The matrix of domination is the union of different social factors, including gender, race and ethnicity, sexuality, age, social class, disability, handedness (I am left-handed), religion, and citizenship status, that have a large impact on a person’s social status in a society. Three of the most prominent ones are racism, sexism and homophobia. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to others and the others are naturally inferior. Sexism is the belief, mostly by males, that one sex is superior to the other. Last, homophobia is the fear or prejudice against homosexuals. All of these are the product of a straight, male, youth-oriented, capitalistic, and WASP (white Anglo-Saxon protestant) dominated society in which we live. Every factor in which we are not the dominant in gives us less choices and opportunities, and affects our social interaction with others.

Both Espiritu and hooks describe parts of this matrix in their articles “The Racial Construction of Asian American Women and Men” and “Gangsta Culture-Sexism, Misogyny: Who Will Take the Rap,” respectively. In Espiritu’s article, she discusses the different stereotypes of Asian American women and men, and how it affects our view of Asian Americans and how they view themselves. Through these “controlling images,” as Patricia Hill Collins calls them, the dominant group is able to validate economic exploitation and social oppression, creating a group of low social class (Espiritu, Page 83). These images naturalize racism, sexism, poverty and homophobia. “As indicated by these stereotypes, representations of gender and sexuality figure strongly in the articulation of racism. These racist stereotypes collapse gender and sexuality: Asian men have been constructed as hypermasculine in the image of the “Yellow Peril,” but also as effeminate, in the image of the “model minority,” and Asian women have been depicted as superfeminine, in the image of the “China Doll,” but also as castrating, in the image of the “Dragon Lady”” (Espiritu, Pages 83-84). This gender polarization and “gendering of ethnicity” (Espiritu, Page 84) makes Asian women and men become characterized as both genders and at the same time no gender at all. In result, Asians as a whole can be seen a dangerous threat to white Americans or a subservient, weaker group for their benefit, which justifies white male’s domination because both threaten and offend their masculinity.

Even further, since Asian women were often excluded from America and there were anti-miscegenation laws, Asian men formed bachelor societies, which turned the view of their masculinity from “hypersexual” to “asexual” and homosexual. The asexual and homosexual views made Asian men more effeminate, weaker and more passive, furthering dominant white culture and increasing discrimination against Asian men socially and economically. An Asian man can be either the homosexual villain (Fu Manchu type) or the sexless sidekick (Charlie Chan, Mr. Miyagi from Karate Kid, and Kato in the Green Hornet), thus continuing the image of the Asian man who is always frail or submissive. On the other hand, Asian women are seen as only sexual and exotic, but untrustworthy, through the images of the “servile Lotus Blossom Baby, “ geisha girl, or “China Doll,” and the “Dragon Lady.” Asian women are sexualized and at the same time criticized for their sexuality. Once again, sexuality is used to prove white man’s power and leaving women very little economic and social mobility.

Bell hooks’ “Gangsta Culture—Sexism, Misogyny: Who Will Take the Rap?” is about how the African-American gangsta culture is a product of the larger white, male dominated society. The criticism against gangsta culture is a way to degrade black youth culture and neglect the similar behaviors of White dominant culture. Black people, especially black males, are viewed as a threat to society and behaviors that are misogynistic, like rape or abuse, are seen as a black male behaviors. However, the misogynistic views in gangsta rap reflect the misogynistic culture in America that keeps males in power. For example, it was only a little over 100 years ago that domestic abuse was declared illegal. In addition to that, gangsta rap hypersexualizes black males, so they can appear more tough in order not be seen as homosexual, reproducing the homophobic attitudes. Has anyone ever heard of a gay rapper? Black women are also hypersexualized and seen only as sex objects through words like “hoes.” Moreover, it is usually white males who are the head of the labels, pay these rappers, market these albums, tell them the type of songs to produce and buy the songs. Also, the gangster films, like Scarface and the Godfather, made by white culture, usually inspire these rappers. Black males are willing to produce the songs and black women are willing to degrade themselves in the videos and album covers as long as there are material rewards for them. Race, gender and social class are reflected in the whole gangsta culture.

Both of the articles have the same dominant group tactic of blaming the victim, especially with the women. Male culture has over-sexualized women, for example Freud calling us sex objects, and then turning it around to criticize us for being over-sexual. In “Gangsta Culture,” hooks speaks about her interview with Ice Cube and how there should be respect towards women, but he also justified anti-woman lyrics saying that some women carry themselves in a way that determines how they will be treated. What do you expect from a male dominates society that treats women as sex objects in general no matter how they dress and gives women fewer options than to dress like that. Usually, non-White women are criticized more for their “hypersexuality” than White women, which is a way for dominant culture to make both their race and gender inferior. Rappers, like Snoop Dogg, and even Rock stars still put half-naked or naked women on albums and videos, but black rappers get more criticism for it. Pornography featuring Asian “China Doll” women and bathhouses with Asian women are still promoted and sold. This tactic of blaming the victim is what keeps the males dominant over females because whatever they do in regards to females can easily be put as a responsibility for females to deal with. Also, it makes it harder for the reverse; there are no “Guys Gone Wild” videos or very little videos and albums with guys who are half-naked or naked along with the women.

However, both articles differ when it comes to the stereotypes of African-American and Asian American men. Black men are often seen as these big, dark, and intimidating figures that threaten White women. Their stereotype has to do with hyper-masculinity and looking dangerous. They are often seen as the rapists, murderers and drug dealers. On the other hand, Asian men can be seen as hyper-masculine or effeminate. Asian men are either a threat to white women or passive men who cannot please or protect any women. Bruce Lee or Jet Li have been labeled as the hyper-masculine types, while monks, Mr. Miyagi from Karate Kid, and more extreme Yoda from Star Wars are labeled as passive, asexual types. Both groups are stereotyped based on exaggerated views of actual physical features of African American and Asian American men. African-American men are darker and usually taller and more muscular in appearance than Asian American men, so they are seen as more aggressive and frightening. Still, the stereotypes of both male groups are used to keep White men as the “normal” ones.

No matter what how it is discussed, none of the parts of the matrix of domination can be discussed alone. They do not live in a singular vacuum by themselves and they all have an effect on each other. Just imagine if you were considered the inferior of all the parts, life would be to say the least, extremely difficult. Despite what others may say, the matrix also affects our daily lives from the decisions we make to behaviors to the way we look (come back later for my post on how racism affected black women’s hair choices). The only way to overcome the matrix is to stop hiding it and open it up for discussion. As James Baldwin said, “not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

For my first fieldnotes assignment, I decided to observe the E train, which I take everyday to go to school and home. My observation times were mid-morning on Tuesday (9:00-10:00), the afternoon on Tuesday (3:30-4:30) and the morning on Wednesday (7:00-8:00). I thought the E train would be the best place to observe because I could spend up to two hours on the E train each school day and I realized that the subway is a very unusual environment. Since it is enclosed space that includes two rows of seats facing each other and empty space in the middle with poles, it causes people to act in a strange manner. A strong presence of authority is not in the subway; so formal rules are often not followed. However, due to the cars often being cramped with many people, there are several informal rules. These informal rules show how the subway in itself has a social structure.

As a result of the economy and MTA budget problems, many of the people who worked in the Subway stations were laid off. At several stops there are no MTA employees around. This has caused a change in riders following the formal rules in the station. The formal rules are no smoking, no littering, no loud music, do not lean on doors, do not hold doors open, do not go through the back door while train is in motion and do not open emergency exit until an attendant is contacted. Only the no smoking and no loud music rule have been strictly followed. All the others are broken everyday. Although litter can cause fire on the train tracks, I still find litter, like cups, bottles, and paper all on the floor. MTA reacted by hiring janitors to clean the subway cars at the last stops. The rules involving the doors have been a result of overcrowding and the rush for the train. Overcrowding in the train is another consequence of high gas prices. As gas prices went up, more people stopped driving their cars and took the train to work. So, the lack of space on train makes it hard to find things to hold onto and instead riders just lean on the door for support. Also, the morning and afternoon rush hour pushes certain people to put themselves in danger by putting their hand(s) through the doors in order to get on the train. The cost of losing a limb, getting dragged by the train or putting the train out of service is less than the cost of being late for work. Using the back doors while the train is in motion and using the emergency exit is the similar result of the rush.

On the other hand, there are several informal rules within cars that riders automatically follow because it does involve so many people within a confined space. Some are no staring, no leaning on someone while sleeping, no loud talking, no putting bags on seats, no eating, no inappropriate touching, give up you seat for a disabled, pregnant or with infant person and basically trying to avoid bringing unwanted attention to yourself. Somehow these rules give the riders a sense of personal space and also provide more space for more people to fit in the train. However, some people unintentionally break these rules, most likely because they are not aware of it. For example, I had two incidents of someone leaning on me while they were sleeping. The first person was aware that he was leaning and constantly pulling himself up, but the second person leaned on me the entire ride. I did not want to cause a disturbance and bring attention to myself, so I waited until I was able to leave. Other riders tend to speak louder when they are in a group with others. In addition to that, some riders, especially during the morning, eat because they did not have time to eat, even though these people may annoy other riders either due to the smell or that the riders want to eat themselves.

Other behaviors I noticed was that the riders tend to listen to their MP3 players, to sleep and to read books or newspapers. Once again, riders do this to create their own sense of personal space; basically those things form a distraction from other people and give us something to do while on the train. Also, the cramped space seems to cause people on train to be a little bit more rude than usual. Getting off the train, riders often knock and sometimes push other riders in a rush. In a regular situation, a fight would probably start or the other person would get angry, but on the subway it is expected because there is no room on the cars. It also goes for the rush for seats when the doors open in which people almost push each other just to get a seat. The idea of “every man for himself” rule applies. Furthermore, when the train starts to become empty, people move apart immediately. Like the behavior of electrons, the riders try to be as far apart as possible until they have to be near each other due to lack of room. However, the riders are willing to be near each other near the poles, since most people do not like the bars on top, either because of height or pain of holding hands up. Last, I noticed that most people have casual clothing on, such as jeans. Most likely the riders go to a school with no school uniform (I see people with book-bags), do not have school or work, or have jobs that do not require business attire.

As a participant observer, it was awkward watching the other riders. Mainly, I had to pretend that I was not staring and look discreet. I would frequently look up quickly, scan my surroundings closely and then look down. Other than that, I looked like a normal subway rider, even though I felt a little uncomfortable. Even more, I recognized that many of the actions other riders do I do myself. Studying closely what goes on in the subway cars instead of closing my eyes and listening to music helped me to realize how strange the subway environment is and how we as riders become so indifferent to it all. My observations have increased my interest in “subway life.” In the future, I might continue observing other train lines to see if they are similar to the E train line and also interview in depth people who ride the subway and find out how they feel about riding it.

Do you remember when you were a child and your parents taught you that phrase so you could cope with your classmates teasing you. Now, that I am all grown up, you know what I have come to realize, that phrase is a big, old, fat LIE! Words can hurt just like sticks and stones and sometimes even worse. The bruises and broken bones from sticks and stones will probably heal, but it can take a long time for the words in your heart and mind to heal. The idea that words mean nothing is completely ludicrous. If that was true, language itself, poetry, lyrics in songs, books, dialogue and anything that included words would mean nothing to us. Girls would not be committing suicide or leaving school over what people are saying about them in chatrooms, myspace, facebook, school, etc. You would not be so offended if people were gossiping about you, slandering your name, putting fake information about you in the tabloids, ruining you reputation based on what they said. Words can ruin lives and it can kill. As it is in the Bible, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). Why do you think verbal abuse exist in the first place! Think of the children out there whose lives went down the drain after negative things were said to them over and over. On negative word had a greater impact on them than a dozen positive words. This whole rant started over the word “nigger,” which has been one of the worst words in history and if words meant nothing, that it is just a word, that word would have never been the source of hatred and debate for centuries. Also, putting a claim on a word is just as foolish because anyone can say a word. It is not yours, it is everyone’s to possess. So, the only way to control it is to be careful of the words we use because we know we can hurt someone with it. Be encouraging and educating, not damaging in your use of words. God Bless.

Update: Here are what two journalist said about the phrase:

‘Sticks and stones may break my bones,’ goes the children’s rhyme, ‘but words will never hurt me.’ One wonders whether the people on the receiving end‥would agree.
[1980 Cosmopolitan Dec. 137]

Sticks and stones may break some bones, but, as every journalist knows, words truly hurt. They rouse the fiends of fury, litigation and letters to the press.
[2001 Times 28 Dec. 20]

In today’s “democratic” society, we rest on the ideal of individualism and freedom. We are supposed to have the freedom to vote, freedom to buy (as consumers), and freedom to choose, all of which are own personal, individual choices with no influence by or reliance on others. However, that is where the major contradiction in our society lies. Although we claim to be individualistic and have freedom, we do not realize that we are extremely dependent on others for our livelihoods and that only have freedom from traditional and formal institutional structures, but not other freedoms, such as psychological freedom, social and cultural freedom, enfranchisement and self-determination. The ideals that we live under lets us be indifferent to the suffering that our type of society causes others and ourselves and as a result we feel less accountable to it. Both Berger and Derber discuss the contradictions of individualism and the “bi-polar” nature of freedom through publicity and “corpocracy,” respectively, and how it affects us socially, politically and economically.

In “Ways of Seeing,” Berger describes how publicity is related to ideas of freedom, which are the freedom of choice of the purchaser (buyer) and the freedom of enterprise for the manufacturer. While we do have choices to an extent, to choose between this product and that product, our choices are limited (to mostly mainstream, monopolistic products) and our choices are basically aimed for one choice – to buy or not to buy. As consumers, businesses and economists tell us that we have the power and we determine what is sold. However, that is not entirely true. Corporations present us with the products that they want us to buy through publicity, we buy these products and become poorer in the process (giving corporations more power over us, since we work for money and basically give the money back to them), and they also make us feel inadequate if we do not buy these products. Publicity always appeals to the future buyer and so, no matter how much we buy, we will never be satisfied. All of this produces low self-esteem and self-consciousness as people, putting us in a psychological box of needing stuff to fulfill our need to be appreciated by others because we feel alone in our individualistic society. It more like the products and corporations have power over us, not the other way around. By buying so much stuff, we are being envied. It only gives us the façade of power; the sense that we are in an exclusive club that only people who can afford it can be in and having the looks of envy that we depend on to feel like we are somebody.

Berger also states how publicity uses references to works of art of the past. The art reference is a sign of wealth and cultural superiority, which also creates a sense of excludability. However, as our society claims individuality, publicity depends on works of art from the past to prove credibility. Once again it prove that there is nothing new or original, which is a characteristic of being individual, but instead is a characteristic of something that is traditional or classic. In addition to that, we lack the knowledge to know the references of these ads. We are not forced to be accountable to know the entire history or context behind them. They are meaningless to us and we then take it for granted and see it as original ideas, perpetuating the individualistic ideas of our society. Another lack of accountability is the indifference we feel to events that happen in the world to strangers because publicity is “eventless.” Since the images essentially mean nothing, anything that is real that it is based on means nothing too.

Last, Berger states how publicity allows us to substitute democracy for consumption. The choice of products takes the place of political choices. It covers and makes up for all that is unfair in our society. It also disconnects us from others because we see them as a means to an end (capital, products) or products themselves. This makes it more difficult to form political activist groups that can combat huge corporations that are gaining more political control and are less accountable to the people. The subtle changes that publicity created in our culture lead to the larger worldwide problems discussed in Derber’s article.

Derber’s “One World Under Business” describes how democratic ideals are used to spread capitalism across the world, which he calls “corpocracy.” The article expands on the issues of individualism and freedom discussed in Berger’s article to a bigger picture of government and global corporations. He says how “in a robust democracy, there is a firewall between government and business. The firewall ensures that people rather than business control the government and make the rules” (Derber, 429). However, in our democracy, government’s interest lies in protecting profits, while corporations use the language of social responsibility to mask their undemocratic actions. Corporate elites are part of that exclusive club that we envy. Just as we substitute democracy for consumption to mask all that is undemocratic in society (Berger), corporations do it in reverse by using democratic language instead of profit-maximizing language to mask undemocratic behavior. Also, countries with very low GDP have no choice but to trade their political power for economic growth and as Friedman said, “your political choices…get reduced to Pepsi and Coke” (Derber, 433). We have less political power and corporations have more political power and in order for us to accept that, we hold onto having economic power or democracy (which we do not really have) and corporations claim to show social accountability. This allows corporation to define their own rules, such as making free trade interchangeable with deregulation, which does not help poorer countries grow, but makes them weaker. Also, these large corporations become huge moneymaking monopolies, just as the mainstream products we have within our country.

Furthermore, just as consumers, corporations through free market and individualistic ideas do not feel accountable to the people that they depend on – their workers and the peripheral countries they rely on for raw materials (also, additional workers and consumers). Derber described this as uncoupling, which is when the corporation removes itself from the interest of the nation or citizens of a nation. They claim equal loyalty to all nations, once again cushioning it in democratic language. Also, it forces developing nations to be entrapped further in the corporation world and transfer their political power into power as a consumer, resulting in governments who are not able to be accountable to their own people because they are restricted by corporations and global financial market institutions (IMF, WTO, etc.). Through the abuses of the poorer people in these developing countries, the powers we have in our own countries are undermined.

Although corporations would like for us to believe that we have an economic democracy or economic choices, we do not because we cannot regulate our own economic system that basically tells us what we want. As Derber says, “Real democracy is one person, one vote. One dollar, one vote, is the logic of the market, but it is opposite of the equal representation of all citizens that democracy is about. As a sovereign principle, one dollar, one vote, is inherently undemocratic, and it ensures a growing gap between rich and poor because it gives the rich far more political representation” (Derber, 439). These rich corporations have a lot more money than most of us and in result have a lot more political and social say in our “market democracy.” Also, in this “market democracy,” those who do not have any money have no a say at all. Countries look at our society as “The Free World” because the lack the economies and capital to buy all the stuff we have (the ability to choose products). For example, from Derber’s article, the boy in Africa who did not have shoes but had the Nike swoosh label scratched into his foot. In our society, with the poor and now even the middle-class, it is becoming more difficult to buy the necessities we need, even though we can see the things we would like to have through advertising. More and more, people have to choose between food, shelter, medication, health insurance and other needs. Still, corporations do not care as long as the consumers buy their products and consumers still try to buy it, even if they do not have the money for it (get loans, credit cards, etc.). In the end, corporations get their money and often more money than the products were actually worth.

Our individualistic society also reinforces racism and sexism by “blaming the victim.” Without the traditional and formal structures from the past, the victims of racism and sexism cannot clearly point that those in power are discriminating against them. So, the power elite can say that it is that the individuals’ fault why they are in the situation they are in and not a social structural problem that keeps them from getting ahead. Color-blind racism and “sexless” sexism exist because of the removal of the formal barriers and allows power elites to claim “reverse discrimination.” Globally, this has affected developing nations, which are often non-European countries that were colonized in the past. Unfair economic practices are put upon these nations, such as lowering tariffs and taking down “trade borders,” in order to create “a leveled playing field” for trade, but it only benefits wealthy European and American corporations. The core countries do not take into consideration that the developing countries’ infrastructure is very weak and “leveling” their trade makes it easier for the corporations, who already have more economic and political power. Core countries (and corporations) and developing countries were never on an equal playing field and it takes more for these countries to be on the same platform as the corporations. Still, they say it is the countries’ fault why their economies and governments are not stable. “Market democracy” allows those with more money (usually white males) to use their money to influence government to makes policies that indirectly harm non-whites and females.

Fromm’s “The Two Aspects of Freedom for Modern Man” analyzes the idea that freedom has two meanings: “freedom from” and “freedom to.” Both Derber and Berger reflect on the ideas from Fromm’s article in their own articles. “Freedom from” is the freedom from traditional bonds and structures, which gave people the new feeling of individualism and independence. But the individual did not get “freedom to,” which is psychological and informal social (personality) freedoms. Although he is “independent, self-reliant and critical,” the individual feels “alone and isolated, filled…with doubt and anxiety,” and does not feel as if he has control of his own life due to “inner restraints and compulsions” (Fromm, 105). It is a new type of submission with new dependencies that are harder to recognize and solve. It is hard to recognize because we are fixed on the “old forms of authority and restrain” (which is why color-blind racism and “sexless” sexism works). Today, we lack “freedom to,” such as freedom to have our own opinions (we are either influenced by public opinion or our opinions are considered deviant), freedom to have faith and not just scientific belief, freedom to not conform or be self-conscious, freedom to not fear being different, and freedom to be ourselves. As Fromm said we need the freedom that “enables us to realize our own individual self, to have faith in this self and in life.” Not having certain freedoms, like freedom to know that we are somebody, to know that we are not alone, that there are others who go through similar situations as us, and to know we are all dependent on each other creates the feelings of insignificance and powerlessness (i.e., my vote or my opinion does not matter; I am only one person). Also, “freedom from” created a disconnection from historical contexts as we try to not acknowledge that certain events happened and still have an impact on us (some people believe that slavery and the Holocaust do not impact our society anymore, but they still are having residual effects). “Freedom from” created a disconnection from oneself, others and history (it never happened before me) and thus created a weak individual who feels insecure, alone and isolated. As a result, within the capitalistic system, we easily feel the need to create capital and buy products, or we feel like we are nothing. We become servants who need to continuously work to make capital, and helping others or doing what you love is seen as an unproductive purpose. By removing that support system through “freedom from,” people today lack the strength to create political, social and economic change that would be available with “freedom to.”