership? How can I build my practice as a leader for equity starting with who I am and what I bring because of who I am?

Feminism vs. Men/Masculinity lecture

The social construction of gender plays a role in men's lives as well. By "men" we refer to a socially constructed gender identity that has changed over time and place and continues to change today. Masculinity, on the other hand, is the culture and behavior associated with men at any particular time and in any particular place. Just like girls learn how to be "appropriate" women, so too boys learn how to be "appropriate" men. From birth boys are taught and shown what it means to be a boy/man by family, school, church, media, etc. Recall the Cycle of Socialization and how we learn to be "men" and "women" from our family, friends, culture, institutions, etc. We perform the gender we are taught in order to fit in. If a boy/man fails to live up to gender expectations he is subject to ridicule or even violence. Justin Baldoni is an actor. This is his take on masculinity in our current time (18:32). Watch his TED Talk and pay attention to his argument. Is he a social constructionist? video Inside the "Man Box" are socially valued roles and expectations for men. (Food for Thought: Create your own "Woman Box".) The expectations inside the box have been socially constructed over time. The words on the outside of the box are ones used to keep men inside the box, to keep them conforming to social expectations. Boys and men are punished in a gendered manner (feminizing and homophobic slurs) for transgressing expectations. Masculinity is also complicated by other intersectional identities - race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, age, etc. This is similar to what Jackson Katz argues in Tough Guise. Hegemonic Masculinity is the most dominate form of manhood in any given time and place. It is the kind of manhood that is most often portrayed in cultural products - movies, television, music videos, etc. It is set over and against femininity, emotionally restricted, is tough and aggressive, and highly (hetero)sexual. tough guise videos murder assault domestic violence - media portrayal male violence in the media

An Introduction to Constructionism (and Essentialism) lecture

The terms "constructivism" and "social constructionism" tend to be used interchangeably and subsumed under the generic term "constructivism" particularly by Charmaz (2000, 2006). Constructivism (or constructionism) proposes that each individual mentally constructs the world of experience through cognitive processes, while social constructionism has a social rather than an individual focus (Young & Colin, 2004). The inevitable contrast is to a naturally existing object, something that exists independently of us, and which we didn't have a hand in shaping. This is called essentialism. Berger and Luckmann - They view society as existing both as objective and subjective reality. The former is brought about through the interaction of people with the social world, the later with the social world in turn influencing people, resulting in routinization and "habitualization." Habitualization = any frequently repeated action that becomes cast into a pattern which can be reproduced without much effort. Habitualization frees people to engage in innovation rather than starting everything anew. In time, the meaning of the habitualization becomes embedded in society as norms or routines, forming a general store of knowledge from which we all draw. Gender norms and roles are an example. This institutionalization of routines by society is so great that future generations experience this type of knowledge as "objective." That is, they do not recognize that it was constructed. Additionally this objectivity is continuously reaffirmed in every individual's interaction with others. Berger and Luckmann maintain that conversation is the most important means of maintaining, modifying, and reconstructing subjective reality. Subjective reality is comprised of concepts that can be shared un-problematically with others. In other words, there is shared meaning and understanding, so much so that concepts do not need to be redefined each time they're used in everyday conversation. They come to express reality which is, by and large, taken for granted. Lets use the example "Have a good day at the office," as an example of this. The words imply a whole world within which these propositions make sense. From a social constructionism perspective, phenomena such as norms, institutions (e.g. gender, race, culture, etc.) and social problems (e.g. inequality, poverty, etc.) are the products of society, or decisions made by people, and are therefore not "natural." They are, in fact, constructed (created). "Essentialism," on the other hand, posits that social phenomena are natural, or essential. Society, norms, institutions, and social problems are rooted in our biology and/or the natural state of the world and are therefore the same across time (history) and place (geography). Sociologists and social workers take a constructionist perspective when addressing social systems, norms, institutions, social problems, etc. Why do we do this? Because we use data to see how social phenomena changes over time and across locations. We also use it to explain the social cause of, and solutions to, social problems. We do not reject biological (nature's) influence, but we argue that social organization and human behavior is not biologically determined. We'll look at gender roles as an example of this difference next week. Cumulative Inequality Cumulative Inequality is a constructionist theory that argues that all social systems created by people generate some kind of inequality. This inequality is expressed over the life course via demographic and developmental processes. The personal trajectories of our lives are therefore shaped by the accumulation of risk, available resources, perceived trajectories, and human agency. There are five axioms to this theory: 1) Social systems generate inequality, which is manifested over the life of an individual through demographic and developmental processes. Inequality isn't random, you're born into it based on who your parents are, where you live, etc. 2) Disadvantage increases exposure to risk while advantage increases exposure to opportunity. 3) Life course trajectories are shaped by the accumulation of risk, the available resources, and human agency (an individual's ability to think and act on their beliefs). 4) The perception of life trajectories influences subsequent trajectories. In other words, how you think and feel about your life is more important that your actual situation when it comes to what you do next. 5) Cumulative inequality may lead to premature mortality; therefore, nonrandom selection might give the appearance of decreasing inequality in later life. Put another way, if you accumulate a lot of inequality over your lifetime, you're more likely to die sooner than someone who doesn't accumulate as much inequality. The nonrandom aspect refers to the fact that how we age will depend on the advantages and disadvantages we collect over our lifetime, and those will be largely determined by forces outside our control. One way to fight cumulative inequality is through social justice work. Dehumanization It's not a huge leap from stereotypes and explicit bias to something like cumulative inequality, and in some times and places and institutions this can spiral into dehumanization. Dehumanization is simply the the process by which we depriving a person or a group of positive human qualities; we quite literally de-human them, make them non-human. Of course we cannot really do this, but in a world that is constructed, we can culturally define a person or a group of people as less-than-human (this often leads to genocide), or we can enact policy that dehumanizes.

Constructionism's Invisible Walls lecture

invisible walls [video] culture invisible walls after war follow norms without always realizing they are there! (walls and a maze that we follow) culture told women that they shouldn't work once their husbands are back from war - gender expectations! - "kind of forcing my path through life" bump into a wall - divorce! hard to get back to work force (need to be a nurse or whatnot as a women) society is creating these walls that we don't notice but are guiding us, and don't recognize anything until we bump into them! -norms -social roles -gender expectations -class assumptions as social workers - we want to "throw paint" on the walls to see why/what the structures are help people see the walls! constructionism helps reveal the walls, if we change our minds we can change the walls! "is this really the way we want to think about this?" essentialism and constructionism [video] women and men - "essentially/biologically different from one another" if women were educated, energy would be taken from their womb and they would be damaged can have natural processes and still not be an essentialist - build and extrapolate into culture spectrum of beliefs determinism on the extremes constructionism - in the middle! every system we have in place today could be different! identity politics can be useful, but not on the level of biology!!

Sweeney, N. (2017, June 20). Socialization: Crash Course Sociology #14. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-RvJQxqVQc&t=103s

socialized by interactions discussing the WHO of socialization primary socialization - parents/guardians cultural capital gender socialization! begins in the home - from the moment parents decide on gendered name etc race socialization - discrimination can be a result class socialization - norms/behaviors based on class (college in higher class etc) anticipatory socialization - take on norms of groups they plan to join!! secondary socialization - outside the home, often start with schools hidden curriculum - norms/beliefs/etc (spelling bee) exposes kids to greater variety of people peer groups -nerd -jocks -leading crowd -burnouts who you hang out with determines grades peer groups help mold what traits we end up with! media & socialization - expose ourselves to different things total institutions - military, prisons, boarding schools, etc - control all aspects of lives resocialization - develop new set of norms/beliefs, using rewards and punishment

Pollock, S. (1996). Social construction of reality. Social Construction, http://www.stephen.pollock.name/writings/res/socialconstruction.html

the social construction of reality accepts at its very nature a subjective "experience" with reality either via media coverage or via media dictation. Social Construction of Reality targets arguably the most dramatic and fundamental possible effect of the mass media Inevitably, the media even create an entire culture - the pop culture, which contains the tastes of the majority of the public. At its core, the social construction of reality "theory" suggests an ontological assumption that is at the very nature of human existence I THOUGHT IT WASN'T ALL RELATIVE OR ONTOLOGICAL?? In a very simplistic and powerful approach to the social construction of reality, one can posit that individuals know reality as that which the media both show and tell them. Obviously, we do not live in such a world. While not a direct descendent of social construction of reality, the notion of gatekeeping (White, 1950) directly correlates with agenda setting. Gatekeepers determine what content and what information in this content will make it to the public. In other words, gatekeepers set the public agenda or the salience of issues. Social Construction of Reality Part I: Media Construction of RealityA Theoretical Building Block Part II: Social Construction of a Pop CultureMainstreaming Reality Social Construction of Theory Socialization and Research Socialization Research The Media Mainstream Pop Culture and the Audience References The Social Construction of Reality is a very basic premise for how and why individuals view the world in a certain manner and what role the media play in shaping that view. While reality incorporates the notion of having an objective independent existence or occurring in fact, the social construction of reality accepts at its very nature a subjective "experience" with reality either via media coverage or via media dictation. The concept of Social Construction of Reality targets arguably the most dramatic and fundamental possible effect of the mass media. To suggest that the media actually represent the public's knowledge of an event or, in some cases, to posit that individuals are unable to distinguish between real and mediated events (Shapiro & Lang, 1991), certainly points to a powerful view of the media's role. Inevitably, the media even create an entire culture - the pop culture, which contains the tastes of the majority of the public. At its core, the social construction of reality "theory" suggests an ontological assumption that is at the very nature of human existence. This assumption that humans attempt to make sense out of the world has existed since Greek philosophers debated the meaning of life. In his allegory of "The Cave," Plato (The Republic, 1958) demonstrated how men chained in a cave attempted to give meaning to the world through observing shadows (i.e., construction of reality). In addition, these men checked their "realities" with other men in their same condition while assigning meaning (i.e., social construction of reality). The difference in today's society is that the mass media can perform the function of bringing different individuals' meanings into agreement. In a very simplistic and powerful approach to the social construction of reality, one can posit that individuals know reality as that which the media both show and tell them. Obviously, we do not live in such a world. Social Construction of Theory Although neither communication nor any specific branch of communication has a "grand theory," I believe that social construction of reality theory provides a basic framework from which many other mass communication theories base their assumptions and research techniques. Without question, it innately subsumes the ideas of socialization by which individuals make sense of the world through various variables, one of which is the mass media. Specifically, three theories can directly be linked to social construction of reality. First, Bandura's (1977) social learning theory suggests how mass media consumers can learn appropriate societal actions. Second, cultivation theory (Gerbner, 1973) demonstrates how people line their views of the world with those presented in the media. Finally, agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) presents the notion of how the media dictate importance of issues and events to the public. The latter has powerful ramifications for the establishment of a pop culture. These theories draw directly from the assumptions of social construction of reality. Beyond these, many other mass communication theories seem to branch out from either social construction of reality itself or its ensuing representative theories. Certainly, any theory or act of communication that assumes a message can be created to affect the majority of the public takes a social construction stand (i.e., agreement in meaning across individuals). For example, diffusion of innovations (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1973) and the development of public communication campaigns feel that the media can instill similar values and/or attitudes in people in order to persuade them to change (i.e., the social construction of a need to change). While not a direct descendent of social construction of reality, the notion of gatekeeping (White, 1950) directly correlates with agenda setting. Gatekeepers determine what content and what information in this content will make it to the public. In other words, gatekeepers set the public agenda or the salience of issues. The next batch of related theories offer another basic assumption of social construction of reality. In order to have the capability to construct people's reality, the media must have something that the public wants or needs - that requirement is filled by information. McQuail and Windahl (1993) refer to today's world as an "information society" with increased trends toward supply and consumption of information. This concept of the "information society" coupled with social construction of reality leads to the conclusion that if one does not attain media information, he or she does not know reality. This is quite reflective of Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur's (1976) media system dependency theory, which, in this case, suggests how individuals are dependent on the media to capture reality. Consequently, this line of thinking has implications for knowledge gap research (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970), in which some individuals have better means to ascertaining more information (i.e., media information) than others. Oof! : The final slew of relevant research points social construction of reality in a direction to which will become a major concern of this paper, that of similar media content, particularly in regard to same media formats/channels or content/subjects. Bagdikian (1985) along with many other allies reasons why the media are stricken by homogeneity. Basically, he suggests two distinct reason for media content uniformity, which are (a) ownership-based and (b) advertising-based. These two variables add to similar content in that the majority of the U.S. media is owned by large corporations with similar goals and these corporations are competing for the same advertising revenue (Bagdikian, 1985). Throwing Noelle-Neumann's (1974) spiral of silence concept into the equation lends even more support. The spiral of silence suggests that the media isolate "deviant" individuals and views; thereby, (a) producing similar content across media and (b) propelling the dominant view or popular or mainstream culture (i.e., keeping the power from changing or suppressing "radical" viewpoints. The media can act as a socializing agent by constructing reality and then disseminating this reality to the mass public. The "social" element comes into play when upon receiving the media's "reality" message, the vast majority agree upon this reality and accept it. Following this pattern, social construction may be more appropriately referred to as social agreement of reality. For instance, the media have an influence on language in that they establish new words (e.g., Internet, unibomber) and extend meanings of existing words (e.g., surfing - surfing the 'Net, information superhighway). Is it the media's presentation and airtime given to the introduction of these terms that determines their usage or is it the decision of the majority to integrate these terms that determines their usage. In either case, eventually, the minority who are not using the developed terms must either adopt them or remain ignorant in discussions of which they are a part. This seems to be a forced construction of reality but where is the origin of the cycle? Most research related to the social construction of reality evolves from the "major" three theories that were mentioned previously: social modeling, cultivation, and agenda setting. They all have certain areas for which researchers typically apply them, but all focus on the underlying concern that individuals accept the view of the world as depicted by the media and the more media exposure that one has, the more this acceptance is secured. Social Construction of Reality Part I: Media Construction of RealityA Theoretical Building Block Part II: Social Construction of a Pop CultureMainstreaming Reality Social Construction of Theory Socialization and Research Socialization Research The Media Mainstream Pop Culture and the Audience References The Social Construction of Reality is a very basic premise for how and why individuals view the world in a certain manner and what role the media play in shaping that view. While reality incorporates the notion of having an objective independent existence or occurring in fact, the social construction of reality accepts at its very nature a subjective "experience" with reality either via media coverage or via media dictation. The concept of Social Construction of Reality targets arguably the most dramatic and fundamental possible effect of the mass media. To suggest that the media actually represent the public's knowledge of an event or, in some cases, to posit that individuals are unable to distinguish between real and mediated events (Shapiro & Lang, 1991), certainly points to a powerful view of the media's role. Inevitably, the media even create an entire culture - the pop culture, which contains the tastes of the majority of the public. At its core, the social construction of reality "theory" suggests an ontological assumption that is at the very nature of human existence. This assumption that humans attempt to make sense out of the world has existed since Greek philosophers debated the meaning of life. In his allegory of "The Cave," Plato (The Republic, 1958) demonstrated how men chained in a cave attempted to give meaning to the world through observing shadows (i.e., construction of reality). In addition, these men checked their "realities" with other men in their same condition while assigning meaning (i.e., social construction of reality). The difference in today's society is that the mass media can perform the function of bringing different individuals' meanings into agreement. In a very simplistic and powerful approach to the social construction of reality, one can posit that individuals know reality as that which the media both show and tell them. Obviously, we do not live in such a world. Social Construction of Theory Although neither communication nor any specific branch of communication has a "grand theory," I believe that social construction of reality theory provides a basic framework from which many other mass communication theories base their assumptions and research techniques. Without question, it innately subsumes the ideas of socialization by which individuals make sense of the world through various variables, one of which is the mass media. Specifically, three theories can directly be linked to social construction of reality. First, Bandura's (1977) social learning theory suggests how mass media consumers can learn appropriate societal actions. Second, cultivation theory (Gerbner, 1973) demonstrates how people line their views of the world with those presented in the media. Finally, agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) presents the notion of how the media dictate importance of issues and events to the public. The latter has powerful ramifications for the establishment of a pop culture. These theories draw directly from the assumptions of social construction of reality. Beyond these, many other mass communication theories seem to branch out from either social construction of reality itself or its ensuing representative theories. Certainly, any theory or act of communication that assumes a message can be created to affect the majority of the public takes a social construction stand (i.e., agreement in meaning across individuals). For example, diffusion of innovations (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1973) and the development of public communication campaigns feel that the media can instill similar values and/or attitudes in people in order to persuade them to change (i.e., the social construction of a need to change). While not a direct descendent of social construction of reality, the notion of gatekeeping (White, 1950) directly correlates with agenda setting. Gatekeepers determine what content and what information in this content will make it to the public. In other words, gatekeepers set the public agenda or the salience of issues. The next batch of related theories offer another basic assumption of social construction of reality. In order to have the capability to construct people's reality, the media must have something that the public wants or needs - that requirement is filled by information. McQuail and Windahl (1993) refer to today's world as an "information society" with increased trends toward supply and consumption of information. This concept of the "information society" coupled with social construction of reality leads to the conclusion that if one does not attain media information, he or she does not know reality. This is quite reflective of Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur's (1976) media system dependency theory, which, in this case, suggests how individuals are dependent on the media to capture reality. Consequently, this line of thinking has implications for knowledge gap research (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970), in which some individuals have better means to ascertaining more information (i.e., media information) than others. The final slew of relevant research points social construction of reality in a direction to which will become a major concern of this paper, that of similar media content, particularly in regard to same media formats/channels or content/subjects. Bagdikian (1985) along with many other allies reasons why the media are stricken by homogeneity. Basically, he suggests two distinct reason for media content uniformity, which are (a) ownership-based and (b) advertising-based. These two variables add to similar content in that the majority of the U.S. media is owned by large corporations with similar goals and these corporations are competing for the same advertising revenue (Bagdikian, 1985). Throwing Noelle-Neumann's (1974) spiral of silence concept into the equation lends even more support. The spiral of silence suggests that the media isolate "deviant" individuals and views; thereby, (a) producing similar content across media and (b) propelling the dominant view or popular or mainstream culture (i.e., keeping the power from changing or suppressing "radical" viewpoints. Certainly, social construction of reality and its offspring theories have a direct relationship with research on news, but this is not the only relevant focus. Pop culture is kept in order through social construction of reality in the same manner that news is. Many elements of pop culture are not scrutinized to the degree that the news is with this belief of possible media manipulation. Socialization and Research Before closely examining the media's input in the pop culture, I felt it was necessary to establish the "goals" and past research of social construction of reality. Socialization The definition of socialization as expressed by DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach (1989) states it as: A complex, long-term, and multidimensional set of communicative changes between individuals and various agents of society that results in the individuals preparation for life..and brings all members of a society into sufficient conformity so that social order, predictability, and continuity can be maintained. (p. 208). Applying this definition to social construction of reality simply weights the "various agents of society" phrase to media control. The media can act as a socializing agent by constructing reality and then disseminating this reality to the mass public. The "social" element comes into play when upon receiving the media's "reality" message, the vast majority agree upon this reality and accept it. Following this pattern, social construction may be more appropriately referred to as social agreement of reality. The term construction seems to imply that the media is "making-up" or "creating" reality. While some would agree with the previous statement, I believe to spout such an assertion is ludicrous because the media often must report issues that are simply a matter of operating by typical journalist guidelines/standards. Someone must make decisions concerning what information passes on to the public. Should this be a government responsibility or the responsibility of individuals who have a real desire to be in the industry and have studied the industry? While it is easy to sit back and criticize the media, they are providing a necessary function to society and individuals need this function (i.e., information providing). The question one must consider is if social construction of reality rests on media or individual factors? For instance, the media have an influence on language in that they establish new words (e.g., Internet, unibomber) and extend meanings of existing words (e.g., surfing - surfing the 'Net, information superhighway). Is it the media's presentation and airtime given to the introduction of these terms that determines their usage or is it the decision of the majority to integrate these terms that determines their usage. In either case, eventually, the minority who are not using the developed terms must either adopt them or remain ignorant in discussions of which they are a part. This seems to be a forced construction of reality but where is the origin of the cycle? I am not positing that the media cannot be held responsible for any socializing effects that they may have but rather that one must also take into account the individual's consumption of media content. Individual's can utilize the media in an active or passive manner; in addition, they can utilize a different medium in an active or passive manner as opposed to some other media form. Research Most research related to the social construction of reality evolves from the "major" three theories that were mentioned previously: social modeling, cultivation, and agenda setting. They all have certain areas for which researchers typically apply them, but all focus on the underlying concern that individuals accept the view of the world as depicted by the media and the more media exposure that one has, the more this acceptance is secured. Social modeling and social expectancy study a lot of TV exposure and consider the degree to which viewers (a) act according to what they view (based on a rewards/costs ratio) and (b) come to hold the roles of individuals and norms of society that television portrays. Many of those studies also focus on the media's effects on children. Cultivation researchers attempt to study the contributions that the media (typically TV viewing) make to viewers' conceptions of society. Basically, they seek to understand if TV viewers revert their images, opinions, and beliefs of society to that of television's. Typical cultivation studies focus on the differences between heavy and light viewers and their judgments of violence in the world. Finally, agenda setting typically deals with the news media's ability to tell the audience what issues are important or more specifically what to think about. The rationale is that the media provide cues to which issues are important; and consequently, audience members accept those cues regarding salient issues and then adopt them as their own (Becker, 1982). To some degree, agenda setting can be contributed to by simple "journalistic values" in story selection. Agenda setting studies can focus on either (a) the "important" messages that the media present or (b) which messages or issues, news consumers feel are important. An even more intriguing representation of social construction of reality theory are those studies that move beyond the more subdued definition reflected in the above theories as best described by Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, and Sasson (1992): We walk around with media-generated images of the world, using them to construct meaning about political and social issues. And the special genius of this system [the media] is to make the whole process seem so normal and natural that the very art of social construction is invisible. (p. 374). Although Shrum and O'Guinn (1993) state that the construction of social reality is simply cultivation, studies by Shapiro and Lang (1991) and Shapiro and McDonald (1992) present a more active role of social construction of reality as a theory in itself. These studies address the possibility that the media usage may actually become reality for some individuals (i.e., they will feel that their media usage or images/messages received from the media were, in fact, an actual experience). Shapiro and Lang (1991) suggest that distinguishing between memories of mediated events from those of actual events becomes increasingly difficult as (a) time passes between the event "experience" and recall of the event memory (similar to a "sleeper effect") and as (b) mediated events become more like actual events (a result of new technologies). It is to the latter cause that Shapiro and McDonald (1993) direct their attention. The researchers posit that the emergence of virtual reality may have dramatic effects on one's judgment of reality because (a) it is a new medium with which people do not have experience; thus, their only experience with things as real as they are in virtual reality is through the real-world; therefore, they may feel that the virtual reality experience is, in fact, real, (b) the user is immersed in such an involved sensory experience that they may have no cognitive capacity available to question this reality, and (c) the mediated event becomes so deeply embedded in an individual's mind that it takes on the traits of memories of real-world experiences. In a sense, the media are now forced to conform to society's desires, even though they may have caused the creation of those desires. Lippmann (1922) made an important distinction between reality and perception that comes into play with people's choices and the restrictions of pop culture. He differentiates between the environment (i.e., the world that is really out there) and the pseudo-environment (i.e., the media depictions of the world or social construction of reality). When creating a pseudo-environment, individuals will have a portion made up from the environment (i.e., direct experience) and a portion made up from the media-environment. To what degree each of these will influence one's pseudo-environment will depend on the interest, involvement, or salience of the issue or subject to the individual.

International Center of Photography. (2018). 2018 Infinity Award: Applied - Alexandra Bell. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MHXY6vIoe4&t=280s

wanted to "disrupt subliminal messaging about who should be valued!!!!!" counter-narrative series Ferguson perception - that the people have equal footing/responsibility in the event that took place! don't believe that! you have a cop and you have a kid!! "a teenage with promise" - only 18 if he wasn't black - would we be calling him a "kid" the photo they used - rather than graduation photo! "key information" - focus on drugs etc "a teenage with promise" - with graduation photo!! "it changed the way I viewed the text" trying to categorize white americans in the way other races are categorized restorative justice! why use an image of a black man?? #whitecrimewhitephoto white torch rally/riot calling out the media!!! "what you give space to and what you allow people to see says a lot!" - ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM!! Tulsa man news - "so easy to ingest" (if not aggregious) inditement of news AND readers!!! "why is this photo here?"