Hidden Hierarchy

In sociology classes, we would often discuss the very worst aspects of human interaction such as violence; and it would infuriate me. Even some of the more benign (but still harmful) issues such as jobs being related to appearance got me all riled up. I could not and still do not understand how people can dedicate their lives to studying humanity, find out horrible things that happens here, there, and everywhere else; and talk about them with such non-nonchalance. I get that they are there to study, not to form policy or be activists so that it is imperative that they keep their distance. I just do not believe that they can dedicate their lives to studying people and not have opinions about the very things that affect people.

This is not to be negative about my instructors, overall, I found them professional, knowledgeable, and to be good people. I am also not questioning their ability to be fair in their work. I just don't buy that they don't have opinions. Social sciences are often criticized for their lack of objectivity, but other scientists have opinions as well. The beliefs held by astronomers influenced their view of the universe such as geocentrism. The beliefs held by doctors often did and still do influence the care provided http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/article/243609/BIAS_in_Medicine.html . My point is that no matter what you study, you effect it in some way. By preforming experiments on MOLD, scientists changed how it behaved http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071 . So science has bias, but I think social sciences get an especially bad rap about it because it is harder for people to objectify results in others than in mold or stars.

Just as studying mold affected it, studying humans certainly affects them. So we have a sociological paradox: by learning about interaction we change the way we interact. I suppose the plus side of this irony is that it would keep sociologists in constant employment.

Although I find social sciences (yeah, I have a soft spot for sociology) fascinating, I would never be able to advance in those fields because I am WAY to opinionated to be professional. That, and I am not too keen on writing academically or teasing out numbers. However, I still informally practice it because I cannot help but to see the unwritten rules that govern our lives. At the end of the day, that is what sociology is all about, the informal expectations that people are held accountable to as though they were formal laws (albeit in different ways).

Recently, one of these unwritten rules has jumped out to me at work. The written rules place the board above the executive director; the ED above the: directors of each program; and each of those directors above the employees/volunteers in their areas. In the shelter there are daytime employees who do one of three things: shelter, legal, and education. The organizational chart puts those three positions as equals to each other and the night/weekend staff and volunteers and directly below the shelter director (SD). Offices in shelter are laid out in such a way that upon entering from the administrative side, you encounter 1:(SD), 2:education person, 3: night/weekend people, 4:shelter person, and 5:legal person. The SD's office is the biggest; beyond that the only difference between the other offices is that the night/weekend one has the alarm, cameras, and other stuff necessary for being there alone at night. One other difference is color. When a new person starts they get to pick the color of their office and a volunteer paints it. There is noting special about say office 2 that suits it to the needs of the education person.

Let's say that the education person were to leave, that office 2 would be open until someone else takes the position. Okay, that is not 100% true. The shelter person would take office 2, the legal person would take office 4, and the new education person would take office 5. I say this because I have seen people come and go; consistently, the newest person is put in 5 and everyone else is moved one up (in closeness to the administrative side) while leaving office 3 alone (3 has the night infrastructure). Office 1 is reserved for the SD who formally outranks the rest of us. So if shelter, education, and legal are equals (as they are officially) why is it that everyone bothers to move from their customized office when someone leaves?

It serves as a status symbol. Of the individuals of the same shift and rank; having a lower number office has always coincided with having been working here the longest. People go through all of the trouble to give up their favorite color, pack, move, all to resettle about 12ft down the hall. It is a pain and a giant hassle, but it is done faithfully. A ritual, especially an inconvenient one, must have meaning to people in order for them to participate in it voluntarially. The people in offices 4&5 have a stake in gaining a lower number because it represents a higher position.

It is worth mentioning that the lower number is not purely symbolic; since they are closer to administration, they are further from clients, less likely to hear noise, and less likely to be interrupted by client's needs. These are very real perks to have over your supposed equal. The funny thing though, is that the people in offices 2,4&5 would not hesitate to tell you that they are equals. Yet after multiple people leave and others take their positions, this pattern remains undoubtedly influenced by the unwritten rules.

Stereotypes and spies

I have noticed that certain insurance companies are moving towards individualized rates. What I mean by this is that they adjust rates based on measurements of things co-related with lesser risk to them financially. For instance, this article is about health plans http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/04/nation/na-wellness4 and Progressive has a device that will plug in and monitor your driving habits http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot-common-questions.aspx .

I have mixed feelings about these practices. I guess it boils down to a fight between prejudice and privacy. This is not to single out insurance companies, as policies for all industries change with time; but insurance is the one of the few products that we put up with being charged different rates based on demographics.

Traditionally, and still commonly today one's insurance rates are based upon factors such as age, sex, zip code, marital status, credit rating, occupation, and education. The amount paid depends not upon the person's ability but by the combination of boxes that they fit into. For the longest time, this was the only option based on limitations of technology and cultural norms. I have many older family members who would have a Orwellian heart attack if they understood how much information we volunteer to the world and what it means to post on blogs or social networking sites. These older relatives grew up in a time where fear of spies was almost unmatched. To them the idea that I would put my thoughts out for all is ridiculous. This, in combination with the institutionalized social categorizing that was seen as natural, check-box policies were appreciated and suggesting anything else was dangerous. The issue with this is that people are pigeon-holed based upon the past behavior of others like them and there is less incentive to drive safely/ have healthy habits.

Currently, companies such as those described by the above links have begun using technology to adjust rates based upon individual behavior. This is more fair than basing rates on demographics because it places the individual as responsible for heir behavior as opposed to the behavior of past people like heir. However it can also be dangerous. For one, if my auto insurance company collects info on how I drive they could give or be forced to give it to others for purposes other than the original intent. It would not be a far stretch to combine the snapshot technology with a GPS receiver and have instant and constant access to someone's whereabouts. This maybe a positive if your child gets kidnapped, but I for one am uncomfortable with the idea that my little flashing dot can be traced via computer. I guarantee that if the government or a company has technology, it can be copied by skilled hackers or eventually sold commercially. Working at a domestic violence shelter, I have seen abusive people track down their “family” and threaten their lives. I am not looking forward to the time when you can spend just $9.99 to find someone in seconds. I realize tracking someone is possible now, but still requires skill, time, and work; enough so that I do not find it to be common problem. Another issue I have with this approach is that it claims to bases things on statistics, but statistics tend not to differentiate between correlation and cause/effect. If health insurance is partially based upon BMI (hailed as an indicator of health), than it unfairly punishes those that are healthy despite size as discussed here: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0505c.shtml . Likewise with the snapshot program, one way to get a discount is by “Minimizing driving during peak hours or between midnight and 4 a.m.”. Now I bet that there are more accidents per mile driven during those times, but again the time itself is likely not the factor. My guess is that more accidents happen then because most people usually sleeping during those hours which means that when they have to drive they are groggy and less capable. As a 3^rd shifter I am a much safer driver at night when I am usually awake than in the afternoon when I go to bed.

I suppose there really isn't too much difference between these new rating policies and old ones. They both group you into risk piles based on trends of others with certain characteristics. The new ones just get more specific about which trends to follow. I suppose the question remains: What is the optimum level of privacy to fairness? My prediction is that we will move closer towards the individualized policies as people grow more comfortable with technology and less comfortable with the idea of stereotyping; both of which seem to be the current trends.

A bit off topic is this whole idea of discounts. I am a big fan of feeling like I have saved money through whatever means the seller requires (coupons, paying in cash, having a student id...). I think it is interesting though that we phrase these differences in amount paid as discounts as opposed to surcharges. People would be pissed off if the “discounted” rate was posted as the norm and then surcharges were added to make up for the cost (say of using a credit card over cash for small purchases, or that non-senior adults eat more at buffets). While in reality it adds amounts to the same thing; if it was the standard that things were sold with surcharges, I bet people would start claiming discrimination. Ironically, we forgive the very same discrimination when we feel like we are saving money or maybe we just don't recognize it as discrimination, but a fair average of trends. Uh-oh, I think just looped back to insurance policies and their traditional check-box policies.

Enlightened Silence

Having become more outspoken lately, I find it odd that I am having more trouble expressing myself than ever before. This outspokenness has correlated with an increasing awareness of social inequalities and I think that awareness is what I find limiting.

It is not new for me to confront people about their homophobic or sexist comments. While I would like to convince myself that I was always aware of and bothered by derogatory comments directed at others, but felt that it wasn't my place to speak for them; I really don't think it is true. I knew that certain words were unacceptable but they just didn't mean a whole lot to me. I was taught to not use racially charged words, but rarely felt the same desire to challenge the language as I do with those related to sex(uality). Even worse, words implying class, sexuality, or ability were common in my vocabulary. In hindsight, I was mentally playing oppression ranking games which downplayed the issues that others face.

Farmer's tan/ Redneck: negatively implying that one works outside. By extension of this, the person is likely to be working class. Now granted being tan is acceptable and even coveted as evidenced by all of the many pale acceptance results that are generated by a Google search of “pale as beauty”. However that doesn't mean that all tans are created equal. Having tans lines following the pattern of clothing sends a clear message that you are outside not for fun, but to do manual labor. So we have terms like farmer's tan to distinguish the effects of being outside due to leisure from those due to work. A part of me is wondering if the need to distinguish between a work tan and a leisure tan has been a factor in the trend of clothing to get more revealing over time. For instance, I just bought a shirts from the men's section that were cut in the style of women's shirts from 5-10 years ago (Sleeves that would show underarm hair & a collar goes just below the V shape in the sternum) Maybe by showing just a bit more skin people can subtly prove that they have no tan lines to hide. This is definitely a racial issue as well, as time spent inside versus outside has more quickly noticeable effects in Caucasians than in other racial groups.

Suck it/Fuck you/That blows/many others: implying sexual acts as should be performed by the listener to the speaker as a form of subordination. It is very unlikely that in any given instance of these phrases being spoken that the speaker is soliciting consensual, mutually satisfactory sex. Instead the speaker is implying that one should be in the service of speaker regardless of the others needs. The speaker is saying that the listener is below them and worthy of not only a lack of consideration, but possibly a violent crime. Even when the phrases are not directed at a person, they are very sexually negative. 'Fuck it' is a way of saying that you don't care. Why would one talk about having sex with someTHING they don't care about? Because in this sense sex is used as a metaphorical weapon to distance oneself from something they can't handle. Admittedly these are the ones that I have had the hardest time trying not to use. While sex is not on my list of favorite activities, I respect that others enjoy it. The last thing I intend to do is to encourage people to use their bodies as sexual weapons against those who annoy them, but I am struggling to express frustration/dissatisfaction without being sexually negative. In trying to avoid these words I have found out that “I statements” as taught in elementary school by the counselor are the only other way I can express these feelings. This new nicer way of self-expression has made me feel more responsible for my negativity. No longer can my annoyances be projected on to a person or thing. To say 'That blows' is stating that your opinions are fact for which any responsibility rests with 'that'; while to say 'I don't like that' is to own up to one's feelings.

Lame/Retarded: implying a lesser status associated with having a disibility. Admittedly, I cannot even hide behind the guise of privilege blindness with these types of words. I grew up with a family member who has trouble walking and have seen mistreatment (usually subtle) many times and the hurt it causes. I am ashamed to look back at some of my actions regarding this since I should know better on this one. That is not to justify my use of other derogatory words as more valid because I wasn't directly affected by them; I guess it is easier to mentally give myself a pass when it comes to oppression I do not witness. Another ironic aspect to this is that I directly am affected by abilism. Granted, my epilepsy is largely invisible and I do not hear people saying 'that's so epileptic', but I still have faced stigma and should not be putting down those with physical or mental disabilities. I never considered myself to have a disability until recently and asking for accommodations at my last two jobs made me so anxious that I considered just dealing with it at the expense of my health and productivity. Again not identifying with a group does not justify stigmatizing them; this topic is hard for me because I am realizing just how many preconceived notions I carry around despite my proclaimed open-mindedness. If I can be derogatory towards groups that I should be supporting, what chance do I have to be fair to groups that I am not apart of?

For now, I will continue to try and be conscious of language. This means not waiting for someone to tell me that a word is derogatory; but critically considering what words mean and be especially weary of passive insults.

A Swiftian Proposal

Following the example of all those go-getter lawmakers who have taken to practicing medicine, I thought that I would take my turn at writing law. So at risk of reductio ad absurdum I present my proposed legislation to protect the pre-concieved.

Given that human life is sacred and must be protected from those who would do it harm, we hereby declare that the waste of pretential life a crime. For the purposes of this document, pretential life is defined as a human gamete; the term is a hybrid of the phrases: pre-life and potenital life. Being that a gamete's purpose for existence is to combine with another gamete to form a human; the careless waste of pretential life thus far in history is a genocide of unmatched proportions. It is based upon the principle of the protection of the pre-concieved that this law has been written.

 

Fertility testing is mandatory for all. The infertile are only allowed to have sex with each other so as not to waste another person's potential contributions to the human race. Sexual activity not directly affecting gametes is excepted from this regulation. Those ruled to be infertile must prove that they took no actions that may have caused the infertility or else be held liable for the destruction of pretential life. Menopausal women are to be included in the category of infertile.

No contraception of any kind is allowed to be manufactured, sold, or used. While condoms have the ability to prevent disease, the lose of the pretential life of many is of greater importance than an individual's health status. It is also recognized that other forms of contraception have other health effects, but as with condoms the risk to the individual is irrelevant in comparison with the risk to the pretential life.

From this point forward in this document, the generalized terms of: men & women will refer only to those who have not been ruled infertile.

Men are not allowed to “spill seed” in any non-reproductive manner. Men are not allowed to use any substance which may negatively affect their fertility or sperm count; it is recommended that men talk to their doctors as certain prescriptions may violate this provision.

Women are required to have appropriate sex with a man during their peak times for conception; failure to do so will result in criminal charges. Unless a woman has proven that she is pregnant, she is not allowed to refuse the request for sex from a man. Being that activities such as: masturbation and sex with other women do not affect pretential life in a woman, these activities are allowed; however these privileges do not exempt women from their obligations as defined elsewhere in this document. Followed the precedent that possession of condoms is evidence for prostitution,                                     http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-advocates-condoms-prostitute-cases-16158623#.T5_RqdWAq0s  the possession of “feminine products” is to be considered evidence of intention to destroy pretential life. Women are not allowed to use any substance which may negatively affect their fertility or ability to carry pretential life to term; it is recommended that women talk to their doctors as certain prescriptions may violate this provision. States are allowed to set their own pre-menarchy regulations.

While this law does not specifically prohibit appropriate sexual activity while a woman is less likely to conceive, local regulations may do so; it is recommended that a person consult with a lawyer given the potentially serious consequences to pretential life.

 How sad is it that I am anxious about post this purely satirical legislation? I think I would owe it to society to kick my own ass if this gives certain politicians ideas for their misogynistic policies.