It's Super Primary day, and so for this week's blog we're going to be thinking about identity in the news related to the 'race' (pun not intended). Clinton's gender identity and Obama's racial identity are big news in this primary race, suggesting that this identity really matters in the US.
Go to the following link and read the Slate article while thinking about the questions below. Please post your comment.
http://www.slate.com/id/2181460
1. Why do you think 'race' matters so much in this election?
2. Does it suggest that we view identity in essentialist or anti-essentialist terms?
3. What does it mean when commentators and pundits talk about securing the 'black', 'Latino', 'white' vote? What IS the black, Latino, White vote? What makes these 'collective identities' and are they really collective identities or do we just imagine them to be?
4. What do you think? Should race/gender matter?
36 comments:
I don't think that race or gender should matter, but as you can see it certainly does. I believe that whoever can run the US, no matter what the color or gender, should be able to be the president. As in terms of votes with the white, Latino, and black, it's referring to that type of race are getting the vote, if you will.
If race matters so much in this election it is because the people of the US are so essentialist's that they don't want a black or female president, and if it stays this way I doubt that we will have one.
i agree with derek. This election should not be focused on what color the candidate is, it should be about his policies and political and foreign policy plans. I think it is ridiculous that they are making the election about color wither they are talking about the candidates or the voting population. Is our country still so primitive that we cannot focus on what is really important when choosing a president? It is my opinion that what color he is shouldn't matter. The same can be said for Hillary. I have heard MANY people say they will not vote for her because she is a women, is this just as bad as the race factor or is it worse?
Race matters in this election because the U.S. hasnt had someone of color run for presidency along with a woman running for presidency also. It would make history as either a 1st time woman president or a man of color as our president. I dont think race or gender should matter in anything.
I think that for most individuals, race and/or gender is not a dominant factor in who they are going to vote for. As Melanie said, it should be about the policies that the candidates are laying out and what they are really planning to do with the power once they are in office. I think most people have realized this and are being receptive to, and even getting excited about, the new ideas that are being presented. On the other hand, I think it is primarily the media's fault for turning this race into a contest about race and gender. The media knows that drama commands people's attention, and in this instance, the best way to create and continue the drama is to keep talking about the color of Obama's skin and Hillary's sex, instead of what they actually stand for and do hope to do for this country.
p.s.. I had to make a new blogger name because my other account wasn't working for some reason.
The race or gender shouldn't matter at all, but it has always mattered in the presidential campaign. It is basically about telling people what they want to hear until they win and when they get into office they will do whatever they want with the power. So for Obama the black population and latinos and such are increasing their numbers in the US so if he secures their votes that is a big part of the population and might give him enough numbers to win and as for Hillary she is going to use the gender tactic of trying win women's minds so she can secure the women population to try and win it.. So it is very demanding to try and make an identity for yourself while trying to get the most votes and trying not to make enemies.
Unfortunately, this election depends a lot on race and gender. It is all about making history and having a black person or woman as president for the first time. It shouldn't be based on that at all however, because their gender or the color of their skin is not going to have anything to do with how well he or she can do the job. It is going to be easy for Obama to get the black population's vote because their identities will relate and the same goes for Clinton getting the vote of the female population. This doesn't make sense though because they could have completely different views. Therefore, voting should be based on who's ideas and beliefs you agree with before anything else.
It’s possible that people mainly want change. They want to see something that’s never been done before, such as electing the first black president, or the first woman president. Both women and blacks have risen to the top before, but not with Presidency. Either way, it’s media’s way to getting people to talk. You mentioned securing the ‘black’ or ‘white’ vote. Ego might have push & pull. For example, Red Sox fans always cheer for the Red Sox. People might just vote for who/what they’re used to rooting for, if they haven’t been watching the election closely. A couple of relatives I know have a tendency to vote for whoever is more interesting. I guess the winner is just the person most aware of everybody’s different reasons for voting. Race and gender can't be controlled, so it shouldn't matter.
Interesting comments... A few things:
Give that we have never had a non-white or female president, do you think that gender and race has ALWAYS mattered?
Why, do you think, have there never been presidents who have not been white males?
How might 'essential' beliefs about identities operate to shape our perceptions?
When we think about voting 'communities' (collective identities) what are we assuming that people have in common?
Alex
I do think that gender and race have always mattered. For the longest time, both women and non-white people were viewed as less superior than white men by society. It was just a few decades ago that this all changed as far as equal rights go. People will always be seen as belonging to a group that shares their gender and/or heritage. Therefore, it's going to take time for people to actually see that a person's race or gender says nothing about what they're capable of or qualified to do. When thinking about voting communities, people belonging to the same 'community' are thought to also share the same beliefs and concerns. However,this is not always true.
I agree about what aholt states previously about gender and race in past elections. I feel that race and gender matter so much because their is such a huge difference in this years race than previous races: A woman, a black male... (getting farther then any one from their race/gender has before) This presidential race also has a lot more riding on it because the person that gets elected has to clean up the whole mess the US has gotten itself in. I have heard to many times already this year from my peers that they wouldn't vote for a women or a black man. I don't think that there is such an issue about race or gender in my generation (I get to vote!). I think that once the US gets past the primary's and there is either going to be a woman or a black male up for presidency its not going to matter much, but right now it does because so much is riding on the votes.
in response to professor campbell's comments, i think there have always been white male presidents because it is the status quo and that is what people are used to and generally accept. in the past, there have been black men and white women who have pondered the race for the presidency, but i don't think that America was 'ready' as a society to really give them a chance (which kind of shows how ridiculous and narrow-minded our society really can be). but i think after the mess that has been the past 8 years, i think that people need and desperately want change. i think they may finally be realizing that the status quo just isnt good enough anymore to deal with the serious issues our nation is facing now and will likely continue to face in the future.
Okay, so race and gender have always mattered from an "identity" standpoint- and they always will. No matter how open minded we think we are becoming, no matter how much more tolerant we think we are becoming- our past behaviors are a heavy burden to bear and it is very hard to truly change our concepts of race, ethnicity, gender. Traces still linger. It will always be a factor. And the reason that white males have always been the dominant faction in the political world is because this country was built on the values, ideas, and efforts of property owning white males...it's going to be hard to break that legacy--- but we can do it now... Concerning this presidential race, the "Obama vs. Clinton" debacle is just a huge media circus. Instead of talking about thier policies we are more concerned with breaking ground (we find it exciting to be part of a 1st). Unfortunately race is a serious factor, even if many Americans deny it. The fact that we are constantly talking about it and hearing about it, proves that. I only hope that people focus on policies, not physical appearence. And also, regardless of who I do vote for, I certainly am not going to vote for Hilary simply because we are of the same gender. I hope everyone else takes the intiative to look into who they agree with policy wise, and doesnt turn this into a high school popularity contest.
Phew, that's a lot of quality content to read all at once...
First off, I think it's ridiculous to think that race and gender won't have something to do with this election, at least in some ways. Never before have we had even a possibility of a president that wasn't an older, white male. Now that the forerunners of this race are completely outside those standard parameters, the entire election is abuzz with media because this is a significant turning point is the history of our nation. It doesn't necessarily mean that people will vote for or against runners because of these qualities, it's more that it has never been such a big deal to vote! To compare it to the super bowl, the stakes are that much higher to accomplish something that hasn't happened before. Any voting that is really based on gender or race should be shallow and negligible.
On the topic of securing votes, I think that the media needs to realize that borders are so much less based on ethnicity. It's far more based on social status and where they hang in the scheme of the next president. It isn't so much "Latino," as it is illegal immigrants, not so much "Blacks," as it is inner-city communities. I think the candidates realize this and are aiming their campaigns accordingly, and I think it's the attention to these that can really sway to majority of votes and support.
Most basically, race and gender shouldn't matter; any honest first-grader could say as much. (Whether a full-grown politician would agree, I can't be sure.) I think they will still matter, even past this election, but not because of their race or gender and what that entails. It will matter as long as it's new and interesting to the media and public. Once it sinks in that ANYONE really can be president (AKA who-knows-when) I doubt the buzz will be so great. Maybe by then, completely different factors (vampires, aliens, animals) could hog the presidential campaign spotlight.
Earlier in the blog, Derek asserts that (and i misrepresent you here Derek, please correct me), to a large degree, the influence of race and gender in this presidential election has to do with voters of the United States adhering to an essentialist philosophy when choosing a candidate to vote for. While i agree that process of electing a president (or, really, anyone for that matter) drips with essentialism, i don't necessarily agree that it is a problematic characteristic of "election-time" mentalities. In fact, i believe that a solid argument could be made asserting that major elections are, at their philosophical core, nothing more than an contest between a few, historically tried and true, essentialist parties. Someone mentioned the historical precedent of aging caucasian males being the only faces to grace the White House, which is certainly a telling statistic. But beyond that, i think, lie deeper, and more essentialist, implications for the homogeneous race/gender component to the presidential elections. It's not simply that this country has elected old white guys; while this generalization does hold true, it is a fairly superficial one. Being old, white, and male didn't get them elected, having influence, money, and power did. There is no getting around the fact that (again, following historical precedent) in order to be president, one must have lived the majority of their life capitulating to the demands of the those who control vast amounts of money and power. Over the course of history, the controllers of this money and power (are they synonymous?) have been caucasian men, and this pattern has continued to this day. But increasingly, i strongly believe that our current adherence to this pattern has much less to do with the actual gender and race of the candidates and infinitely more with each individuals potential to endorse the particular agendas of those with money and power. That is to say, that I believe that a millionaire black woman, who has a long history of making oodles of money for her supporters would get elected over a less wealthy and powerful white man.
All of that is to say, really, that i think that race and gender (insofar as they are used as political tools) are historically-rooted disguises for money and power. We live in a selfish, financially covetous, self-promoting country. The values of the American Dream implicitly pit members of society against each other, encouraging people do do whatever they think they can get away with in order to gain financial success. The citizens of the United States have always elected presidents who they believe will best give them they advantage, which has (historically speaking) meant white men, simply because nobody besides white men had the political and financial autonomy. In that respect, Obama and Clinton might as well be white men; they both, thanks to changes in social and political ideology, have the ability to make the rich even richer, and give more power to the already powerful.
Race and gender don't matter.... power and money do.
Although race and gender have always mattered, they are being even more emphasized in this election. However, it is not the press, but Obama who has brought it upon himself to bring up the issue of race in his recent speeches. This shows just how much race does matter in this election. Now that we have a black man in the running, it's history in the making. I also think that we view identity in the anti-essentialist terms. What I think commentators mean when they talk about securing the votes is that they want to make sure they have the vote of each individual group of race; such as, the black, Latino and White groups. Personally, I don't believe that race or gender are most important when it comes to electing a president. I think that smarts and technique are what matter most.
I agree with a lot of what has been said already. I think gender and race have always mattered, even though they shouldn't. and that is why we have never had any other then a elder, white, Christian president. Lets face it the U.S. has had a quite racist and sexist past, women didn't have the same rights as men until the 1920's and 30's, blacks until the 60's. which, compared to the history of the nation, is not a very long time. Things are finally starting to change for the better which is symbolized by this election in which a woman and a black candidate are both running. I think that this election has the potential of dawning in a new era in U.S. history.
I think that the U.S. general population has essentialist views of identities. i think that the fact we have a term called "white, latino, and black votes" shows this.
okay first off my original comment has been deleted because my internet decided to be the devil today...so my next thoughts will not be as concise as my previous one :(.
Race does not matter in this election. The media and word of mouth have hyped it up to be. If we had all white candidates there would be hardly any discussion on the subject of all white people are running in this election. However, this election is different because history is being made when we have a black man running for president. So now we're gonna make a huuuuge deal out of it and just point fingers. When I hear the news I hear nothing positive on this subject. When we should be looking at this situation of "wow, look how far our nation has come." The media has a big influence on whether race matters in this election and unfortunately they're doing a goodjob at it.
Essentialism is slowly deteriorating and antiessentialism is being shaped by Hillary and Obama. Each are opening the eyes of Americans and changing their original beliefs and perceptions. They are posing question to Americans such as, "Could a black really be our President?" or "Could a woman be our new commander in chief?". Antiessentialsm is slowly stepping in place of essentialism.
The collective vote is simply made up. People have labeled themselves as latino, black, white, rich, poor, young, old etc... By declaring themselves as this type of identity they feel they belong somewhere. When these collective identities are heard of the media picks them up as well as the candidates. They seperate the American people into groups. Once again the media hypes it up and indirectly contributes to the voting system and which candidate is looking for which group to get the votes from.
Honestly, race/gender should not matter in this election and it didnt influence me when I voted in the New Hampshire primary. Realistically, race/gender does matter. Focusing on Obama and Clinton, each can use this as an advantage however I think it's sad how this goes about. It's a fact, most black people will vote for Obama simply because he's black and black people can "identify" with him. Same with Hillary, most women will vote for her because they can "identify" wit her.
I also agree with pretty much everything that has been said. It is about money and power and the media spices things up too, to get people wound up to get out there and vote or just to get them wound up. Just like the last election the only reason I think Bush got re-elected was because no other candidate had a solution to solve the problems going on with the U.S. The candidates only sat there and bashed what Bush has done and had no way to correct the problems at hand and I think that is really the reason why Bush got re-elected and so now this election they are playing their race and gender rolls to try and play Americans to get the most votes. Even though there hasn't been anyone else besides white males for candidates, race and gender have always been part of elections, but this i think could make U.S history and I think that is what keeps Obama and Clinton going is that they want to be that person that is in U.S's history.
Very thoughtful comments, everyone.
Nick picked up on an important theme: power and money.
I think this is a good point, but it's important to think about how and why this stratification occurs. Is it because white men happen to be the 'best' and thus they win positions of power... or, is something else going on?
What qualities do we think black people share? What qualities do we think women share? What qualities do we think white males share?
We're going to be exploring over the next few weeks how 'ideological' meanings are connected to these identities in such a way that they seem essential (natural and unchanging); that in so doing, power and money seems as though it naturally belongs to a specific identity (white males). On the other hand, ideological meanings construct women and African Americans in inferior ways thus justifiying a stratified system of wealth and power distribution.
As an example, if society has a tendency to view women as irrational and emotional it will seem inevitable that she is paid less and has less opportunity to advance...
Very interesting!
Hope you managed to get through the reading...
Alex
WOW! A lot of good comments thus far. Lets see if anything I have to say is new.
First off, I don't really tend to think that race and gender matter when it comes to electing our officials. As Nick put it, it really is about money and power. Through out American history, our society has come close to nominating candidates unlike the white, Caucasian kind only having them come short of the support needed. This is likely because, to this point, the expectations on which we elect our officials has changed, but have always been in terms of the non-essentialist theory. The non-essentialist change in this case occurred where we started from a time where George Washington was elected for his credentials, to a time where George Bush was elected because he had a strong money base in which to do adveritising for his campaign. Keep in mind that before his presidency George Bush did have a share in the oil companies and the Texas Rangers baseball team.
As for the black, white, and latino vote, this has been, is, and always will be an essentialist matter, especially amongst the lower classes. The terms of black, white, and Latino vote are just simply essentialist origin and racial identities that humans will always associate with. What makes them collective identities is the fact that we are the United States of America and that we are united under democracy and that we have the right to vote. Other than this, there are imaginary lines drawn that we see as being there and that tend to be there somewhat.
When it really comes down to it, money in elections establishes more credibility, intelligence, power, and more importantly ADVERITISING! Who would go for something that is hardly adveritised and sold to the public?
In summary, race and gender do no longer matter in American society like it used to. Votes are based off of a person's higher status (the more money the higher the status), where intelligence, power, and credentials come with it. Race and gender will be dragged along with it, but race and gender will definitely not be the "all and all" for people.
There, have I said enough?
Shamus M. Shea
I think that race and gender are big issues in the presidential race because it is how we identified Hillary and Barack early in the race. Before everything started getting really exciting we just had his color, and her gender to single them out from the competition.This will sound strange, but I really do think that gender and race could potentially make either of them different from all of the presidents we have had in the past only because the difference in backgrounds. Obama's father is Kenyan. No president in our history has been of that decent. As far as having a woman be our president the only difference there would be the difference in a man and a woman, not meaning that she would be any more or less capable. I disagree with anyone who would not vote with someone because of their color, or gender. This should be about their politics, not anything else. One thing that would bother me though, and it may have happened but I haven't been following the race very closely, is if Senator Obama, or Senator Clinton were to try to highlight gender, or color to try to get votes.
I also agree with a lot of what has been said above already. I think that race or gender should not matter, but it has mattered in the past. I think it is because race and gender influence people's thinking and personality somehow.
I believe that people should focus on candidates' ideas, thinking, behavior and ability for president.
I think the reasons why Obama and Clinton use their identity is that it may be easy to get their votes.
And, actually they may have kind of advantage of thinking of same identity people.(not always and some people just may be hoping) For instance, Clinton may be able to think of problems about female well. Because the backgroud is important to make personality. And, some people may hope that, and vote. People who have same identity may think that they share same problems or thinking.
As shown this attention of race and gender, I think Americans view in terms of essentialist. And race and gender is still matter.
The power of media is very huge in this election, I think. Even in Japan, I wacted and herad that media focus on fisrt president of black or female in U.S.
I think that people are obsessed with what makes someone "different". We've never had a female president before nor have we had a black president before so this is what sticks out in people's minds not what their ideas or views are. Around the water cooler people are chatting about "what would the country be like with a women president?" "Or what would the country be like with a black president?" but that shouldn't matter. Massachusetts went through this last year when Deval Patrick ran for Governor. People said, is Massachusetts ready for a black Governor? That shouldn't matter, he won the race and has been doing great things for our state ever since. It’s also an excuse to discredit a candidate, “she can’t do the job because she’s a woman”.
I do not think that people should put that much emphasis on the fact that Obama is black and Clinton is a woman. What people need to realize is what each of the candidates stand for and what their priorities are. To vote a successful candidate into office, we need to focus on what is important for this country's future and decide which one has better policies and values to get our country back on the right track, regardless of one's ethnicity or gender.
I think race and gender matter so much in this election simply because as a country we've never been lead by anyone other than a white male. People our reluctant to change, especially in such a traditional sense.
Because most US citizens see gender and race in such an essentialist way, they don't believe that a woman or a black person could rise above and be an even greater president than a white man.
In terms of the black, latino, and white votes, this refers to the racial boundaries we put on voters... and automatically assume that the black man will get the black vote, and the white man, the white vote. In a sense it is imagined by us, since we can all vote and think outside of our own race; however, there is also truth in it since there is an obvious physical difference, which sometimes may cause allegiances between similar races.
I personally think that race and/or gender should not play a role at all in determining whih presidential candidate is most capable. Skin color and human anatomy have nothing to do with how well someone can run a country.
-Chelsey
I agree with derek. I'm pretty tired of people debating the topic of race or gender in electing a president. The people should be electing someone who can best serve this country best, and that should be it.
I believe that the main reason why race matters on so many levels, not just in the election, is history. History is always written by the winners, or conquerors which have typically been predominately European. This has lead many whites to beleive (through upbringing and in some cases education) that the "white race" is superior. This makes a well supported black canidate big news and so important to Americans.I believe that Many Americans are part of a community identity that is so afriad of change that the agreement between eachother is to be essentialistic. The individuals in the community may believe in something different as they become better educated but do not vocalize these beliefs for fear of loss of belonging. I believe that when commentors refer to the white, Latino, and black votes they are referring to the population of black, white and Latino Americans in the country, my stance is that their belief system in refering to these individuals soley in seperate community idenities is entirely wrong and that if this veiwpoint does not change than these citizens will always be segregated from one another. I believe race and gender should not matter all, the most important thing is how comfortable you are individually with the policies each candidate stands for.
Race matters so much in this election because America did not have other than white man running for the president in the past. As nstewart mentioned about money and power, most of the candidates are from "old money", well educated, whose fathers and granfathers went to a very respectful schools. What year African American man could go to college? When did the time came when African American man could go to the same prestige college as white man? Same about women...
I think we still view identity as essentialism, that is why "Latino", "black" and "white" votes are so important to candidates. The way I view black, latino, and white vote, is looking at the white population in America( for example), in general, and seeing it as a middle class with 2.3 children, 2 cars, where one, maybe both parents are working trying to pay mortgage, day care, credit cards....,and trying to figure out what do they need , what changes they would like, what would they like to hear from the candidate? Same with black and Latino votes.
Gender and race should not matter, but it will matter for many many more years.
Link to an article entitled: "How 'blackness' has figured in the Obama campaign.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/11/america/obama.php
hmm...the whole link didn't fit...maybe this time...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/11/america
/obama.php
really interesting comments, everyone. And the article Nick pointed to certainly underscores the complexity of the 'race' question...
Alex
i just realized that my post never came up. probably netscape to blame.
Although past elections have been primarily between white men with similar
christian heritages, people voted based on which stances they agreed with.
This new election could allow for an african american or woman to gain office,
thus proving the true equality that our american culture is based upon.
However, I truly feel that many people will vote for Obama because of a shared
heritage, or vote for Clinton because of shared gender. More insight should
be given into which candidate will improve the state that our country is in,
regardless of which ethnicity or gender that one exemplifies. While I feel
that there is a time and a place for such diversity to be represented in
office, I do not feel that either of these candidates share the same
connections that I feel in supporting the little guy, Ron Paul.
Post a Comment