This is something I've been thinking about quite a lot lately.
How did I get here?
I asked myself "how did I get here" just last week as I had to sell some amount of my possessions to afford food and gas until my first payday. I also asked myself "how did I get here" while washing my underwear in the sink because I didn't have any money to spare for laundry. I also was contemplating going to a mission I know about that let's homeless people wash their clothes for free. What a humbling feeling.
Then, on the way to sell a large amount of my books and movies, I saw a man. He was standing at an intersection holding a cardboard sign asking for anything anyone could spare. And it made me feel a couple different things: things could always be worse, I wish I had something to give, and he may be on to something.
How do we get here.
What route did he take? I will never know. But I know what route I took. I took the route you are expected to take. After high school, you go to college and put in four years. And then, presumably, you get a grown-up job that pays for the education you earned. Oh wait, THERE ARE NO GROWN-UP JOBS. We're told that we can do anything we want when we grow up. There should be a big asterisks after that statement. You cannot do anything you want. You are at the mercy of the market.
What really difficult about this whole situation: my generation is totally getting shit on. Our options are scarce for any sort of future success that has been ingrained and pushed towards us since middle school. I have a 4-year degree for which I had to take out loans - private loans (i.e., no mercy loans). I made the devastating realization that I will probably NEVER be able to buy a house on my own. I've broken my parents who have me as a financial burden at almost the age of 24. My financial situation is not only a strain on me and my parents but our relationship as well. Every fight we have is about money. Money makes me anxious and uncomfortable - because I have no money. And I don't foresee an end to these issues for years to come.
The only way out of this mess is more school. The jobs I can get will not pay me for the degree or experience I have so, therefore, I will never catch up on my loans. If I'm in school, I can request an in-school deferment. But that means spending more money. I got into grad school (again) but I'm yet to see if I will get it paid for because I am so broke, they take pity on me for once. If not, I cannot/will not go because I cannot/will not take out more loans from the government or from the private sector. And then what will I do?
How did I get here? And how the hell do I get out?
I know I'm on the right track and the job I have now. It feels good here. It's not what I necessarily want to do with my life. I'm a researcher at heart. I like getting solutions to issues in our society of humans. I don't think that would be fulfilled here. Maybe someday I will get to the point where I'm comfortable with my finances and I feel good about me and the decisions I made in my life. But it seems a long way off and fairly unobtainable right now. I'm stuck spinning my wheels paying for an education that I can't use with a job that can't afford it.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Fight For Agency: Breaking Free From Stereotypes
Agency: the capacity of an agent to act in a world or, in other words, the ability to negotiate and navigate in one's own world. We use it every day. It is the presence that makes others hear you, see you, and, ultimately, respect you. Agency is used to assert yourself as an individual amongst the masses; you are not just a cookie cutter person and should not be assumed as such. But the narratives of our negotiations and navigations can be misread or, in the case of highly stereotyped groups, ignored completely. Sometimes, it is just easier to judge people at their literal face value (color of skin, gender, religion, economic situation, etc) and categorize them with the others "just like them."
When people are in a position of authority--key holders or gate keepers, if you will--they can tend to exert their powers in misguided ways. Specifically, bureaucracy can hinder humanistic aspects of public organizations and, therefore, take away the agency of a person seeking services. So there seems to be a stand-off between bureaucrats and the people they serve. The public officials can be jaded by protocol and long hours and clients are left to the mercy of a tired system. If the officials are overworked, understaffed, and underpaid like most public service employees, people and situations can blend together into one categorical lump with one formula to treat the whole group. This leads to stereotyping.
There are some general truths to stereotypes because that's how they were created in the first place. Some stereotypes are good but others are quite terrible and, for the most part, unfair either way. When you place stereotypes on someone, they lose their identity to you. And if you've taken away their identity, you've also taken away their agency because they have no way of negotiating their situation and navigating the system. They are essentially at your mercy: you, the public employee and them, the client. Placing these boundaries and barriers on an already-established hierarchy makes communication, at best, difficult and frustrating. At worst, it's impossible for the client to get what they need in order to move past their current situation and into the next stage of their "American dream." Because, more often than not, they get stuck in the cycle of the system when no one is willing to look past them as just being another typical case.
Lauren J. Silver (2010), places an emphasis on "the relative roles of body positions, spatial setting, and cultural discourses in shaping narrative events, identity negotiations, and the social meanings inferred." That means: the physical position of bodies in a certain setting also affect how the interaction between a public employee and client transpires. If the bureaucrat places physical barriers between themselves and the people they serve, they are already presenting themselves as visually out of reach. The intimidation of this physical barrier can make the client even more timid to assert their agency to the public employee--it can almost equate to a child visiting the principal's office. The client can be made to feel like a child in front of this figurehead behind a big hardwood desk in his/her own territory. These officials should be aware of these issues and become more self-reflexive to be more receptive to the people they serve.
Practices in self-reflexivity that make you catch yourself thinking certain ways and then challenging why those thoughts are going through your head will force you to be more self-aware. I mean really question yourself. Say: "Why, when I saw this person, did I immediately jump to that conclusion about them? What elicited that reaction? Where did this thought come from? How does this affect my outlook on the world as a whole?" This is extremely important not only when working with the public but as a general contributing member to a constantly advancing society.
Influenced by: "Spaces of Encounter: Public Bureaucracy and the Making of Client Identities" by Lauren J Silver. Published in Ethos 38(3):217-2
When people are in a position of authority--key holders or gate keepers, if you will--they can tend to exert their powers in misguided ways. Specifically, bureaucracy can hinder humanistic aspects of public organizations and, therefore, take away the agency of a person seeking services. So there seems to be a stand-off between bureaucrats and the people they serve. The public officials can be jaded by protocol and long hours and clients are left to the mercy of a tired system. If the officials are overworked, understaffed, and underpaid like most public service employees, people and situations can blend together into one categorical lump with one formula to treat the whole group. This leads to stereotyping.
There are some general truths to stereotypes because that's how they were created in the first place. Some stereotypes are good but others are quite terrible and, for the most part, unfair either way. When you place stereotypes on someone, they lose their identity to you. And if you've taken away their identity, you've also taken away their agency because they have no way of negotiating their situation and navigating the system. They are essentially at your mercy: you, the public employee and them, the client. Placing these boundaries and barriers on an already-established hierarchy makes communication, at best, difficult and frustrating. At worst, it's impossible for the client to get what they need in order to move past their current situation and into the next stage of their "American dream." Because, more often than not, they get stuck in the cycle of the system when no one is willing to look past them as just being another typical case.
Lauren J. Silver (2010), places an emphasis on "the relative roles of body positions, spatial setting, and cultural discourses in shaping narrative events, identity negotiations, and the social meanings inferred." That means: the physical position of bodies in a certain setting also affect how the interaction between a public employee and client transpires. If the bureaucrat places physical barriers between themselves and the people they serve, they are already presenting themselves as visually out of reach. The intimidation of this physical barrier can make the client even more timid to assert their agency to the public employee--it can almost equate to a child visiting the principal's office. The client can be made to feel like a child in front of this figurehead behind a big hardwood desk in his/her own territory. These officials should be aware of these issues and become more self-reflexive to be more receptive to the people they serve.
Practices in self-reflexivity that make you catch yourself thinking certain ways and then challenging why those thoughts are going through your head will force you to be more self-aware. I mean really question yourself. Say: "Why, when I saw this person, did I immediately jump to that conclusion about them? What elicited that reaction? Where did this thought come from? How does this affect my outlook on the world as a whole?" This is extremely important not only when working with the public but as a general contributing member to a constantly advancing society.
Influenced by: "Spaces of Encounter: Public Bureaucracy and the Making of Client Identities" by Lauren J Silver. Published in Ethos 38(3):217-2
Why Do Humans Commit Suicide?
Suicide is a touchy subject for most people...even taboo, perhaps, to talk about in some circles. However, I feel as though it needs to be explored further as a cultural phenomenon due to our current evolutionary position. If we look to the animal kingdom for example of suicide, we won't find much. There are lemmings that follow each other to their death but it is not a cognitive decision of demise. Or we can maybe cite some species of spiders like the Black Widow who allow their offspring to devour them after hatching so they do not have to travel far for their first meal. Once again, that seems more of a sacrifice than a cognitive suicide that humans experience.
Most humans, when contemplating suicide, cite some sort of emotional distress that they are unable (or unwilling) to overcome and then resort to ending their lives. Rates have gone up and down in the past 60 years depending on economy and cultural climates. For example, around the 1950's the rate of marriage-aged male suicide was quite high because of the emphasis the culture put on males at the time to be the bread winner and if they couldn't provide for their families, they felt as if they became obsolete and possibly a burden and/or not a man. This kind of societal pressure can be a huge stress factor for those facing it head on. (Statistics from suicide.org)
When I think about today's cultural climate and my generation--just graduated or graduating college--I see a large amount of people dealing with depression and anxiety. I also have seen other emotional disorders in the younger generation like ADD. Why are so many young people faced with emotional barriers and obstacles to overcome? Is it because we live in a culture that is over-diagnosing? Is it something the medical community has missed for several decades? Or is this a new phenomenon? If it is new, is it cultural, biological, or both? Also, is it causing young people so much emotional distress that they take their own lives?
I realize I have jumped around a lot in this article. Suicide is a complex subject with various reasons, methods, and cultural implications. What I'm really driving at is an open discussion about suicide. I struggle with the concept almost daily of why is happens, how it can be prevented, whether there is something cultural that can be shifted or if it's purely a biological issue. The fact that it happens across cultural boundaries for very different reasons makes it harder to pinpoint. Why humans? If our drive is to survive and pass on survival techniques to the next generation, why do some of us end our lives on purpose?
Perhaps we have reached a stage in our evolutionary drive that has forced humans to create something to survive against. Back when we were barely out of the trees, we had to survive against predators, cold, heat, disease, hunger, thirst...everything. Now we are comfortable creatures for the most part. We have a pill for just about everything and we hunt our predators for sport now. What do we have to survive against? The diseases that do slow us down (cancer, HIV/AIDS) aren't threatening the population to a great degree. Maybe the psychological issues we have were created to challenge us to survive against them. The people that are successful in survival can pass on their genes to the next generation, obviously, and make the survival gene stronger.
What do you think?
***Please do not mistake me for being insensitive to people suffering from psychological disorders of any kind. This is simply my opinion and I am certainly not playing down the seriousness of the issue or trying to diagnose anyone or even give advice on the subject.
Most humans, when contemplating suicide, cite some sort of emotional distress that they are unable (or unwilling) to overcome and then resort to ending their lives. Rates have gone up and down in the past 60 years depending on economy and cultural climates. For example, around the 1950's the rate of marriage-aged male suicide was quite high because of the emphasis the culture put on males at the time to be the bread winner and if they couldn't provide for their families, they felt as if they became obsolete and possibly a burden and/or not a man. This kind of societal pressure can be a huge stress factor for those facing it head on. (Statistics from suicide.org)
When I think about today's cultural climate and my generation--just graduated or graduating college--I see a large amount of people dealing with depression and anxiety. I also have seen other emotional disorders in the younger generation like ADD. Why are so many young people faced with emotional barriers and obstacles to overcome? Is it because we live in a culture that is over-diagnosing? Is it something the medical community has missed for several decades? Or is this a new phenomenon? If it is new, is it cultural, biological, or both? Also, is it causing young people so much emotional distress that they take their own lives?
I realize I have jumped around a lot in this article. Suicide is a complex subject with various reasons, methods, and cultural implications. What I'm really driving at is an open discussion about suicide. I struggle with the concept almost daily of why is happens, how it can be prevented, whether there is something cultural that can be shifted or if it's purely a biological issue. The fact that it happens across cultural boundaries for very different reasons makes it harder to pinpoint. Why humans? If our drive is to survive and pass on survival techniques to the next generation, why do some of us end our lives on purpose?
Perhaps we have reached a stage in our evolutionary drive that has forced humans to create something to survive against. Back when we were barely out of the trees, we had to survive against predators, cold, heat, disease, hunger, thirst...everything. Now we are comfortable creatures for the most part. We have a pill for just about everything and we hunt our predators for sport now. What do we have to survive against? The diseases that do slow us down (cancer, HIV/AIDS) aren't threatening the population to a great degree. Maybe the psychological issues we have were created to challenge us to survive against them. The people that are successful in survival can pass on their genes to the next generation, obviously, and make the survival gene stronger.
What do you think?
***Please do not mistake me for being insensitive to people suffering from psychological disorders of any kind. This is simply my opinion and I am certainly not playing down the seriousness of the issue or trying to diagnose anyone or even give advice on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)