Bias Game

We discussed many issues concerning media in class today. Among the plethora of causes and problems, I feel that the heart of the issue stems from the human tendency for bias. In media, bias is produced at two levels:
Level one: interpreting what an article/resource actually means
Level two: intentional framing of an issue to mold it to an audience
To demonstrate, let's play a game! Below are pictures from class with three possible captions. Your job is to first discern which caption is accurate. Then, you have to choose the caption which you believe will attract the most views on social media.

1.

a. Rebecca and Emily pose for the profile picture for their joint Instagram
b. AU softball star meets with student government to discuss new female athlete initiatives.
c. Rebecca and Emily, dressed as a frat-boy, pose for a picture

2.

a. Annie hides Holt's breakfast in her bag while Holt is distracted
b. Holt prepares for putting on the kid's Winnie the Pooh performance for the kindergartners.
c.Holt helps Xandra remove a staple from a bandanna while Annie removes crafts from her bag.

3.

a. Brigid makes an amazing comment concerning Harry Potter which is appreciated by Siena.
b. Siena applauds as her best friend is chosen to go up to help the presenter demonstrate his new technique!
c.Brigid stumps PTJ and, after busting out a sick dance move, causes rounds of applause to breakout out among her fellow students such as Siena is demonstrating here.

4.

a. Annie and Jacob compete to see who can put on their ears fastest.
b. Annie and Jacob adjust their home-made character ears.
c. In the first annual Pinterest conference, participants have a class on kids animal crafts.

5.

a. Noël demonstrates for Jacob what being a polite person looks like after noting his previous lack of gentleman behavior.
b. Brigid, Jacob, and Noël enter the classroom at the beginning of class.
c. Noël tries to usher Jacob and Bridgid out after Bridgid makes a controversial statement.


6.

a. Danielle poses as a Tennis player.
b. Danielle gets ready to lead the first Tennis club meeting at AU!
c. Danielle puts comes to class after a hard won morning tennis match.

7.

a. Maddy and Shruthi meet before leaving for the recreation of the Salem witch trials.
b. Maddy and Shruthi pose before doing a presentation on the Yin and Yang symbol.
c. Shruthi  and Maddy pose for a photo with their costumes.

8.

a. Group discussions about media portrayal of 'foreign brides'
b. A multi-generational group, including a grandma in pearl earrings and performer for the Day of the Dead celebration, meet together to learn about new community initiatives.
c. The Spanish class has a lesson on interrogatives.

9.

a. Noël prepares to catch a fastball from PTJ.
b. Noël makes another insightful point in class.
c. Noël gets startled by the sudden scurry of a mouse across the room.

10.

a. Yuzuka smiles after being complimented by the love of her life.
b. Yuzuka prepares for rehearsal as the lead angel in a performance of a Broadway Christmas play.
c. Yuzuka poses for a photo in her angel costume.

Malleable Security: Blog 9

Living in a controversial society where being safe has become a privilege, the concept of what makes the average human secure is quite complex. Each individual in society holds a book in each step. America, the country of diversity struggles with the essence of human balance; equality and coming to a common ground. National security has to be defined by national interest due to the diversity and thought, and the diversity in international values. According to the standards of society today, due to the expansion of diverse thought in popular culture  the notion of “national security” is a malleable concept, which makes Wolfers correct.

When dissecting the concept of malleable national security, one can think about the simple notion of how people perceive security different. For many people, the word “security” itself means something different. For example, some may define security as owning a gun, which supports one's effort to maintain their own personal security, while someone else may feel that owning a gun is absurd and the security a gun provides should be the responsibility of law enforcement or the government. Another example is how some people believe security is best secured under a state that supports religious laws because the laws of their sovereign God is their perception of security. On the other hand, the idea of living under  a state that enforces religious laws in unjust and unfair because it is impossible to properly accommodate everyone's religious freedom this way. It seems that when thinking from the perspective of government authority, and from the perspective of the populace the notion of security is seen under different lens. Furthermore, this puts an emphasis on the liberal thought expressed in Federalist Paper 51, where it is believed that the governance of society is based on the governed.

In relation to the national interest, each state should be able to determine their own malleable concept of security based off of the norms, traditions, and their current sociopolitical circumstances. When considering the notion of security, one can ponder the reasons states have went to wars, and their status on the hegemonic spectrum.  Depending on the national interest, a country may feel the need to put emphasis on a specific form of security, rather than focusing on a less relevant form for the sake of circumstance. This can be seen in the way that states fight for, defend, and protects territory (general resources). A classic example of the stressed importance of territorial security is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The historic territory holds relevant and religious value for both parties so their national interests have decided that  defending personal honor, preserving legacy, history, and the religious right is a form of security both sides should secure. Unfortunately, since Israel holds more hegemonic powers with their resources, international support (amung other hegemonic states), and their military it puts Palestine in a dangerous cradle. In National Security Strategy 2001, the value of military presence is the interest that the U.S has decided is the form of security that is paramount to their agenda of maintaining peace and security through militaristic hegemony. All in all, the notion of security is something that should be determined through the national interest of a state because as a state, it is important to determine what is important and what holds more value as a state when considering what actions will place one in a better position on the hegemonic spectrum.

Blog Post #9: Development vs Military Involvement

I agree with Wolfer’s concept that “national security” is more or less infinitely malleable. Often we relate the concept of national security to militaristic actions but issues that aren’t militaristic on the surface, can still threaten a country’s national security. Issues such as climate change, access to clean water, and gender inequality all can be examples of national threats. 

When we think of national security only from a militaristic standpoint, we forget the interconnectivity of everything in bureaucracy and in this time of globalization. An example of this is looking at the United States. Within its bureaucratic system, bureaus and departments have to work together to achieve any real change. When comparing the work of the Department of Defense and the Department of State, we can see the similarities in their overall mission: to ensure the security of the United States. Their missions may be similar, but their actions have different focuses. The Department of State focuses on strengthening diplomatic ties and investing in development, while the Department of Defense approaches its mission from a military point of view. One cannot succeed without the other. Through military involvement, violent threats such as terrorism and civil disputes can be eliminated. Developmental work such as promoting education, repairing infrastructure, and addressing food insecurity can help stabilize the country and promote economic growth. As James Mattis, the former Secretary of Defense, said while serving as Commander of U.S. Central Command “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, than I need to buy more ammunition...it’s a cost-benefit ratio.” This shows the interconnectivity between these two departments and the importance that development plays in stabilizing a country with the least amount of military presence as possible. This also shows that developmental action prevents global threats from penetrating US borders.
National security is not confined to military action because many other types of development can be used to stabilize a country or a region, and therefore decrease the threat it poses to the United States.

National Security as a Stamp of Approval

I agree with Wolfers' argument in that "national security" (or "national interest") is an easily applied ideal used to support legislation or policy that fits its malleable framework. Although, while its true that almost anything can be called a "security issue", if citizens have political power in a nation it is unlikely for these issues to be stretched as far. For example, if a politician of some sort is attempting to push healthy lunches for public school children as a policy, that's fine. However, if the politician claims that the healthy lunches are vitally urgent and must take precedent over other matters because it will raise the overall health of our population, which will make our country less vulnerable in times of war or bolster the health of those citizens in a draft, then many people will likely see this as a mutation/manipulation of "security policy". My argument is that Wolfers is essentially right, especially in regard to privacy/surveillance and allocation of resources, but there are limits to the flexibility of the notion of national security.

The Patriot Act is perhaps an example of national security being bent as a concept to rationalize policy. For better or for worse, this act partially sacrificed some privacy/liberties of American citizens in the name of national security in a post-9/11 world. Similar surveillance/privacy measures have been on the forefront of debate in our current time because of the affect on advancement in technology on the eternal, yet fragile power balance between people and their government. In countries that place less value on human rights or civil liberties, like China, the notion of "national security" can be stretched a lot farther with significantly fewer consequences. In my mind, there is a clear potential opening for some sort of dystopian or Orwellian state. It would be best to find some sort of narrower definition or limit to the national security idea, but what exactly that line would be is the trickiest part.

Another issue that supports Wollers arguments is military spending. Obviously, its something we need, but based on one's political views the need to ensure "national security" could mean vastly different budgets. My argument in regard to this is simply: of course! The phrase is subjective at the very core because people's opinions on it are so vastly different. This extends to other "glittering generalities" such as liberty, justice, privacy, equality, etc. These words may all have technical definitions, but they are not defined, if that makes sense. When it comes to structuring policy around these ideals, there is a potential of these words to be applied to a wide and flexible range of issues and solutions. While this could pose problems, is it really avoidable?

This all stems back to the Renaissance idea of the social contract. If "national security" and other generalities are used as a "Stamp of Approval" for policy to a dangerous extent, it is vital for the citizens to check this power imbalance (in a democracy) and watchfully ensure that these malleable terms aren't perverted or mutated into what they were never intended to represent.

A Rubber Band and National Security: Not as Different as You May Think

In many ways, I understand that if something is a threat to any portion of the nation, whether it be a minority or a majority it can be seen as a breach of national security. I believe this definition of “national security” to be greatly malleable and able to be twisted from the majority of security threatening issues that may occur across the country, on a multitude of scales. Off of this, the readings display the malleability of how issues of national security can be personal, national, and international, shrinking while also expanding. Within the context of the 2001 National Security Strategy, Clinton writes, “transnational threats include terrorism, drug, and migrant smuggling, and other international crime. The rise in the frequency and intensity of these threats makes it incumbent upon U.S. and foreign law enforcement and judicial authorities to cooperate innovatively.” This further exemplifies how national security required different forces to regulate it, depending on what scale the issue lies on. By having the idea that national security can be stretched from local to global, media has had a play in this change.
I see there is a gray area between an international, national, or a personal issue under the umbrella of national security. With technological advancements, many issues that I see as originally personal many years ago, have evolved into national issues due to the spreading of news and increasing political involvement. For example, in the ’80s, AIDS was seen as a personal epidemic that required isolation and quarantine for the gay community. Activists were only those affected and despite the research conducted, the issue remained only applicable to a small percentage. However, years later, it is seen as a national security issue that reaches the entire globe, with it being understood as an epidemic affecting all. Although HIV/AIDS does not have a cure, since being categorized as a national security issue, greater acknowledgment and research have been conducted. I find that it is important that there is this loose definition to permit the broad expanse of issues, from health to economics, to receive the attention and help that is allocated for national security matters.
However, there are still a few exceptions. For example, countless scenarios are in underprivileged neighborhoods and towns that are not publicized as a personal or national threat, when they could very easily be categorized into one or the other. These issues, such as racial and inequality based segregation or crimes, are not yet recognized at the level of a national security breach for the American people. It is because of this dynamic, that I see the societal hierarchy that unjustly formulates and integrates itself into issues of national security.
Along this thread, I was thinking of the word “malleable” and other items that society categorizes as such. While an item such as putty or a rubber band can be stretched and condensed, there remains a limit. Nothing can stretch or shrink infinitely. While I define national security as being malleable, I wonder what the limitations are and how that changes points made in this post.

National Security Quiz

Discovering nation security quiz

On a national scale how concerned/worried are you about:
1- not at all worried or concerned 3-somewhat worried/concerned 5-very worried/concerned

Terrorism (home grown or abroad)
1  2  3  4  5
Cyber Security
1  2  3  4  5
Water and/or Food Security
1  2  3  4  5
Conflict with Russia
1  2  3  4  5
Conflict with China
1  2  3  4  5
Alien invasion from outer-space
1  2  3  4  5
Immigration issues
1  2  3  4  5
Religious influence in our government
1  2  3  4  5
Global warming
1  2  3  4  5 
Disease outbreak
1  2  3  4  5
Ebola
1  2  3  4  5
Any other points of concern or worry?



Congratulations! You just helped define issues of national security based on your own perceptions! Now, have a friend take the quiz and see if you get the same answers. 

Different results of the quiz are normal. What is considered an issue of national security is just as malleable to a person's personal lens as what route is most desirable to take home. Although there is basis for reasoning, in the end the 'security' is a matter of opinion with plenty of alternatives. In essence, I believe this to be a good thing. There are so many factors nowadays that can effect citizen's livelihood that if security was put in a more restrictive box, it is nearly ensured that a factor will be overlooked. Having a direction for policy initiatives decided by the current perceptions around national security, as Wolfers puts it, is important for the order of the government. When has a project or organization ever been successful without some basis of a plan, purpose, and direction? Whether you agree with the security issues and solutions outlined in this week's readings, having that direction and breadth focus is far better than none at all, or a much more restricted one that ignores potentially important issues.

Reflection Week #9

This week was honestly a wild ride.

From the get go, the simulation was so much fun! I think simulations provide a really interesting opportunity from which to embody theories and other things that we talk about in class, so I was super excited for this one. As someone who also enjoys theater, I do enjoy taking on different roles, and potentially expressing differing beliefs towards certain topics. As the International Rescue Committee, I actually ended up completely agreeing with all their work and their stance on the topic of US involvement in Nigeria, so it was a great opportunity for me to bring my background knowledge of international development into play. I also love lobbying, so I felt I was able to use some of that experience to help us craft our proposal and presentation.

Unfortunately, I didn't end up participating in the second half of the simulation because my ear decided to reject my newish piercing. I woke up on Wednesday with a swollen left ear and no earring in sight. That triggered many calls to my parents and the student health center, until I finally went to see my actual doctor and was sent right along to the ER. So off we went to Children's National Hospital, which is, in my point of view, the best hospital in the DC area. I know that's a strange thing to say, but back in 8th grade when I had a bit of a health crisis, Children's came to the rescue after Holy Cross really did nothing for me. Since then I've had a particular loyalty to Children's. Once we got to the ER it was about a couple hours of waiting around until I was finally called, taken back to a room, and a doctor came in to make the decision that my ear had to be numbed, so that the whole earring could be taken out of my ear. Not being the most comfortable with items being essentially yanked out of my body, I was quite nervous but, as per usual, Children's did a great job and quickly sent me on my way with care instructions.

Honestly I don't know how I would've gotten through Wednesday without my parents. It's moments like this when I really realize how much of a good decision AU was in terms of being close to home. I was definitely worried about it, but I'm glad I still have such a stable support system so close to me that I can rely on whenever I need it. I really am so privileged to have such a stable and loving family life and I love that my family is so ready to care for anyone and everyone. That's why, if you're reading this, please let me know if you can't go home for Thanksgiving and don't have any plans because my family would love to have you! Don't worry, I'll message everyone about this in the Facebook chat as well (:

Something else that I kind of forgot about but realized I wanted to touch on, is how much of a Desi weekend I had. For all those that don't know, Desi is basically a term South Asians use to describe each other, specifically outside of South Asia. In a previous reflection I mentioned how being a quarter Indian sometimes creates this inner identity conflict, but this weekend I started to feel more at home with the South Asian DC college community. Having a roommate who's also South Asian has been a big plus for me because it's really given me someone who I can relate to and go to South Asian events with. Nadia and I took a group to Desi Prom last night at GW which was super fun. The highlight of the night was dressing up (because Indian clothes are really the bomb.com) and dancing to Desi music because that's something I've really missed and haven't done in a while. Then, today was Diwali, which is essentially the Hindu New Year and our Festival of Lights. I'm not avidly religious, but my family always celebrates Diwali and Holi so I thought it would be a nice thing to celebrate it on campus as well. So tonight, I took Nadia to the Hindu Student Association's Diwali Festival and had a fantastic time! It was honestly the first time where I truly felt at home with the South Asian community on campus and I think it's because it really just reminded me of home. Participating in the puja and singing the aarti really just transported me back to my Nani's (great aunt) living room when she would hold these ceremonies and it was such a heartwarming feeling. Nadia and I even made another friend!

So, in conclusion, there was a lot that happened this week. Physical lows and emotional highs galore, I'm honestly excited to see what the future holds in terms of World Politics and my involvement with the South Asian community on campus and in the DC area. Here's to the future (:

Simulation Reflection

Following the individual presentations and our caucus period, something that PTJ said, stuck with me. Within our two decisions, we failed to step back and look at the big picture of who we were all equally representing-- the United States. I noticed how each group became so consumed with their own motivations and what they believed represented their cause most authentically. This led not much compromise to occur amongst the corporations or the humanitarian groups. I also did not notice how I was involved in this lacking desire to question the norm and align my group, the human rights watch with shell or another large corporation, until it was brought up. Thinking back, I wonder how the caucus period and plan formulation would have gone differently given these revised perspectives and having more collaboration occur between morally opposing groups. I also loved seeing how each group used integrated the personality of their company into their presentation... shout out to Shell. This and many other lessons I learned from the simulation through role playing and hands-on experience, are things that I look forward to applying in our future lessons and in my other classes. 

Besides the simulation, this week involved the death of the mouse stuck in our room (RIP) and many late nights catching up. I look forward to this week because of Halloween (!!!) and my writing class that ends at 9:30 pm got cancelled, so thankfully I’ll be able to attend embassy trick-or-treating. I look forward to seeing what other fun spooky events happen this week 🎃

Reflection 7: Politicians & Pressure

Last week I chose to attend an event on Egypt & Revolution hosted by the Arabic World Studies department. During the event, a professor from the American University of Cairo came to answer some questions about the different revolutions that have occurred in Egypt. The same professor is also an Egyptian politician. However, it was quickly evident that  her views were masked and very controversial concerning the true events occurring in Egypt. Her attitude was very nonchalant and offensive, which was absurd considering that during the revolution many Egyptians endured things that would be considered human rights violations. She constantly misrepresented their truth, and offered false perspectives. Upon her decision to twist the truth concerning the actual events that occurred during the revolution, the audience which consisted mostly of Arabic studies students, professors, reporters, and a few native Egyptians were outraged to say the least. 

One Egyptian PhD student courageously interrupted the discussion to shine a light on the injustice being committed as an effect of the professor’s lies. The student followed the accusations with an emotional personal experience in which she was a victim of the Egyptian armies abuse. As a response, the professor stated, “Let me respond with less emotion”. This began a chain reaction of aggressive comments. The professor claimed that the Egyptian people do not want democracy, which according to many others was not the truth. The discussion go to a point to where the entire crowd was just frustrated because the professor began just dancing around the questions and not answering them directly. She was generally a very unpleasant individual. 

Attending this event made me really think about the impact of misrepresenting someone’s personal  story. To see the reactions of the members of the audience whose truth was misrepresented was very sad and awakening. It made me think of the value of doing proper research, being open to different perspectives, and not just trusting the news to be the only guide. I would not have been aware of the truths behind the Egyptian Revolutions, and the true feelings of the people at the time if I had not attended this event. There were several moments where I was afraid because I did not know what would happen next. At certain points, I thought that things would possibly become violent. To see the passion and pride that Egyptians have in their country was inspiring, and I hope that at some point, Egypt will be able to experience proper political balance and rest.

Simulations as an Instrument of Learning -- Week 9

Our first in-class simulation was similar in many ways to some experience I had in high school with Model United Nations. Participating in a simplified version of a real international issue helps everyone to understand how the multiple parties, conflicted interests, and complicated problems all interact. By putting ourselves into the situation, our perspectives shifted and became much more in tune with and aware of the real situation. We learned not just the details of the issues that Nigeria faces, but also the institutions and motives at play.

When it comes to these to big lessons, I think that the latter half will play a bigger role in our continued education. What PTJ said at the end of class about each group not catering to their audience (the US President) as much as they should have, we all realized that in the real world, foreign policy is largely dictated by what appears best, rather than what actually is best to solve a problem. What the simulation accomplished, beyond its surface-level teachings, is making us aware of how much Machiavelli's arguments about self-interest and appearances still matter in decisions countries make.

This can be extended to the decisions we make in our own lives in some ways. Although it doesn't have the same connotation or context, asking the question "Are we doing things because we really want to/because its right or because of the appearance we will have/reputation we will gain?" is an important distinction to make. This is something all of us can think about moving forward.

Let's Talk Persuasion

The most educational aspect of the simulation was trying to figure out how to convince other groups that 'your way was the right way.' To this end I have created a cheat sheet:

Disclaimer: This is supposed to be satirical.

Calling 2-fix More than my Mom

This past week has been a blur, a blur of the Space Force and catching up, mainly the space Force though. With our first essay in World Politics, there was a different buzz circulating Letts 6, and it was impossible to escape a conversation on constructivism, liberalism, or realism, all about Trump's space plan. Friday at 5 pm brought the largest collective sigh and since then, the grind was rebooted for everyone to catch up on other class's work. For me, this entire week has felt misplaced. Every day felt like a day it was not and the sudden turn to cold with a returning mouse to my dorm room did not help in the case of my life’s dissonance. The mouse situation has led me to develop a close relationship with 2-fix… with the manager even texting me to call her. However, I have noticed I am slowly, very very slowly, becoming desensitized to these mice. This idea of desensitization is something that greatly interests me. In this generation, we have become so desensitized to violence, guns, and countless other atrocities that used to cause a national or societal uproar. Although mice never caused a national uproar they are not something I am used to seeing so often. With this thought, I find there is a small sliver of similarity between being desensitized to something and being naive. Although to become desensitized you must be exposed to something for a matter of time, being naive is the same, with the absence of exposure. I was naive about what it was like to live with a mouse, but since experiencing it I have become desensitized. In our class discussion of the center and margins, I further realized a bit more of this difference between being naive and desensitized. In many ways, I have become desensitized to how I may be in the margins by being a woman. I have lived with and been surrounded by so many discreet signs of inequality that many times I have to remind myself that certain experiences should not be the norm. On the other hand, I naturally fall closer to the center by coming from a white and suburban household. It is with these issues that I feel naive to them as I cannot experience what a large portion of the world does. Despite my attempts to listen and understand those experiences from those different from me, I feel that I will always be a little naive due to my inability to truly switch lives. Unlike the mouse situation, we were all born how we were meant to and our lives cross for reasons we cannot control, as I can only become desensitized to things that I experience. Maybe some force has led me to experience this mouse problem and maybe, hopefully a better, force has led me to meet so many wonderful people in gloscho, those with incredibly diverse and intricate backgrounds that make me realize how important it is to know where I am naive and where I cannot experience things first hand but must rely on the accounts and stories of others.

Reflection Week #8

Over the past week and a half, I've been able to incorporate my interdisciplinary sense of learning into the classes I'm taking now. For a little backstory, the program I was a part of in high school emphasized interdisciplinary learning, that is, what I was learning in one class would relate to something I was learning in another class and so it would continue. I thought I would be losing that aspect of learning once I came to college, but clearly I was wrong.

The first time I really started to make this link in college was between World Politics and my Poverty and Culture class, where I started to make connections between constructivism and this concept of the "conventional wisdom." John Galbraith, who was an economist, proposed this idea of the "conventional wisdom" in his book The Affluent Society, which commented on the extreme wealth inequality in the US in the mid-1900s. The conventional wisdom is this concept that refers to "ideas which are esteemed at any time for their acceptability" and equates familiarity with acceptability. It's basically the idea that ideas are in place for a while and so people become familiar with them and so then they are accepted, and I thought this was similar with the importance of norms in constructivism. Since I had found myself struggling with the concept of constructivism, it was interesting for me to be able to make those links between two fairly different classes.

Another link I made was between World Politics and things we talked about at the Model G20 summit. Reading Du Bois' and Enloe's pieces made me think about the hierarchy of global power and influence, which is something we talked a lot about during the Head of Delegation sessions. The G20 is acutely aware that it is not a truly representative force and lacks representation from the Global South, and so we discussed how to address this issue a fair amount. I thought it was very interesting to think about multilateralism in this way, especially because I've always thought of multilateralism as a given in this time of globalization.

I'm excited to make connections between more of my classes in the future and I can't wait to continue to grow my love of interdisciplinary learning!

Humor -- Week 8

After the serious topics we were discussing in class last week and the learning I did about my own family's experience with oppression and persecution based on my identity, I needed an outlet and began to talk with my roommate about what was on my mind. I learned about his family, he learned about mine, and we both began to joke around about the similarities and differences in our upbringings as a result of our cultures. That's when I was reminded yet again about the power humor has to bring people together and make people feel better. The idea of "laughter as the best medicine" is a cliche that is used a lot, but the truth of it is understated.

I began to realize this week that when I'm stressed out or down about something, I cope sometimes by joking around and making others smile or laugh. It helps me feel better to see those I'm around laughing and to laugh with them. When that happens, there is an air of happiness that feels warm and exhilarating.

Humor has played an essential role for me in meeting new people so far this semester and trying to diffuse tricky situations. Its a useful tool in life to be able to control humor and I hope that its something I can be good at into the future. Its important to relax in the face of difficulty and hardship, refusing to take trivial drawbacks too seriously and growing because of it.

What’s with human beings’ obsession with struggle?

Ask a person to tell you their defining life moments and nine times out of ten they will tell you about an obstacle they faced and how they overcame it. Read a traditional epic or quest, and you’ll discover a familiar theme of a hero facing adversity and then overcoming it. Ask a college student what they wrote about for their college essay and seven out of ten times they will tell you they wrote about a struggle they’ve had and how it made them stronger.  Humans are obsessed with stories of people overcoming hardship. Reading Jacob’s response to PTJ’s blog question for this week reminded me of just how far and ingrained is this obsession. In society, we have gotten to a point where we almost glorify adversity. This is reflected is mindsets where people believe that there are ‘benefits’ for going through persecution or challenges. In the words of Kelly Clarkson, “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.”  Nowadays, it is not unusual to hear a high school senior expressing qualms about not getting into college because they haven’t faced a big enough challenge in their life to write about in their application. I do not mean to attack this mindset as wrong; rather I just mean to point it out as an interesting observation. As made obvious by many of my peer’s blogs this past week, there, of course, is truth to the idea that hardship makes a person stronger. Lessons are learned, skills are gain, and self-development often occurs. Nevertheless, as Jacob pointed out in his blog, it is dangerous to, as a society, to see these struggles as a positive thing, for then we risk minimizing the actual issue. In a way, it is even a perversion to another natural human desire for comfort and the elimination of hardships.  Futhermore, the obsession with challenges as an avenue for growth often causes other avenue’s for growth to be pushed to the side.  

Below are some questions to ask yourself to discover some other ways you’ve grown and developed into the person you are that don’t necessarily involve facing obstacles: 

1) What is your favorite memory from your childhood, and how has it defined you (your interests, outlooks, your assumptions)? 

2) What is something you are grateful to have (or have had), and how has it helped you function better in society? 

3)  Remember a time someone was kind to you, and how did it affect you? 

4) Name a goal you have/had, how you achieved it (or are working towards it), and how that goal has shaped you.  

  

Consciously Inclusive-- Blog 8

Being born in a body that isn’t white is a paradox within the western world. One is punished, and thought of as peculiar. One is perceived as anything, but normal, and sometimes even exotic. Why is it abnormal to have a different shade of skin? Why is it problematic to possess your own personal identity? Society today offers much awareness to highlight, and sometimes even celebrate our differences as humans and individuals. However, this does not take away from the fact that there are certain situations in current society, certain mindsets and blood-stained history that points to the dark side of human society. This same dark side is a side that only people who are placed in a position that Dubois describes as possessing double consciousness can understand, which puts them at an advantage in terms of perspectives because individuals possessing double consciousness can see society and life in a way that individuals with only a single consciousness cannot. 

To begin, observing life through a single lens puts one in a position where they become oblivious  and sometimes unaware of injustices and the struggles of others, however with a double consciousness one is in more of a position to relate to others who share a similar experience. A good example of this is the black experience in America and the experience of other minorities in the sense of facing discrimination, having to fight for rights that the majority and single-minded  society get to decide are not relevant because they are not affected by the same issue, and the simple struggles of not being part of the single-minded community. A black man has to be cautious about what he wears at night and the way that he carried himself from day to day, otherwise, his life is in danger, and for some reason, he may be perceived as a menace to society. This is connected to the negative connotations connected to having black skin, and being a black male in America. One can be seen as or accused of being  a scoundrel, when simply, one is just minding his business. For his safety, the black man is forced to take precautions that his white counterparts do not have to deal with. These precautions range from him having to be cautious of what neighborhoods he is driving in, to being careful of how he even looks at a person who many perceive him as a threat. He simply is expected to subconsciously “know his place” in society, and to code-switch when necessary.People with a single minded consciousness do not have to wrestle with this reality. The sad reality of the single consciousness compared to the double consciousness is that no matter how the single-consciousness tries, it will never be able to grasp the reality of having to live with a double consciousness because this idea of consciousness is more than a mindset, it's an experience. 

Outside of the complex reality of the black double-consciousness, other demographics possess double-consciousness that differ from the specific form of double-consciousness  described in Dubois work, and they are just as valid in their own existence. Invalidating the experience of other demographics would be just wrong because they have their own experiences with having to modify their lifestyles to meet the level of individuals who live with a single-consciousness. For example, the plight of muslim women who desire to wear their veils in public in reverance to their religion and as a personal choice. These women possess a double-consciousness that is subjected to the haunting accusations of being called a terrorist, or insensitive people who demand to see the woman’s face despite her religious devotion. She is forced to contemplate if this choice may have to be compromised for the peace of mind of the single-conscious individuals. This is an injustice to her, and an attack on her identity. However, one with a single consciousness would struggle to see it as such because of their own justified reasons, and simply because they are not experiencing her experience. Across the board, people who are put in positions where they must operate with a double-consciousness have one thing in common: the validity of their personal experiences. The experience of an individual is never invalid, even if one does not possess the consciousness to comprehend it transparently. 

Furthermore, the main way that America should deal with this multiplicity or multiple marginal points of view , is through being more than tolerant, but being truly inclusive. In today’s world, where a wide variety of hate crimes and several forms of discrimination exist being only tolerant is not enough. To be tolerant is not respective of the individual, their identity, and their experience. It seems just simply a notion that is required for people to coexist with people different than they are without causing wars. It seems to just acknowledge the presence and existence of  people who are deemed different. When the idea of tolerance was engineered and put in place, it is possible that the intention was positive, but because of implicit bias, the idea of just tolerating the presence of another human seems very problematic . To encourage inclusive behavior, awareness must be raised, being more open to try to understand the experiences of those having to live with a double consciousness, celebrating differences, and embracing people for who they are. Nevertheless, to be truly inclusive is to respect the individual, their identity (whether it be religious, sexual, gender, cultural, or racial), and their experience. The key to the issue is for Americans to strive to be consiously inclusive.

Source:https://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/styles/gbz_article_primary_breakpoints_kalapicture_screen-md_1x/public/images/articles/featured/handshearts_andromina_sstock.jpg?itok=VDIcOKDw&timestamp=1522867578