day 8 meeting #6

Mrs. Lawson and I have decided to focus on/research language by surveying social studies classes in the Upper School. We began working on questions for the Google Form that we will distribute later next week.

We began by once again discussing "in-group" vs. "out-group" identity and how language is not often shared between the two. Finding a working vocabulary can be extremely difficult when discussing any issue, but especially social concepts like gender and race. Consequently, we talked about the value of self-identifying - developing words to use broadly like "brown", "black", "negro", and "redskins" is all well and fine, but everything depends on who is announcing it and who has the authority to make it "okay". 

The most important thing for "out-groups" is to engage and accept what those under pressure decide on or announce. 

Mrs. Lawson brought up a fascinating concept: social media as a way to either affirm or appropriate language. The vehicles for language (mouth, FaceBook/Twitter, music) all utilize language very differently. People can anonymously share or like something they would never say out loud on social media. Referencing something in cyberspace is very different than being "caught" saying something racist. Affirming something offensive online can give others a sense of solidarity, and it allows for the spreading or replication of words/language. 

Another facet of shared language is music. Music is such a massive part of pop culture today; almost everyone is exposed to ideas, words, and people they might never have otherwise encountered through music. We decided to dedicate a section of our questions to enjoying, listening, and singing along to songs with racially charged/gendered lyrics. 

As we talked about the strange distinction between the "okayness" of Catholic jokes vs. the rarity of Protestant jokes in America, Mrs. Lawson introduced me to the concept of the Normative Window Theory of Prejudice, or the prejudiced norm theory: "Research has shown that sexist humor allows men to express sexism by replacing nonsexist norms in a situation with a norm of tolerance of sex discrimination (Ford,Armstrong, & Edel, 2008)." The abstract/intro to the original paper is as follows: 

[The theory] specifies the social-psychological processes by which exposure to disparagement humor uniquely affects tolerance of discrimination against members of groups targeted by the humor. Our theory posits that a norm of tolerance of discrimination implied by disparagement humor functions as a source of self-regulation for people high in prejudice. For people high in prejudice, this norm regulates the effect of exposure to disparagement humor on tolerance of subsequently encountered discriminatory events. Our theory contributes to the literature on prejudice and discrimination by delineating the processes by which disparagement humor creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination, as well as variables that accentuate and attenuate its effects.

Throughout the conversation, we both realized we didn't know if it was a given/necessity for there to be a guaranteed division in America: between those who can say [some word] and those who cannot. It's interesting to also consider whether this broader discussion on language's part in discrimination is aimed a ending or leveraging oppression. Can the oppression ever end? Or is leveraging oppression the only path to walk for political power and/or academic advancement. I'll be interested to see how we find answers (or... don't find answers).

Finally, we ended by talking about President Obama's speech on race during his 2008 candidacy run. I'm excited to listen to this powerful speech this weekend.