Reading Journal #4

The Lessons We Learn In Our Families and Those We Learn In School

I found this chapter in the book to be interesting as well as somewhat frsutrating. The chapter implies that all the stereotypes, all the negative connotations, indeed, the very interactions we invovle ourselves in daily, are all based on learning. We are influenced from a very young age to think certain thoughts about people, to perceive them in a particular fashion. This seems to be the underlying theme of the book itself; our perceptions are based on the perceptions of society and, thus, we are constantly driven by how society views a group, class, race, etc. This is not a false statement; going beyond the boundaries of politcal correctness and equality, we are influenced to buy certain things, wear particular clothes, fix our hair in some popular manner, among other facets of the media. If these blatant advertisements are driven into our heads, then it seems more than likely that we will absorb a certain perception of people in our society if subtle information is passed onto us from a very young age from our parents and relatives. This is much more concrete than what we see on TV.

The first section of the chapter, "Socialization in Families", illustrates the most prevalent way in which we absorb our predispositions. It is with our intimates that our greatest trust is placed; they are the source of our comfort and we believe everything they say. Eventually, autonomy takes hold but views that are absorbed as children are defintiely difficult to shake. We will not easily be swayed from our positions. When we enter school, however, a new influence takes control: Peers. We see what is popular among friends and tend to take on their views of situations. Because we become integrated into schools, we see a wide varitey of perspectives, many of which are far different from our own. People come together and a collective opinion of certain stratifications (race, class, gender, etc.) is assessed. However, because the differences in opinion are so vast, hopefully students will open their eyes to a broader approach.

One aspect of the chapter that stuck out to me was Newman's quote on how it is less necessary for an advantaged individual to be integrated into society. I agree with this opinion; obviously if a kid is white upper class and grows up in an environment in which other kids are of the same standing, it will be easier for him to establish an identity than one who is outside the same social constructs. On the other hand, Newman includes in his text that certain schools are looking to make way for same-sex education. One view on this, in the case of females, is that if they go to all-girl schools, they will develop assertiveness, confidence, and ambition in the areas of science and mathematics, all of which are noted as male qualities. If schools are looking to give female students a sense of feminine identity, why would they emphasize male qualities? Is this so that they will become oriented to a male dominated society? I understand the underlying principle of developing such policies, but it confuses me why male qualities would be overtly expressed and taught in an all female setting. I personally feel that integration and raltionships between the sexes is most important in the rocky years of adolescence. Should this opportunity be taken away, it might damge relationships in the future.