Like Me vs. Respect Me: Conversational Differences Between Men and Women
Men and women respond differently when conversing with others. Throughout our lives, boys and girls, men and women, males and females, are taught to handle situations in a distinct way from one another – commonly seen as innate and “the norm.” However, these gender specific traits are all a combination of learned social behaviors, habits, and roles that are made for us the day we are born and wrapped in either a pink or blue blanket. Since men and women then have distinct ways in communicating with others, it is obvious to see miscommunication happen between them. Deborah Tannen, author of the articles “But What Do You Mean?” and “I’ll Explain It To You” points out these differences, and explains these conversational differences by analyzing examples from her own studies. In her studies, one of Tannen’s significant observations is the way women “seek to build rapport,” while men strive for “establishing or testing their status.” By piecing together a study of my own and applying it to Tannen’s research, I have noticed this difference – men seeking respect, women seeking likeability – in in the way men and woman talk, listen, and perceive one another based on conversation. Both genders are unique in the way they present themselves during business meetings, social situations and confrontations, funneling down to the differences in listening, joking, and communicating in groups.
In the same way men and women have different interests or hobbies, men and women also have a different way of listening. In a section of “But What Do You Mean?” called “Complaints,” Tannen points out the way men and women respond to a complaint or a conversation. When women have a conversation, Tannen notes:
You complain about a problem (which shows that you are just folks) and the other person responds with a similar problem (which puts you on equal footing). But while such commiserating is common among women, men are likely to hear it as a request to solve the problem. (Tannen, 334)
This can be seen when observing a group of all men or all women conversing; while men tend to get straight to the point and “problem solve,” women show signs of support and respond throughout the conversation, with an occasional “yeah” or sign of interest. In this way, it may seem as if women are supportive and engaged in what the other has to say, but it may also be a way of her building rapport with the person, not thinking of building or sustaining status. Men, on the other hand, listen and provide solutions or challenge what they are being told as a way of showing interest in the conversation; they see it as a way of establishing respect. During this abrupt conversation with my best friend - who is a male – it was clear that what I was looking for, I wasn’t going to get:
Leah (me): So class was torture today. I could barely talk. My voice was practically gone and it was embarrassing. I sounded like a 13-year old boy going through puberty.
Jake: No response.
Leah: And on top of that, I went to the doctor and…(continue to complain for 2 minutes)
Jake: Just take some Dayquil and you’ll be fine.
Leah stares.
Jake: Oh, I’m sorry, was I supposed to react to that? Feel bad, say “Aww, how sad”?
While I wanted to hear a sympathetic response from Jake, the way I had with my roommates (who are women,) I did not get it. Instead, Jake gave me a simple solution and continued to go on with his day, to take Dayquil and quit complaining. This came as a shock, but it corresponds to Tannen’s observations about men and women’s conversational patterns. A woman may feel the need to support the person talking and offer support and empathy, while a man may find the need to give a solution and challenge you.
Unlike women – who like to build rapport and play the “Do You Like Me?” game – men feel the need to challenge other men in order to maintain respect, initiating what Tannen refers to as the “one-up.” In a section of Tannen’s second article, “I’ll Explain It To You,” she describes how men and women have different styles of joking:
Practical joking – playing a joke on someone – is clearly a matter of being one-up: in the know and control… Since [women] are not driven to seek and hold center stage in a group, they do not need a store of jokes to whip out for this purpose. (Tannen, 287)
Tannen’s observation of joking correlates with the observation from my own study, involving the use of practical joking to elevate status. During a conversation I had with a group of male friends at my apartment, it was obvious that each were retrieving old memories (as they were best buddies,) of times when each had “one-uped” each other. Diego and Hector in particular began to have a roast, remembering times they had pulled pranks and practical jokes on one another. Diego eventually won, sharing a humiliating story involving Hector (completely naked,) shaving cream and a sharpie. All of my male friends were reaching for the same goal of being top dog, promoting their own status and simultaneously lowering the other persons’ status. Instead of playing the “Do You Like Me?” game, men use jokes as a way to play the game “Do You Respect Me?”
Men also indulge on making others laugh, which Tannen says, “gives you a fleeting power over them.” So when a man and a woman are sharing jokes – and each having a different set idea of humor – men may find that it is more important to make someone laugh, whereas women may find both making someone laugh and laughing at someone else’s joke as an important component to engaging in conversation.
Men and women have different approaches to engaging in conversation, whether it is at a business meeting, a soccer game or a party. Because of these differences in humor and listening techniques, both may find that they are being misunderstood. It is not so much that men do not listen and that women are not funny; while some men definitely do not listen, and some women really do lack a sense of humor, it is not all men or all women. In fact, it is the differences between the way in which we are taught to communicate, or the way in which we are used to communicating.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Final Draft of Essay #1
"Race" in the Media
People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated last Thursday when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest was accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, Gates thinks this more than an accident. “Why, because I am a black man in America?” yelled Professor Gates as he was taken away in front of his own home. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated. However, how would this have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race? People always make mistakes, but mistakes at the expense of others should be taken seriously.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk, Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
The next step after selection is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Katie Zezima’s article in The New York Times, one reader may see Zezima’s choice of words, emphasis and fact selection as being balanced, while another may see it as being too critical of the situation. Another person can see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly, questioning the situation and the people involved. Each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as an honest mistake. In Zezima’s article, Crowley attempts to justify his actions. However, when looking at the article, Zezima is picking and choosing words that will help justify his actions as well: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. By using charged language, Zezima is implying a negative connotation. The word “accusing” gives a negative connotation to the reader, as if Gates is instigating the situation and pointing fingers at an innocent police officer. The word “accusing,” – because it is giving off this negative connotation – is influencing how the reader should feel about the situation. Some readers may see the word accusing and say that Professor Gates is all to blame – even without any other facts or knowledge on the circumstance. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, but analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge and opinions – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and its unprofessional conduct could be seen as something far worse. Zezima shares a balanced recollection of facts: “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. Zezima continues: “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident, but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article, a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354,) is both balanced and biased. She allows the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously makes it clear that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although it is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she highlighted in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraph, one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated last Thursday when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest was accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, Gates thinks this more than an accident. “Why, because I am a black man in America?” yelled Professor Gates as he was taken away in front of his own home. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated. However, how would this have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race? People always make mistakes, but mistakes at the expense of others should be taken seriously.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk, Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
The next step after selection is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Katie Zezima’s article in The New York Times, one reader may see Zezima’s choice of words, emphasis and fact selection as being balanced, while another may see it as being too critical of the situation. Another person can see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly, questioning the situation and the people involved. Each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as an honest mistake. In Zezima’s article, Crowley attempts to justify his actions. However, when looking at the article, Zezima is picking and choosing words that will help justify his actions as well: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. By using charged language, Zezima is implying a negative connotation. The word “accusing” gives a negative connotation to the reader, as if Gates is instigating the situation and pointing fingers at an innocent police officer. The word “accusing,” – because it is giving off this negative connotation – is influencing how the reader should feel about the situation. Some readers may see the word accusing and say that Professor Gates is all to blame – even without any other facts or knowledge on the circumstance. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, but analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge and opinions – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and its unprofessional conduct could be seen as something far worse. Zezima shares a balanced recollection of facts: “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. Zezima continues: “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident, but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article, a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354,) is both balanced and biased. She allows the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously makes it clear that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although it is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she highlighted in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraph, one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A Big Deal - Graded Essay #1
People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated last Thursday when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest was accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, Gates thinks this more than an accident. “Why, because I am a black man in America?” yelled Professor Gates as he was taken away in front of his own home. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated. However, how would this have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race? People make mistakes, but when it is at another person’s expense, it should be taken seriously; it is a big deal, and needs to be addressed.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both inside and out, unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as a simple mistake. Crowley justifies his actions by putting emphasis on Gates in Katie Zezima’s report in The New York Times: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge, maybe allowing his own opinions to take charge – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and the unprofessional way in which it was handled could be seen as something far worse. Zezima reports, “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. What if Crowley and his fellow police officers had handled the situation differently? Zezima continues to say, “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
The next step, as Birk and Birk state, is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Zezima’s article, one reader may see the article as being balanced, another may see it as being too critical of the situation and giving it too much thought and importance, and another may see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly and wonder how it would have been different if it were not Gates and a male belonging to a different race or ethnicity; each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article – which is a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354) – is allowing the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously making it clear to the reader that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although majority of the article is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she chose in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraphs (of Crowley still not believing Gates even after he showed him proper identification,) one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned, also acknowledging the police and their lack of a justifiable reason for such treatment. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
To paraphrase Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both inside and out, unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?
If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as a simple mistake. Crowley justifies his actions by putting emphasis on Gates in Katie Zezima’s report in The New York Times: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge, maybe allowing his own opinions to take charge – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.
From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and the unprofessional way in which it was handled could be seen as something far worse. Zezima reports, “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. What if Crowley and his fellow police officers had handled the situation differently? Zezima continues to say, “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).
The next step, as Birk and Birk state, is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Zezima’s article, one reader may see the article as being balanced, another may see it as being too critical of the situation and giving it too much thought and importance, and another may see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly and wonder how it would have been different if it were not Gates and a male belonging to a different race or ethnicity; each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.
Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article – which is a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354) – is allowing the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously making it clear to the reader that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although majority of the article is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she chose in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraphs (of Crowley still not believing Gates even after he showed him proper identification,) one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned, also acknowledging the police and their lack of a justifiable reason for such treatment. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.
Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Essay #1: The Sample Essay
The Similarities Between Profiling Pit Bulls and People
The ban of pit bulls in Ottawa, Ontario; random searches of passengers on New York
City subways; the traits Drug Enforcement Administration agents have used to stop suspected
smugglers in airports: what do all of these issues have in common? They are all examples of
profiling in the United States, stemming from generalizations about a trait that is constantly
changing. These examples are only a few of the typical variations of constraints made by the
government based on unreliable commonalities each year. Malcolm Gladwell, author of the
article “Troublemakers: What pit bulls teach us about profiling,” says that generalizations are
ways of people making predictions – some of those predictions being right and majority of them
wrong. As he discusses in depth, the discrimination against pit bulls in Ottawa, Ontario teaches
us about the racial profiling of people, as a result of the government linking someone (or
something) to a behavior or trait and abusing their rights because of it. Generalizing is “a choice
of what factors to leave in and what factors to leave out,” (Gladwell, 2) and it is in this way of
categorizing that leads to the wrongdoing of victims of profiling.
Gladwell’s article begins with a story of a young boy being viciously attacked by a pit
bull in Ottawa, Ontario, thus leading to the ban of pit bulls. By doing this, Gladwell is showing
the simple facts, without embellishing the case. However, as the article continues, his real point
unfolds. With strong statistics and evidence, he goes on to say that the pit bull ban is a way of
profiling that can teach us what not to do (that is, to stay away from generalizing others). He
defines what Raymond Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner, calls profiling’s “category
problem” (3), which only works if the category being generalized can be clearly identified. If the
category is always in motion, then the generalization is unreliable. Pit bulls, for instance, are not
a constant; there is not one single breed of the pit bull, and pit bulls come from all different
neighborhoods. They are also a breed that comes and goes due to the popularity of the breed in
the given time period (if there are more pit bulls than other large dogs, surely there are going to
be more incidents involving them). Pit bulls can be raised to be mean, since many owners of pit
bulls use them for protection, or can be abused by owners who purposely train them to fight.
Depending on the owner, circumstance and time period, pit bulls cannot be generalized because
these things are always changing. As Gladwell says, “A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not
to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it.” (3)
Pit bulls, then, are being profiled because of judgments made by others. Why are other
dogs not being targeted? This runs parallel with the whole concern of racial profiling. If one
man is being attacked because he physically resembles members of a present terrorist
organization, what about the rest of the population? Kelly questions, “You think that terrorists
aren’t aware of how easy it is to be characterized by ethnicity?.. Could a terrorist dress up as a
Hasidic Jew and walk into the subway, and not be profiled? Yes.” (3) Generalizations are
stemmed from an individual’s opinions and judgments, not real, constant traits; anyone, despite
the color of their skin, could be a terrorist, and it doesn’t make sense to search someone because
of their physical attributes. Law enforcement officials are required to keep the peace within the
community and prevent crime, but to what extent can they search individuals? Many officials
use race as a way to profile people, but this only leads to the abuse of civil rights and
discrimination. By removing generalizations – as Kelly did – and narrowing down suspicions to
stable categories, searches can be conducted in an effective way that aren’t targeting people
based on race or generalizations.
As Gladwell says on page 2, “the process of moving from the specific to the general is
both necessary and perilous.” Making generalizations is a part of life and the way people make
sense of the world, but it is not always right. When one generalization is harmless, another is
negative and discriminatory. Whether it is the banning of pit bulls or the random searching of subways in New York City, profiling is never the answer to any solution.
Word count: 756
The ban of pit bulls in Ottawa, Ontario; random searches of passengers on New York
City subways; the traits Drug Enforcement Administration agents have used to stop suspected
smugglers in airports: what do all of these issues have in common? They are all examples of
profiling in the United States, stemming from generalizations about a trait that is constantly
changing. These examples are only a few of the typical variations of constraints made by the
government based on unreliable commonalities each year. Malcolm Gladwell, author of the
article “Troublemakers: What pit bulls teach us about profiling,” says that generalizations are
ways of people making predictions – some of those predictions being right and majority of them
wrong. As he discusses in depth, the discrimination against pit bulls in Ottawa, Ontario teaches
us about the racial profiling of people, as a result of the government linking someone (or
something) to a behavior or trait and abusing their rights because of it. Generalizing is “a choice
of what factors to leave in and what factors to leave out,” (Gladwell, 2) and it is in this way of
categorizing that leads to the wrongdoing of victims of profiling.
Gladwell’s article begins with a story of a young boy being viciously attacked by a pit
bull in Ottawa, Ontario, thus leading to the ban of pit bulls. By doing this, Gladwell is showing
the simple facts, without embellishing the case. However, as the article continues, his real point
unfolds. With strong statistics and evidence, he goes on to say that the pit bull ban is a way of
profiling that can teach us what not to do (that is, to stay away from generalizing others). He
defines what Raymond Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner, calls profiling’s “category
problem” (3), which only works if the category being generalized can be clearly identified. If the
category is always in motion, then the generalization is unreliable. Pit bulls, for instance, are not
a constant; there is not one single breed of the pit bull, and pit bulls come from all different
neighborhoods. They are also a breed that comes and goes due to the popularity of the breed in
the given time period (if there are more pit bulls than other large dogs, surely there are going to
be more incidents involving them). Pit bulls can be raised to be mean, since many owners of pit
bulls use them for protection, or can be abused by owners who purposely train them to fight.
Depending on the owner, circumstance and time period, pit bulls cannot be generalized because
these things are always changing. As Gladwell says, “A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not
to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it.” (3)
Pit bulls, then, are being profiled because of judgments made by others. Why are other
dogs not being targeted? This runs parallel with the whole concern of racial profiling. If one
man is being attacked because he physically resembles members of a present terrorist
organization, what about the rest of the population? Kelly questions, “You think that terrorists
aren’t aware of how easy it is to be characterized by ethnicity?.. Could a terrorist dress up as a
Hasidic Jew and walk into the subway, and not be profiled? Yes.” (3) Generalizations are
stemmed from an individual’s opinions and judgments, not real, constant traits; anyone, despite
the color of their skin, could be a terrorist, and it doesn’t make sense to search someone because
of their physical attributes. Law enforcement officials are required to keep the peace within the
community and prevent crime, but to what extent can they search individuals? Many officials
use race as a way to profile people, but this only leads to the abuse of civil rights and
discrimination. By removing generalizations – as Kelly did – and narrowing down suspicions to
stable categories, searches can be conducted in an effective way that aren’t targeting people
based on race or generalizations.
As Gladwell says on page 2, “the process of moving from the specific to the general is
both necessary and perilous.” Making generalizations is a part of life and the way people make
sense of the world, but it is not always right. When one generalization is harmless, another is
negative and discriminatory. Whether it is the banning of pit bulls or the random searching of subways in New York City, profiling is never the answer to any solution.
Word count: 756
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
