Introduction
Race, class, and gender are issues that many people find incredibly hard to appreciate and recognize as characteristics of diversity that define people not only in the United States but also on global platforms. From this dilemma, this paper focuses on conducting a critique of various articles appearing in Rothenberg’s book Race, Class, and Gender in the United States.
Racial Formations by Michael Omi and Howard Winant
Michael Omi and Howard Winant discuss issues of class, gender, and race. They see these issues as social constructions as opposed to scientific aspects, which define people’s differences (Rothenberg, 2009, p.11).
The authors view race as a concept that is deeply seated in the history of all people across the globe since time immemorial.
Although human beings are seen as equal irrespective of their race, gender, or class with the modern approaches to race, gender, and class studies, Michael Omi and Howard Winant wonder why it is possible for one to see people who are different in terms of skin color, gender, and social economic status. Social economic status is a major factor that is used to segregate people into different classes.
Although this debate is not consistent with the struggles by many nations including the United States to ensure that all people irrespective of their diverse characteristics are considered equal human beings whose fundamental human rights must be respected, the argument by Michael Omi and Howard Winant holds substance. I agree with it.
Despite the extent to which people may decide to deny the realities of racial and gender identities, it is a fact that they identify other people as women or men, or from their place of origin. For instance, some Americans are categorized as Asian-Americans, whites, or African-Americans.
Notwithstanding the fact that all these persons are considered part of the rich American diversity, the usage of these terms to distinguish Americans has the aspect of race ingrained within them. Now, consistent with Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s arguments, it is perhaps impossible to see other people as ‘just people’ rather than seeing them as women and men.
This argument contends with Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s Assertion that “we utilize race to provide clues about who a person is” (Rothenberg, 2009, p.12). This ability is often navigated from one generation to another based on perceptions of how a particular group of people appears in terms of their faces.
It is common during conversations to encounter people putting forward comments such as ‘you really don’t look like a white’, which indicate that some people have some racial stereotyping, either positive or negative, on the manner in which certain races of people behave or act.
I agree with Michael Omi and Howard Winant that perception of class based on social economic status is a major issue that afflicts many nations across the globe including the United States. For instance, the authors argue that interpretation of racial identities is heftily influenced by perceptions of class (Rothenberg, 2009, p.15). This argument often leads to construction of negative stereotypes.
For instance, blacks have had an experience of being negatively stereotyped as predominantly belonging to a low social economic status. This matter perhaps reveals why there have been repeated cases for blacks being associated with crime. The question that rises from this issue is, should negative stereotyping of blacks explain why there is a higher prevalence of the blacks is prisons?
Does it then necessarily mean that blacks belonging in low social economic class, as they are profiled in some media, imply that they engage in crime to earn a living? My position is that these cases are merely habits of thought, which while given public attention end up being legitimized. Consequently, they act as incredible mechanisms of distinguishing wrongly and profiling other people wrongly.
This position agrees with Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s position that failure to appreciate that people are equal and similar amid their skin color or social economic status ends pushing for negative gender, race, and class perspectives beyond skin color conceptualizations (Rothenberg, 2009, p.14).
How Jews Became White by Karen Brodki
Written by Karen Brodki, the article ‘How Jews Became White’ narrates how European immigrants as from 1880s became assimilated into America, what the author terms as becoming white. This discussion is significant in terms of advancement of the debate of race, class, and gender perspectives as major experiences that the U.S. has been struggling to handle.
The article explores deeply into one of the dominant issues in America, which marked the beginning of appreciation of diverseness for Americans in terms of recognition of the contribution of every person irrespective of his or her place of origin, race, or class in economic development of the American nation.
However, the author makes it clear that the substantive growth of America as a nation has not come into being in an easy way, but has entailed many struggles to deal with identities of people who make up the nation.
In the studies of gender, class, and racial differences of persons, the developments made by the article on the process that was followed by the Jewfish emigrants before they were assimilated into America is incredibly significant. Jews were emigrants from Europe. Here, they were treated as an inferior class of people.
Such perceptions of inferiority emanated from the fact that Jews provided the much-needed labor to the Native American. This case made the ‘white’ even more wealthy especially during the era of industrial boom in the United States (Rothenberg, 2009, p. 61). The usage of the word ‘white’ is strikingly significant in the perceptions of race and class. Indeed, Jews are white in terms of skin color.
However, when it is argued that the white owned the factors of production while Jews provided the necessary labor to keep the industries moving on, it implies that persons in the low social economic status were not considered as real whites, although their skin color could be white.
Education is one of the essential factors that determine the social economic status of an individual. Educated persons have better chances of acquiring better jobs. Hence, their social economics status is also likely to be higher. This argument coincides with the Karen Brodki assertion, “prior to the civil war, a college degree was still very much a mark of the upper class” (Rothenberg, 2009, p.61).
This idea means that schools could only be accessed by those individuals belonging to higher social economic status, whether Native American or immigrants.
The situation even became worse for immigrants such as the Jews when colleges in 1930s had minimal rooms to accommodate immigrants irrespective of their social economic status. This argument is significant by noting that 1930s marked a significant time when racism was at its peak.
In this context, I agree with Karen Brodki that perception of race and class are essential factors, which help to explain the struggles that America has gone through in the effort to reach its current state of embracement of various socio-demographic diversities of her inhabitants and integration of different cultures of a diverse number of people (Rothenberg, 2009, p.66).
Today, the racially and culturally diverse people have a common culture referred to as the American culture. This culture does not segregate people along tribal, racial, gender, or even socio-economic class. All people have the rights to access justice and basic human needs including education and employment opportunities.
The Social Construction of Gender by Judith Lorber
Authored by Judith Lorber, in the article Night to His Day: the Social Construction of Gender argues that people create gender through their social interactions. This argument means that gender is acted and performed. Judith Lorber supports this assertion by claiming that acting of gender involves prescription of various roles for different gender.
For instance, the author says that it sounds awkward to some people who still believe that the roles of women and men are different in the society to think of men strolling children in the city of New York (Rothenberg, 2009, p.54). The manner in which people describe the dressing code and other characteristics of people also acts as a means of acting gender.
For instance, thinking of description of a child as wearing certain clothes, which are thought of being supposed to be worn by a girl child is a mechanism of acting gender. This argument means that people have particular things that they expect one gender to do and not the other. Indeed, it is until the last two decades that people across the globe have appreciated that men could also put on earrings.
This means that the history of people has always dictated things that are supposed to done by one gender as opposed to the other. In this extent, gender is performed and acted by people.
Although gender may be seen from the perspective of Judith Lorber as an issue that can be evaded, the manner in which evading it can be done supersedes the reality of the manner in which gender is constructed within the minds of people. Judith Lorber posits, “Gendering is done from birth, constantly, and by everyone” (Rothenberg, 2009, p.55).
This position means that immediately people are born, they are introduced to the debate of gender perspectives so that, by the time children learn to talk, they know the gender they belong to, mostly male or female.
Arguably, the process through which this process takes place is beyond the control of people since gender is implied even in the language that people use to communicate right from the usage of nouns to pronouns that refer to different genders. This kind of gender categorization of persons often gives rise to conflicts.
For instance, based on normalization of the only two types of gender, transgendered persons may end up having whole life internal conflicts amongst themselves in the attempt to come to an understanding of why they divert from the normalized gender categories.
Should this case then reveal why some persons who are transgendered strive with the problem of looking for mechanisms of transforming their gender identity so that they can fit into one of these two-gender categories: male or female?
Despite the challenges that are introduced in the society by gender acting, I agree with Judith Lorber that gender is inevitable in some aspects. Judith Lorber argues, “As a social institution, gender is one of the major ways that human beings organize their lives” (Rothenberg, 2009, p.55). The collective progression of a society is dependent on divisions of labor.
People can be selected to fit into different areas of economy based on motivations, talents, and even their academic qualifications. However, can people run away from the culture of classifying some jobs as more prevalent to certain gender relative to the other?
This question is perhaps more important by considering that, even today, while people claim that there is no specific job that needs to be the province of a given gender, people still allocate tasks in a work environment to different persons based on age and gender demographic factors.
Arguably, it is not surprising to encounter a job opening being advertised stating that the most preferred candidate should be a male or a female. Nevertheless, I agree with Judith Lorber that people are born with determined sex, with gender being socially induced (Rothenberg, 2009, p.57).
Although one is born with the awareness that he or she is a girl or a boy, or even transgendered, it is from social interactions that one comes to learn than boys or girls dress in a certain manner, play certain games, have certain names, which are feminine and masculine, and the unique characteristics that best explain their sameness.
The argument here is that, consistent with Judith Lorber’s presentation of gender identities along with how they are constructed, people perform and act gender. It is through such performance that one becomes cognizant of his or her sex.
The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz
In his article The Invention of Heterosexuality, Jonathan Ned Katz traces the historical development of the concept of heterosexuality. To the author, studying the history of this concept is important since, “by not studying the idea of heterosexuality in history, analysts of sex, gay, and straight have continued to privilege the ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ at the expense of the ‘abnormal’ and ‘unnatural’” (Rothenberg, 2009, p.150)
. From this assertion, it is evident that the author sees the concept of heterosexuality and the entire sexuality concept as being characterized by different interpretations as time progresses from when the biblical story of creation took place to the modern world.
I subscribe to the above school of thought. There has been a change of what people consider a normal sexual inclination. The history of American experiences with sexuality struggles perhaps reveals it all. In the early 19th century, being a gay or a lesbian was a big crime. It was seen as both ethically and morally inappropriate. It was considered one of the ways of tearing the social fabrics that had been binding the American society together.
The only socially justifiable sexual inclination was heterosexuality, which is now being described by the term straight. A century later, homosexuality including lesbianism and gay sexual orientation are considered as normal sexual orientations. Indeed, it is an offence to discriminate people on the grounds of their sexual orientations in America.
Jonathan Ned Katz also believes that there has been a big change in the manner in which sexuality is visualized. During the early Victorian age, 1820 to 1860, the author claims, “the actors in the sexual economy were identified as manly men and womanly women and/or as procreators” (Rothenberg, 2009, p.151).
This description means that, if procreation did not fit in the equation of any relationship between two people, such a relationship was condemned. This case was to change later in the 1960s to 1980s when recognition of only one sexual orientation began to raise attraction of sexuality movements such as those staged by homosexual with the objective of acquiring the rights of being recognized (Rothenberg, 2009, p.158).
This case clearly showed that sexuality is not a function of procreation but eroticism. In this regard, I agree with Jonathan Ned Katz since desire is the main driver of one’s sexual orientation. People have the freedom to satisfy their own desires subject to the limitation that they do not harm other people. Why should people fail to recognize homosexuality and other sexual inclinations?
Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History by Douglas Baynton
In this article, Douglas Baynton argues that disability encompasses one of the main aspects that are used historically to treat people unequally. According to him, discrimination of people has called into question the aspect of disability to ensure that such discriminations are justified (Rothenberg, 2009, p.33). Careful scrutiny of developments in the political arena of various nations makes this assertion of Baynton important.
Analysis of how different groups of people have struggled to gain their freedoms reveals that disability is not just a physical incapability. For instance, women were denied suffrage rights in America until 1930s on the ground that they had flaws that were related to their gender, which incapacitated them from making good decisions.
Such deficits provided amicable responses to why male members of the society were not only valid and capable for making decisions such as voting the right people but also why they needed to domineer over women. Considering also the mass killing of Jews during the Nazi regime, the question of disability also arises.
People who were killed during this time, mainly of Jewish origin, were considered an inferior race. Hence, the Jewish question was worth resolving. The solution was to mass slaughter Jews on the accounts of the perceived disability.
From the above discussion, it intrigues one to think of how gender, race, and class are interrelated in terms of disability. Baynton provides an adequate response to this noble challenge by discussing the experience of black Americans with slavery.
He argues, “The most common disability arguments for slavery were simply that African-Americans lacked sufficient intelligence to participate or compete on an equal basis in society with white Americans” (Rothenberg, 2009, p.37).
Therefore, there was a misconception that skin color could indicate the degree of one’s intellectual intelligence. Consequently, skin pigmentation, other than white, was a disability. In this extent I agree with Baynton that disability is a crucial discriminatory issue that the society has always attempted to handle.
Baynton evidences the darkest part of the historical relationship between disability and incapability when he argues that African-Americans were also considered having the risks of developing physical disabilities when they were given freedom.
While this argument is important in developing the arguments for justification of denial of freedom among black Americans on the grounds of the perceived and actual disabilities, it is questionable whether indeed skin color may be indicative of one’s proneness to certain disability challenges such as deafness yet biologically there is evidence that skin color is due to melanin.
This chemical component of the human body is not related to other aspects such as intelligence and susceptibility to situations that may make an individual disabled.
Reference
Rothenberg, P. (2009). Race, Class, and Gender in the United States. New York: Mac Higher.