When Will Their Reflection Show? Disney Princesses and Gender

The Disney Princesses have become a classic of childhood fantasy and entertainment. The iconic characters, their dresses and songs have become as common in culture today as if they were true movie stars. This is due not only to good marketing, movie releases that span generations and legend, but also to the fantastic power of the Disney franchise. It is nearly impossible to escape it, every child is exposed to it at some point. The Disney Princesses are their own subsidiary of the Disney world, with their own movies and stores. They are just as much a business as they are dream big sisters to thousands of little girls. What many fail to realize, or admit, about their romantic childhood idols is that, though the princesses themselves are not at fault, the Princesses (capital P) both have their own impact on childhood and are a reflection of the culture that continues to create them. Princesses feed the pink that has come to define girlhood, but has girlhood begun to mean princess? The Disney Princesses are a business that shield the fact that the princesses themselves are a reflection of what we tell our children about being a woman: that beauty is your key to a happy ending. This is not just a result of the imagination of Disney’s film makers but more so a product of our culture’s unconscious views towards women.

 

The Disney Princesses in Popular Culture:

The Disney Princesses are known in popular culture for their movies, songs and large young fan base of devoted little girls. These sparkly romantic fairy tale characters captivate young audiences and draw in nostalgic older ones. The term Disney Princess has even come to have its own meaning. Disney Princesses aren’t like other princesses. The Princesses are officially crowned and are included in a special club. Their version of their story has begun to become the original one, the one from which new spin offs will come. What makes the Princesses so appealing? Is it their catchy songs, pretty gowns or handsome male counterparts? Is the allure of being a princess enough? In either case, it is safe to say that little girls have and will continue to idolize their royal role models, donning blue dresses, singing memorized lyrics before they can read and dreaming of their fairy tale ending.

Image of Princesses

The Disney Princesses as of 2014, from left: Jasmine, Rapunzel, Snow White, Mulan, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Pocahontas, Tiana, Belle, Ariel and Merida)

What was the origin and evolution of these Princesses?

Where does the massive craze come from? After all, the Disney Princesses were originally individual characters from separate movies, unaffiliated in any way. However, as more princesses came to life they went straight to the hearts of more little girls, and Disney was not going to miss out on the opportunity. By 2000 Disney had eight individual princess movies, but their latest film, “Mulan”, hadn’t provided them with as much of an opportunity for income as they had expected. Their new marketing director was struck with inspiration when he went to the first ever “Disney on Ice” show. It was there that he saw hundreds of little girls all in princess dresses. All these dresses were generic and all bought from someplace that was not Disney and all converted to look like one of the iconic princess gowns. He watched as these devoted little Auroras, Belles and Cinderellas crowded in, and realized what an opportunity Disney was missing.

Therefore, in 2000 the princesses were packaged under one title, The Disney Princesses. To insure that they were kept in their own mysteriously unrelated worlds, images containing all eight (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Jasmine, Belle, Ariel, Pocahontas and Mulan) had them all staring slightly off, never seeing one another. Disney capitalized on the creativity, and in doing so simultaneously validated the “accuracy” of the gowns and limited the imagination of the wearer. It wasn’t just gowns, however; all the marketing staff had to do was ask “What kind of ____ would a princess wear/use?” Through sales of everything from bedding to toothbrushes to snacks, sales were up $300 million between 2003-2006. More recently, Disney Princesses topped the list of best selling entertainment products, at $3 billion globally in 2012. All from little girls’ natural desire to be, as their marketing director described it in 2006, “projecting themselves into the character from classic movies.” (Orenstein, Goudreau)

This instant franchise has a massive, and very impressionable, young audience. Though many products of our childhood are backed by marketing, not all of them talk to us, or wear pretty dresses. Princesses are the strong female lead in the movie of a little girl. What, therefore, are the royal role models teaching our children (especially girls)? It is a question that has been asked since the very beginning of their creation. The movies and characters have evolved in response to the creator’s desire (especially for the first three) and then in response to the critique of the media. Each attack parallels a similar new age of feminism.

The first wave of “feminist attacks” came after the release of the first three movies (Snow White 1937, Cinderella 1950, and Sleeping Beauty 1959, movies made of Walt’s imaginings) during the 60’s and 70’s when activism became prominent (Hanes). Disney’s Princess movies were accused of showing women to be too classically submissive, fulfilling the image of patient housewife, who does all that is asked of her and is rewarded with a man. Disney listened, and the next time they made a series of Princess movies they were sure to change it up.

Ariel (The Little Mermaid 1989), Belle (Beauty and the Beast 1991) and Jasmine (Aladdin 1992) are all decidedly different rule breakers and explorers, though they do all end up with their prince. They also parallel the 1980’s, which was an era of embracing age, sexuality and female independence. The movies therefore “resurrected romance feminism threatened,” and recalled innocence. This is especially true for the 1990’s when feminism was almost more anti-feminism, as women openly embraced objectification and sexuality (Orenstein). Oddly enough, the next two movies addressed a different issue, Princesses were too white. Mulan (1998), Pocahontas (1995) and The Princess and the Frog (2009) all featured “Princesses” with different ethnicities. Still, these movies depicted women who got their happily ever after from a man. Frozen (2013) was the first movie to showcase not only a princeless heroine, but also a queen. Queen Elsa and her hit song “Let it go” became idols for little girls, and the highest grossing animated film (Stedman). Looking at Elsa it’s easy, and partially correct, to think the Princesses have come a long way. Certainly the themes of their feature films have. However, though the movies have changed the Princesses themselves remain undeniably similar.

(Looking at the posters for the movies, the Princesses and their Prince is a continuous and key feature).

What makes the potential Princesses?

What actually composes the princesses themselves, not their stories? The first three princesses (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella) all demonstrate one characteristic of princess: patience. They all wait for things to happen to them, patient and content in their situation, until they meet their prince, and then they are only content untill he comes for them, rewarding them for the patient struggle.

Not only are the princesses patient, but they also manifest, and exist in, confinement. Even Belle and Ariel (whose stories were intended to show women breaking the rules) are still initially confined by what others think of them and struggle against it throughout the movie. Jasmine, while she does explore outside the palace walls, is more content to be taken out of her confinement by a prince, who sings a whole song about being able to do that for her. Cinderella and Rapunzel also are confined physically. However, the true confinement the princesses experience is better seen in Tiana. The Princesses are women too, and when placed in real world situations (such as early 20th century New Orleans), they are thrown into the same confining social norms women experience. Tiana cannot realize her dream and struggles because of her gender in a world controlled by men of another race. In the end, the world of the princesses are opened, usually by their benevolent prince, and they are lifted, or returned, to their royal world somewhat liberated.

With confinement comes submission, the princesses always end up deferring to a prince (is this why Elsa is a Queen and not a Princess?). The Princesses submit themselves to the allure of handsome animated Princes (who can blame them?), and is it so wrong to submit yourself to allure of love? Perhaps not, but usually these Princes are not only love interests, but also an escape route. Being with a Prince means you can become a Princesses, it comes with a dashing rescue and a happily ever after. Princesses are faced with the choice to submit to their Princes, or to their situation. There is rarely the opportunity for them to make their own choice and direct their life.

The final and most obvious characteristic of a Princesses is beauty. All of the Princesses are, simply put, aesthetically pleasing. They are small waisted, big eyed, smooth skinned, have perfect nails, perfect hair, perfect lips, face and body (one could, and should ask, who deems this perfect, or who started deeming it perfect, and what message does being sexy send our young men?) Sexual dimorphism is relied upon by the filmmakers, which produces images that are not only unrealistic (Anna’s eyes are twice the size of her wrists), but also sends a much more threatening message to young children, especially girls (Cohen, Hanes). Because though the Princesses have changed and adapted to become more modern, stronger female characters, beauty, above all, remains. Even Queen Elsa  walks her sexy walk in her angsty “I don’t care” song, her body, like all Princesses, remains an attraction (see image bellow). This perpetuation leads to a sad and dangerous conclusion for any little girl who watches a movie more than once: to be a Princess I have to look like one. To be a Princess, I have to pretty. And for a six year old, Princesses might as well be CEO. The message therefore is: to succeed, you must be pretty (the standard of pretty only a Princess can make).

This rule is reinforced by the other characters in the Princess movies. The evil queens, for example, are the only female queens with major roles (the queen from Brave turns into a bear less then half way through, and as aforementioned, Elsa is a first and supports this rule with her oun appeal). They maintain their beauty, but when they are performing their evil tasks become ugly and old. Another example is that of Mother Gothel (the mother in Tangled). This woman uses the magic of a golder flower to maintain her youthful appearance, and in order to continuing doing so kidnaps and raises Rapunzel. She clings to her beauty and her age, allowing her longer life, perhaps in an attempt to secure her own happy ending. However, when she loses her youth and beauty she loses all chance of her own happily ever after and dies. Cling to your youth ladies, it flies by!

Elsa singing Let It Go

Mother Gothel from Tangeld

This is all a phase. We grow out of Princesses, don’t we?

We all have a moment when we stop believing that Peter Pan will come, that our sister is evil and Prince Charming will rescue us, or that putting on the clothes can make you the character. Certainly, we all grow out of childhood and it’s fun and games at some point. The effects of “Toxic Princess Culture”-TPC- (a culture I have not described in its entirety, but consists of lots of pampered princess places and pink palaces of playful pastime, not just the movies and their characters), manifests itself long after we’ve grown out of the tiara (Darley). Princesses (with the exception of Mulan) are not showing that pink can kick butt but that pink is the color of the gown you will wear once Prince Charming has saved you and carried you home.

There comes a point (probably the point Princesses cease to be real) that you stop being pretty and you start putting on pretty. It starts young. 50% of three to six year olds worry that they are too fat, 25% of girls 11-17 don’t play sports because they don’t think they look good doing it (read, guys might like them less if they did), one fourth of girls 14-17 years old sent naked photos in 2009 and in 2003 $1.6 million was spent on thong underwear for girls between the ages of 7 and 12. You cannot escape the TPC, even if you were one of the 57% of kids without a TV in their bedroom in 2003, Princesses are in schools, at the grocery and on the radio (Hanes). If your kid doesn’t know who they are, odds are he/she won’t have to make more than one friend to find out. Children are exposed to this so young that preschool age children “equate maleness to opportunity and and femininity with constraint” (Orenstein). This is feeding and raising a culture in which girls go from pretty pink to hot pink. It’s defining what it means to be and how to act as a woman from a very young age.

 

Club Libby Lu is one example of Princess Culture

What was once pretty pink turns into hot pink, just as costumes become sexuliazed for adults.

Who cares, why can’t girls just stop liking Princesses?

It’s not just about Princesses, but also about girls and how they define themselves as women, or better yet, how they are told to define themselves as women. We teach our girls to value their beauty above their capacity in math, to seek out the cosmetic aisle before the snacks and to value suitors over suits. To succeed you either need a man or to be sexy, and you can almost buy both. In the end, this all comes back to business, and the man watching wondering, “what are we missing out on here?” As Stephanie Hanes said, “Sexy is not about sex, but about shopping.” If sexy needs merchandise, and you need sexy, then it benifits the money makers for girls to need to be sexy. Even beauty has become a commodity, and like money, it is either something you are born with and must maintain or must fight for for the rest of your life.

Why are we still watching them then?

We can’t seem to let go of the romance, innocence, catchy songs, pretty dresses, villians and climactic kisses of Disneys movies. Disney populates the internet, drawing kids, teens and adults alike. Disney itself doesn’t sponsor all of the media either. Places like BuzzFeed or the Huffington Post have links such as “Disney Princesses with Realistic Waistlines” or “What your favorite disney princess says about your zodiac” or “Historically Accurate Disney Princesses.” Why do we click? It seems anything with “your disney princesses” in the title is guaranteed to garner mass attention. Clearly we know the movies are not entirely realistic; however, we are drawn to them, in all their forms. Why? For the same reason we revisit anything from our childhood. The Disney Princesses still feed a nostalgia. After all, isn’t that what fairy tales are for? To bring us back to a time when it was all entirely possible and it ended with “they all lived happily ever after.”

Cohen, Philip. “The Trouble with Disney’s Teeny Princesses: Disney’s Depiction of Male and Female Bodies Is Terrible for Us.” Time. Time. Web. 23 May 2015. http://time.com/3667700/frozen-brave-disney-princesses-heroes-and-sexism/.

 

Darley, Mical. “The Princess’s New Clothes.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 23 May 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mical-darley/the-princesss-new-clothes_b_5788300.html.

 

Hanes, Stephanie. “Little Girls or Little Women? The Disney Princess Effect.” The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor. Web. 23 May 2015. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0924/Little-girls-or-little-women-The-Disney-princess-effect.

 

Goudreau, Jenna. “Disney Princess Tops List Of The 20 Best-Selling Entertainment Products.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 May 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/09/17/disney-princess-tops-list-of-the-20-best-selling-entertainment-products/.

 

Orenstein, Peggy. “What’s Wrong With Cinderella?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Dec. 2006. Web. 22 May 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24princess.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

 

Orenstein, Peggy. Schoolgirls: Young Women, Self-esteem, and the Confidence Gap. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Print.

 

Stedman, Alex. “‘Frozen’ Becomes the Highest-Grossing Animated Film Ever.” Variety. 30 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 May 2015. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/frozen-becomes-the-highest-grossing-animated-film-ever-1201150128/.

Images retrieved from Google.

The Great Hypocrisy

Social class is defined by money. Depending on how much money you have, you live in different circles of people. The key there is “circles”. Social class is self perpetuating, and often confines a person to their social class, blinding them to those below them. Though, especially in America, we are taught differently. America brags about a social system in which not only is everyone aware of the less fortunate, and therefore appreciative of what they have, but also a system in which everyone is offered the same equal opportunity to “make it”. It is the patriotic message of meritocracy that we have come to know and love: if you work hard, and do your best, the system will work in your favor and you will go wherever you want to go. Despite the fact that this is a major simplification and generalization of what it takes to gain access to the finer things in life in America, it is the lesson my generation, the one before me and the one after me has been taught to believe. I would argue, however, that the lesson taught today about class in America is simply another example of systematic hypocrisy.

What are we taught about class? The answer to this depends on what class you were born into. We are first taught that there are the rich, the middle class and the poor, and you will fit into one of those. The other classes are foreign to you. However! It needn’t always be that way, we are taught. YOU, yes, you, can change your station in life just by working hard, and getting a good education! There is always further to go, and no one need ever be stuck on the lower rung of the social ladder! Not that it matters, of course. Because that’s the other cornerstone in our elementary lesson on class: Your class doesn’t matter. It says nothing about who you are, it is completely arbitrary. So, have no fear, you were born into America, not a class, you have the same opportunity as anyone else, it just up to you to make good use of it! Aren’t you glad our social system is backed by such well intended lessons?

As well intended as they may be, it doesn’t take a long time to realize there were some key points the lessons missed. As soon as we are old enough to be having meaningful interactions with other people, we can begin to perceive differences. One of the things we may notice is that the more money you (or your parents) have, the better, nicer, stuff you have. As we get older we notice even more things: not everyone with more money acts like they deserve it, you can tell who has more money than you do, some people just seem to have more, and how much money people have determines what quality of life they can get, and even, how they define themselves. The one other thing we notice, as we learn about class while we live: certain groups of people are more likely to be found in one class than another.

It is nearly impossible to discuss social class without running into other social dividers as well. Though it is my intent, with this essay, to remain on the subject of social class, I am interjecting to acknowledge the obvious. The history of our nation allows for a modern entanglement of social issues: race, gender, and class are just three main ones that intersect and complicate each other. There has been prejudice against people of any race other than white since the birth of this nation. Because of this there is an accumulation of disparity between what is available to white people and what is available to “people of color” (a similar disparity could be drawn between men and women, gays and straight, old and young). This means that even if class had no meaning what-so-ever, if you were born into another race, you are already likely to be at the lower rung of the ladder, and with a harder climb.

Why are the lessons we are taught so different from the lessons that we learn? What is the reality? In truth, many- most- people are born into the situation they will live in. It is the economic situation of their parents. It determines what sort of opportunities are actual possibilities, and what will be fought for and what will be given. The corruption of our pure and fundamental meritocracy lies nowhere else but with the system that guarantees the merit based system. Often the system benefits those that have a class (the mere stating of “a class” implies that those below the upper middle class do not even qualify as being a part of the social order). As Malcolm Gladwell states in his book Outliers “It is those who are successful, in other words, who are most likely to be given the kinds of special opportunities that lead to further success. It’s the rich who get the biggest tax breaks. It’s the best students who get the best teaching and most attention. And it’s the biggest nine- and ten-year-olds who get the most coaching and practice. Success is the result of what sociologists like to call “accumulative advantage.”” This means that everyone is not, almost ever, on the same level of experience.

For example, tests that determine which colleges you will be admitted to (colleges that in turn can determine your future career) and how much aid you will be given in affording said college, are often more a measure of how much money you are willing to spend on extra testing, extra preparation and private tutors. The people who can afford this sort of assistance already have an advantage of many college options (based on their assumed good education) and being able to afford most of them. The students who cannot afford such support, are the ones who are in need the better opportunity to raise them out of the situation they are in. However, the student who paid for the private counselor and the summer testing school get higher scores, get a scholarship, get career propelling educations and are able to provide the same experience to their family. The student who did the best they could, but could not afford the extra help, ends up in debt or with an education deemed as “less than” and spends more time (and money) trying to work through either of those things. Likely this means they provide a similar experience, give or take, to their family. Again, Malcolm Gladwell, gives another perspective:

“The lesson here is very simple. But it is striking how often it is overlooked. We are so caught in the myths of the best and the brightest and the self-made that we think outliers spring naturally from the earth. We look at the young Bill Gates and marvel that our world allowed that thirteen-year-old to become a fabulously successful entrepreneur. But that’s the wrong lesson. Our world only allowed one thirteen-year-old unlimited access to a time sharing terminal in 1968. If a million teenagers had been given the same opportunity, how many more Microsofts would we have today?”

This is where the disparity between reality and myth lies.

We are taught to believe in meritocracy and all its charms. We learn to live, however, in the reality of the situation: the uncommon ground on which we are born and the glorification of all there is to achieve. The best we can do is to maintain the same situation generation after generation. Why then do we still perpetuate the fable? Why do we tell our children that they can do what they want, work hard and go far? Is it because we wish for them what we never had, or because we teach it so early on when innocence is valued more than truth? Are we just in denial? Either way, there is one class which still believes that meritocracy is valid, and that is the wealthy. Blind to the struggles below them, they can perpetuate the idea, while receiving catharsis, that anyone can become them, anyone, even YOU. Often these believers are the same people who lead the system that supports them. The idea of meritocracy is simple hypocrisy, perpetuated by those who can afford to believe in it.

The Camel’s Back

“Something needs to change.” You see these words everywhere. They are used in relation to any kind of conflict, systemic or individual. The racial tensions that have flared through the media in the last year have caused an outcry, some people arguing there is an issue and some arguing there isn’t. Some have argued that there isn’t a problem and that itself is the issue. If your systems are working, but the result is discriminatory violence, is it safe to assume it is a problem with the system? If systemic racism seems to be the mother of many ills (I don’t think anyone would argue it is the mother of all racial ills), then aren’t we in a rather good position to do something about it? After all, the hard part of solving a problem is figuring out where the problem lies. Systems ought to be easy to change. At least we haven’t come to the conclusion that racial problems are solely a result of encoded genes that turn us against other humans; that would be very hard to change. No, most of the negative discrimination in our country is a result of systemic racism. Admittedly, systemic racism based upon generations of prejudice, but still an institutionalized and implemented system. Okay, so let’s change the system. Seems like an obvious conclusion, no? However, such an easy solution has become incredibly complicated.

 

Take recent events, for example. The images we are seeing from Baltimore riots are things we are accustomed to seeing from places such as Baghdad or the Ukraine. This cannot possibly be happening in our country, right? Not in the state next door, not under the same flag. These incriminating images include photos of charred cars in streets blocked off by riot geared policemen, armored cars rolling through pedestrian streets and men pleading with men for peace. Anyone outside the conflict can distance themselves from it, categorize it with images from far off places, dismiss it as a passing event that will be gone from your newsfeed in a day or two, or simply walk away from the headline. However, the event itself hovers. The youth are restless. It is they who know they will be the future; they know they will have to deal with whatever they do not change, and as tensions rise, they are determined to do whatever it takes to make something happen and be a part of the action.

 

Here is what I worry about: the tension is building. People, especially the hyper-connected youth, can see the conflict, the rebellion and the aftermath on the television. They see what gets lots of attention and what gets a little bit of attention. A peaceful protest garners little attention in contrast to burning buildings and looted liquor stores. As one Baltimore woman, Anaya Maze, said, “”I see no shame in being violent to be heard … because if you can’t do it peacefully then what other option do you have?” (NPR). In many ways, it is easier to get angry than it is to do anything else; and when you feel threatened, hurt, and exasperated, you are more likely to do what is easy. As a result of that, people are getting wilder and wilder when something strikes close to home. However, as Martin Luther King Jr. once stated:

“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”

It is sad to think that the content of this quote from the early 1960’s still applies today. As for the rioters today, it is not entirely their fault. They are doing what they think will garner the most attention to show what they mean. If attention through the media can only be achieved through violence and even crime, we are going to be losing much more than liquor stores when this comes to a head. People are being divided: those who are in the conflict, and those who are not. Those who are content to remain outside of it may one day be dragged in, and if we are already sending armored cars to protect them, I hate to imagine what might happen should they feel really threatened.

 

It is not a question of who is at fault, but an issue of the fact that those who are at fault are the ones with the authority to point fingers. What this means is that those with authority and power are content to ignore and dismiss the situation as long as they can. Meanwhile, the tension and suspense mount. These bursts of reaction are only flares from a much deeper volcano. The policy of colorblindness is dismissive, the idea that all lives matter is ignorant; until we acknowledge that some people have yet to count as lives and that color does not have to be hidden or negated to cease having a negative effect, this country will live its daily life with blinders on. That is not the way to solve any sort of problem, but neither is trampling police cars. What eventually needs to happen is this whole country needs to look in the mirror, blinders off, and realize that whether they like it or not, there are some things they are ashamed and guilty of and some things they are against. We must stop asking if racism will ever disappear. The prejudice behind racism is built into us, and as long as we can acknowledge differences between ourselves and other people, we will carry our own prejudices. But the racism does not need to be built into the system. Only awareness of prejudice and acceptance of it’s presence will allow us to achieve a balance in which we, as a population, are aware and our system is fundamentally sound. That is the future we should push towards, and until those who point fingers are able to point them at themselves, we will be working to a future that can only reflect today as much as today reflects fifty-five years ago.

 

“‘Ain’t No Way You Can Sit Here and Be Silent'” NPR. NPR, 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

Our Minds Are OCD: The Mental Sorting of People that Leads to Race and Prejudice

Our Minds Are OCD: The Mental Sorting of People that Leads to Race

 

What do you think of when I say black? Do you think of a person or a crayon? What about when I say race? Do you think of a person, a group, a culture, a community or the game you play at recess? Careful, what you think might label you as something too! What boxes are you putting me in right now? Because that’s what we do, we categorize people because it makes them so much easier to process. I’m easier to understand as one of a characterized group than I am as a complex individual, after all. What group do you belong to? If your group is better than mine, does that make you better than me? Because, after all, if you are white you can go to the pool any day of the week you want. But if I could only go to the pool on Wednesdays that must mean that I am black. Does the struggle make the stereotype or the stereotype the struggle?

Now that I have overloaded you with questions, let us pause and recognize how complex the topic of race is. As I have discovered in trying to initiate this essay, it is incredibly hard to focus on any one part of race without running into another (go figure). Therefore, I hope to focus on answering the above questions (well, sort of) by delving into the psychology behind race.

At the very basis of understanding our psychology is asking questions and listening to what they reveal. Often, a well asked question can lead to a surprisingly simple answer, however behind such replies are often the hidden assumptions of our subconscious. I have interviewed several people about the subject of race and racial stereotypes, and though I asked some questions about their own explicit opinion and experience, I also “played” a word association with them.  I asked them to tell me what was the first thing they thought of when I said a word like “America” , “White”, “Racist”, “Asian”, or “Georgia”. In doing so I hoped that these questions would reveal the subconscious of the subjects and the hidden meanings behind the words. What meaning do we assign these words? Where did that come from?

There are plenty of professional psychology studies being done in an attempt to discover what is the mental process behind race. What is clear throughout most of them is the basic human tendency to categorize people. One psychologist, Henri Tajfel, suggested that stereotyping is based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we lose subtle differences in the individual and exaggerate the differences and similarities between groups. (McLeod) Categorizing people allows us to simplify our social world by limiting the amount of processing needed when we identify a person or a group. The key word here is “identify” because categorization doesn’t just simplify the mental processing of a person, it also gives us clear markers.

Categorization leads to social identification. A social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their membership to a certain group. Belonging to a group gives us things in common and also things that make us different from other people, as Saul McLeod mentions in his article on social identity, “We find things out about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by referring to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group.” What this means is that we, mentally, not only sort people, but also sort ourselves. We identify with certain social groups and not with others. We can easily sort others into their groups based on how we identify them. What is one easy marker of identification and classification, mentally? The color of your skin. Another might be gender, or even your taste in music. In many ways a social identity is something from the outside that affects the inner identity.

Social identity also allows us to rank and order groups in our mind. As stated in Whistling Vivaldi, a book that sheds light on the psychology of stereotypes in America and details the studies behind it, “We think well of our group in order to think well of ourselves.” (78) What might we think, then, of groups we do not belong to? The generalized traits of a certain group may lead us to categorize someone into that group. We may, based on whether or not we identify with that group, then think worse of that group in order to think better about ourselves. What might happen if one group has more power than the other, if it is dominant?

Once you are mentally able to sort and identify others and yourself you inevitably run into the “them vs. us” mentality. In the introduction to this essay I gave one example of the objectification mentality: ‘if you are white you can go to the pool any day of the week you want. But if I could only go to the pool on Wednesdays that must mean that I am black.’ This scenario is taken from a description in Whistling Vivaldi, in which the author describes when he realized what it meant to be black. “They” in this scenario are white people, or anyone who can go to the pool any day he or she wants. “We” are in the group of people who cannot go to the pool except on Wednesdays; we are black. Suddenly, simple mental processing has transformed into prejudice. Where did that happen? Why do we perpetuate generalized ideas about a group and allow them to influence our social identities? In the Name of Identity suggests one answer:

“People often see themselves in terms of whichever one of their allegiances is most under attack. And sometimes, when a person doesn’t have the strength to defend that allegiance, he hides it….but whether he accepts or conceals it, proclaims it discreetly or flaunts it, it is with that allegiance that person concerned identifies. And then whether it relates to colour, religion, language or class, it invades the person’s whole identity. Other people who share the same allegiance sympathize; they all gather together, join forces, encourage one another, challenge the ‘other side’.”(26)

 

I do not know if I agree with this reasoning. Prejudice must stem from some concrete offense, shouldn’t it? Maybe we mentally pin a whole group with the offense of one and let that perpetuate. Perhaps our prejudices have nothing to do with our mental categorization? Does it all stem from a tangled history in America? If so, what the heck went on in the heads of people back then that justified or rationalized how they approached other humans as something entirely objectified?

It turns out that when you ask someone what first comes to mind, as I did in my interviews, their reply does indeed reveal a widespread and common belief. Often, in the interviews I completed, that generalization was predictable (the word America brought forward an image of the flag, statue of liberty, patriotic images). At the same time however, each belief was unique to the individual and their experience. Additionally, the mental image they described to me were centered around an image of an “other”. Even when one of the words may have applied to them, they were not included in the image. People who would not profess prejudice, people who condemned others with prejudice, in the end revealed their own subtle discriminations. How did they justify them? Most often, with a stereotype, with the same common and widespread belief.

Something in my core does not believe that race, and all the ism’s it’s and ial’s we add to it originate solely from our minds. Yet, the psychology behind it is understandable and logical, unlike the topic. Race, I believe, is fascinating because it is one topic we wish to, and need to, learn about, however cannot determine a neutral enough standpoint by which to examine it. We see race everyday, and depending on what race we ourselves identify as, we may never notice it. Our generation is one that has been brought to believe in a colorblind society, however, by that end we will only submerge ourselves further in ignorance then we already have. Is race itself problematic? Or just the suffixes we attach to it? I would argue the latter. It is not a matter of us ceasing to categorize people by their race, but a matter of ceasing to pin generalized notions to those groups that can then justify any prejudices we may hold. Does the struggle make the stereotype or the stereotype the struggle? There will always be someone who fits the stereotype. However, that does not justify the stereotype. It is the existence and ignorance of the stereotype that perpetuates the struggle.

McLeod, S. A. (2008). Social Identity Theory. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

Steele, Claude. Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011. Print.

The Insecurity of Gender

Gender, fundamentally, is nothing more then a distinction in reproductive parts. One has the label of “man” the other the label of “woman”. Each of these labels bears with a role, and a long legacy of people who have fit, challenged and changed it. It’s a role defined less by what body you are born with, but more by those who identify with the group and the things that distinguish them. It’s a socially defined role. While we cannot choose what body type we are born with it is becoming more and more accepted to choose what gender you identify as. Oddly enough these decisions are not made based on the wide variety of benefits one gender can get over another, but some inner desire to be considered another sex. Despite the increasing commonality of this, it is something our society is struggling to understand.

I, for one, will readily admit I do not understand in totality the concept of transgender-ality. I didn’t know it existed until a few years ago, not only was it not present in my life up until that point, but the idea that a person could choose their gender was just as foreign. This essentially means that I was raised with an identity. I was a girl, and there were boys. I acted the way I perceived girls acted or the way I was told was “ladylike”. Boys acted the ways boys did. In a way it was analogous to traveling in different social spheres. I didn’t choose to be a girl, I was raised and happened to identify as a straight girl.

I believe that this has resulted in a rather large insecurity. I had one of my first panic attacks over the concept of my sexuality, and whether or not I could be certain in what sexuality I was when I barely knew of what I wasn’t. I was terrified I would discover something that would change how I was perceived, or who I was. I’d double check myself, wondering if the outfit I was wearing would make people think I was gay, not knowing really how gay people dressed. It was not out of contempt of gay people, but of an uncertainty that unsettled me individually. I feared how I would be seen, how my life would change, how my role would be altered if I suddenly found myself not being who I had thought I was for years: a straight girl.

In contrast to my experience, my roommate is able to articulate her appreciation to her parents for giving her the wholistic understanding of sexualtiy and gender when she was young. She grew up aware of the fluidity of gender and sexuality and was therefore able to choose and grow into her own. She is grateful to her parents for making sure she knew that she is female, and that means nothing about who she was, and thought people are going to try to tell her how to act, there is nothing that demands she do so. This is a childhood very different from my own, happy cloistered one. I can’t help but wonder if it has affected who we are as women.

Does feeling secure in your gender make you more secure as a person? Gay people are more likely to commit suicide than straight people, and I wonder if this is because they are not given the environment to be secure in who they are. Though some of this comfort may come from within, there is an extent to which everyone needs to feel secure in who they are with other people, in what role they fulfil and what expectations there are. People naturally fear what they don’t know, and that is what makes gay rights and transgender issues so difficult to deal with. Some people haven’t been raised to understand them, many of Americans are like me: they have a fear of identifying as something entirely different. It is a fear they give into and allow to control how they perceive the identity that is so foreign to them. Therefore, when people see the same in others, they cast their doubt, fear and sometime hatred at them. It’s a prejudice based on an insecurity, and unfortunately a national one. Does that mean that feeling secure in your gender, and living in a society aware accustomed to the fluidity of it, would allow for less prejudice?

It is difficult to be able to look at gender without encoutering sexualtiy. Quite literally men and women were made for each other (well the parts were). Their roles were as well. Society has generated gender roles that allow for a balancing effect of traits. Unfortunately this has lead to a “superior” sex, a gender more capable than the other “weaker” sex. It’s a legacy that goes back far into the past, back to when a male was desired to carry on your name, back to when women were property of whatever male they were attached to, back to Lysistrata and so on. These roles are ingrained not only in our culture, but also in our identities. What place is being made for people to choose their gender?

Gender, in many ways today, is defined by sexuality. A girl is to pride herself in her sexual appeal, a man in his strength. Women are emotional, men are emotionless. Yet, we are a society entirely dependent on the codependency of men and women. Of course then people fear when others do not fall into the two categories, or threaten the “natural order” humanity. It’s an irrational insecurity and yet one that is understandable when generated by the same people who begin to define their children with an ultrasound and the gender it displays. Sexuality and gender are the building blocks of our society, and our identities, when they suddenly become unknown, some feel as though they are left stranded in the rubble.

Age with an Expiration Date

Age is with us all our lives, though we seem to never catch up to it. It is a qualifier, giving us a year to belong to, a range of possibility and life. Though we bear age with us always, we often do not settle in one, but are always seeking another. This perception, of chasing down another year, until suddenly you have caught it and wish to release all the others you carry, is strengthened by the media internalized by our society. The external influences of media imprint upon us and group us into generations, roles and stages. Each group is studied as a generalized whole and given characteristics. Individuals then come to identify through those  characteristics. In some ways we are essentially raised by the media. As we grow into media we also learn to read it, we learn what is meant to appeal to us and what we like. Part of learning to read the media is learning to be a social person, to compare oneself with others and to understand one’s place in that comparison. Through this mediation, a “normal” is construed for every age, a level for all of us to achieve and a typical we are expected to fit. Places such as BuzzFeed to Time magazine have articles with headlines such as “What every 20 something does on a Saturday” or “What your teen wants from school today”, as though every twenty-something or teen could identify the description provided. Instead what these articles achieve is a resource for a self comparison, and a desperation to belong. All in all this fosters a dependency on the media, or outside influences, to confirm who we are. However, the conflicting messages often make it difficult to discern what the “normal” is or what is expected of someone your own age. Teens, for example, are told to grow up, say no, and relish their youth all at the same time. Meanwhile the media they watch is full of adults ten years older than they are, who, at times, act as though they are teens themselves (and get away with it). So, as a teen, you act as though you are a young adult, acting like a teenager. The conflicting messages continue throughout life, for while you are told to make the most of it, youth is valued much more highly. Inevitably at some point you stop wanting to act older and begin to want to act younger, but have you ever paused to value the age you are and have been? The media affects how age is constructed around us, what is expected of us during these periods of our lives and what reality we are actually able to live through out all our ages. Do we or can we ever “act” our age?

Elders, for example, have spent their whole lives anticipating the end. Old age, for the most part, is largely ignored by the media. Generally the punchline to a joke, “old people” are generally put down in contrast to the youthful. They are presented as people who have given all they have to give and while they deserve to rest after a long life, can also be a burden. The elders you see on television have retained the glimmer of their youth or are walking down a beach arthritis free. Elders are displayed by the media as either entirely decrepit burdensome loved ones or bad-ass retirement heros. However, old age is a reality that waits for most. There is an invisible nearness to death that old age brings, which makes it so formidable to approach, or indeed, observe. Old age will be different for us all. No matter what happens to our skin, our minds or our limbs, we will continue to exist as a part of this world. We simply cannot live with the speed at which we once did and nor can we rely on our bodies to always bear what life throws at them. That is the reality, it is a reality of retirement funds, nursing homes, lost dreams and ultimate goals. However, most of our lives we have been expecting something different: if we work hard enough then we can spend the last twenty years of our lives on the golf course worrying only about which facial cream will reduce our wrinkles. Our belief in the smiling silver haired figure is strengthened by the small presence elders play in our lives today, as they are often cloistered away as soon as a decline hits them. We live our lives coming to expect old age to become some pleasurable experience. However, those who profit from such idyllic retirements are the cruise companies. In another world we might see advertisements of how to spend the last years of your life teaching in Thailand. Old age is mediated to the point that it has become a fantasy true only for a minority of elders. As people at the very end of their age, they are forced to come to terms with true meaning of their own age. However, the media about them pushes them to identify with the free and independent pleasure seekers or the submissive declining. What potential is lost in those final years?

Can we ever act our age? We are blinded from answering this question because any representation of “our” age is an amalgamation of other ages. As Thomas de Zengotita says, it is difficult to understand this paradox simply because you cannot escape the expanse of the mediation. We are living one year in pursuit of another while a mirror is held behind us to remind us of what we’ve passed by. In truth age is simply us growing up and how those changes make us behave. Our natural age is not the passing of another year, but how we act differently one year from the next. The mediation of age is extensive, close to the point of obscurity: “…when the original being of the real thing has been fully mediated. It becomes representational, that means optional” (from Mediated, Thomas de Zengotita). True age is not optional, it cannot be “turned off”, as you cannot avoid growing older. Assuming this is true, then perhaps age is one rare commodity that cannot be fully mediated, because inevitably, your age will continue on and on, long after you are a memory. Then what potential is lost when our age is told to us from the media, and what can be salvaged? From acting an age, not being your age, you lose the freedom to truly explore who you are in the unique and singular moment you have lived and grown that much. Each age is unique, in a sense, and ought not to be spent yearning to be a different one. Why must we also depict the decline of youth as a need for pleasure and glory, when that representation can only result in elders feeling less than for not fitting the image or being unable to send their money to golf clubs? As our mediated age stands it is undefinable and serves only to identify us with groups with the same number, when, in all likelihood, we grow individually and differently.

A true conclusion to this is impossible at this moment, simply because this is a product of an ongoing through process. I cannot create a conclusion, because I have none of my own yet.