Harold E. Stearns’ Critique of American Culture in the Book, Civilization in the United States :: American America History

Harold E. Stearns’ Critique of American Culture in the Book, Civilization in the United States Harold E. Stearns and his colleagues set out on a mission to enlighten and inform the American society of the 1920’s in their book entitled Civilization in the United States. Thirty-three authors with the aid of an editor, Stearns, instead produced a highly controversial and inadequate account of certain aspects of life in American society. According to critic Arthur Schlesinger the writers of Civilization in the United States fell short of their goal of producing a critical depiction of American society and instead wrote "supercilious reflections" (167). There are three main themes presented in each essay included in Civilization. They are as follows: Americans are hypocritical, American civilization is not Anglo-Saxon nor nationalistic, and finally American social life lacks emotion. Stearns chose his writers very carefully. He wanted each of them to be blunt and straight to the point in their essays, especially when writing on these three themes. In his preface, Stearns himself states: "If these main contentions seem severe or pessimistic, the answer must be: we do not write to please; we strive only to understand and to state as clearly as we can" (vii). It is obvious that Harold Stearns wanted to voice his ideas and those of his counterparts in an open, bold fashion and that is why each essay touches on the main themes mentioned above. Critic Arthur Schlesinger, however mentions in his critique of Civilization that if there are any common themes in these essays at all, that they certainly are not the ones Harold Stearns mentions. Rather, Schlesinger hints that the theme is that Americans are "cocksure but bewildered children in a world [they] cannot understand" which is new and constantly changing (168). He feels that overall, each author wrote his or her own opinion and didn't follow a common theme in the true sense of the word. It is apparent to me that the critic has a valid point and his opinion coincides with my own opinion. Stearns may have had a common theme in mind when he organized the writing of Civilization, but it seems as if the authors went a bit off track. Some of the topics discussed in Civilization in the United States were "The Intellectual Life," "The City," "Economic Opinion," "History," "Business," "Engineering," "Politics," "Journalism," and "Philosophy" to name a few. As critic Arthur Schlesinger notes in his review of the book, the topics and authors included in this account of

The River Why - Eddy quotes Essay -- essays research papers

Eddy Eddy changes Gus in three different ways: when she directly interacts with him, by her absence and by her reappearance. On their first encounter with one another Gus is compelled by her differences in dress, techniques and gear. After she leaves, Gus feels a â€Å"need† to fulfill his empty life. Finally when she shows back up in his life, Gus then has everything he could ever ask for: a beautiful woman who loves to fish, just like him. Page 151: â€Å"A barefoot girl. A full-grown one. One who wore the top tenth or so of what had long ago been a pair of blue jeans. One who wore a short, skin-tight, sleeveless sky-colored t-shirt through †¦which revealed the shape of the†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Gus describes his first view Eddy, after having snuck his way up to the tree where she sat â€Å"motionless† not noticing him. His attention is soon diverted, if not completely towards her odd pole and gear. Lying to himself as he checked out this â€Å"research project† he notices how her gear is like nothing he had seen or used before, but his mind never full wonders from Eddy. (Page 151) Page 151: â€Å"Her fishing equipment was innovative also; she appeared to have no creel or equipage or container of any kind apart form her pole and line and whatever was on the end of it. There was the possibility of a few spare hooks or leaders in the pockets of the fraction of blue jeans †¦but the theory grew tenuous†¦As to the possibility of fishing tackle concealed with in the sky-colored t-shirt, this was even less likely. Nevertheless I considered the problem long and carefully, scanning every least curve of the thin material, reluctant to give up the search.† While Gus is checking her style out he realizes that Eddy was important and he needed to learn from her. He describes his sudden thirst for knowledge about Eddy as follows: Page 150: â€Å"She must be an extraordinary person, well worth watching, well worth meeting, well worth thinking about, an exceptional fisherman, and I was, what I was, I was learning, yes learning: I was learning like crazy. I’d never learned so much so fast before†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Watching Eddy fish, Gus absorbs a lot of information that before was totally unseen to him. Not only about fishing, but about this woman and about himself, needing to learn from her. He says on page 152 â€Å"I felt for the first time that I was in the presence of a fishing genius exceeding my own.† He is enthralled by her fishin... ... a mouse could sing I just might see Eddy again.† Along his journeys Gus comes across a writer for a newspaper article and made up a story to the over zealous, unskilled fisherman, who wrote about fishing. In the end of the article he put a note to Eddy. Page 217: â€Å"Will the girl who ran form the guy who recited Izaak Walton I the tree please contact Gus on the other river he named. He has your rod and fish and wants to return them. He is totally harmless, but urges you to bring a loaded fun if frightened, as long as you come. Thank you.† Through out his waiting and searching for Eddy he changes dramatically. He feels the need for his live to be fulfilled, and he strives for it by doing new things. He acquires a new load of friends and things from swapping, but he was sad for those who did not have what he could have and for other reasons. Page 221: â€Å"†¦also because I had so much to share, but nobody to share it with.† Then Gus goes into making her a rod like her old one, but with improvements. Like a 14 foot pole, belly reel with a waist strap and some good line in it. The hope still lives on to see her once again and he is striving to make a good impression on Eddy this time.

Julius Caesar :: essays research papers

Gaius Julius Caesar was born on July 13, 100 BC. Although patrician descent, Caesar's family had not achieved real prominence. His father, also named Gaius Julius Caesar, was the brother-in-law of Gaius Marius and married Aurelia, who was connected with the prominent Aurelii family; he died about 85 BC, however, before reaching the consulship. In 84, Caesar married Cornelia, daughter of Marius's old partner Lucius Cornelius Cinna. When Lucius Cornelius Sulla ordered him to divorce her, he refused and escaped harm through the intervention of such people as his mother's relative, Gaius Aurelius Cotta. Caesar was then sent to collect a fleet from the Roman ally Nicomedes IV of Bithynia and was honored for conspicuous bravery at the siege of Mytilene. Returning home after Sulla's death , he unsuccessfully prosecuted two Sullans, Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella and Gaius Antonius Hibrida. He then left Rome for studies in Rhodes but was captured by pirates. After obtaining ransom, he recruited private troops, captured the pirates, and had them executed in. His studies on Rhodes were interrupted by the outbreak of war with Mithradates VI of Pontus, against who he gathered a force in 74. During a legateship to help Marcus Antonius Creticus fight piracy, Caesar was made a pontiff at Rome in 73 BC. After his military tribunate and possible service against Spartacus, he sided with those seeking power from outside the circle of nobles who dominated the Senate. He supported restoration of tribunician powers and the recall from exile of those who had supported Marcus Aemilius Lepidus in his revolt of 77. Caesar also advertised his Marian connections: by displaying Marius's effigies at his aunt Julia's funeral; through funeral orations for both Julia and his wife; and by the restoration of Marius' battle trophies on the Capitoline Hill. After a quaestorship in Spain, Caesar earned popularity among the Transpadane Gauls by supporting their agitation for Roman citizenship. He next married Pompeia, granddaughter of Sulla and relative of Pompey the Great, and evidence indicates that he supported important military assignments for Pompey in 67 and 66. As aedile in 65 BC, he achieved great popularity--and went into debt--by financing splendid games. He also probably cooperated with Marcus Licinius Crassus in an attempt to annex Egypt, in supporting Catiline for the consulship, and in promoting the land-distribution bill of Publius Servilius Rullus. In 64 BC, Caesar presided over trials of those who had committed murder during Sulla's proscriptions.

Overeating Essay

Coming out from my closed where I live, I saw a huge handsome young man of his late twenties staggering, very dirty and looking haggard. Yes! I guessed he must have smoked some quantities of marijuana herb or something else that made him look mad. Little did I know that the young man was indeed over fed with alcohol, no wonder he muttered when I passed him to buy some loaves of bread and I remembered he did smelled profusely. Such was my encounter with Chike-the over fed alcoholic man. It was not by mistake that Chika was born into the humble home of Late Mr. Okoko Ibe in Lagos Nigeria. He was born healthy and hearty up to his late twenties before he joined a group of gangsters who feed themselves with doses of alcohol and cause troubles within the neighborhoods. They have a common character of not saying no to drinks be it alcohol or the like each time it is offered to them. This habit was alleged to have resulted to Chike’s sudden madness. On Sunday the 25th of March 2007 Chike on his madness regalia set out to look for where he could beg for whisky and gin in a nearby market. I drew close to a shop keeper where I wanted to shop for breakfast bread, it was indeed a big scene as I look but saw that there were two young men fighting and exchanging foul words to one another. Though no one could actually say what really was between them but something tells me it is not well with both men. There seems to be loss of agreement over who takes larger part of what money they are to share. Gradually crowds began to drew attention and all concentration was at the point of scene and not even the noise of a flying helicopter could deter one from trying to hear nor vehicles passing could block ones view from capturing what comes next as these two men kept on dragging with gradually increase in their voices. !! Give me $1000 or else I tell the police!! Said one of them who looked mean and more able bodied. Just as this argument was lingering and crowd gradually coming closer to the scene, I saw Chike rushed the young men in the face of the tick crowd and snatched the money tithed in a nylon bag and zoomed off abandoned his place of abode, sandals and his dirty wrapper wrap of clothes. Nobody could actually say which direction he took to and what really motivated him to act in that manner. It was indeed amazed and amused. People were perplexed to explain what the state of Chike’s health had turned to. Initially I thought this was unconnected with his state of madness. At a distance Chike was seen trying to cross a huge long trailer carry cement products, as he did not want anyone to catch him ,he was knocked down and was crushed to death. Many People who witness this scene went home crying for the poor popular mad man.

Book Analysis: The Science of Muddling Through

A Summary of: The Science of â€Å"Muddling Through† By Charles E. Lindblom Public Administration Review, Vol. XIX, No. 2 (Spring, 1959), 79-88 I. Introduction This article discusses two different strategies for comparing policies. The first strategy, Lindblom entitles Root, or Rational-Comprehensive Lindblom refers to the second strategy as Branch, or Successive Limited Comparisons. After a brief explanation of the two systems, he goes on to argue the superiority of the Branch system over the more commonly discussed Root system II. RootThe Root approach, or Rational-Comprehensive, is best utilized for more simple problems, according to Lindblom, due to the necessitation of massive intellectual capacities and sources of information. He states that this approach is generally not correct for policy analysis, as time and money are restrictions in these scenarios. He also states that public agencies are effectively instructed not to practice the root method, due to political or le gal constraints Ironically, the common literature tends to preach formalization of this method. This leads to many practitioners acting against the philosophy commonly published.Lindblom lists the characteristics of the Root approach as the following:Clarification of values or objectives distinct from and usually prerequisite to empirical analysis of alternative policies.Policy-formulation is therefore approached through means-end analysis: First, the ends are isolated, then the means to achieve them are sought.The test of a â€Å"good† policy is that it can be shown to be the most appropriate means to desired ends.Analysis is comprehensive; every important relevant factor is taken into account.Theory is often heavily relied upon.As this theory is often discussed, Lindblom assumes it is familiar to the reader and shifts his focus to explaining and clarifying the alternative. Most of the article revolves around the Branch approach, or Successive Limited Comparisons. III. Branc h The Branch Approach, or Successive Limited Comparisons is the approach Lindblom claims most administrators use for their approach to understanding complex problems. Lindblom assigns the following characteristics to the Branch approach:Selection of value goals and empirical analysis of the needed action are not distinct from one another but are closely intertwined. Since means and ends are not distinct, means-end analysis is often inappropriate or limited.The test of a â€Å"good† policy is typically that various analysts find themselves directly agreeing on a policy (without their agreeing that it is the most appropriate means to an agreed objective).Analysis is drastically limited:Important possible outcomes are neglected.Important alternative potential policies are neglected.Important affected values are neglected.A succession of comparisons greatly reduces or eliminates reliance on theory.The Branch approach could be illustrated as continually building out from the curre nt situation, slowly, by small degrees, one step at a time. Lindblom then elaborates on the Branch approach throughout the remainder of the article. a. Intertwining Evaluation and Empirical Analysis In this section, Lindblom explains how the Root method breaks down its handling of objectives and values. He states that clarifying values prior to investigating alternative policies produces several problems. The first problem is that citizens, congressmen, and public administrators frequently disagree on many critical values.Second, even when an administrator opts to choose his own value set for guidance, he often will not know how to rank conflicting criterion. A third problem arises concurrent to the previous two â€Å"Social objectives do not always have the same relative values. † These common problems often lead administrators to ask a question like the following: â€Å"Given the degree to which we are or are not already achieving the values of good public relations, is it worth sacrificing a little speed for a happier clientele, or is it better to risk offending the clientele so hat we can get on with our work? †The answer, of course, varies according to the situation. The particular difficulty with values is the issue with attempting to state marginal objectives in forms other than particular policies. This leaves administrators attempting to choose between policies that offer different marginal combinations of values. Lindblom closes this argument with two summarizing points. First, for complex problems, the Root system is impossible and irrelevant, while the Branch method is possible and relevant.The Branch method is possible because the administrator does not need to attempt to analyze any values except those where the alternative policies differ, and this differentiation is only notable marginally. This drastically reduces the need for collecting information on values or objectives, which keeps the capacity for comparing values within rea son. b. Relations Between Means and Ends Generally, and according to the Root method, decision-making is considered to be a means-ends relationship.The means are to be evaluated and selected depending upon the ends which is selected independently and before choosing the means. But this is difficult unless the values have been agreed upon and are stable at the margin. This relationship between the means and the ends does not exist with the branch method, as both are chosen simultaneously. c. The Test of â€Å"Good† Policy Under the Root method, a decision can be considered correct if it can be shown to attain some specified objective. This objective must be defined beyond just describing the actual decision.If administrators cannot agree on the objectives, the Root method offers no test For the Branch method, the test is agreement on the actual policy, which may be possible even when agreement on values has proven impossible. Different ideologies can agree on different policie s, even if the agreement is based on different reasoning. Lindblom states that â€Å"agreement on policy thus becomes the only practicable test of the policy’s correctness. † The Branch method relies upon agreement whenever possible. d. Non-Comprehensive Analysis It is impossible to take every important aspect of a problem into onsideration unless the problem is very narrowly defined, therefore limiting analysis. Simplification of complex problems is imperative.Lindblom illustrates that under the Root method, simplification is achieved systematically through limitation of policy comparisons to those policies that differ in relatively small degree from policies presently in effect. It is only necessary to study the aspects in which the alternatives and their consequences differ from the current norm. This limitation reduces the alternatives under consideration and simplifies the investigation of each of these alternatives.It only becomes necessary to study the respects in which the proposed alternative and its consequences differ from that norm. i. Relevance as Well as Realism In the west, policy analysts tend to limit their analysis to marginal differences in policies that are chosen to differ incrementally. Democracies tend to change policies incrementally. By simplifying the policy by limiting the focus to slight deviations, the most value is made of available information. â€Å"Non-incremental policy proposals are therefore typically not only politically irrelevant, but also unpredictable. †Another way to simplify analysis is by ignoring important potential consequences of the possible policies, and also ignoring the values associated with those neglected consequences. Even if the exclusions are made at random, the policies may be formulated more intelligently than by attempting to achieve a comprehensiveness which is too extensive. ii. Achieving a Degree of Comprehensiveness The potential for losing important values is present in any o rganization. The benefit of a hypothetical division of labor is that every important value has its own watchdog; these watchdogs can guard their respective interests in two ways.First, they may redress damages done by other agencies. Second, they may anticipate and avoid injury before it happens. In the United States, no part of government attempts comprehensive policy overviews on things such as income distribution, yet a policy evolves. This incremental policy-making pattern fits with the multiple pressure pattern. When this particular type of policy-making model is followed, it is easier for one group to anticipate the moves of another group. It is also easier for these groups to make adjustments for injuries already accomplished.Administrative coordination occurs as each of these agencies adjusts its policies according to the concerns of the other agencies in a fragmented form of decision-making. Branch method exclusions are deliberate and systematic, yet it does not necessarily disregard long-run considerations. Sometimes the only way long-run objectives can be given enough attention is through neglecting the short-term considerations. e. Succession of Comparisons The last element concerns the comparisons. These comparisons proceed in a chronological order. When the policy maker uses a succession of incremental changes, serious lasting mistakes can be avoided.First, he learns from past sequences of policy steps, and gains knowledge of the probable consequences of similar steps. Second, he can avoid big jumps that may require predictions he does not possess the knowledge to adequately make. This is because he never expects his policy to be the final resolution. Third, he is able to test his previous predictions as he slowly moves on to the proceeding steps. Fourth, past errors can be fixed relatively quickly. For policy-making purposes, the analyst need only know the consequences of each of the policy aspects as they differ from the others. iii. Theorists and PractitionersThe Branch system explains why administrators often feel that outside experts are not helpful and would rather work off of gut instinct than following the advice proposed by theorists. Lindblom gives two reasons why theory can have limited applicability in policy-making. First, it is greedy for facts and can be construed only through a great collection of observations. Second, it is generally insufficiently precise for application to a policy process that moves through small changes. Only in restricted areas is economic theory precise enough to become particularly helpful when resolving policy questions. v. Successive Comparison as a System Lindblom concludes that the Branch system is indeed a legitimate system, despite its imperfections.He reminds the reader that the Branch method lacks a built-in safeguard for all relevant values, and it may lead the decision-maker to overlook potential policies simply because they are not suggested. One of the benefits of clarify ing this method is â€Å"the light it throws on the suspicion an administrator sometimes entertains that a consultant or adviser is not speaking relevantly and responsibly when in fact by all ordinary objective evidence he is. While much of organization theory argues the virtues of common values and agreed organizational objectives, for complex problems in which the root method is inapplicable, agencies will want among their own personnel two types of diversification: administrators whose thinking is organized by reference to policy chains other than those familiar to most members of the organization and, even more commonly, administrators whose professional or personal values or interests create diversity of view†¦ so that, even without a single agency, decision-making can be fragmented and parts of the agency can serve as watchdogs for other parts.IV. Conclusion Lindblom’s argument basically attempts to legitimize the decision-making processes that are already frequen tly in use. He points out a gap between the theory advocated by policy academics and the real-world problems faced by decision-makers. He explains how and why the current work-around is legitimate and worthy of acceptance. The Branch method, as he calls it, simply needs to be recognized as having merit. By pointing this out and attempting to define the Branch method and its attributes, he is opening the door for academics to begin theorizing on this method, as well.

Feminism And Gender Equality In The 1990’s

Overall, the rights and status of women have improved considerably in the last century; however, gender equality has recently been threatened within the last decade. Blatantly sexist laws and practices are slowly being eliminated while social perceptions of â€Å"women's roles† continue to stagnate and even degrade back to traditional ideals. It is these social perceptions that challenge the evolution of women as equal on all levels. In this study, I will argue that subtle and blatant sexism continues to exist throughout educational, economic, Women who carefully follow their expected roles may never ecognize sexism as an oppressive force in their life. I find many parallels between women's experiences in the nineties with Betty Friedan's, in her essay: The Way We Were – 1949. She dealt with a society that expected women to fulfill certain roles. Those roles completely disregarded the needs of educated and motivated business women and scientific women. Actually, the subtle message that society gave was that the educated woman was I remember in particular the searing effect on me, who once intended to be a psychologist, of a story in McCall's in December 1949 called â€Å"A Weekend with Daddy. A little girl who lives a lonely life with her mother, divorced, an intellectual know-it-all psychologist, goes to the country to spend a weekend with her father and his new wife, who is wholesome, happy, and a good cook and gardener. And there is love and laughter and growing flowers and hot clams and a gourmet cheese omelet and square dancing, and she doesn't want to go home. But, pitying her poor mother typing away all by herself in the lonesome apartment, she keeps her guilty secret that from now on she will be living for the moments when she can escape to that dream home n the country where they know â€Å"what life is all about. † (See I have often consulted my grandparents about their experiences, and I find their historical perspective enlightening. My grandmother was pregnant with her third child in 1949. Her work experience included: interior design and modeling women's clothes for the Sears catalog. I asked her to read the Friedan essay and let me know if she felt as moved as I was, and to share with me her experiences of sexism. Her immediate reaction was to point out that â€Å"Betty Friedan was a college educated woman and she had certain goals that never interested me. My grandmother, though growing up during a time when women had few social rights, said she didn't experience oppressive sexism in her life. However, when she describes her life accomplishments, I feel she has spent most of her life fulfilling the expected roles of women instead of pursuing goals that were mostly reserved for men. Unknowingly, her life was controlled by traditional, sexist values prevalent in her time and still prevalent in the nineties. Twenty-four years after the above article from McCall's magazine was written, the Supreme Court decided whether women should have a right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade (410 U. S. 113 (1973)). I believe the decision was made in favor of women's rights mostly because the court made a progressive decision to consider the woman as a human who may be motivated by other things in life than just being a mother. Justice Blackmun delivered the Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also a distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family lready unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. I feel the court decision of Roe v. Wade would not have been made in 1949. Even in 1973, it was a progressive decision. The problem of abortion has existed for the entire history of this country (and beyond), but had never been addressed because discussing these issues was not socially acceptable. A culture of not discussing issues that have a profound impact on women is a culture that encourages women to be powerless. The right of abortion became a major issue. Before 1970, about a million abortions were done every year, of which only about ten thousand were legal. Perhaps a third of the women having illegal abortions – mostly poor people – had to be hospitalized for complications. How many thousands died as a result of these illegal abortions no one really knows. But the illegalization of abortion clearly worked against the poor, for the rich could manage either to have their baby or to have their abortion under A critic of the women's movement would quickly remind us that omen have a right to decline marriage and sex, and pursue their individual interests. However, I would argue that the social pressure women must endure if they do not conform to their expected role is unfair. The problem goes beyond social conformity and crosses into government intervention (or lack thereof). The 1980's saw the pendulum swing against the women's movement. Violent acts against women who sought abortions became common and the government was unsympathetic to the victims. There are parallels between the Southern Black's civil rights movement and the women's movement: Blacks have long been ccustomed to the white government being unsympathetic to violent acts against them. During the civil rights movement, legal action seemed only to come when a white civil rights activist was killed. Women are facing similar disregard presently, and their movement is truly one for civil rights. A national campaign by the National Organization of Women began on 2 March 1984, demanding that the US Justice Department investigate anti-abortion terrorism. On 1 August federal authorities finally agreed to begin to monitor the violence. However, Federal Bureau of Investigation director, William Webster, declared that he saw no evidence of â€Å"terrorism. † Only on 3 January 1985, in a pro-forma statement, did the President criticize the series of bombings as â€Å"violent anarchist acts† but he still refused to term them â€Å"terrorism. Reagan deferred to Moral Majoritarian Jerry Falwell's subsequent campaign to have fifteen million Americans wear â€Å"armbands† on 22 January 1985, â€Å"one for every legal abortion† since 1973. Falwell's anti- abortion outburst epitomized Reaganism's orientation: â€Å"We can no longer passively and quietly wait for the Supreme Court to change their mind or for Congress to pass a law. Extremism on the right was no vice, moderation no virtue. Or, as Hitler explained in Mein Kamph, â€Å"The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence. (See This mentality continued on through 1989 during the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989)) case. â€Å"The Reagan Administration had urged the Supreme Court to use this case as the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade. † (See Endnote #5) It is disturbing that the slow gains achieved by the women's movement are so volatile and endangered when conservative dministrations gain a majority in government. To put the problem into perspective: a woman's right to have an abortion in this country did not come until 1973. Less than two decades later, the president of the United States is pushing to take that right away. It seems blatant that society is bent on putting women in From the above examples, it appears American culture prefers women as non- professional, non-intellectual, homemakers and mothers. This mentality is not easily resolved, because it is introduced at a young age. Alice Brooks experienced inequality on the basis of her race and her sex. In her autobiography, A Dream Deferred, she recalls the reaction of her father when she brought up the idea of college to him: I found a scholarship for veterans' children and asked my father to sign and furnish proof that he was a veteran. He refused and told me that I was only going to get married and have babies. I needed to stay home and help my mother with her kids. My brother needed college to support a family. Not only was I not going to get any help, I was also tagged as selfish because I wanted to go This is another example of women being labeled as selfish for wanting the same opportunities as men. Alice Brooks is a very courageous woman; seemingly able to overcome any oppression she may encounter. During her presentation to our class, she said that â€Å"women who succeed in male dominated fields are never mediocre – they are extraordinary achievers. Her insight encapsulates much of the subtle sexism that exists today. I feel that no one can truly be equal in a society when only the â€Å"extraordinary achievers† are allowed to succeed out of their This attitude of rising blatant and subtle attacks on women's civil rights is further exemplified in recent reactions to affirmative action plans. These plans have been devised to try to give women and minorities an opportunity to participate in traditionally white male dominated areas. However, we see the same trends in legal action for the use of affirmative action plans as we saw in the 1980's backlash against the Roe v. Wade decision. A few interesting points were presented in the case, Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara (480 U. S. 616 (1987)). Mr. Paul E. Johnson filed suit against the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency when he was denied a promotion, feeling the company's affirmative action plan denied him of his ivil rights. Some interesting facts were presented in this case: Specifically, 9 of the 10 Para-Professionals and 110 of the 145 Office and Clerical Workers were women. By contrast, women were only 2 of the 28 Officials and Administrators, 5 of the 58 Professionals, 12 of the 124 Technicians, none of the Skilled Crafts Workers, and 1 – who was Joyce – of the 110 Road Maintenance Workers. (See Endnote # 7) The above statistics show women have been considerably underrepresented at the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. These numbers are not uncommon and are found throughout business. It is interesting to note the current popular perception is that affirmative action precludes white males from finding employment with companies that implement these plans. The truth is in the numbers, however. The fact that Mr. Johnson felt he was denied his civil rights because an equally qualified woman was given a promotion, instead of him, is just a small window into the subtle sexism that exists today. Most critics of affirmative action do not consider the grossly unequal numbers of men in management and professional positions. Secondly, it never seems an issue of debate that a woman may have had no other previous life pportunities in these male dominated areas. I do not intend to argue that affirmative action is good or bad, but only wish to point out that the current backlash against these programs is heavily rooted in sexism and racism. Often blatant violence or unfair acts against a group of people will cause that group to pull together and empower themselves against their oppressors. The women's movement has made large steps to eliminate many of these blatantly sexist acts in the last century. Now the real difficulty is upon us: subtle acts of sexism and the degrading social roles of women in today's onservative culture. Alice Brooks so eloquently described her experiences with inequality, stating, â€Å"the worse pain came from those little things people said or did to me. † As these â€Å"little things† accumulate in the experience of a young woman, she increasingly finds herself powerless in her relationships, employment, economics, and society in general. The female child has as many goals as the male child, but statistically she is unable to realize these goals because of the obstacles that society sets in front of her. Society and media attempt to create an illusion that women have every right that men enjoy.

Can Multiculturalism Really Reduce Prejudice? Essay

The term â€Å"multiculturalism† has recently come into usage to describe a society characterized by a diversity of cultures. Religion, language, customs, traditions, and values are some of the components of a culture, but more importantly culture is the lens through which one perceives and interprets the world. In the past several years there has been a growing trend towards multiculturalism in many areas of our society. Most of these trends are found on college and university campuses. I think this is likely due to a belief that the traditional Christian American values and views are unable to deal with the growing numbers of various ethnic minorities in our society. Phew, that was a mouth full. Although this trend would seem able to change society for the better, I believe that it has been and will be largely ineffective. It does, however, have some possible advantage over society’s traditional view. The Contact Hypothesis states that â€Å"increasing contact between groups can in some circumstances decrease prejudice between them. † It is possible that education about various cultural groups alone, could reduce prejudice similarly to actual contact; by increasing recognition of similarities, providing information that goes against the stereotypical grain, and breaking down the illusion of out-group homogeneity. It would likely do so less than contact. â€Å"Multiculturalism might be able to reduce prejudice without building the resentment, which sometimes occurs in contact. It is also possible that it could help encourage re-categorization. For the most part, however, it seems that multiculturalism will do little or nothing to get rid of prejudice and discrimination. Even assuming that multicultural education is nearly as effective as contact, it would not have much effect on society. Contact itself is only successful under certain circumstances. â€Å"(D’Souza, D. 8) The weakness of multiculturalism is that it only deals with a few of the many aspects of prejudice. Prejudice seems extremely difficult if not impossible to overcome in our society. The stereotypes that are created by and reinforce prejudice are neither rational ideas nor emotional responses. Multiculturalism treats them as if they were. â€Å" Stereotypes are the result of cognitive processes that are, by their very nature, difficult to change. Information that is inconsistent with stereotypes is usually forgotten, ignored, disregarded or devalued. One could be aware that less than 20% of Americans arrested on drug charges are black, and could feel some sort of brothership with humankind, and still be afraid of being mugged by a crack addict in a black neighborhood. â€Å"(Steeh, C & Schuman, H. 344) For example, I do not consider myself to be a racist. I have a Chinese friend, five of my friends are black and the other is Laotian. I’m also friends with a Mexican, a Puerto Rican, Turkish, Jew, the list goes on. I hold no attitudes towards these people, which are influenced by stereotypes. Although, when walking down the street towards a black or Latino person, I’ll admit that I become slightly nervous; just a little more ready to throw or receive a punch. â€Å"Entering a classroom or bus people (white) will most likely sit near a white person more readily than a minority member. If one needed to ask the time or ask for a cigarette, one would probably ask a white over a minority. They may be aware of these things even as they happen. Even aware of their irrationality. Maybe even familiar (hopefully) with the cognitive processes that cause these small discriminations, but it seems that they are helpless to stop them. † (Baron, A. 180) I can not pinpoint the root of my or anyone else’s prejudice. I attend now a nearly all white high school, before which, an almost entirely white middle school. Before the middle school, however, I attended an elementary school consisting of a very healthy mix of different cultures. Maybe less than half the school was white. Neither of my parents is overtly racist. Outside of the media, I have observed more whites committing acts of violence than blacks. On TV however, I have seen blacks behave in mostly negative ways. Or at least I remember it that way. The prejudices, which I have, are based on many observable traits other than ethnicity, as I suspect are most other peoples. I will have a less favorable impression of a black man in â€Å"typical† urban, hip-hop style clothing than of the same man dressed differently. Give him dreadlocks, braids, or a tall floppy head of hair and I will view him even more favorably. This seems to be the result of something other than direct experience. My interactions with blacks have not been more positive or negative based on the person’s mode of dress. â€Å"It seems that most stereotypes are based mainly on media images†(Baird, R. M. & Rosenbaum, S. E. 12). I also hold many stereotypes about members of various subcultural or demographic groups; wealthy students, middle class students, po’ students, business men (note â€Å"men†, stereotypical business person is male), marijuana users, cocaine users, etc. Some are as strong as the racial stereotypes I hold, and some are stronger. For example, given a black pot smoker and white business major that are otherwise identical, I would react more favorably to the latter. When a person belonging to an â€Å"outgroup† becomes more than a stranger or casual acquaintance the stereotypes that I hold about that group are quickly removed from that individual. But I don’t think that I change the stereotypes that I have about his or her group. I have personally experienced very little open racial discrimination towards myself. As a heterosexual, white, male I don’t really have to justify who or what I am. Most racial discrimination that I have faced was from African(I’m assuming)-American boys, with whom I shared a neighborhood with as a small child. Although never confronted directly, I was aware of the occasional dirty look and the usual â€Å"cracker† reference. But this is far from common and has not had a real impact on me. More often I am discriminated against because of my appearance. I have been subjected to a few bogus suspensions from middle school, just because I â€Å"looked† suspicious. One time, I was called down to the office, and blamed for throwing seat-tape on the school bus. I denied it, and told them to check the video tapes on the bus, after all, there are video cameras on each bus. Turns out, not one of them had me throwing anything of the sort. I still was forced to serve the suspension, just because I’ve gotten in trouble a couple times that month. Although these instances have affected me, they seem to have not been strong enough stimuli for me. As for reducing prejudice, there seem to be no easy solutions. It seems that there is a limit on how far rational and emotional arguments can go in eliminating it. I would like to think that I am close to that limit, because short of getting to know everyone personally, I can’t imagine how to reduce my own prejudices. Perhaps multiculturalism could help some people to begin to reduce their prejudices. But can multiculturalism really succeed? Even if people of all colors, genders and religions, were to somehow magically get along together in one community, wouldn’t there still be prejudice? Some people may be looked down upon as invalid. People with mental problems and disorders would no doubt be prejudiced upon. The same goes for people with speech impediments. They would have to receive special help, and for someone to acknowledge that is in a way prejudice. I believe that cultural equality, multiculturalism, peace, whatever, is an impossible goal. People are always going to be different, and that’s not bad at all. Bibliography Page Baird, R. M. & Rosenbaum, S. E. (1992). Bigotry, prejudice and hatred: Definitions, causes & solutions. Buffalo: Prometheus Books. D’Souza, D. (1995). The End of Racism: Principles for a Multicultural Society. New York: The Free Press. Baron, A. (1992). Valuing ethnic diversity: A day-long workshop for university personnel. Journal of College Student Development, 179-181 Steeh, C. & Schuman, H. (1992). Young White adults: Did racial attitudes change in the 1980s? American Journal of Sociology, 340-367.