Differences

            The Theory Toolbox’s chapter on Differences really got me thinking about a lot of the issues it brought up.  I found it interesting how it talked about how sexual preference, ethnicity, and class are not inherently or naturally meaningful.  For example, having brown skin doesn’t inherently mean anything, although it definitely had very specific and deadly significations in the American South at one point in history.  Homosexuality isn’t inherently “good” or “bad,” but is oftentimes classified as deviant or bad.  This idea made me think about society in general and why we have to make these distinctions.  Why can’t we assume people of all skin colors are equal?  Why was there ever a need/desire to cast one color above the other?  Similarly, why can’t homosexuality be viewed as just an alternative to heterosexuality?  Why is there this constant need in our culture to draw dividing lines?  Why does something always have to have a less equal or worse counter-part?  And what does this say about our society?  The fact that we cannot just look at two differing ideas and call them equal?  One has to be better or worse, right or wrong.  I think it’s an extremely unfortunate and unattractive quality/characteristic of our culture today.  We created the distinctions, the dividing lines, which have caused upset and unrest for every category of people as far back as the history books take us.  It is sad and depressing to think that so much “bad” from our history could have been prevented if human nature and society wasn’t the way we are.

     

            The next point that got me thinking was when the author talks about being “politically correct” and if it gives attention to “differences” and if the attention has gone too far or not far enough.  It made me think of an assignment I recently had in another English class.  We had to choose a terministic screen, a word or phrase that selects, reflects, and deflects reality, and write a paper on how it accomplishes each of those things and what the implications of the term are.  I chose the term “little people” and how that is the politically correct way in which to reference those who have dwarfism.  “Little people” is the preferred term over past terms that grew to have negative connotations such as midget and dwarf.  The term little people places the focus on the fact that the person is little, as in short and in no way mentally or physically lacking, and on the fact that they are a person, a human being, not some mythical creature.  This term, although it is “politically correct,” also belittles little people by focusing on the fact that they are little and not addressing any of their other qualities such as intelligences or abilities in other areas.  I find it very interesting that we can manipulate a word to mean, or not mean, different things.  But this also means that “politically correct” doesn’t exist.  And attention to “difference” can go too far, and not far enough, all at the same time.

            Finally, I found it almost comical when the book talked about race differences and how the United States Government redefined what it meant to be Asian by simply drawing a line on the globe.  I think it’s typical of the U.S. government to do something like that with very little thought of the implications of its actions.  But, this was a very good example of the social construction of race, gender, and sexuality.  The subject remains the same, but what the position of the subject means changes.  I find it to be a really interesting and thought-provoking idea.