Yoshino Dialogue
Overview of Pauker Study
The Pauker study that was mentioned in Velasquez-Manoff’s article “Want to be less Racist? Move to Hawaii.” focused on the idea of essentialist views being presented in children from ages four to eleven in two completely different environments. Pauker looked to test her hypothesis with a sample group from Massachusetts and another sample group from Hawaii in which there were a total of 136 children total. (Pauker et. al) Broken down, The sample consisted of children 4–11 years of age, with 68 children from Hawai’i (37 boys, 31 girls; Mage = 6.73, SD = 1.94) and 68 children from Massachusetts (38 boys, 30 girls; Mage = 6.40, SD = 1.78). (Pauker et. al) These essentialist views that were spoken about were code for racial stereotyping, racial stereotyping being making assumptions about one based on their race or ethnicity. The idea was to figure out when they began to show signs of these views forming.
What was found was that these racial stereotypical views began to occur primarily in children that were sampled in Massachusetts, of which should be acknowledged, were primarily white. They happened to express stereotyped views such as, “that blacks were aggressive or, on the flip side, good at basketball; that Asians were submissive and good at math.” (Velasquez-Manoff) Meanwhile in Hawaii, ” the children, including those who were white, tended not to express the same essentialist ideas about race.” Along with, “they did not attribute to race the inherent qualities — aggression or book smarts — that their mainland brethren did.” (Velasquez-Manoff) In order to find this, they had “Children completed measures assessing race salience, race essentialism, and in-group and out-group stereotyping” (Pauker et. al)
Pauker had predicted the results that had occurred, with her hypothesis explaining, “Whites dominated in the Boston area schools, but were a minority in Hawaii, and always had been. Hawaii also had the highest percentage of mixed-race people by a long shot in the country.” (Velasquez-Manoff) So the results of her study weren’t a complete surprise to her when they got the results. She essentially found that where white’s were a majority, they tended to hold a more essentialist view. Compared to in Hawaii where people who are “mixed” are the majority, which has been cause for more inclusivity and less focused on attributing “behaviors” to ethnicity.
Velasquez-Manoff “Want to be Less Racist? Move to Hawaii“
Velasquez-Manoff presents a side of Hawaii that a majority of mainlanders have never really gotten a chance to understand or relate to. The title of this article really hits it out of the park in describing what is to come and Velasquez-Manoff really goes into his ideas based on racial attitudes in Hawaii and the story behind why he got into this topic.
Velasquez-Manoff is heavily influenced by Dr. Pauker, who he mentions primarily throughout his piece. Describing her as “a psychology professor is of mixed ancestry, her mother of Japanese descent and her father white from an Italian-Irish background.” (Velasquez-Manoff) Her focus being primarily “essentialist thinking” in which she conducts studies in both Hawaii and Boston (Velasquez-Manoff). From this, she found that people on what is referred to frequently throughout this piece as the “mainland”, were more apt to stereotyping people based on their looks than people in Hawaii. This is all relates to Velasquez-Manoff because he took an interest in Dr. Pauker’s work, at one point stating “I’m interested in all of this partly because I myself come from a mixed background. I have an Ashkenazi Jewish father and a Puerto Rican mother (neither of which, I should point out, is a race).” (Velasquez-Manoff). He is able to relate to her work and it certainly piques his interest, as he comes to meet her later on. He states “The question of how people from mixed backgrounds create their identity has, until recently, mostly been ignored by psychologists.” (Velasquez-Manoff) which I think is what really gets in the ball rolling in terms of how he developed his ideas.
He understands and realizes that normally, people have biased views when observing others, quickly categorizing them by just one look, at one point he even succumbs to this himself. He mentions when he was on the campus in Hawaii “The campus was clearly diverse, but I quickly realized the assumption underlying my fieldwork was fatally flawed. Here I was trying to discern ancestry, but how was I to know anyone’s background just by looking, particularly in a place where people were so mixed?” The views that he is certainly against is something that even he falls short to at some points but he realizes that and looks to go further than that and we see that throughout the piece.
Gay “Bad Feminist”
“Bad Feminist” can be described as a piece that a lot of women can relate to. Navigating around the complex subject of feminism is difficult, especially in a society that likes to condemn those that find the meaning behind it empowering and comforting. This type of environment is spoken about throughout Gay’s work and she goes more into depth about feminism itself and the different ways we’ve come to interpret it. This piece also suggests that it is more difficult to be able to express such ideals as the standards for feminism wavers from person to person, which Gay speaks about frequently in the article.
What is important to note is that feminism is an idea of self expression and self-definition, however one chooses to express it is their own decision. However Gay notes in this article that women have almost policed the term too much and have set up what Gay describes as ‘essential feminism.’ She goes into it saying, “There is an essential feminism, the notion that there are right and wrong ways to be a feminist, and there are consequences for doing feminism wrong.” (Gay, 163) This type of thinking destroys any room for other types of ideas of feminism. She further speaks about how society has treated the idea of feminism to the point where we feel ashamed to even be called a feminist. Gay at one point saying “I sometimes cringe when someone refers to me as a feminist, as if I should be ashamed of my feminism or as if the word feminist is an insult. The label is rarely offered in kindness.” (Gay, 163).
The title of the piece itself is called “Bad Feminist” because it stems from the idea that the enviornment we live in causes for some like Gay to think they aren’t living up to the correct standards of being a feminist and therefore are considered a “bad feminist.” A lot of this reading suggest that its difficult for self expression and self definition to flourish due to the toxic environment we live in which stems from people categorizing women as “angry instead of passionate.” (Gay, 163). That’s not to say that it’s not impossible for women to feel empowered and be able to flourish but I believe this reading does suggest that the conditions in which the ability to express oneself is not as easy as other conditions might be.
If we didn’t have women essentially putting each other down and excluding each other from the umbrella of feminism then the conditions might be different. Gay brings up her concerns in regards to the exclusionary aspect of feminism and mentions how “a continued insensitivity toward race is a serious problem in feminist circles.” (Gay, 165) Which brings up a good point, are people not wanting to identify under the umbrella of feminism because the conditions created not only by society are toxic but by women essentially judging other women as well?
Chabon “My Son, the Prince of Fashion,”
Michael Chabon does a beautiful job of displaying the character and the personality of his son Abe in this piece. What Abe possesses, something that a majority of people aren’t able to possess even as grown adults is a sense of self-assurance in their own skin. At just the age of 13 years old this young man has expressed himself freely and confidently nearly his entire life.
What’s important to note is that he isn’t necessarily welcomed with open arms by those around him, yet he continues to flourish and allow his self-expression to roam freely without the worry of others condemning him for his choice of fashion. Normally this type of discouragement might disarm someone from wanting to showcase their own sense of style and self-definition, however, Abe continues to push through those who doubt his self-confidence. Chabon mentions when Abe started to go to preschool and dress up, “There had been teasing; one of his two little snap-brims would get snatched off his head now and then, and tossed around the playground. But the teasing had never exceeded Abe’s ability or willingness to withstand it, or the joy he derive from losing himself in the clothes.” (Chabon, 65). Normally these odds would go against some, and they would back down from the fight and be less open about their self-expression but as Chabon describes throughout the piece Abe goes against it, and in Chabon’s words “He flew the freak flag of Tigran Avetisyan shirt high.” (Chabon, 66)
What Chabon realizes after visiting Fashion week with his son, is that Abe has truly felt accepted for the first time after being at the events they attend. Chabon mentions; “‘It was the people you were with, the GQ guys, the buyers, that dude who owns Wild Style.'” (Chabon, 70) From this quote is when Chabon truly understands his son’s feelings. This type of environment is the first time Abe is able to feel like he had people that understood the kind of interests that he was akin to. Not necessarily the environment you might think of when it comes to warm and inviting. What the main takeaway from this should be that even in the toughest of conditions, self-expression and self-definition can always prevail, with Abe being the shining example.
