Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

This article discussed the ways in which the media covers Trump, and how Trump has attacked the media to avoid asking questions about his own corruption and misgivings. Archer notes that many politicians in the past, Republican and Democrats, have employed similar tactics and have expressed the same distaste for mainstream media. In Trump’s presidency, the magnitude, intensity, and frequency of these attacks on the media have skyrocketed, making them quite different from Nixon, Bush, and Clinton’s attacks on the media. The rise of cable news channels like MSNBC and FOX have changed the way reporters cover candidates and the way we look at the media as a society. In some shape or form, all politicians are calling out some branch of the media as they believe different sources are unjustly biased against them. In this effort to control the narrative, politicians are keeping more secrets from the American public. I think the rise and demand for conservative news is pretty interesting. The ways in which are modern political parties impact social media, YouTube, and television are huge developments in history because partisan cable news channels now make millions of dollars and have pretty significant impacts on informing(or misinforming) voters about the news.

There are definitely a lot of similarities between Trump and Nixon’s campaign. Nixon was considered much more moderate than his fellow California politician that is more often associated with modern conservatism, Ronald Regan, who would become president about a decade later. Nixon probably would have disagreed with many of Trump’s policies (I’m not sure Trump still fits the mold of any political party for that matter, and he probably never did to begin with), but like Trump, Nixon’s campaign found a great success in mobilizing the “silent majority” oF America. The use of the media and the rise of television in the 60s and 70s had a pretty big impact on voter turnout since many (probably pretty racist) people who did not agree with legislation being pushed during the Civil Rights Movement felt like they were not being represented since they were not actively protesting and being covered by the media. Trump tapped into a similar support group in his 2016 campaign; people that voted for Trump and did not agree with Obama’s progressive politics, but they weren’t publicly expressing their admiration for Trump

Leave a Comment

Pure Confidence

Susan Nevin

Last night I attended the play, “Pure Confidence.” This play was about a black jockey who raced right before and during the start of the Civil War. This man, Simon Cato, and his owner’s horse, “Pure Confidence,” were known as some of the best racers in all of America. Simon Cato asked to be free, and his owner agreed if he made enough he could buy his freedom, along with his wife Caroline. Tragically, Cato got in a riding accident with two white jockeys, and his legs were badly broken. He could never ride the same again. However, once the war hit, Cato went to go fight for the union, and ended up working as a bellhop in the Saratoga hotel. Even though he was a free man, he was treated like trash at his job. But, his former owner found him, and begged him to come “home” and be his horse trainer. Simon said he would consider, and claimed that freedom isn’t really about being free, but it is about having the power to choose which path you want to take. 

This play was quite sad, as it showed that Simon Cato’s owners’ truly loved him, but didn’t have the confidence to stand up for what they believed in, as they did see Caroline and Simon as people. Additionally, this production showed that while Simon escaped during war and was eventually free, he was never treated as an equal. This part was heartbreaking, because all he wanted was to be seen as a man, but no one gave him the decency of that but his former owner, who didn’t have the balls to stand up to slavery and treat him as a friend.

Leave a Comment

I found this article extremely interesting. One of the most outstanding quotes within this passage to me is earlier along when Giles claims that the multiple

“components of this dual identity are salient, and each one is triggered on different occasions as being more central to who that person is at that moment”

This quote is so intriguing because it is not something that is not always done consciously. Usually in different circumstances that cause for different assets of one’s personality to come out, the switch happens naturally and without thought. The way in which all these aspects work together to create an identity is especially interesting when considering how each aspect’s individuality surfaces depending on the situation. 

I also thought that Gile’s social identity theory was also interesting. The fact that people choose to demonstrate pride for their ingroup by emphasizing its characteristics becomes a way to consider the reason behind senseless rivalries. To me, it seems that the more differences are emphasized the more tension arises due to a desire to be the dominant ingroup. Even though the initial intent may have been to merely display pride, I see how this intent can be easily misconstrued. 

 

4 Comments

Appropriate was a play that was very eye opening. I believe that the content of the play was extremely relevant to the dynamic of society today. The only thing that has been truly constant about the United States has been its degradation of marginalized groups when the norm allowed it. We have seen Japanese Mass Genocide, Slavery, Japanese Internment Camps and Gender and Sexual Inequality -just to name a few.

Now in the wake of the country leaning more progressive and acknowledging inequity, no one knows what to do. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 happened only 55 years ago. It is now 2019 and we still have not passed a federal anti-lynching bill. It has gotten passed the Senate but not the House nor has it been signed by the president. Being from a state that practiced lynching frequently, these facts are heart wrenching.

This play taught me alot and also put a lot of things into perspective. I did not know that people would come to the victims and cut off their body parts as souvenirs or “trophies”. The scariest fact is that these people who committed such horrible atrocities were actually people. They raised families and passed on legacies and wishes all while stealing those same things away from other people.

And now here we are as a country two generations removed while at the same time not removed at all. We are here striving for equity as if these things never happened and without addressing them properly. Kids do not learn about true history in school and adults do not always know the horrors that have been committed through their bloodline. Then we get to colleges and universities and expect them to be integrated and inclusive spaces. Why do we expect that?

This play made me ask myself a lot of questions. To what extent are we responsible for the sins of our family members? How much power do we actually have in acknowledging these actions and creating a new narrative? How can we be inclusive if the majority is oblivious to the history that still carries weight today? How can we expect people to process that their loved ones did in fact love them and do nice things, while also committing terroristic ones? And how much psychological trauma will be inflicted due to the educational enlightenment and acknowledgment of how harsh our history truly is?

Leave a Comment

Ingroups and outgroups. how did Humanity get to that why cant we just live as one large ingroup. it really makes no sense to me at all. I mean I get that different sects of life will congregate differently together naturally based upon interests but why on earth does it have to become hostile. it literally has no benefit to any one once the relationship becomes hostile.

I do like how the article pointed out that intercultural  interactions, however scary they may be for an aware person, should not be avoided. they are a good learning experience and should be thought of as that not a reason to yell at someone who may not know better.

2 Comments

The reading of “Ingroups and Outgroups,” there are different categories that analyzed and place us in a ingroup or outgroup scenarios. I was able to notice how imperative language is and how it is the most defining category. I think it is really interesting how easy language can influence our lives and how much they can connect people together. Speaking language that is primary to where you live is very important to distinguishing how you grew up and what part of the world you grew up. 

I find it really interesting how when I came to college, language has been a very important part of how people distinguish between each other. People from the south have a very different type of way in which they communicate and create groups with each other. There is a friend of mine from Colorado and we speak very similarly but there is a difference between us in the sense that he grew up in the city and I grew up in the mountains and our ingroup/outgroup status is impacted based off of this. 

9 Comments

This reading by Howard and Jane Giles discusses intergroup communication perspective. The division between ingroups and outgroups was a main point of this reading. Ingroups is a social category that you identify with, while an outgroup is a social category that you do not identify with. While this seems like a simple concept, life is not always so black and white. In certain environments, you could be a part of both an group and an out group. The example the reading provided was about how Korean Americans feel like outsiders when they go to the place that they identify with most in the United States.

I realized that since coming to college, there are certain things I identify with when I’m at home that I don’t really identify with here. For example, the music I listen to with my family and friends at home is different than the music I listen to with my friends at Richmond.

This article also mentioned intersectionality, which we talked about in class earlier in the semester. In short, intersectionality is the connection of certain identities – like race, gender, or ability – and how they overlap to create an individual identity.

 

 

3 Comments

Last night I attended the Jepson Leadership Forum presentation called “The Internet as a Weapon.” The speaker, Yasha Levine, is an investigative journalist whose family came to the United States as political refugees from the Soviet Union when he was nine. He started his presentation by talking about how the internet was used to interfere in the 2016 election. For many people, this represented a turning point in the role of the internet in society because it was the first time that the internet was used to influence a political outcome. However, Levine said that in reality there has never been a time that the internet was not used as a “weapon” of influence. I found this really surprising because I always thought of the 2016 election as an example of the internet’s increased capabilities, but according to Levine the internet has always been able to have such significant influence. He talked about technology being used to influence military operations as early as the 1960s, which was crazy to me.

Something else that stood out to me was that Levine talked about how in his community of immigrants growing up, the United States and its technological developments represented a new world of possibilities for the future. However, we have not lived up to these ideals. To demonstrate this, he showed an image of a new Apple facility being built and a homeless man sitting in front of it. He showed this picture several times throughout the presentation. I thought that this picture was very powerful because it shows that even though technology has created so many opportunities, these opportunities haven’t been available to everyone.

Leave a Comment

An ingroup is a social category or a group that you strongly identify with. An outgroup is basically the opposite, it is a group that you don’t identify with. There are a lot of differences between these outgroups and ingroups, these may be the language and speech styles they create or use, their different dress codes, and the different pageants and festivals that are in their traditions and rituals.

When I read about ingroups and outgroups it made me relate the concept to different religions and made me think that religions can be considered to a certain degree an ingroup and outgroup. I can think how ingroups and outgroups can relate to someone’s everyday life and how the groups that they identify with work with the groups that they don’t identify with. Another thing that I found which is interesting was the infrahumanization effect where people express human qualities to members of their ingroup and to their outgroup they tend to show less human like characteristics and more animal like qualities to outgroups.

6 Comments

An in group is a group that you strongly identify with while an outgroup on the other hand, is a group in which you do not. I found it interesting how specific the dichotomy is between groups that creates the “us and them” as stated on page 142. Small cultural differences like the way they dress, what they eat, or even hobbies can create different ingroups. Is it possible for an individual to be a part of multiple ingroups if their characteristics fit into the basis of those ingroups?

It is interesting how intergroup boundaries are also specific. For example, the way cultures view each others eating habits and how they use utensils creates an intergroup boundary. Another boundary I found interesting is for example, when Americans who know Japanese try to converse with Japanese in their language to make them feel more comfortable when in reality, it is intolerable. Overall, I think that this article dives into many examples of ingroups and classifications within ingroups that were interesting but also contains a lot of information that makes it difficult to digest.

2 Comments

The reading, “Ingroups and Outgroups,” analyzes the different categories that place us in an ingroup or outgroup scenario. I found the emphasis on language as the most interesting defining category. I find it really easy to forget how much language influences our daily lives. Language is such a bonding force that groups hold onto. Speaking a language that is the primary language where you live places you at an advantage above people who do not speak that language, or who do not speak it as their first language.

In my psych class in high school, I learned about how for people who are multilingual, their personalities change based on what language they are speaking. In Spanish, they might be more outgoing while in French, they might be more shy. I wonder how those personality changes impacts someone’s ingroup/outgroup status.

3 Comments

For his talk Yasha Levine started out by showing a video that was “A Kid’s Guide to the Internet.” He used this video to start off his talk on a positive, funny note because he knew that this topic was not lighthearted. People once viewed the internet as having a lot of promise to create a new world. Overtime, however, people have become more and more fearful of the internet and concerned about its power. Levine pointed out that the world has a lot more problems now than it did at the start of the tech era and the internet, so clearly hopes for the internet were not reality. Still, it was not until more recently that many people became more concerned about the internet. The 2016 election can be considered a turning point in fear of the internet. Levine, however, argues that this fear is based on the false perception that the 2016 election was the first time the internet had been used to sway an election or do something similar. Levine argues that there was never a moment when the internet was not a weapon.

The internet is by no means an innocent technology. Many people are not starting to realize that is has been weaponized in a way so powerful that it was even able to throw an election. Some people go so far as to call hijacking the internet a weapon of war. Levine even mentioned that one of his congressmen refers to hijacking the internet as equivalent to Pearl Harbor. The internet has always been and remains, though more powerful than people originally thought it would be, an information weapon. This is not a new phenomenon, as the internet has been used as a method of spreading propaganda and surveilling people since at least the 1990s. It even had implications before then. Levine mentioned technology and the internet’s connection to the Vietnam War, which was particularly relevant given what we discussed in class. Technology is a new kind of war that we will need to find a new way to fight against.

Leave a Comment

The play was about a slave named Simon who was hired out to a horse owner. Simon then becomes a well-known, almost famous, jockey and wins a ton of races, all the while having his heart set on freedom and buying himself and his future wife, Caroline, from their owners, the Colonel and his wife. Once he bought Caroline’s freedom, he bought his own horse, and races both the Colonel’s horse and his own until he sustains an injury during one. Eventually the Civil War happens and Simon becomes a free man, but is no longer a jockey because of the injury, working in a hotel with very racialized rules as a bellhop. Colonel finds him again and they become friends and go back to the Colonel’s farm together to live.

This play was very controversial but representative of the times it was showing. It used the n-word, with a hard r, a lot and the maltreatment of African-Americans was very obvious in the language and tone utilized. It made me uncomfortable a lot because of these aspects of the play but I think it was also very eye-opening because the audience sees how degrading slave life was and how even though the Colonel and his wife treated Simon and Caroline well, both of the slaves still kind of despised them for owning them. I liked how it focused on a well-to-do, talented African-American because even though Simon was praised continuously throughout the play, you can still see how slavery and its entrapment of his entire life brought him and made him do things that seem unimaginable, like hitting his wife after buying her freedom because “she was his property”. It made the audience think that even though he suffered his whole life as property, the second he has his own, he abused it and demonstrated everything he hated about slavery.

Leave a Comment

Ingroups are defined as groups with which people identify with strongly. I liked how this article referenced the concept of intersectionality on page 143 because it emphasizes that a large number of factors determine the ingroup, that aspects of a person’s identity contribute to one another versus overpowering one another. I also thought that that the link between language and ingroup vs. outgroup was very interesting because we talk more about race, religion, gender, sexuality and don’t tend to consider language a large factor. However, looking at examples from our class, it makes more sense. MLK was praised for his ability to “code switch,” and communicate in a way that reached both white and black people. While not every single white person listened to his message, his ability to permeate the ingroup even slightly is unique and made his more well known.

In my own personal experiences, I did not realize that I use language to hang onto my Midwestern identity. At home, I did not think about how I spoke because everyone spoke in the same way. In fact, I didn’t think about it at all until I came home fall break of freshman year and my mom told me sadly that my accent was faded. This is an example of what Giles says on page 145: “the importance of language as a component of a person’s social identity can change over the lifespan.” Now at a school where the Midwestern population is low and the majority of my friends have never actually been there, I find that I value my Midwestern accent more and even lean into it at times. I use my language as a tie to home and my home ingroup.

7 Comments

In this chapter an ingroup is defined as a group that someone identifies strongly with. An outgroup is the opposite, and is a group or social category that you don’t identify with. From this reading it seems that ingroups and outgroups are determined by things like where you were born and raised, race, religion, language, and many other things rather than from individual choice. Related to this, one part of the reading that was interesting is when it touched on “intergroup boundaries”. It talked about how these group boundaries can even be found in food and how someone uses utensils. Americans don’t put their knives down while eating and that is identified by Brits just by seeing it.

One thing I was thinking while reading is how unfair the idea of ingroups and outgroups seems. Maybe I don’t completely understand the concept but it almost seems like a stereotype. There is not much room for choice and personal preference in ingroups and outgroups. Rather then getting to choose what group you identify with, you are placed there by how society sees you. Some things such as where you come from or what language you speak are automatically grouped in ingroups and outgroups, but there are some things I think should be more of a choice.

 

5 Comments

Giles and Giles define an ingroup as being “a social category or group with which you identify strongly” while on the other hand, an outgroup is “a social category or group with which you do not identify.” (142). The idea of ingroups and outgroups perpetuates the idea of the outsider and systematically forms oppression, especially in the United States. These social categories can be divided by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Each group has its own distinct language, customs, and holidays that differentiate them from one another. In my SOC 101 class we learned how this can be identified as their culture – a collection of ideas, values, practices, and material objects that hold significance to the society it pertains to. One specific example used in the reading was the quote by Osama Bin Laden, “The world has been divided into two camps. One under the banner of the cross and another under the banner of Islam.” (143). I related this back to one of our previous sections, groupthink, where one of the symptoms involved includes stereotyping the opposition as being evil, immoral, or wrong.

One example from the reading about having multiple cultural identities was about a person who values their Korean ethnic heritage and is also a proud American citizen. In some situations, this is possible, however in other situations it is not. The reading describes how Korean Americans are often surprised when visiting Korea when locals only see them as being American. This is not solely the case for Korean Americans but for everyone who has multiple cultural identities. This reminded me of a quote from the movie ‘Selena’. “Being Mexican-American is hard. We gotta prove to the Mexicans how Mexican we are and we gotta prove to the Americans how American we are. We gotta be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans at the same time.” One of the ways in which someone is able to identify who is an authentic member or who is an imposter is language and their ability to speak it fluently, with/without an accent. Many times, people unfairly discriminate against immigrants telling them to speak English because we are in America. This can lead to many children of immigrants losing their ability to speak their native languages because they are not taught as young children.

2 Comments

The Gileses simply explain an ingroup to be a social group with which one identifies strongly, yet explain an outgroup to be a social group with which one does not identify with strongly. At the surface, this dichotomy can be illustrated via distinct languages, speech styles/dialects, fashion codes, cultural events, traditions, and more. One of the Giles made an interesting point of how people can have dual or even multiple identities. I definitely concur with the idea that a person can switch or be “triggered” to align with a certain identity at certain moments. For instance, a black or African American person may be able to identify with both the more closely knit African American culture and with the American culture at large. Yet, certain cultural aspects, traditions, and codes may come to the forefront of that person’s identity depending on where they are and who they are with. This kind of code-switching can be supported by the social identity theory, which suggests that when an ingroup identity becomes noticeable, then members of that identity are likely to emphasize the most treasured characteristics of it. A native Korean whose first and predominant language may be Korean could find solace in speaking with other native Korean-speakers when surrounded by Americans who solely speak English. Although the person could be able to communicate in English, speaking in Korean with another person would open up a new gateway of possibilities to talk about cultures, traditions, and sentiments that they could both identify with.

Giles’ notes the significant concept of language suicide, which follows that communication codes and language can gradually disappear over time if members of an ingroup are pressured to assimilate into the majority outgroup. Those who identify with “low vitality groups” are pressured to succumb to the dominant groups’ social control. Without a doubt, this phenomenon can be seen on university campuses across the U.S., including here at the University of Richmond. The ways in which white Americans practice, order, and identify with American culture is perpetuated as the mainstream “norm” for any and everyone to follow. This sort of control is especially induced onto smaller ingroup cultures and their members who might only make up a small percentage of the university’s quota. Dominating groups at universities, career and workspaces, etc seek to maintain social privileges in this way and have the audacity to glorify a 7% diversity rate. Someone, please, make it make sense.

Leave a Comment

I found it interesting how the article talked about the communication being a big part in the identities of the various groups and it makes sense because there are groups of people who may believe similar things but just express it differently or have a common theme but varying goals within the theme, like the example of religion or cultures between the same country.

I originally thought the article was going to talk about groups based on beliefs and parts of the social aspect that we get to choose to be apart of, but the more I read the more it talked about in-outgroups/intergroups from instances without choice, like where you were born or how you grew up. I think the fact that the “out” group is a group that you do not identify with as much was an interesting choice of names because maybe it isn’t that you want to be out of the group or excluded but maybe part of it is just societal and people become placed into these groups without even realizing it.

The grouping system in general seems very unpersonal because it is placing you into an ingroup or outgroup for whatever topic is at hand and one section of the article talked about how any site of engaging with outgroup behavior was frowned upon but I feel like people should get to have more choice in some parts of grouping. Obviously you can’t change where you were born or anything but for the things that you are supposed to be allowed to decide on your own, I don’t think there should necessarily be anything wrong with switching or creating a new ingroup for what you want. I don’t really know though. I do think it is interesting to think about though because I never thought of “my identities” as these in or out groups really I just kind of knew that they were part of me.

2 Comments

The idea of ingroups and outgroups in a very interesting topic to discuss within the compounds of being a student in college. It is an idea that I have explored deeply based on how ingroups and outgroups are also intersectional. Yes, I am a black woman and share this ingroup with a certain population on campus. However, being from the south there is another ingroup created. When talking about the communicative pros and cons there are many that differ depending on which ingroup is being highlighted at the moment. I did not understand exactly how much black woman could disagree on formerly perceived commonly agreed upon ideas, until living with a group of black women from different places and differing backgrounds.

To me, the biggest takeaway from this experience is the fact that people can create their own bridges to outgroups by building in groups whenever it is necessary. The reading talked about socialization and confronting stereotypes by conversing with outgroups. However, I challenge this mindset. Instead of viewing it as educating yourself on an outgroup, view it as acknowledging ingroups. Every student at this university has a commonality. Decisions made by the university big or small affect us all (for the most part). There are people who within this ingroup, also share majors, concentrations and even professors. All of these traits contribute to intersectional ingroups that can connect people more than we allow despite potential differences in race, ethnicity and socio-economic background. The most commonly addressed ingroup versus outgroup topics is about race. Race outside of ethnicity, culture and systematic oppression means absolutely nothing. There are no genetic differences that separate people based on the color of our skin but we create outgroups based on arbitrary lines that have been generational, which also contribute to systems of disparity.

The true way to bridge gaps and foster real equity is to acknowledge ingroups aside from the scary outgroup classifications. Without doing this there is the threat that any intergroup relationships will be one-sided and disingenuine. We are all people, we have goals, we may share them or even share values. Finding commonalities will allow us to forge something real and then see people for who they are along with their outgroup characteristics instead of seeing them as a representative of their outgroup.

1 Comment

After reading the chapter “Ingroups and Outgroups” by Howard and Jane Giles I thought that it was really interesting how there is so much that goes into defining a group and what goes into effectively communicating with other groups. One of the most interesting things I found about characterizing yourself into a group was the fact that there are ways to make it known that you are not part of a group. I had never really conceptualized the fact that some people in Europe don’t like to be called Europeans. I also thought that the majority of the things that the chapter talked about as being ‘valuable’ to know when communicating with other people in different groups to be common sense. I think that it is customary not to say slurs to people, or to question their eating habits. However, I know that throughout the rest of the world that might not be the case.

I think that this article has great intent because they are trying to teach us about how to better and more effectively communicate with people who are not in our ingroups. I think that the accommodation theory is more used today as more people are trying to erase the old ways of only talking to people who are in our ingroups. I find the whole concept of ingroups and outgroups to be fascinating, because it really is just human nature at the end of the day. I think that through consciously making sure to be inclusive and understanding to other people’s ingroups that you are not a part of can make intergroup interactions go a lot better.

6 Comments