Blog 12: Cultural Capital

I found this video to be entertaining and it demonstrated how the display of cultural capital plays out in people's day to day interactions:

While the ideas presented here may be overly dramatic, the implications of having or not having cultural capital seem pretty clear. In the first example, cultural knowledge in terms of art and film is tested in a social setting. This form of cultural capital is embodied and includes cultural knowledge and skills that determine how one is percieved when socializing with others. The man who rants about his film-knowledge so that everyone can hear him is challenged by the women who seems to know a lot more about art than him.

A person's ownership of cultural capital can lead to social ties that further benefit their life opportunities. Having cultural knowledge increases the liklihood that one will be respected which could allow them more work opportunities, more social ties, and greater social mobility in general. Furthermore, having social capital can help increase one's cultural capital simply by having social ties (friends, acquantainces, coworkers) that already have a great degree of cultural capital. More cultural capital in turn could increase one's social and economic capital and so on ad infinitum. In this way, the accumulation of Bourdieu's forms of capital can be self-perpetuating.

The second example in the video points out how we should not think of cultural capita. It is not an issue of knowing everything about all current events. For example, a CEO for a Bank is unlikely to have any knowledge about the underground music scene in Minneapolis, or what happened last night on "Archer." It is unrealistic for anyone to expect anyone else to read every legitimate (or illegitimate, as some of the examples were) piece of news, research, or knowledge that is ever published. Put simply, cultural knowledge should be thought of not in terms of how much you know but which topics you know a lot about.

Blog 11 Overestimated Globalization

This video is a bit long (17 minutes) but I really think it's worth a watch: 

https://www.ted.com/talks/pankaj_ghemawat_actually_the_world_isn_t_flat#t-1003026

In the video, the speaker--economist Pankaj Ghemawat--explains how people generally overestimate the extent to which our world is truly globalized. He talks about globalization in terms of international phone calls, investment, trade, and migration. It seems that the 'Global imaginary,' as well as the very connectivity that this imaginary entails, does not exist at the level people tend to believe it does. Watch the video from 5:26 for about 2 minutes to get an idea of the difference between how globalized our actually world is--by the standards that the speaker gives--compared with the social perception of how globalized our world is. 

While the implications of the world not being as globalized as we believe may have many implications, one important implication that was pointed out in the video is that knowledge of the world not being fully globalized can be used to reduce fears of various types in developed countries. For example, the video points out that in one particular survey, [see the video at roughly 15:40], people tended to estimated that 30% of our GDP was spend on foreign aid. This number is really only about 1%. If the average citizen knew this perhaps securing more foreign aid for countries in need would become a priority--there would likely be a push for further helping developing countries. 

The idea that our world isn't as globalized as we think doesn't necessarily undermine the theories associated with globalization such as the 'World-Systems Theory.' In fact, the components of the 'World-Systems Theory' such as the pervasiveness of the capitalist political economy/culture and the hierarchy of the periphery, semi-periphery, and the core (and their respective relationships) will likely becomes more visible  as the world becomes more truly globalized. It is my belief that the components of this theory explain trends that are already occurring, but will occur to a greater extent when the qualifications for full Globalization--as expressed by Pankaj Ghemawat--are met. 

Blog 10 Fear and Control

The example I found to demonstrate the 'culture of fear' can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/04/14/dozens-of-teenagers-are-now-tweeting-bomb-jokes-to-american-airlines/


The above article discusses an incident in which one teen tweeted to American Airlines about how she was a member of Al Qaida and was going to "do something really big" to one of their planes. This lead to her eventual arrest and sparked many  tweet at American Airlines and Southwest airlines and include the word "bomb" in the tweet.

The three dimensions of fear play out pretty clearly in this example. The airline made the decision to arrest the girl after receiving her tweet. She meant it as a joke but they had the authority to have her arrested based on the way the rules or agenda regarding terrorist threats in our country are set up.

Fear of terrorism is a justified fear, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate to treat internet trolls as serious threats and expend the time and energy necessary to arrest them. According to what we learned in class, our perception of fear has increased while the actual risk of the things we fear--terrorism, for example--has not increased. Fighting terrorism and national security has been and will continue to be a political standpoint for people that want to get elected but the result of spending so much time talking about threats to our national security is an increase of fear with regard to threats of national security. This is a contradictory effect of fear. In my opinion, here's another one: security officials who are ordered to chase down every teenage girl who tweets about having a bomb on a plane make our country's fear of terrorism very exploitable. The very strength we use to fight pathetic non-terrorist threats is self-defeating--our country's strength is thus undermined.

Blog 9: Cult of Personality

The prevalence of racist and sexist sports teams names as discussed in the reading made me think of other entertainment-based institutions in which either racism, sexism, or both are present. While the text discusses how symbols in sports such as the names and mascots of sports teams "demean or defame the powerless because these symbols support the existing power arrangements in society," (Eitzen 522) I'm much more interested in the music industry. I found the following article that discusses the relationship between musicians, musical taste, and musical success, and race.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/12/03_williamsb_music/?refid=0

While the article is nearly 10 years old now the ideas it presents are still relevant. One of the central ideas presented--and I believe this stereotype still exists to some extent today--is that black musicians are limited to playing specific types of music such as jazz, hip hop, and r&b. To combat this notion, Greg Tate co-founded the Black Rock Coalition in 1985. The Black Rock Coalition is a "collection of artists and music fans devoted to breaking down the barriers that they say limit black artists" (paragraph 3). The article says that according to Tate, "stereotypes are pervasive in the music industry. He says they determine what kind of music hits the airwaves" (paragraph 1).
Furthermore, Tate talks about how information from the mass media specifically with regard to race and music is "wafer-thin" (Tate, paragraph 6). Tate says ideas about race in the music industry are largely founded on ignorance as exemplified by the success of the black rock band, Living Colour. [If you don't know who this band is, check out the video below.

According to the article, people were largely surprised that a black band could play rock music so well; this strikes me as strange and racist.

 The article goes on to discuss the diversity in musical tastes across students of different races who attend St. Paul's Musictech College.

To tie this to class briefly: The notion that white people should play rock music and black people should not is determined by the culturally hegemonic idea that specific genres of music are reserved for whites. This notion is propagated by the dominant culture via the media (MTV, the radio, Rolling Stone, etc) and in other sub-institutions in the music industry such as music labels and music venues.

Immigration Reform

After reading several blogs pertaining to the human side of immigration—that is, the consequences at a personal level of living in America as an illegal immigrant—I decided to look into arguments that call for immigration reform simply because it helps our economy. One of the key ideas addressed in the video below, and something I think is widely acknowledged, is that if all illegal immigrants were granted citizenship then they would all pay taxes which would reduce the budget deficit. Furthermore, immigrants in America are obviously consumers so they already contribute to our country’s GDP by spending money which further benefits the economy.

 

This video explains why immigration reform is necessary on the economic level, which I think is a very compelling argument. Unfortunately there is no mention of specifically how immigration is to be reformed to benefit the economy, only that some type of reform is necessary and it is up to our congressmen to get the ball rolling. I think they types of changes that are necessary include automatically legalizing anyone who entered the U.S. illegally as a child and I also believe the legalization process for those that entered the  U.S. illegally as adults should be straightforward and should cater to the fact that not all immigrants speak English. Side note: in general I believe that people need to be more accepting of people that don’t speak English. In other developed countries such as Germany or Japan it is more common for people to speak more than one language and even in Cameroon, Africa more than one language is spoken. Americans are very much set in their ways when it comes to language and this notion has often lead to the idea that if a Mexican immigrant can’t speak English then they don’t belong in America.

 If more people were aware of the current levels of migration out of America—specifically migration from America to Mexico—maybe the push for immigration reform would be stronger.  This video highlights the economic reasons for an immigration reform, and I think that fact that our country’s history is completely founded on immigrants and immigration demonstrates why immigration reform should be liberal and as reasonable inclusive and straightforward as possible.

Blog 7 Education inequality

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO_aOtyev0k

One of the readings last week pertained to educational inequality as a result of income inequality and proposed integrating low income students in middle/upper income schools to make education more equal. This video highlights the impact of income inequality in terms of  lower level education: the U.S. currently has a 28% dropout rate, dropouts are 8 times more likely to go to jail compared to non-dropouts, and dropouts earn roughly $20,000 less per year compared with non-dropouts. 

As a result of these lower levels of achievement, the video states that on average $240,000 [much of this is tax payer money] per dropout goes towards medicare/medicaid, welfare, and the criminal justice system. It seems apparent that reducing dropout rates would save the Government (at both the Federal and State level, I'm assuming) quite a bit of money. 

While the video makes its own suggestions as to what the U.S. should do to make our education system more equal, the method proposed in our text--beginning at page 290 specifically-- addresses the problem more thoroughly by simply bringing the schools that have lower levels of achievement [and a student body who's average family income is also lower] into schools that are already successful and have a majority of middle income and upper income students. According to Kahlenberg: "A handful of cities and metropolitan areas have been trying out a different form of choice--one that operates inside the world of public schools and points explicitly toward economic integration. The results are worthy of far more attention than they have received" (293). 

The prevalence of costly private schools may be a hindrance to including lower income students in higher income private schools; however, even if only the public schools were integrated such that lower, middle, and upper income students all were nearly equally represented in all schools, I'm guessing the average quality of our lower income education system would still increases dramatically. 

Blog 6 The Minimum Wage

The title of this video caught my attention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwAQwItEjUo

What is most striking to me, from having watched the above video, is not that the minimum wage hasn't been raised to $22; rather, it is that the minimum wage is less than one third of this value. The very idea that income inequality has grown such that our minimum wage is so small compared to what would be had it grown with the economy--not to mention how the minimum wage looks when compared with what the average CEO makes or the wealth of the top 1%--is mind-boggling to me.

After watching the Philosophy Kings video we were asked whether the film romanticizes custodial careers or simply acknowledges the 'human-ness' of them. I certainly think the film romanticizes their careers in calling them 'Philosophy Kings' and focusing on custodial careers at prominent educational facilities; but I also think the 'human-ness' of these individuals was shown via exploring their personal histories and having them talk about their aspirations. We need people to work these types of jobs because these types of jobs need to be done and we should respective that fact and respect those who are stuck in (or choose) these jobs. I'm guessing that there are many people that do enjoy cleaning buildings for a living while I'm sure there are many that don't; regardless, the stigma that is attached to service-industry jobs must be destroyed. For example, I believe that many people in the restaurant business that work ever-changing hours for low wages actually work harder many people that work in a bank with comfortable salary and even more comfortable hours.

Aside from eradicating the stigma that people have with regard to service jobs, the minimum wage should be increased. If economists are as sure as they are said to be (from the video) that our economy would not be significantly harmed from an sharp increase in the minimum wage, then I'm sure a reasonable increase in the minimum would have an even lesser negative impact on the economy--it might even have a positive impact as some have argued.