I thought this online game on social class in America was very interesting. Playing an interactive online game creates different ways of thinking than if we were to just read an article on social class in America. I know I was pleasantly surprised to see that we were assigned to play a game.

I noticed that when I played the game I really thought for a long time on which item I would choose. I knew that it was just a game, but for some reason I took a long time to decide. I think that for most of the items, I would have not choosen any of the choices. Some of the items I picked were items that I thought would be cool to have, but probably wouldnt actually have them in my house. Before I even started to play the game, I knew that I would disagree with what that said at the end about the choices I made. It was obvious which items would say what about you. I think people can have nice things with out being snobby or trying to show off. Then again there are a lot of people who have nice things and want everyone to know that they have these nice things. Lower class, middle class, upper class, it doesnt matter which class your in. What matters is how you as a human being act in which ever class your in. I strongly believe in this. Instead of people focusing on what class a person is in, people should focus on what that person is DOING. The actions of individuals show so much about what kind of person they truly are.

I am interested in seeing how people in different social classes change over time. When I become a teacher I will have many different students from different social classes. I look forward to that variety of children. I think variety and differences create a better learning environment. Not only will my students be learning from me but almost or just as much from their fellow classmates.

I also enjoyed the games very much. Apparently I have a straight up "middle middle" class sense of style, as evidenced by my rabid love of frayed persian rugs and fold-out couches ;p

I seem forever to be including links in these posts, but I keep running across articles or stories online that parallel our discussions surprisingly well. Here's one about a guy in Arizona who refused to continue the "sensitivity training" he was made to undergo in preparation for being an RA: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=82699

The article itself is interesting--he claimed that the sensitivity training was only reinforcing stereotypes of different groups--but I find the reader-supplied comments section at the bottom especially enlightening. Here, I think, you can see a general lack of awareness about social class and its relationship to other factors such as race...what strikes me is that the comments seem overwhelmingly to be filtered only through racial/ethnic/sexual/religious categories, and where people think they're criticizing the "overly PC" liberal mindset in favor of pragmatic and/or merit-based models of society and success, to a large degree they seem totally unaware that the sensitivity exercise does have roots in reality, no matter how overly simplified and "stereotypical" this particular exercise may have been (and this does seem to be true). The basis of the exercise--socio-economic class, social difference, etc.--gets lost altogether because people start saying it's actually the exercise that's responsible for perpetuating these stereotypes, and it's the perpetuation of the stereotypes by the sensitivity training that makes us keep having to go THROUGH sensitivity training in the first place! And you want to scream, No, stop! You're missing the point! You're actually making it harder for yourself to see the point!! Your reaction is the point!

Of particular interest to me was the recurrence of the reverse-white-man's-privilege perspective, where white men talk about how they WISH they had it as good as all the PC liberals claim they do! In reality, the idea goes, the "minorities" get all the advantages, etc. etc. This is what my dad raised me to believe. He warned me that the white American male has it harder than any other group today. While I do certainly acknowledge that those stories exist where a white man doesn't get hired for a job or accepted to a school because of a "minority quota" of some variety or another, I find it interesting that these stories have, for what seems to be an enormous number of people, served to "debunk" the very real phenomenon of systemic white privilege altogether. That's what's so hard about issues like these--personal stories seem to affect people more strongly than statistical/sociological analyses, but unfortunately they don't usually refute the existence of the systemic phenomenon in question.

The first game was really funny to me. I was categorized as "eclectic" because I chose a little from each class and didn't belong to any category. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but the game suggested that I play another round to see if the results changed... I guess the game just goes to show how little I know about class; I just chose the things I liked most. I have never really considered class at all when making purchases or decorating my home. I must say though that the game was probably accurate because in my real living room my fake Christmas tree is still in the corner, fully decorated, and all the pictures for the walls are propped up on the floor. Does that say anything about class?

I found Doug's link really interesting. It may be a little off topic from yesterday's class but oh well. I am an RA here and this year the staff developers decided to try something "new" for our diversity training. Prior to this year diversity training for RAs consisted of discussions about the realities of racism and homophobia and how to best handle them with residents. THIS year however we spent an entire day talking about "white priveledge" which is bascially a big discussion of how good white people have it (especially heterosexual males) and how life is simply easier for them and they should be made aware so that they can be more sensitive.

OK obviously who ever is reading this is probably already getting a little irritated as every single RA was. Now this is ASU... there are about 4 RAs (maybe a slight exaggeration) that AREN'T white. So understand that means there were a handful of non white diversity educators standing there telling 115 white people how easy life was for us. The reaction to the training was very negative. Most of us felt extremely unconfortable the whole day and also felt like the training wasn't helping us understand anything because it was from such a misconstrued perception.

One RA put it best - he said "why is it that it is very socially unacceptable to stereotype and group members of minority races and yet here we are spending an entire day stereotyping all white people into one "priveledged group"?" Now of course every RA there already had an understanding that racism is real and that it is true that racial and sexual minorities face obstacles that white or heterosexuals do not. The real issue was that the presentation implied that life for white people was essentially "easy" instead of discussing the fact that social pressures and problems are not fewer but are instead DIFFERENT across cultures. I won't get into examples because I am sure you can think of your own. There are benefits and drawbacks to belonging to ANY group and its pretty audacious to stand in front of a group of people and tell them their problems are minor compared to the problems of another.

After this day the RAs made it clear that a more enlightened training should be prepared for next years staff...