According to Iris Young, cultural imperialism, "means to experience how the dominant meanings of society render the particular perspective of one's own group invisible at the same as they sterotype ones group and mark it out as the Other," (58-59). It also involves, "the universalization of a dominant group's experience and culture, and its esablishment as the norm," (59). Our group thought of it as generalizing in a way or focusing on the dominant stererotypes of society that a person uses to generalize one group, when in reality there is more to a specific group than the dominant norms.
Oppressed Groups and Benefiting Groups:
Young states that, "the dominant group reinforces its position by bringing the other groups under the measure of its dominant norms," (59). Social groups that are affected by cultural imperialism include men, women, American Indians, Africans, Europeans, Jews from Christians, homosexuals, heterosexuals, etc. Each of these groups ahs a dominant set of norms that society uses as a form of oppression.
Where
oppression tends to be a problem and how it functions:
“These stereotypes so permeate the society
that they are not noticed as contestable. Just as everyone knows that the earth
goes around the sun, so everyone knows that gay people are promiscuous, that
Indians are alcoholics, and that women are good with children” (p. 59).
Some great examples where oppression tends to
be a problem in real life include, but are not limited to: home, work,
politics, education, restaurants, church, etc. Oppression in the home is still
a big subject because of the consistent stereotype of women being the
caregivers and the man being the source of income. Movies about the workplace
portray CEO’s and higher ups taking advantage of regular cubicle workers (such
as the Peter Gibbons character in Office Space) making them stay for extreme
amounts of overtime and unnecessary work. Gay marriage in politics is touchy
because homosexuals are stereotyped as promiscuous. Asian-Americans are
stereotyped as being amazing at math and that the parents push their kids for
near perfect grades. During the Civil Rights Movement, African-Americans were
shut out and shooed away from white restaurant owners. Even closer to home,
here at St. John’s, the LGBT supporters wore rainbow buttons to mass that was
being said by Archbishop John C. Nienstedt. These supporters were denied
communion because apparently they were openly approving homosexual behavior.
Application
to adoption:
Parents of Birthmother:
Birthmother:
Society generalizes about birthmothers even today; they gave their baby up for adoption so it must have been their choice. This is where the component of invisibility comes in. Birthmothers are often misrepresented which can be hurtful for them. They feel like no one is their advocate and people don't understand their perspective. If they do not speak up, people would be none the wiser and continue to push these women towards adoption. When they're given the resources and choives to keep the childe, they have the ability to make the choice and less women will have to suffer the long term emotional consequences.
Birthfather:
Society's stereotype of birthfathers is that they aren't ready to be dads and therefore they don't care what happens with the mother and child as long as it doesn't become their permanent responsibility. Some are this way, others are not. This generalization hurts the birthfather in that they are often not expected or invited to make decisions about their child. If they want to keep the baby and try to raise it they are not always given that option and are emotionally scarred or have to fight for the baby, or both. This is another aspect of cultural imperialism, when the inferiorized party feels that they must fight back against the stereotype. The stereotype that they cannot care for their own child because they are men. Some even feel that they aren't entitled to anything so they take a step back, which only perpetuates the stereotype... regardless of whether or not they've meant to.
Adoptive Parents:
Most people wouldn't tend to think of adoptive parents as oppressive in any way; however, one important item to point out in relation to cultural imperialism is that they can be, but usually not actively. For example, couples looking to adopt tend to have enough money to support a child and they want a child to care for. They keep adoption agencies in business. The general idea is that they will give the child a better life than the birthparent could have for one reason or another. Both the adoptive parents and the birth parents tend to believe that this is the case in a situation where the birth parents cannot provide what is necessary for a new life to grow. There is no argument here to stop adoption, but it is simply a way of pointing out an oppressive group. One is generally seen as well off and therefore better suited to care for the child.
Child:
The adopted child has the potential for oppression in numerous ways. Depending on how they look, whether it is common knowledge that they are adopted, etc. Another aspect of cultural imperialism is that the 'inferior' group is "stamped with an essence," this is often in relationship to their bodies or outward appearance. So an example is a child adopted from Korea may not look like his/her adopted parents so they may get questions about being adopted or being Korean. They don't always welcome these questions because in some cases they do not relate at all to the questions being asked of/to them. But cultural imperialism is based on the notion that these outward traits allow for stereotypes that are not contestable.
Some examples:
Joao
Herbert: Brazilian adoptee deported from the U.S. for a drug charge, killed in
Brazil.
Zach
Wahls: Straight adoptee speaking on behalf of his mother’s for gay marriage.
Stories of unwed pregnant mothers in earlier years being sent to secluded ‘birth
houses.’
Birth
mother confessions on society thinking that they could possibly be called “sluts”
by people they don’t even know.
(Resources: Iris Young, "Five Faces of Oppression")
See you next time!
Group Awesome
No comments:
Post a Comment