Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (93)

- "doing" gender: new analysis of gender, reconceptualization of gender, interactional work associated w/ being involved in being a gendered person in society

gender as routine, methodological, recurring accomplishment, shift from gender as internal to indv focus on interactional

gender as emergent feature of social institutions, outcome of/ rationale for social situations, means of legitimizing one of society's fundamental divisions resources for "doing gender": processes t/ which we create diffs b/t being

male and female- recruitment at early age into either group, sex segregated bathrooms, sports, assertive mating practices can we avoid "doing gender"?: NO b/c too many social consequences of sex

category membership- allocation of power and resources in domestic, econ, and political domains and broad arena of interpersonal relationships, in virtually any relationship one's sex category can be relevant; diffs b/t men and women that are created t/ social arrangements are fundamental and

enduring; the sex category/gender relationship links the institutional and interactional levels- legitimates social arrangements based on sex category and reprod asymmetry/ inequality in face-to-face interactions social change must me pursued at institutional, cultural, and interactional levels

-sex v. sex category v. gender: analytically independent categoriesaccomplishment of gender v sex categorization: categorization not dep on living up to some ideal conception of what it means to be male/ female

sex categories omnirelevant: a person engaged in any/ all activities may be held accountable for performance of that activity/ activities as man/ woman, incumbency in one or the other sex category can be used to legitimate or discredit their other activities

-role theory: gender is not a set of traits, a variable, a role the product of social doing
ethnographic work done at Rosa Parks Elementary School, schools have the power to track certain students toward involvement in the criminal justice system by imposing continual punishment, punishment contributes to broader message about kids' identities: "trouble" means marginalization and isolation but can also mean form of recognition and identity as someone who has to be reckoned with, a "bad boy",

-unit of analysis: Rosa Parks Elementary School- Arcadia, medium sized West Coast city, largest of 5 intermediate schools, liberal community, White public school pop on decline

20 5th and 6th grade African American boys (10 schoolboys and 10 troublemakers): schoolboys- identified by school as "doing well", occasionally disciplined but none suspended, always on the brink of being deemed troublemaker, as whole did better than troublemakers academically but faced extra challenges based on race, some tried to distance themselves from "blackness", many had more trouble feeling a sense of belonging to any particular group; troublemakers- identified by school as "getting into trouble", all suspended at home at least once for fighting obscenities bringing toy guns to school, none exclusively truant, labeled as "at risk" "failing" "bound for jail" in-depth unstructured interviews w adults at school, students, parents

-intersectionality of race and gender: racial identities are also gendered,

White boys- "boys will be boys", in Ferguson's study White boys can be "Good Boys" (do what mothers must pretend they want them to do, obey, conform) but some granted leeway as "Good Bad Boys" who are naughty by nature (do what mothers really want them to do, break her little heart and be forgiven)

media pays disproportionate attention to crimes committed by men of color, black boys as "criminal", AA men vastly overrepped in prison pop

-how schools attempt to shape/create compliant students: misedu of young black boys, those who resist orders to obey are the focus of much teacher attention and become potential disciplinary subjects, how schools and teachers interpret noncompliant behavior is filtered t/ socially-created assumptions about race and gender

-how schools attempt to shape/create race and gender: schools try to adopt raceless approach where diffs in the kids' social positions and circumstances largely ignored, for AAs race is "fundamental attribute of self": boys in Ferguson study viewed their race w/ mixture of "pride, rage, and shame"; attempts to confirm identity as AA: schools don't validate or respect their identities as lower income AA boys, ridicule of ebonics, disrespect for parents, lack of understanding or attempts to understand boys' lives and concerns

-gender, race, & discipline: styles of discipline differ by class, working class and poor children more likely to receive direct orders from adults rebellion therefore is most likely to be voiced as direct confrontation against those orders, middle class children more likely to receive orders disguised as "suggestions" have more room to verbally negotiate w parents teachers may misinterpret cultural diffs: many teachers aren't sensitive to cultural diffs in behavior by class or race, may attribute more malicious motivations to behavior of student whose background differs from theirs

White teachers "adultify" AA males: regarded as having "inherent vicious, insubordinate nature that as a threat to order must be controlled", interpret boys' charges of racist behavior as nothing more than "blaming others" and example of "bad attitude", teachers don't attribute conduct to more benign factors like carelessness or need of many children to test adult limits

Black teachers view rebellious AA boys as needing to learn lessons about power diffs and "appropriate behavior" in racist society

Black and White teachers: although motivations diff, both likely to single out black boys for punishment while ignoring similar behavior on part of other students, schools attempt to eradicate more confrontational (masculine) behavior rather than grant leeway that would be given to White female students (misdeeds of White boys and girls generally overlooked)

bad boys may embrace identity as "outcasts"
negative consequences for their futures

-convergence of racially biased institutions: schools fail to be culturally inclusive, w/o adequate schooling the future is grim for many students and society loses out on the social benefit of cultivating their talents; schools label, punish, fail to validate, fail to teach, fail to prepare students for success; media perpetuates stereotypes of the dangerous AA male, employers' negative stereotypes reduce employment chances, expanding criminal justice system disproportionately includes AA males, maj of black inmates HS dropouts
Pascoe- Dude, You're a Fag, groundbreaking documentation of social processes that contribute to enactment of masculinity

takeaway: homophobia is a major element in dominant understanding of masculinity and its performance

-unit of analysis: River High, North Central CA, suburban working class HS, 1.5 yrs formal interviews w/ 50 students HS as research site: schools are site where gender learned, developed, enacted, enforced, potentially subverted; adolescence is period when sexuality and gender come together in particularly intense way, sexuality is particularly monitored in this period, can clearly identify social norms around gender and sexuality in HS setting

-masculinity: identity related to but not necessarily specific to male body, notions of masculinity not homogenous but a "configuration of practices and discourses that diff youth may embody in diff ways and to diff degrees", heterosexuality as central element, females can enact masculine behavior centrality of homophobia to construction of masculinity: Pascoe argues that what we see in HS is "fag discourse" related to enforcement of masculine norms

dominance/ power: teen boys gain status from other boys by claiming to be "a stud w/the ladies", sexual experience as source of status, double standard: male ***** is good but slut is bad, must be chick magnet: any rumor that boy had put girl under sexual pressure was sign of deficient sex appeal, sexually
explicit stories of sexual conquest and women seen as objects for men's sexual pleasure, boys attempt to show dominance over girls

-gender as performance: students at River High "recognize masculinity as an identity expressed t/ sexual discourses and practices that indicate dominance and control", ppl hold other ppl accountable for maintaining gender identity, those who do not "do gender correctly" may be corrected or even punished for their transgressions in the performance of gender, accountability to masculine gender norms enforced more rigorously among males than females both among students and teachers gender performance includes indv actions but are also part of larger relational and institutional gender processes, these processes are particularly transparent in HS environment, social processes as interactional

SOUND FAMILIAR: West and Zimmerman "Doing Gender"

-how schools reinforce heteronormativity: "creating gender and sexuality regimes", schools put students t/ a heterosexualizing process t/ the creation of a heterosexual matrix- public ordering of masculinity and femininity mild discourses of homophobia in student-teacher discussions: teachers rarely reprimanded students for homophobic insults, could engage in some homophobic activity themselves school rituals policing gender and sexuality: school events and celebrations organized by male/ female couples, heterosexual sex behavior both encouraged and discouraged, ex. Ms. Mac's panic when fulfillment of class assignment to create political party some students create "Safer Sex Part" and distribute condoms, boys not girls keep them when teacher collects school tolerance of male practices and discourse that indicate ability to dominate females: open "heterosexist discussions of girls' bodies", can speak directly of their evaluation of girls' physiques and particular body parts, can make sexual suggestions and taunts

-how race fits into this: racial elements of sexual policing: AA students more likely to be singled out for reprimand, punishment, or prohibition for engaging in (hetero-)sexualized behavior AAs (esp those identified w/hip hop) had somewhat diff perimeters for masculinity: could pay attention to clothes/shoes and dance, AA boys also had to engage in fag discourse but did so less than White boys: were more likely to tease each other for being White as stand-in for being feminized, more heavily watched by school, more likely to be punished for fag discourse

-the use of "fag": "fag" = a threatening and "abject identity", use among boys "naturalizes the relationship b/t masculinity and homophobia"

fag identity not static: in addition to using term to label others, boys can impersonate fag behavior in joking manner, heterosexuality reinforced when mock effeminate behavior is used then immediately dropped

fluid use of epithet fag: always has gendered meanings but doesn't always have explicit sexual meaning, rarely used as an epithet by/ among girls, boys used the term to police each other's performance of gender, fag as disciplinary mechanism to identify and correct gender deviance, used when boys are caught failing at masculine tasks of competence, heterosexual prowess, strength, in any way showing signs of weakness or feminine identity, epithet doesn't have to imply sexuality so much as it implies failed or soiled masculine identity

fluid identity: one could become fag when not sufficiently masculine, in boys' interactions epithet could be tossed around like hot potato, diff from gay (most commonly used in place of stupid)

fear of fag label: boys could always become a fag if didn't properly perform their masculinity, fear of being called fag restricted certain activities like caring about how one looks, dancing (esp among white males), male touching

-masculinity and gender resistance: gender maneuvering: ways in which ppl "act to manipulate the relations b/t masculinity and femininity as others commonly understand them", engaged in gender resistance by acting in ways not usually associated w/teen girls, gender resistance may not always challenge sexism: "girls who act like boys" sometimes engaged in normative masculine actions "by engaging in public practices that students associated w/masculinity (certain clothing styles, sexual practices, and interactional dominance), these girls called into q the easy association of masculinity w/male bodies"

-gender reconstruction: might lead to less sexist understandings and performances of masculinity and femininity, girls most interested in gender reconstruction faced the greatest resistance from school authorities gender bending: for girls gender resistance and non-normative sexuality can increase status/ opposite true for boys, if challenges to gender norms are framed as challenges to sexism and homophobia status of girls decreased tomboy: some took pride in tomboy past, others rejected and adopted less problematic and more normative feminine style, assumed path to lesbian

ex. The Basketball Girls: acted like boys in many ways and felt freedom in gender resistance, Rebecca: out and popular lesbian, some masculine behaviors, fag epithet didn't apply as strongly to them, GSA girls: questioned gendered and sexualized norms
-queer politics and movements: prob- identifying and contesting the discursive and cultural markers w/i both dominant and marginal identities and institutions which prescribe and reify "heterogendered" understandings and behavior, reinforce dichotomy b/t heterosexuality and everything queer

queer politics: "in your face" politics- encourages fluidity and movement of ppl's sexual lives, in contrast to category-based identity politics of traditional lesbian and gay activism
success of movement depends on ability to advance strategically oriented political identities arising from a more nuanced understanding of power, understanding that power and access to dominant resources are distributed across the boundaries of hetero/homo/queer → a more expansive left political identity, relational, intersectional

-queer theory: in direct contrast to normalizing tendencies of hegemonic sexuality rooted in ideas of static and stable sexual identities and behaviors- focuses on and makes central socially constructed nature of sexuality and sexual categories, acknowledges varying degrees of power distributed w/i all categories of sexuality including normative category of heterosexuality

-problem of unidimensionality/ single oppression framework: queerness is too unidimensional, agenda overlooks prominence of race class and even gender, political agenda centered on activation of only 1 characteristic of identity, single perspective of consciousness

single-oppression framework doesn't work!: misreps distribution of power w/I and outside gap lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities → limits the comprehensive and transformational character of queer politics
binary hetero/queer divide: activists view world using this paradigm, overlooks intersectionality and multidimensionality of identity and marginalizes many esp ppl of color, reifies power dynamic- using framework in which heteronormativity is identified as system of regulation and normalization maps power and entitlement onto normative heterosexuality → in doing so, deems queer as powerless, often goes beyond central division wrt heterosexuality, not heteronormativity (family v other)

ignores and/or downplays queers' varying relationships to power, ie multidimensional identities and associated intersectionalities, prominent in queer activism, writings, political movements, etc; operates in historical and ideological vacuum, alienation of sub-queer identities relating to sexuality, gender, race, ethnicity, class; alienation of potential allies
-solution: inclusion! Broad inclusive leftist analysis: challenge monolithic understanding of heterosexuality, there's no uniform heteronormativity which all heterosexuals benefit from, there's no monolithic experience of heterosexual privilege , again not all heterosexuals are heteronormative: polygamy, black heterosexual adolescents v white hetero adolescents, slavery barring marriage, patterns of regulating behavior and denigrating identity of heteros outside of heteronormative scope: US welfare system, stigmatization of unwed mothers, pathologization of underclass
need to incorporate the roles that race, class, and gender play in defining diff relations to dominant and normalizing power
ethnographic study of Clarendon Heights
- unit of analysis: Clarendon Heights, public housing development in Northeast, insular housing projects in working class neighborhood, site of 1970s race riots, teen underworld

-cultural capital: school site where socially valued cultural capital → superior academic performance → economic capital/ acquisition of superior jobs
each social class disseminates specific cultural capital, schools valorize upper class cultural capital and depreciate cultural capital of lower classes, differential academic achievement is retranslated back into econ wealth, school legitimates this process by making social hierarchies and reprod of those hierarchies and converts them into academic hierarchies

-habitus: structure of schooling bc it highly regards upper class cultural capital promotes belief among working class students that they are unlikely to achieve academic success → discourages development of ambition, connection b/t effort and reward taken for granted → HABITUS

habitus: subjective system of internalized structures, schemes of perception, conception and action common to all members of the same group or class (Bourdieu), functions as regulator b/t indvs and their external world and b/t agency and social structure

-achievement ideology: the belief that one reaches a socially perceived definition of success t/hard work and edu; factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, SES, social networks, neighborhood or geography are secondary to hard work or in some cases irrelevant to pursuit of success
boys in study both subscribe to and reject dominant achievement ideology
Brothers esp buy in to achievement ideology

-reproduction theory: reprod theorists explore how social relations in capitalist society are prod and reprod t/ examination of 1 primary institution: school

-social reproduction: structural and cultural mechanisms → social reprod
SES structures (what society offers) → occupational aspirations → indvs at cultural level (what one wants)

-personal deficiencies: HH- society deems them personally deficient, their lack of success if b/c something is wrong with them instead of institutional/ cultural/ social/ structural probs, but this is their point of pride

-aspirations v expectations: analytic distinction b/t the two
aspirations: based on preference regardless of constraints, involve assessment of one's desires and abilities, dep on opportunity structure
expectations: based on preference, involve assessment of one's desires and abilities, dep on perception of capabilities and available opportunities, account for constraints

-leveled aspirations: mechanism t/which class inequality is reprod form one generation to the next, social class into which one is born has a massive influence on where one will end up → social reprod
correlation b/t aspirations and occupational outcomes- if indvs don't even aspire to middle class jobs they are unlikely to achieve them, overall structure of class relations in one generation continues to the next t/ leveled aspirations
boys in HH and Brothers do not aspire to middle class jobs → indication of how class inequality is reprod in society, regulation of aspirations = sig mechanism: aspirations largely function of structural mechanisms, achievement ideology/ personal deficiencies → legitimize inequality

HHs: those at bottom of class structure have subjective hopes match objective realities- in some cases outside actors can intervene to help but HH parents rarely involved and schools devalue their cultural capital; school only tangentially related to jobs available to them, edu system cant deliver on promise of upward social mobility, edu/occupational track no engaging or challenging → contribute to internalizing objective probabilities which in turn negatively influence subjective hopes

Brothers: not faced w/pic of uniform failure in school, can remain somewhat optimistic, parents encourage high aspirations, themselves don't have sig experiences to aid in realization of aspirations, achievement-oriented and poor performance blamed on selves

-What happened? Clarendon Heights: gentrification, students and young professionals moved in, no longer easy to deal/ get away with crime, not still isolated

HHs: solidarity among them no longer present, work- little job security, low wages, no control, boring, high turnover, shift in economy from manufacturing to service-based, available jobs as janitors cleaners groundsmen etc, trapped in secondary labor market; edu- only Frankie gets formal training, low skills jobs mostly that require little training so no upward mobility; success- success in jobs only due to social networks/ informal networking; illegal activity- drug dealing, stealing, violent crimes tied to identities as White men; families- most have children, unmarried, live w/ family members., not self-sufficient, little to no autonomy

Brothers: few achieved dreams, most found traditional transitions to adulthood too difficult or beyond reach, ended up about same as HHs; work- service sector similar to HHs, achievement ideology didn't work esp in recessionary economy, even when employed and have success often fleeting, those w/training ended up in jobs overqualified for, Mike= only success story, only White Brother; edu- all grad HS, once employed suffer from racial gap in earnings, those who went to college found transition difficult, student loan debt, still believe school can help their econ prospects and does but marginally; aspirations- some still affirm equality of opp but think their aspirations should have been leveled, others think pack of econ opp explains why they've failed to get ahead; racism- not part of their lack of success story, bc employment opps have been constricted; new service econ → changed social relations of work place → workers can no longer be themselves: for Brothers who figure out this new social milieu work easier; respect- want it but doesn't come easy in jobs available to them; family- unmarried but stable relationships, some children, few live ind

TAKEAWAY: poverty = class not race issue, but Brothers have additional race disadvantage, social reprod
Do families from diff racial backgrounds raise their children in diff ways and if so how do these diff practices affect academic achievement? → finds small diffs across racial/ ethnic groups but very little diffs w/I class, concerted cultivation (middle class child rearing) vs natural growth (lower/ working class child rearing)

-How do parents' social class impact children's life experiences? Wrt general inequality: social reprod, child rearing often leads to replication of class/ inequality in general

- wrt edu inequality: children often replicate parents' level of edu

-wrt occupational inequality: edu/ resource benefits/ skills
acquired t/ concerted cultivation and cultural capital →
replication of occupational levels

-culture of logic: diff cultures transmit diff advantages

-NOTE: Table Child Rearing Lecture 19- middle class children:
may miss out on kin/ family relations, development focus on
stimulation that is intellectual social etc, schedules highly
structures and activities intended to give children advantages/
not dictated by children, children gain sense of entitlement,
questioning encouraged and accepted, parents easily adapt to
newest findings in child development, cultural repertoire same
as dominant culture
lower/ working class children: emphasis on kin/ family
relations including extended family, development natural and
at own pace, schedules highly unstructured/up to children to
decide what to do outside of school, students gain sense of
constraint, questioning unacceptable, parents less adaptable
and fairly set in ways, cultural repertoire diff from dominant
culture

-Tallinger's v the Taylors: Tallingers: parents- dual income HH,
both parents professionals, travel for work and mom adjusts
sched for family needs, high annual income, nice home,
prestigious college edu; kids- Garrett, Spencer, Sam, all white
world, very scheduled esp Garrett, spend lots of time at
activities; activities- position children to receive more than edu,
acquire "white collar" skills and dispostions (cultural capital)
→ cost: competitive, sibling hostility, weak ties w/family, few
interactions, difficulty w/ unstructured time; concerted
cultivation- 3rd shift, substantial parent involvement, Dad
involved but mostly Mom, parents and kids exhausted; family
dynamic- children have prefs for siblings, parents have diff
relationships w/kids, kids don't grasp privilege; adulthood-
emphasis on kids performing well, team participation,
reasoning, mobility, gather around calendar

Taylors: parents- female headed HH, low annual income, HS
edu, secretary, rented home, black neighborhood, Dad lives
closeby, sees kids once/week, unemployed dropout, once had
substance abuse prob; kids- Tyrec youngest decent student
peers important, Anisha mothers Tyrec, Malcolm step bro
works full time and finishing up HS, all spend little time in org
activites; family dynamic- frequent convos about $, children's
lives controlled by shortage of funds, respect for adults,
discipline/ withdrawal of privileges, parents don't hide stress
or conflict openly fight, children's activities don't set pace of
life, natural growth = no 3rd shift, siblings have each other to
count on, parents have similar relationships w/kids, children
aware of parents' struggles; trying out formal play- Tyrec
football team, mom gives in, financial/ time burden, working
class fams think org activities may provide some ind but not
crucial to overall development; life skills- children learn to
socially navigate on own, free play, rarely complain about
boredom, no sense of entitlement, no training in org rule but
more ind and creative
-"urban" as social/ cultural construct: comes w/ SES and racial connotations, not just about geographic location, ~inner-city, ghetto, slum, barrio, hood; changes in terminology tied to econ and demographic transformations of US cities post-1950s: shift from industrial/manufacturing to service economies, cour-ordered busing and desegregation, riots, % change in White pop

-unit of analysis (and why these 4 cities): SF Bay Area- SF, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland
why these cities? exemplars of national trends: emergence of uber wealthy cities- SF and Berkeley, poverty rates and low income HHs decreased, decrease in prod of low income affordable housing, increase in property values, aggressive gentrification; emergence of high poverty cities- Oakland and Richmond, increased poverty rates, gentrification but not so much in Richmond, gentrification slower in Oakland; emergence of minorities in power: mayors of color, sig employment gains for minorities in public sector; in all 4 cities maj of children enrolled in public schools poor and minority despite White majs esp in SF and Berkeley

-How do demographic changes in cities affect the character and quality of public schools?: demographic changes → API rank, parent edu, % free lunch, % credentialed teachers change accordingly

-race v space: Oakland Hills and Richmond Marino ~ SF and Berkeley than Oakland Flats and Richmond Iron Triangle, SF and Berkeley; SF and Berkeley neighborhoods that are still accessible to poor low income residents isolated and cut off from prosperity, disproportionate # of liquor stores pawn shops check cashing outlets, residents worried about gentrification pushing them out; neighborhoods in close proximity to each other yet strictly separated: ex. Montclair in Oakland foothills similar to Piedmont (town that seceded from Oakland) than Fruitvale (Oakland flatlands) 3 mi away

-social capital: Do schools reflect and respond to the characteristics (culture, demographics, SES) of pop they serve?

- institutions often respond to political clout or social capital so constituencies that have ability to apply pressure on public institutions, school personnel don't always respond to parents in same way (low social/ cultural/ financial capital parents and students not perceived as threat) → ex. Parents of Montera in Montclair can protest lack of resources and school will respond bc they can fund campaigns, back opponents, donate to politicians and causes VS parents of Calvin Simmons in Fruitvale

-social closure: social capital plays role in determining how communities served by public institutions esp schools; quality of services provided directly related to how in sync values and expectations are b/t institutions and constituents they serve: close match = social closure, social closure tends to be limited/minimal, scarce commodity in inner-city communities → weak ties b/t schools and parents, public institutions → deterioration of inner-city neighborhoods and quality of life

-weak ties: → assumptions, generalizations, stereotypes about inner-city residents (ex. Low lifes, crack heads, drug dealers, criminals) → manifest and support deep distrust and antagonism on part of minority parents
race and class serve as boundaries b/t neighbors → undermine solidarity, when they should have shared bonds based on common residence in cities, lack of services, social institutions, and civic orgs; diffs in background (race, cultural, SES) → lack of basis for developing networks and connections that could bond them in pursuit of common interests bc everyone wants better schools safer neighborhoods etc; gentrification puts younger upwardly mobile new residents next to older less mobile current residents → current resident may feel pushed out, neighborhood changes come w/new residents, yuppies v 2nd 3rd gen fams; biggest prob: diversity vital to health safety and wellbeing of urban neighborhoods but urban areas fragmented: public school demographics, schools ill equipped to deal w/changing pop needs and still serve current residents, wrt gentrification good for gentrifiers' kids, wrt immigration bad

-urban schools as social supports: pic isn't so bleak, some schools actively working to develop supportive relationships w parents in poor communities (health clinics, teacher trainings, changing/redefining mission of schools) → can mean diff b/t success and failure; to help disadvantages kids schools must change transform and forge partnerships

-inequality in action: what can be done? Improve schools, funnel $ into economies of urban (mostly poor minority) communities, edu/ inform parents, improve resources, reduce crime
define: Harlem, NYC non profit org founded 1970 by Geoffrey Canada; comprehensive system of programs to nearly 1000 blocks of Central Harlem

-goals/aims: focuses on combating effects of poverty and improving child and parent edu; doing whatever it takes to edu children and strengthen community → break cycle of poverty esp generational poverty; provide free support in form of parenting workshops, pre school programs, child oriented health programs; aims to keep "kids on track" t/college and into job market; neighborhood/zone approach, holistic system of edu, social services, community programs → full network of services; help kids as early in lives as possible (birth); foster critical mass of adults in their communities who understand what's required, have access to resources to help kids succeed

-program parts: 1) Baby College- workshops for parents w kids 0-3 2) all day preK 3) extended day charter school Promise Academy: 1200 kids, 1 adult/ 6 kids, 49 weeks school/ yr, organic garden and cooking classes, promise of college for all kids w teachers' jobs dep on it, job of all adults to make sure this happens not fully dep on kids 4) health clinics 5) community centers 6) youth violence prevention efforts 7) social services- foster care prevention service 8) college admissions and retention support

-funding structure: current endowment = $145 mil (70% private funding, 30% gov funding), budget= $76 mil/yr, $5000/kid/yr and $45000/adult/yr

-critiques: privatization of edu, reliance on private funding, inadequate evaluation (not enough time has passed), evaluations that have been done place Promise Academy in bottom half of Charter Schools, high teacher turnover

-social reprod: goal- prevent social reprod, counter class inequality, reduce poverty, reduce crime; schools and edu programs target lower performing poor and minority students by providing resources, opps, services to cover that class cap, diverse curriculum, all-encompassing programs that counter parental knowledge gap, private funding makes up for deficits

-Why zone approach?: fosters community development, easier for students to succeed when their communities also succeeding
Are workers harmed by racism, regardless of their race? (1974)

1960s Civil Rights Movement: elimination of racism w/o serious econ restructuring, why might you need to? Opening of employment sectors to new pops, improvement in quality of social services edu opps → could squeeze out pops already in lower positions

1970s: progress slowed/halted: virtually no permanent improvement in relative econ position of blacks in US, median black income 47-63% that of whites, segregation in schools and neighborhoods increasing, racial antagonism intensifying
racism: subjugates blacks t/income inequality, profoundly affects distribution of income among White landowners, capitalists, workers, ex. White landlord can charge high rent in ghetto; key mechanism for stabilization of capitalism → legitimates inequality

income and edu inequality: 1966 black college grads make less than white HS dropouts (2007 not much diff); unemployment: generally Blacks 2X as likely to be unemployed, layoffs and recessions hit Blacks with twice the impact as they do Whites- last to be hired, first to get fired; cost of living: Blacks pay higher prices for inferior housing and in ghetto stores, high insurance premiums and interest rates; diff forms of racism (ex. Pure wage discrimination, social and econ discrimination) mutually reinforcing not additive

primary sig of racism not strictly econ: simply economics of racism doesn't explain why many workers are racist even though racism isn't in their econ self-interests, outside of econs racism legitimizes inequality, powerlessness, alienation: ex. Many whites believe welfare payments to blacks are bigger detriment of taxes than military spending, believe their own poverty is result of blacks taking their jobs → ignoring fact that income inequality inevitable in capitalist system, racism transfers locus of whites' resentment towards blacks and away from capitalism

-Becker v Reich: Becker- racism is fundamental prob of tastes and attitudes, Whites have "taste for discrimination" if theyre willing to forfeit income in order to be associated w other Whites instead of Blacks, since this isn't feasible Whites want financial incentive → since White employers and employees prefer not to associate w Blacks they require monetary compensation for psychic cost of this inevitable association → higher wages for White workers so they win from discrimination but White employers have to pay these wages so they lose from discrimination ie they don't want to pay tax for segregation/all White workforce; white employers would benefit from racial equality and the ending of racism but white workers would not, therefore theres a persistence of racism bc of white workers; basically: WRONG, white workers win, capitalist class loses

Reich- racism is rooted in the econ system not exogenously determined attitudes/ behaviors; history supports this approach: US econ system/ empire founded on extermination/ encampment of NAs, profits from slavery, military interventions; present day white working class resentments toward Blacks rather than our capitalist system → continues to serve the needs of our capitalist system and underserve the work working class → legitimizes inequality; capitalist class benefits from racism: econ consequences of racism not lower income for blacks but also higher incomes for capitalist class and lower income for working class whites

Basically: RIGHT, white workers lose, capitalist class wins

-measuring racism: index- ratio of black median family income to white median family income (B/W), low numerical value = high degree of racism, closer to one = low degree or no racism, greater than 1 = reverse racism
(in 2011 this measure was 0.58) Reich calculates values for 48 largest SMSAs (standard metropolitan statistical areas): South generally more racist but there's a lot of variation in the North
% of share of all white income that is received by top 1% of White families, Gini coefficient: measure of statistical dispersion that reps income distribution of a nation, coefficient of 0 = perfect equality, coefficient of 1 = perfect inequality, both measures vary greatly by SMSA

-White working class and racism/ racism and inequality: relationship b/t racism and inequality (both measures) highly sig → where racism is greater, income inequality among Whites is also greater: consistent w Reich's model and inconsistent w Becker's, BUT we need to consider other factors- industrial and occupational structure, region, avg income, proportion of Black pop; when adding these factors to the statistical model, results stay the same; total wages of white labor reduced by racial antagonisms: bc union growth and labor militancy inhibited, fear of cheaper and underemployed black labor supply invoked by employers when unions present their demands, racial antagonisms on shop floors draw attention away from labor grievances relating to work conditions, racial antagonisms among workers prevent development of united worker orgs; supply of public services: esp wrt edu racial antagonisms dilute both the desire and ability of poor whites to improve edu opps for their kids, antagonisms drive wedge b/t 2 groups and reduce their ability to join a united political movement pressing for improved edu
how immigrants "became White", Euro immigrants assimilation into dominant culture, some other immigrant groups as well, achieving dominant cultural capital
-the home: "process by which new immigrant groups came to a fuller sense of their own whiteness and a more secure footing as whites hinged on becoming at home in US"; ambition/ goal of owning a home: not just badge of achieving wealth, but emblem of immigrant working class culture; new immigrants didn't buy into American Dream, they created it; home ownership above all else: sacrifice- edu children, eating, sleeping, etc; home ownership as means of honoring one's nationality; dual purpose of home: 1) site of family labor, caring for children and extended family 2) site of labor on the house, laundry for others, rooming/ boarding; usefulness of home dep on its ability to generate income
home as defining mechanism to maintain ethnic identity: potentially amongst great integration and diversity' home as site where language, culture, food, folklore maintained, younger generations could chose to identify w larger world outside of home but not w/I; over time part of this large world extended beyond other white ethnics including inter-ethnic marriage

-ghetto v slum: pre great migration north into urban centers poor pop of cities consisted of White ethnic immigrants who lived in ghettos; post great migration increase in black pop in cities → need to distinguish b/t 2 groups of lower class:
ghetto: where poor black ppl live, slum: where poor white ppl live

-voluntary character of White ethnic segregation: there is a voluntary optional character of white ethnic segregation v involuntary minority imposition of segregation on blacks and Hispanics
WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE? Waters
Were white ethnics truly segregated? Place and space as social constructions, immigrants likewise often made highly mixed places imaginatively their own

-White ethnic immigrants and Blacks:

-restricted covenants: covenant housing- new immigrant identification w whiteness → could turn on to defend of home and neighborhood; restrictive covenants to maintain segregated housing, structure identity; restrictive covenants limit/restrict/dictate who can buy homes and move into neighborhoods on basis of racial/ethnic identity, written into home deeds

-extension of "whiteness": covenants did this, immigrants who were previously restricted from entering the country (recall Glenn's work and historical info on immigration restriction on Asians), extension of citizenship bc they weren't white and fit to be anglo neighbors → now included via real estate agreements
some covenants also extended to certain white ethnics: Jews ended up concentrated in cities longer than other white ethnic groups but once they had mobility just like other white ethnic immigrant groups moved out of cities → white flight, urban ghettoization; who was left unable to move up/out, high rents for low quality housing, transformation of economy: jobs move out to suburbs and low wage jobs all that is left

-race making: racism, new immigrants and schooling: influence on racial learning, implicit message t/segregation, effect of native born teachers on immigrant students; effect of no in-group role models wrt white ethnic immigrants- same effect seen in Carter, Macleod etc
Is it the historical legacy of oppression and discrimination, cumulative effects, or present day discrimination? BOTH

-social dislocation (caused by social, demographic, and econ changes): race and crime- disproportionate # of blacks commit and are victims of crime, these rates further vary based on econ status of community, highest rates of violent crime in communities of the underclass; ex. Chicago housing projects, Robert Taylor Homes (1983) median income $5000, 100% black HH, 69% pop under 18, 93% of families w children female headed, 1% of Chicago's residents reside in but 11% of murders, 9% of rapes, 10% aggravated assaults
family dissolution and welfare dependency: 1983- 25000 families lived in Chicago public housing, only 8% married couples, 80% HHs received AFDC, remaining 92% female headed HHs; even if moms do work: earnings are substantially lower than males, no 2nd income to supplement HH, no safety new if something goes wrong; 1959: 30% of black families female headed → 1978: 74% → 2010: 62% better but sig higher than Whites (20%); accompanying this: out-of-wedlock births; these probs most acute in "ghetto neighborhoods"
social, demographic, and econ roots: social- historic and contemporary discrimination wrt employment, housing, criminal justice system demographic- changes in pop from migrant flow: white ethnic immigration (Reich and Roedigger), northern migration primarily on part of blacks, movement into urban areas, hard for blacks to find employment niches, disenfranchisement- northern blacks were there longer than white ethnic immigrants but maintained lower social and class status, inferior schools ("separate but equal"); changes in age structure- black pop relatively young, in part bc of continual replenishment of urban black pop/ black migration to urban centers, few adults few ppl in professional positions fewer ppl employed, lower econ base → youth factor wrt crime, out-of-wedlock births, female headed HHs, welfare dependency
economic- urban areas experienced greatest decline of jobs in low-level edu industries from shift to service sector and outsourcing; changing structure of workforce: more women, higher levels of edu, growing labor force/surplus of workers/ employers can be picky

-social probs of urban life → probs of racial inequality:
-tangle of pathology: in inner city, presents stats on issues plaguing inner cities w/o sufficient explanation → reinforces racial stereotypes; these issues have complex sociological antecedents: demographic, econ, structural changes → social dislocation

-concentration effects: social transformation of the inner city- urban pop decreased, urban poor pop increased, urban pop in high poverty neighborhoods increased; social transformation → social dislocation: increase rates of crime, joblessness, out of wedlock births, female headed HHs, welfare dependency → change in econ class structure of ghetto neighborhoods → concentration of poverty in small, specific areas; growth of high and extreme poverty neighborhoods epitomizes social transformation of inner cities esp bc this is coupled w nonpoor black middle and working class out migration

-social transformation → social dislocation → social isolation: excludes ghetto residents from not only dominant society but from other neighborhoods and an chance at engaging w role models, cultural capital, social capital; whatever social contact they do have enhances effects of living in high poverty neighborhoods

-Is it a cultural issue?: NO- ghetto/urban underclass's probs
due to complex web of factors: shifts in economy, historic flow of migration, changes in demographics (age, pop size, class transformation) → not cultural issue (ie. Blacks lazy or unmotivated), culture of poverty argument doesn't hold up