The title says it all – this will be an account of the day I lost a part of my dignity (exactly three inches off of it) at UBC.

A little bit of a context, this title was also the title I used for the paper for which my social experiment was for. As a sociology student, social experiments are not something new to me, but this particular one was quite challenging.

The Context

I’m Ivan Arlantico, a third-year (officially, at least) Sociology major at the University of British Columbia. I am ethnically Chinese-Filipino, born and raised in the Philippines and now a permanent resident residing in Vancouver. (This will be relevant in a second, I promise.) For this term, I’m taking a sociology course with the title: Social Movements.

Interesting right? It gets better.

One of our assignments in the course is to break a social norm related to a social movement. Think feminist movement and wearing pants way back when. So we need to all do something similar – pick a movement, do something that’s NOT considered normal, and then write about the whole experience.

What did I pick? The LGBTQ movement and wearing three-inch peep toe pumps to school.

The Experiment

I bought the shoes – I had to, I didn’t know anyone who’s feet are as huge as mine and would lend me shoes – and picked a date I’d wear them to school. I planned on wearing them to school for a whole day (all my female friends were against it, some just thought it was  going to be too painful, some were concerned about the stares, looks, and comments I’d get). But I brought a pair of “regular” shoes just in case.

So I was wearing my regular clothes – a hoodie and black jeans – BUT with heels instead of my regular sneakers.

The Outcome

I wore them to one class – JUST ONE CLASS – and I had to take them off.

No, it wasn’t because they were painful.

Not even because I couldn’t walk in them.

I had to take them off because I couldn’t take the amount of reactions I was getting – my classmates staring at me and then whispering. It did not matter what they were whispering about, they could be saying all sorts of great things about my fashion choice, JUST THE FACT THAT THEY WERE WHISPERING AND NOT TELLING ME THINGS DIRECTLY BOTHERED ME SO MUCH. I couldn’t take it, I had to remove the shoes.

That was when I lost three inches off my dignity.

It made me realize that I did not have what it takes to stand up and stand out – I was uncomfortable with not conforming. I could just think of all the people who are fighting for their rights, for equality, and for recognition, and I could see them all probably disappointed in how I copped-out of my “stand” for gender-equality.

I thought it would be easy to say: “I’m wearing heels because I believe that people should not be judged by what they are wearing.” And it was, it was easy to say, problem was, not everyone had time to listen to what I had to say. Everyone just looked at me, and judged me however they saw fit.

So, UBC?

This whole exercise made me realize one thing: UBC has a dress-code for students.

Okay, bear with me, I know it’s probably super obvious for some people – or totally new for someone. Either way, it’s more profound than it sounds.

I came to UBC last year, this is only my second year here, and I remember a bunch of orientation events – and not one of them addressed dress-code. I don’t remember being given any rundowns on needing to conform to any dress-code as a UBC student! I don’t think there was even any mention that UBC has a dress-code.

Okay, maybe I did not get the memo, but still.

I never felt more socialized (or indoctrinated) into UBC  than at that moment — that moment when I was forced to change my shoes because it did not conform with the UBC standard.

Reflective Theory (ish)

As a sociology student for, well, years, I cannot help but theorize and see this whole experience through a sociological lens. What do I mean?

This whole thing with me and UBC and dressing “appropriately” (and by appropriately I mean dressing-in-a-way-where-I-don’t-get-weird-looks-from-everyone) made me realize how powerless individuals often are in situations where the society at large dictates what should and should not be. Choosing to wear peep toe pumps to school is me exercising my agency (or my personal power to make decisions and act), changing back into sneakers was me losing that agency in fear of the consequences of my going against the acceptable norm (or whatever people, or majority of the society considers normal).

This is what Foucault mentions in his work Discipline and Punish as internalized control and the panopticon.

Fancy terms. But basically – panopticon refers to a type of architecture used for prisons where there’s a tower in the middle and … well, let me just show you.

So basically, there’s a tower in the middle where the guards are and the prisoners are in the rooms around it. The goal is for the guards to always see the prisoners but the prisoners will not see the guards — so they never know when someone is there, they just know that THERE IS A POSSIBILITY that they’re being watched but they’re never certain.

What does this have to do with society? Well, Foucault says people internalize this control. We act like these prisoners — we always feel like we’re being watched and then we do what is expected of us because we’re afraid of the consequences!

I took the shoes off, because I was afraid of the ridicule and whatever other people might have in store for me for “breaking the norm.” There were not any formal sanctions, but I felt it. There really isn’t any other way of explaining it, but just that I felt it.

Try it. Try doing something that is not considered “normal” and see how it feels. (Don’t do something criminal though, that has very tangible consequences!)

What am I trying to say?

Next time you wear something to or do something while at UBC, think about why you’re doing it.

Who are you following? What “rules” do you observe as normal?

References:

Foucault, Michel (1975/2012) “From Discipline and Punish.” In Scott Appelrouth and Laura Desfor Edles. Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory (2^nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pine Forge Press. Pp. 622-636

I would like to start my post this evening with the question: what does “co-ethnic” mean?  These two weeks, the theme for our seminar has been race and ethnicity.  More specifically, as part of this week’s readings, we are looking at a couple of research studies done by Dr. Eric Fong at the University of Toronto and Dr. Elic Chan, who is an honorary research associate and sessional instructor at our very own university – UBC!

In their article, Fong and Chan gave an overview of past research, findings, and theories involving co-ethnic clustering. Then, they talked about their research on Chinese and Indian immigrants who settled in Toronto.  Back to the question I posed in the beginning — what does “co-ethnic” mean? It is simply when you have people of the same ethnicity together.  In the case of “co-ethnic clustering,” we have people of the same ethnicity coming together and living in the same neighbourhoods. They then go on to discuss factors that contribute to co-ethnic clustering: co-ethnic preferences, economic resources, and the use of co-ethnic information resources. Their findings show that co-et

Ethnic preferences (the favouring of amenities that are relevant to their ethnicity, such as Asian malls) and using co-ethnic resources – specifically Asian real-estate agents – were predictive of co-ethnic clustering.

This article led me to ponder about my own ethnicity and how that affects my choice of people I hang out with.  A few weeks ago, I attended an event on campus in which the purpose was to bring together Chinese-speaking international students to talk about their identities in light of the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong.  With the exception of the Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers class I took in first-year, this was the first time I got together with so many Asian people all at once through by the factor of Chinese-speaking.  This makes me think about ethnic-clustering (mentioned above).  My reasons for being there though, were different.  One reason was to support friends who were there, but other reasons included interest in the topic.  Discussions focused on self-identity.  Participants were all from Asia – Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan, and I was the only Canadian-born-Chinese.  I identify with Chinese culture and values, but not with Chinese as a nationality as I’ve never been to China before.

I think the event and the class discussions have really connected for me in that I’ve been asking myself questions of my identity and how I come about to hang out with friends that I hang out with.  For example, I often see many Chinese students clustered together or athletes clustered together. My reason for clustering? Mainly as a result of work/volunteer and class involvement!

Source: Eric Fong and Elic Chan, “The Effects of Economic Standing, Individual Preferences, and Co-Ethnic Resources on Immigrant Residential Structuring” International Migration Review 44(1): 111-141.

The day before Halloween, the Sociology Students’ Association held an event with the Anthropology Students’ Association to facilitate a discussion on cultural appropriation on Halloween costumes. The panel involved professors from different disciplines to give a holistic view, including Renisa Mawani (Sociology), Charles Menzies (Anthropology) and Leonora Angeles (Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice).  The event was hosted in the Anthropology and Sociology Building at UBC during a lunchtime break. Because I didn’t have class at that time and because I enjoy listening to these types of conversations, I readily participated and attended the discussion.

The ideas brought up by the audience and panel was extremely interesting and yet unsurprising. The first topic that was discussed was Halloween’s traditional historic roots. It derived from a Celtic harvest festival tradition where it celebrated the eve of All Saints Day to celebrate those who have passed away. It was a day of reversal, an inversion from good to bad that opened up a way to abrupt society and allow acts of rebellion. The true spirit of Halloween is unleashing this “chaos.” Presently, and particularly in North American Western culture, Halloween has turned into a capitalist invention of consumption. In other words, it’s a holiday that encourages us to buy, buy and buy treats, decorations and (of course) costumes.

Costumes that people wear on Halloween are becoming more controversial in regards with cultural appropriation and sexualization. However, for this blog, the former will be mostly addressed rather than the latter.  The question arises as to which cultures are being appropriated? What are costumes that are made to be costumes (i.e. black face)? How do humans create and produce these ideas in the first place? But before answering these questions let’s define the term Orientalism. Orientalism is a term coined by Edward Said and explained that it is a process of cultural representation of “others” or “Orientals” (those who are not European, white or from the West geographically, morally and culturally) (Said 31).  The images that we see of Mexican costumes with a sombrero, poncho and mustache or the Native American costume with the feather headdress are all images produced by white Western eyes, not their true cultural meaning.  So the big question that we’re all asking now (and what was asked in the event) is: Where’s the line in what is appropriate in terms of non-racist costumes?

To answer that question lies with another question: What is the fundamental problem that we must first address? As hinted by Orientalism, these images are made by Western ideals. We must re-imagine the power play that is at large. The ones who have power, control this production of images and costumes as acceptable. As Razack states, we live in a “white settler society [that] is established by Europeans on non-European soil” (1). Ultimately, there is a racial hierarchy in our system, which is reinforced and created through patriarchy and capitalism.  It is this system of social institutions that obscures the problem and it is through addressing the structural division of power that we can fix any other issues.

An analogy that Charles Menzies brought was that this situation is like a sickness. In addressing only racist cultural appropriations we are only fixing the symptoms of a sickness. We must diagnose the sickness first to eradicate these symptoms of racism and appropriation. In this case, the sickness is the way in which there is a structural division of power in our society that controls these images.

Overall, I enjoyed listening to the discussion made.  I went to this event because I love learning about issues like this that revolve around race. It was extremely interesting to me because I thought about Halloween in a deeper extent that I would’ve done if I discussed this with a friend. It was unsurprising because it was logical and understandable in how these racist costumes are from a bigger problem of power relations. It makes me wonder how one (especially those who are not white) negotiates their identity in Canada, in a culture that tells other cultures what they are “supposed” to be and look like. I agree, it is a larger problem than it being racist, it is about the ways our society and culture has been created by white settlers on non-European lands and the implications it has.

Works Cited: 

 Razack, Sherene H. “When Place Becomes Race.” Race, Space, and the Law: Unmapping a White Settler Society. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2002. Print.

Said, Edward. “Knowing the Oriental.” Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. 31-49. Print.

On October 1st, I was walking to our 433A seminar class, while the HKSA (Hong Kong student association) stopped me and asked if I would wear their yellow ribbon to help and show support for the protests and democracy movements in Hong Kong. At first, I had only heard of this movement through media and the newspaper, but after seeing and talking with the HKSA it was real and that information was more alive and I could tell that each one of them had so much dedication to what they were doing. I had asked them why there were poster boards and markers and they replied that if a message were to be written, they would take it back to Hong Kong and be sent to the protesters on the streets! At that moment I was astonished and thought that, I should be also campaigning about Tibet and its troubles within China. This was an excellent way to excel their club, show and spread awareness, and dedication to their people in HK showing, they are not alone and that this movement has been seen worldwide. A few days later, someone had mentioned that there will be an event for the HK movement in front of SUB and that it would be good that not only HK students show up, but other ethnicities, and organized clubs to join. Once I arrived, there were many students dressed in yellow, ribbons all over and yellow umbrellas to make a statement that they are not giving up, and whatever weapons the police use like the tear gas and pepper spray, the umbrella will defend, guard and prevail truth. It was one of the most amazingly well organized event that I have ever been to, nothing like it and I felt special being able to participate in a country that allows the practices of language, orientation and freedom. I believe that this generation is for the better and that we can strive to make changes to benefit for all.

I would like to relate this event with the reading: Beyond the self: How structures limits agency. (HK movement – yellow umbrella).  In this reading there are points that have relationships, and procedures that abide with people, production, and human relations. The questions I would like to discuss are dealing with the HK movement (people) and how will the supporters protest back, (production) how their lives produce persistence? and how human relation will connect this HK movement for the better, and if universal suffrage was allowed in HK what issues would arise in the future?

Ever since the pro-democracy protesters started occupying the busiest districts in HK, the Chinese government has been trying to limit the spread of this news in mainland China by suppressing everything that is related to the occupy central movement. For example all the posts about the movement have been censored on Weibo, the most popular social media in China. Instagram was also blocked in large parts of China due to the protest. How did this occupy central movement, led by a 17 year old student, have caused such panic to the Communist party’s authoritarian control over the rest of China? Being the third most important international financial center, after London and New York City, what influences to the rest of China, or even on a global scale, does it have?

At the beginning of the school term, I attended an orientation event at the Place Vanier first-year residence where one of my old high school acquaintances, Steven, was staying. This was a casual meet-and-greet organized by the local residents association, intended to allow new residents of each pair of “sister” houses to get to know each other. The particular pair of houses that my friend was a part of were gender segregated, where he and his all-male house was matched with another all-female house. In many ways, this was a typical introductory event – it was held outdoors in fair weather, background music was playing, and some complimentary beverages were provided by the residents association. Yet its workaday appearance in no way made it exempt from being a site for the enactment of a plethora of social patterns and scripts. In a conversation I had with a group of four male first-year students, I witnessed firsthand two interrelated patterns of socialization that were employed as a topic of conversation and as a bonding tool – compulsory heterosexuality and sexual essentialism.

In order to make sense of some of my observations and explain these two concepts, I will be drawing upon chapter four of Mariana Valverde’s Sex, Power and Pleasure. Here, she explains her ideas on how the “cultural myth” of sexual essentialism obstructs our understanding of the fluidity of sexual identities and the existence of bisexuality (111). She also gives an overview of Adrienne Rich’s concept of compulsory heterosexuality (114). These will form the conceptual backbone for my interpretation of my experience conversing with the four young men. Incidentally, these students were all fluent in English, having spent most if not all of their lives either in Canada or the United States. Three of them appeared to be Caucasian and the one that appeared to be Asian identified as an ethnic Korean. My analysis, based on notes that I took after attending this orientation, will be focused on how the micro-interaction that occurred was a specific expression of the constructs that Valverde and Rich identify as well as an illustration of how their theories are interrelated. I suggest that these theorists allow us to see the short conversation that I witnessed as a microcosmic part of wider patterns that circulate throughout society.

The interaction that is the subject of this blogpost began after we had all introduced ourselves and engaged in quite a bit of small talk regarding our backgrounds, faculties, and interests. During a momentary lull in the conversation, Stan (all the names used in this post are pseudonyms), one of the Caucasian students, asked the group whether we had “[liked] what we had seen so far” accompanied by a suggestive smirk. When the rest of the group answered in a generally noncommittal fashion, he followed up by saying, “Oh come on, you can’t tell me you guys don’t think she’s hot”, gesturing surreptitiously to a girl nearby. Jokingly, he added, “I mean, you’d have to be dead.” While this elicited tentative expressions of approval from the other guys in the group, I responded truthfully that I disagreed and that I was “not straight.” At this, Stan replied, “Oh well, if you’re gay, that’s different.”

While this was a short, casual piece of conversation – it took less than a minute and the subject was not brought up again – it is a great example of how individual, seemingly insignificant interactions are informed by social patterns. Stan’s comments on the attractiveness of the girls of the residence sister-house are informed by his partial understanding of the social structure that Rich identifies as “compulsory heterosexuality”. As Valverde explains, this concept describes how society presents heterosexuality “as the norm”, as a universal experience shared by everybody except for those labeled and punished as deviants (114). The social forces that make heterosexuality compulsory also make it appear “natural” (114). When Stan asked us whether we found any of the girls at the event attractive, he was relying upon the implicit assumption that as “naturally” heterosexual young men, we were bound to do so. When our response did not “live up” to this premise, he appealed further to social norms by referring to a stereotypically good-looking (from a heterosexual perspective) female student. By adding that we would “have to be dead” to disagree, Stan continued to draw upon his partial understanding of compulsory heterosexuality by implying that as young men, we had no choice but to be allured by an archetypal example of the heterosexist standard of female beauty.

Interestingly enough, despite my expressed deviance from compulsory heterosexuality in my refusal to deem the girl in question as attractive and my identification as “not straight”, I was not socially “punished” in the classic sense (114). This is most likely due to the increasing social and institutional acceptance of homosexuality that has occurred in Canada and more generally amongst Western countries since Rich wrote in 1980. Still, I was positioned as outside “the norm” by Stan (“that’s different”) and as such subject to a minor degree of social awkwardness (judging by his expression and those of the others in the group). However, perhaps the most interesting part of his statement was his assumption that I am gay. In fact, based on the information that I provided (“I’m not straight”), the only logical conclusion that he could infer would be only that I am not heterosexual. His assumption that I could only be one of two sexualities – homo- or heterosexual – draws from another social pattern that is identified by Valverde as the cultural myth of “sexual essentialism” (117). This is assumption that, barring extremely rare exceptions, “everyone is “really”… either gay or straight” (111). As Valverde explains, this myth supposed “that we all have some inner core of sexual truth” which pre-determines our sexualities and precludes the possibility of fluidity and change (111). Ergo, given that I was not straight, sexual essentialism dictated that I must be gay.

Of course, in reality, there exists considerable fluidity in people’s lived experiences of sexuality, particularly amongst women (112). What is important to realize is that Stan’s reproduction of sexual essentialism has social consequences in that it participates in an erasure of actual sexual fluidity. Attitudes and actions informed by sexual essentialism make it difficult for fluid sexual identities (such as pansexuality, bisexuality, uncategorized sexual identities, etc.) to be recognized, understood, and accepted. Similarly, his heterosexist comments participate in an erasure of non-heterosexual identities. Resisting these conformist tendencies means that we have to recognize that even small, seemingly insignificant actions and words can contribute to discrimination. My goal for this post is not to simply illuminate an academically interesting relationship between theory and reality – it is to raise more awareness of the subtle ways in which inequality can function. Next time you encounter a situation that seems to make you or others uncomfortable, ask yourself if any sort of implicit discrimination may be occurring. Only by interrogating our common sense assumptions can we rid ourselves of inequality as a society.

References:

Valverde, Mariana. Sex, power and pleasure. Canadian Scholars’ Press, 1985.
Weblink: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315933

My Experience at a Social Club Ice Breaker on Campus

In the beginning of this school year, a couple of classmates and I decided to attend the ice breaker of one of the most well-known social clubs on campus.  I still remember the apprehension that built up as the event approached.  It was a combination of feeling excited about what’s in store and anxiousness  about being there.

The moment I stepped into the registration area, I felt a rush of nervousness despite the high positive energy that the club executives were giving off.  Only after seeing my classmate there did I feel a little bit less nervous.  I tried to act as casual as possible when getting myself a name tag in order to conceal my uneasiness.  It felt strange because when engaging in on-campus activities, I had often been on the host side where I was part of the group running the event.

The second time I felt strange was when I entered the venue where the ice breaker was to take place.  The room was already filled with people, chatter, and laughter.  Immediately I felt that I didn’t fit in.  After we watched the introductions to the club and a game started, my classmate and I left the venue together because we did not feel like participating anymore.

When we debriefed about our experiences and talked about how we felt, we realized that we felt uncomfortable for different reasons.  My reason was “I’m dressed differently.”  What I meant by that was literally that my clothing was fitting in with the rest of the participants at the event.  I felt that I was dressed a little too formally than everyone else.  However, I soon acknowledged to my classmate that I do realize that this is solely my own feeling – no one made any remark about the way I dressed nor did I feel that they looked at me in any way that elicited those feelings.  I knew that the reason I felt that way was due to my previous “knowledge” about how the club is perceived by others and how I didn’t fit into that description.

In the end, my classmate and I decided to head back to the ice breaker where we stayed until the event finished.

Relating this Experience to our Class

When I did the reading, “Guyland” by Michael Kimmel, I thought back to this experience.  For class, we read chapters 1 and 4 in the book.  In Chapter 1, Kimmel talks about the notion of “Guyland.”  “Guyland” is a phase in the life of males (in Western society) in which as boys, they become men.  Males in Guyland are mostly “white, middle-class kids; they are college-bound, in college, or have recently graduated….” (P. 8)  Concurrently, Kimmel speaks about Guyland as if it was a physical space.

After discussing about fraternities, in chapter 4, Kimmel writes about how college girls find their identities in their sororities in relation to these males.  Kimmel writes as though these girls are entering the physical location of “Guyland.”  The girls can choose to be either a “bitch” ¨(please excuse my language) or a “babe.”  The latter “ does not model herself on a guy’s expectations of her, but rather on her own expectations of herself,” (P. 249) and as a result they are shunned and ridiculed.  To be a “babe” one must comply with the expectations and social norms of the sisters and brothers.  For the girls, their first time entering Guyland is very unfamiliar to them, and the choices they then make have a big impact on their identities and how they are perceived by others.  In a similar yet non-identical way, I felt as though I was entering a “foreign territory” when I entered the event venue.  I was constantly thinking about how I was presenting myself and whether I should engage in activities (such as chants and photos) that I did not feel comfortable engaging in.  Thankfully, throughout the event, regardless whether I participated in the activity or refused to take part, the club members and event participants were non-judgmental and did not look down on me.  I felt respected regardless of the choices I made.

This is also a topic of structure versus agency, where this social club is a structure and everyone within it may or may not have agency depending on how the person personally feels.  For example, when I left the event out of nervousness, I chose to leave the event because I personally felt that I didn’t belong because of my preconceptions of the club.  The structure, or my preconception of the club, came into play with my choice or actions, or my agency.

To conclude, I must say that the social club I mentioned in this blog post is very different from Guyland in that basing off from my observations from the ice breaker event, the social club is an open and inclusive club and will not coerce club members and event participants to do things they don’t  actively nor passively.

Source: Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men.

For this blog post I decided to focus on Michael Kimmel’s ideas on initiation. In Guyland he claims that an initiation’s “power rests on the instability of one’s identity. A person undergoes initiation in order to stabilize a new permanent identity” (Kimmel; Pg. 98). Kimmel’s study of the power on identity that initiations in to social groupings stem from his research on young men from the ages of 16-22 first taking on new responsibilities such as living on their own for their first time or having a job that requires active commitment. In his argument Kimmel explains that young men dislike the loss of “dependency and lack of autonomy of boyhood” that they must deny to themselves because they believe they will need to accept “the sacrifice and responsibility of manhood” (Kimmel; Pg 6) at some point in their lives to become a full adult. But it is because they miss the carefree nature of their youth that they despair and live at a point in their lives where they suffer from having a weak sense of identity.

It would be easy to say that people having a hard time identifying who they are join social groups. According to Kimmel a common belief around joining fraternities is that “once initiated, men no longer have identity crises wondering who they are, if they can measure up, or if they are man enough” (Kimmel; Pg 101). I, however, feel that there must be more to joining the allure of joining a fraternity than becoming someone different. I feel that Kimmel’s approach cannot encompass the average fraternity brother’s true feelings. A few weeks ago, I met with a young man currently going through the process of being initiated into a fraternity. These are my thoughts on our meeting.

This young man is currently pledging to Alpha Kappa Psi, a professional business fraternity with a network of thousands of alumni. Pledges are able to apply to enter the Omega Gamma Investment group where they are able to handle and invest substantial amounts of money and derive hands-on experience in the field of finance. The allure of the professional experience alongside the large network of associates are fairly enticing opportunities for a young student to engage in.

The fraternity has four core values, which requires its members to uphold: Brotherhood, Integrity, Sharing of Knowledge, and Community Responsibility. In this way the fraternity’s goal is to promote the learning of business and to create ethical workers. Those pledging to the fraternity must go through interview processes where they are accepted if they fit the mold of someone whom the council believes has the potential to a good businessperson in their ethical image.

It is at this point that we can see changes in the identity possibly happen as some new pledges might change their behaviors in an effort to be accepted into the social group. These people might change the amount of lewd expressions they use in their language or change their profile pictures on facebook. But there must also be those who are already ethical, brotherly, moral, knowledge-sharing, community-minded individuals that already fit the mold just by their way of being and want to spend their university lives with likeminded individuals. In this way I disagree with Kimmel’s ideas on initiation into groups as it fails to look at the positive reasons why someone might want to join and fraternity.

References:

Kimmel, Michael. Guyland. HarperCollins e-books. 2009