The growing inequality
gap and loss of social mobility in America is a multi-faceted issue that if
left to run its course could crumble the foundational beliefs that the United
States came together on. Today we live in an America where one’s success, at
least economically, has become heavily tied to what socioeconomic class you
were born into. This issue if left alone will continue to push the bottom half
of the economic echelon down, giving them little to no chance to make a better
life, which will continue to lower their life expectancy, standard of living,
and educational level. I think feminism would be the most effective lens to examine
solutions to this problem through. It is our moral duty to our friends,
communities, and nation to ensure that everyone can live a safe, healthy,
educated life.
The Cultural
Revolution following the 1950s had both a great positive changes in the roles
that men and women could play, but also drastically changed the family
structure in the United States. Society had now opened up its doors to many
newfound freedoms that hadn’t previously been the norm. Women entered the
workplace, inspired by the prospects of financial independence and stability.
In many ways society was moving towards a more balanced and equal standard.
This was a huge step in the right direction for our culture, society, and
economy. But on the other side of this movement was the deterioration of
families, communities, and a cultural shift in how we treat and view one
another.
The biggest
cultural aspects that have led to this disparity are the change in how we see
the people who surround us. Family became a looser term, and we started
sheltering ourselves away from the communities we live in. It used to be that in most places everyone in
the community looked out for one another, working towards everyone making it
out of adolescence alive, educated, and a good citizen. In about the last 50
years though, America made a shift to focusing only on the individual’s success.
The most potent solution that feminism brings to this issue is looking at the
people around us as part of our community, and treating them as such. We as a
country pay the economic, social, and moral toll for others being left unable
to provide a livable income to their families.
Lack
of social mobility in the United States cannot be solved with punishment,
competition, or harsh laws for those who are struggling. We have to make it an
overarching priority in both the political policies put into effect, and in
cultural dynamics we promote. Leaving those who are in poverty to struggle
alone is only driving people further away from wanting to work collectively
towards a better country. Helping boost families by helping advance peoples
integrity, livelihood, and finding ways people can be a productive member of
society would be a constructive approach. By thinking in terms of feminism, and
changing the social norms within the nation to reflect a better society we
can insight change.
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteThis is quite interesting. I think the missing part is HOW feminism would cause us to become more communal? Not saying that it doesn't, but I would like to see how it does.
I was thinking of it in terms of Tickner's 6 principles as being perhaps the most effective back bones to a plan towards better equality and social mobility. Also the familial/communal/"if life expectancy is lowered" aspect that I think distinctly relates to this issue in terms of how it needs to be approached by governmental policies.
DeleteAmanda,
ReplyDeleteI think that you’re argument for the lack of social mobility in American society as the community’s problem, and not just the individual’s, is very valid. In my cross-cultural psych class, we’ve been talking about the disjoint vs. conjoint models of agencies. The disjoint model of agency, which is largely associated with European-American culture, is the idea that people feel like it’s important to choose their own actions. Thus, creating a society that is more individualistic. In contrast, the conjoint model of agency, which is associated with Indian culture, is the idea that outside influences take precedence over the individual’s. Thus, creating a more collectivist society. I bring up these two agencies because I do think it’s important to have individualistic ideals in the United States in order to succeed in the workforce, and I also believe it makes us more self-reliant. However, the conjoint model emphasizes the importance of doing actions that benefit the community, which is what I think you are arguing the United States needs more of in order to fix the problem of the loss of social mobility. I’m not exactly sure how this could be done, but I think in order to solve the problem of loss of social mobility in the United States, we (society) need to take a closer look at other, collectivist societies (ie: Indians) in order to better understand the importance of community. Learning about collectivist societies and the importance of community and helping one another could (hopefully) steer the individualistic American’s views towards a more collectivist, community-oriented view which may be able to help solve the problem of the loss of social mobility in the United States.
Emily,
DeleteThank you for brining in some physc into the equation, this is what I liked most about connecting feminism with this issue because feminism allows/encourages people to look more broadly and perhaps internally at current issues. I like your explanation/ approach of the "I" vs "we" problem... Thank you for adding another element to be looked at in this puzzle!
-Amanda
Hi, Amanda, I really liked your post! I agree that social immobility is a very real problem that becomes more serious in our country every day. Your point that this is due to the recent shift of focus from the community to the individual is insightful; I never thought about this connection before. Another point I hadn’t thought of before was the relationship between family and social immobility. You say that family deteriorated, which I take to mean that the nuclear family of the 1940’s and 1950’s “broke down.” It sounds negative to say “break down” or “deteriorate,” but in actuality, what nuclear families “broke down” into were single-parent homes, adoptive homes, same-sex parent homes, and many more types of homes. I am sure that many of these homes were unhealthy environments, but I do not think that being something other than nuclear necessarily makes a family worse. In other words, it is specific individual situations of non-nuclear families that are unhealthy and negative - because of their unhealthy and negative individual participants; it is not the case, in my opinion, that these situations (non-nuclear families) are themselves inherently unhealthy or negative. Therefore, I wasn’t quite sure how the transformation of the definition of “family” correlates to a more negative, socially immobile society; what is your opinion on this aspect of the issue?
ReplyDeleteAmanda, I agree that the economic gap of the US is certainly a problem and politicians should be working hard in order to correct it. I believe though that this issue is more of an economical problem more so than a social one. Although I do agree with you that communities have become more individualized, but couldn't you see this as a result of technological advances? People can get whatever they want at their doorstep within a week. As for the economic gap, I believe this is more of a consequence of capitalism and specifically the US economy. The economy favors citizens who can start our with money. I do realize that this blog is not intended for economics, so I do like your idea that using feminism ideals can close the gap, I just think its more of an economical issue.
ReplyDelete