1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

“If you are not rich, it is because you lacked the foresight to pick the right parents at birth. Studies show that, despite the well-publicized cases of “self- made” fortunes, rags-to-riches is a relatively rare exception. Most people die in the class to which they are born. The super rich usually come from families that have inherited vast fortunes. And the poor usually stay poor, no matter how hard they toil.” 

This quote led to me changing my views on how to live. I realized that as many other POC think of “coming up from the struggle” and having this mindset won’t actually change anything. Being a person of color, this is something that I thought I had to do / have a more difficult time with because I did not get an inheritance. 

I have to work because of what I came out to be / who my parents are. The people who have the money don’t work as much to keep their money. It confirms my beliefs on the cycle of poverty; people who are struggling economically, will always struggle. Knowing this, allows me to persevere and know that I will have to work hard no matter what, even if it means I can’t get rich.  The struggles make me want to investigate the wealth inequality in other countries, to see how it is in comparison to us. 

2. What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

Living in a society with such a huge wealth inequality, there are going to be individuals who are in danger because of their wealth. Those with money will be less likely to commit crimes / be involved in negative situations because they have the resources (money) to get whatever they need. For the individuals on the other end, there will be more of a necessity to steal and commit crimes because they need to in order to survive. 

Generational wealth is not something that could not be established for many POC because of the mass incarceration in the 1970’s and 1980’s. This created a barrier for many POC and further supported the huge wealth inequalities.The dynamic between both sides of the huge wealth inequalities rely on the balance of power between both parties. Those with money have the power / privilege to do anything they desire, while those without money can barely afford to go get a coffee. The “rich” say that we could become wealthy if we stopped buying Starbucks, but in fact it’s this huge wealth inequality.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

The distinction that separates owners from employees is the overall wealth. Owners create their wealth in various aspects and being a part of the owning class comes from maintaining large wealth, such as investments, including providing job opportunities for employees. Therefore those areas must be flourishing through others in order to see financial growth. However, employees are financially stable through the hours or salaries they work for, not necessarily the other way around. Employees receive payment from owners, which is clearly the difference, both parties need each other in a sense but one party is receiving less income based on dynamics and classes, employees. 

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

Smith referenced that there are many aspects that go into a flourishing business and how the labor is executed through various processes. Labor only comes from employees, therefore, if it wasn’t for employees’ constant contribution, there wouldn’t be much wealth for the higher class. The money that goes towards these contributions is less valued compared to profits, whereas you would think the individuals doing the hard work are receiving what they deserve, however this is not the case. 

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity? 

Class can be considered as an identity even though it shouldn’t be. Class does not determine any status thus to time and changes, which is why categorized class shouldnt be recognized as an overall representation of an individual. Although, circumstances, along with other factors are relative to class, I truthfully believe class does not identify with identity. 

4. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

This close form of dependency when stating class structures are built around human beings needing one another regardless of the agenda to maintain their personal lifestyle. For example, Target is a huge corporation with a large number of employees. An individual may have bills, kids, or expenses to pay for that’s why those employees maintain their job, just as a corporation needs workers for a functioning company. Both are trying to achieve a goal of some sort, even though class structures are separated, both have the same agenda in terms of needing one another. 

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes? Between both readings I was able to see similarities when describing social classes. The structure to understanding the separation of individuals by labeling them by a specific social class depending on the individual’s income. Distinguishing measurements of lower, working middle class, along with upper class determining further details the cause for the categories. However I would say, 4.1 was more in depth when determining the differences throughout their data analysis of individuals, since their social class identification reflects on the collected data resulting from self-perspective, self-placement . 4.1 reading describes the factors that may be going into being a part of an individual’s categorization, such as wealth, education, while 4.2 subway analysis discussed more about location. 

2. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?

  After reviewing the readings, I did my own analysis on my neighborhood, where I grew up, and where I’m currently dorming. I live in Flushing, however I grew up in Spanish Harlem, so I’m fairly still new to my community. Considering the nearest subway station by my dormitory is Main Street/Flushing, I wasn’t surprised by what I came across in terms of income statistics, when knowing my area is not really a mainstream compared to areas like 34th street and 42nd street. However, I was concerned knowing that the area is also known as “Flushing Chinatown”. I assumed otherwise knowing the income levels are very much higher in Lower Manhattan’s Chinatown, therefore I expected the income performance to be a tad bit higher than what I reviewed. Knowing that Manhattan is the highest income performing borough in NYC emphasizes my understanding of not being surprised on what was being presented through the readings. 

3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

There’s an obvious pattern going on throughout the differences of income along each subway line. Since I live in NYC and have lived here all my life, alongside traveling from young, I’m familiar with the majority of these lines and what the neighborhood consists of. Therefore, it’s very noticeable to notice the areas that are considered low income/poverty compared to the upper-middle class/middle-working class. Realizing neighborhoods in areas of The Bronx are at the bottom of the graph, however when you forward towards downtown Manhattan, you see the graph increasing. Which is common to know, however very distasteful to realize the areas with most money are mostly areas of business and shopping areas. 

1. What is a Repressive State Apparatus? Why does Althusser call it “repressive”? Can we explain his choice of words here. Give an example. According to Althusser, Repressive State Apparatus is defined as a controlling mechanism used through fear of violence factors used upon authorities, which includes law enforcement, courts and prisons. Althusser considers it “repressive” to emphasize that the social or political system will inhibit the freedom of an individual or group of people to showcase suppression. It declares that our freedom as a citizen can be stripped away immediately by authority to maintain foreable regulation. 

2. Let’s do the same for the Ideological State Apparatuses. What are they, how do they seem to work? 

Ideological State Apparatuses are used with institutions such as schools, universities, churches, family, media, trade unions, and law, which are typically not run by the state, but are used as masks to hide the true agenda of the state. Those institutions with “masks”, communicate the values of the ruling class as original ideas. This is done to maintain order in a society, and above all to reproduce capitalist relations of production. Ideological state apparatuses prevent change to the status quo and maintain the status quo by giving you a “choice”. 

3. Important: this question will appear on our exam: How are the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other? What is the difference between the two?

The difference between Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses is it’s functions. Repressive State Apparatus is represented through a centralized organization under the leadership of the classes of power, however Ideological State Apparatuses uses less tension compared to repressive. The ideological state is grasped by the ruling class of ideology. 

4. Post an example of ideology. This could be a piece of writing, an image, video, pdf document, visual art, or music, clip from a movie. Next to your example, specify if this is an example of repressive or ideological apparatuses at work. I’ll start off by giving an example.

This is an example of ideology, which demonstrates how the media / school tells all students they need to get through high school and get to college because they’ll need a college degree but there are people who don’t need college degrees and who can do plenty of work like skilled laborers (lineman, electrician, plumbers). 

1. Keeping in mind the material covered in this lesson, describe how you understand ideology in YOUR OWN WORDS. 

Ideology is a set of principles that encompass the overall experiences, standpoints, and opinions of an individual. It is something that is built across life and can take build and change over time. Teachers might have a set of experiences growing up, and after years of teaching they will have second hand experiences with all those students and it can influence the way they feel about certain aspects of life. After attaining a college degree, individuals will have gained a massive amount of knowledge to influence their standpoints. Ideology is more than political since we literally use it everyday as humans. We as humans are able to create plans and schemes that are based on personal ideologies. These are how we are able to establish ourselves in our arrears and make money. 

2. How do you understand the difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics? What seem to be the big differences, the dividing line? Give an example to back up your arguments.

The basic understanding of the two ideologies is that there are two groups of individuals who have drastically different views. The more liberal people have an ideology based on the experiences they feel have wronged them. They believe that there should be support given to individuals who are in need. Often liberals are called left which has more policies towards policies like socialism.  The more convservative people, while they are more social demure, have an emphasis on personal values and empowering the individual to solve their problems. Often conservatives are called right – wing because they often believe in nationalism, which is towards the other side of the spectrum. Conservatives have unnecessary ideas that are inconsiderate to other parties. 

3. How do you understand Althusser’s definition of ideology? Paraphrase it in your own words. Given an example. Hint: you may have to watch the second video again, and find the few places where Althusser’s position is presented.

From my understanding, Althusser defines Ideology as a non self conscious status quo that needs not to be changed . The idea here is that ideology means people accept beliefs that they have believed without consciously knowing they believe them. Ideology can be reinforced through expectational and approved behaviors to deem you as “proof” and further on being an obedient citizen in a capitalist economy.

For example, school equals discipline, therefore the ideology prevents changes to the authority of the staffing in school. Students are taught through a strictly formulated daily routine, along with being restricted by force. They’re interactions are governed by behavior reinforcement, in which students must always be respectful, obedient, non rebellious, comply and learn from their mistakes through authority. Violence is along the lines of fear, but the promotion of fear will keep students regulated, which if they fail to do corporate, they’ll be sent to detention, or suspended and other forms of consequences. The ideology appears from students playing their role , accepting these lessons, which will be implicated in their futuristic habits as an adult. 

1. Why do think Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order”? What special advantages was this choice of words going to give them?

The elements of racists politicians choosing to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order “ is to push white dominate over others. Through the lens of those white people, black people were always viewed as less-valued and weaker compared to the opposer. They chose a different way to detoriate black people after the civil rights movement. The racist found another way to inflict belligerency by considering criminal behaviors. Creating laws and enforcing laws that will be treacherous towards the black community while still discriminating them.

2. Do you think the Southern Strategy is still influencing American politics? Give an example supporting your answer.

I wouldn’t think those strategies are still emplaced, however those strategies have influenced American politics from the very beginning, so I wouldn’t justify if those practices are still being maintained. Although as Americans we are approaching a new era of living, we are able to see diversity, acceptance and people coming together to support each other, however we still witness white privilege occurring amongst us all the time. For example. when Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin who was unarmed and only going home at the time, Zimmerman did not receive prison time for killing and innocent black teenage boy. Being that Zimmerman was a neighborhood watcher, he is indeed supposed to be preventing crime but not be apart of it unless there’s a reason to need to take precautious actions. There may be some sort of evolution from these strategies but these practices are definitely still reoccurring around America in different forms.

1. M. Alexander claims that the main explanation of why so many people are sent to jail in the U.S. today is deeply wrong. Explain her argument by referring to the various examples she mentions to back up her point. (see p. 1-2)

M. Alexander claims that the main reason for so many people being sent to jail in the U.S is deeply wrong because people of color were targeted for being criminals that were addicts. Minorities living in poor inner city neighborhoods became victims during the crack era opposed to being the other way around; considering how the media and white people perceived them. The despairing lives of people that emerged from crack cocaine was publicized, which was later on enacted by minorities to severe jail time. During the mid 1980’s, there wasn’t necessarily any help for minorities, however they would consider the “issue” due to pre assumptions and negative stereotypes which furthered the notion to push the actual War on drugs. However, the issue was never the people, thus to the drugs being put into their communities; this was obviously an agenda forming to still have control over black people.

2. Why is it that racial disparities in the rates of incarceration “cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes”?

M. Alexander claims in her statement racial disparities in the rates of incarceration “cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes” since according to her “These stark racial disparities cannot be explained by rates of drug crime”. Studies show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates.10 If there are significant differences in the surveys to be found, they frequently suggest that whites, particularly white youth, are more likely to engage in drug crime than people of color.” Which may not be a first considered assumption being that the U.S prison/jail systems are overpopulated with minority offenders.

Furthermore, M. Alexander also claims, “Sociologists have frequently observed that governments use punishment primarily as a tool of social control, and thus the extent or severity of punishment is often unrelated to actual crime patterns.” Also, to come to terms knowing that the drug crime was declining, not rising, when a drug war was declared, emphasizing that there was more than just “experimental planting”  going on amongst the poor inner city communities. There was obviously a hidden agenda. 

3. How do you understand the phrase: “the American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history.”?

In M. Alexander writings, she was conveying the realism of the “new” founding Jim Crow. The impact from the war on drugs has been shocking for years to come afterwards. The phrase “The American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history” means, the system that was emplaced is being used to control/enforcement against those who commit crimes that do not align with the regulations formulated in America. More so, those who engaged in these behaviors 

will still go through problematic notions afterwards being that the American penal system doesn’t return those rights you had before you were arrested. People of color make up the most population in the prison system, which they have been targeted from the very beginning. If most of these people come from a poor environment to then enter a social control system, to come home and be restricted to housing, voting, along with much more, is a damaging process to a human being. The initial agenda isn’t resolution, instead it’s an unnecessary cycle that will lead into further destruction because of opportunity limitation.