Miss Universe Japan, stereotypes, perception and schemas

There is a three step process that makes up perceptions. The first step is selection. The countless stimuli we are exposed to daily, like advertisements, people you see on the street or on television, the news you read, etc. are subconsciously turned into decisions of importance. Step two is organization. Those stimuli that subconsciously affect us are organized in a meaningful way. Our mind categorizes what we see and creates a language. The third step is interpretation. The things we see are subconsciously organized in our minds are interpreted to attach meaning to people, situations, and objects, which allows us to interpret cultures. The way that we see these things presented, our upbringing, personal beliefs, and education can all affect our perception and knowledge about a group of people.

A schema is a cognitive structure that represents knowledge about objects, people, or situations. They organize knowledge, guide behavior and predict behavior of others according to our perceptions. They are active when cognitive load is high and mental resources are low. So if you don't have exposure to or education in different cultures, but you see them without a critical eye all the time as we do in media and on the street etc., then you may fall into believing the wildly held beliefs, or stereotypes about a group. A stereotype is a schema for understanding a group of people. It hinders communication by linking overarching beliefs about a group to an individual who many times will not fit into that stereotype.

Stereotypes function like habits. They are so ingrained in us from all the things we see in the media and the lack of knowledge of a lived reality. They can be unintentional and spontaneous, but these associations develop over time. After a while, without paying attention and being intentional in our experiences and how we perceive them, our stereotypes turn into prejudices. We can change our prejudices but it takes time, intentional effort and attention to gaining knowledge of different groups.  

Recently, Ariana Miyamoto, 20, from Nagasaki, was crowned Japan's first bi-racial Miss Universe. Her mother is Japanese and her father is African American. She's simply gorgeous just as a beauty queen would be, but she had received a lot of backlash since being crowned, with comments that she is not "Japanese" enough.
What does that even mean? How can you define what it means to be Japanese and whether someone is too much or too little of it? This is a loose example of ethnocentrism - negatively judging aspects of another culture by the standards of one's own culture. The Japanese community which is mostly japanese and not mixed race, think that she is not Japanese enough because she is hafu - the term for someone ethnically half Japanese or mixed, and they are judging her based on the fact that she is part of more than one culture. Not to say that every Japanese person feels that way, but the people criticizing her certainly do, with comments stating that it's a no-no to choose a Miss Universe Japan that is a hafu. People have let their personal beliefs, perceptions and stereotypes get in the way of seeing how great it actually is that a mixed race woman was chosen.

This is an important issue in Japan, one that is even the subject of a film titled, "Hafu: The Mixed-Race Experience in Japan". Huffington Post talked to the directors and producers of the film and they agreed that the choice to crown Ariana is changing the perceptions of beauty in Japan. The conversation needs to continue on these issues and people need to pay attention and work to change their prejudices, but this is a very good start.

Shameless and the working class

Showtime's "Shameless" follows a financially and emotionally struggling South Chicago family of 7. The father, Frank Gallagher (William H. Macy), is a drunk who spends all their money on booze and crazy schemes he gets himself into, while he leaves all the caring, literally all the caring, to his eldest daughter, Fiona (Emmy Rossum). She takes care of all her younger siblings, the house, the bills, and manages more than one job. The two older boys also have jobs, Lip "tutors" for money, but also receives sexual favors, as well as selling marijuana out of an ice cream truck. All the kids fend for themselves but help out by scrounging money any way they can, including stealing, conning and babysitting. No matter what, the kids can always pull together, because Frank is constantly off on a bender, so they have adapted, because that's all they've ever known. People of color, often black people are disproportionately represented in the media when it comes to poverty and crime. The Gallagher family, all except for Liam, the baby, are white. It's nice to see that, for once, the portrayal of poverty and crime is without an overrepresentation of black bodies on welfare. What's refreshing about this show, is it's portrayal of the working class. The writers show the Gallagher's poverty-stricken and destitute environment and they're not afraid to actually talk about the nitty gritty details of it. We see the Gallagher residence, a nice looking house, but on the inside it's almost always dingy looking, with dirty dishes and clothes strewn about, and plenty of clutter. But that's expected when there are 6 kids in a house including a baby.

When Frank takes all their money and they can't pay the bills, their electricity is turned off, so the kids band together to find money wherever they can. Debbie starts a babysitting business, carl steals things to pawn, Lip starts taking fellow students' ACT's for them in exchange for money. The kids don't fit the stereotypical portrayal of the working class as being unintelligent and uninterested in education. Lip is basically a genius, Ian is hardworking and focused on school and Carl and Debbie are constantly coming up with complex little schemes.

It's a pretty dysfunctional family, but they are loyal to each other. When Lip finds gay porn under Ian's bed, he doesn't freak out, he accepts his brother. Fiona works her ass off all day every day for the other kids, with little to no time for herself. She takes on the mother role, and even takes care of Frank when he comes home and passes out on the floor. Frank even cashed the pension checks of a dead family member, and tried to cash on social security for little Liam, putting all his kids at risk for inordinate amounts of debt.

The show is hilarious with all the crazy antics but also very moving. We see the real struggle and emotional toll their lives take on them, and the humiliation of the kids from their father's inability to be a mature, responsible adult.

Zendaya and the Oscar Locs Controversy

So last weekend was the Oscar's. It was great. Awards were won, statements were made, fancy people did fancy stuff and the whole world watched. Actually, there were a lot of awesome and powerful movements promoted this year, even calls to action, which was refreshing. But on the red carpet, a controversy was sparked. Zendaya, 18-year-old, actress, singer, and dancer from the U.S., was stunning as she walked down the red carpet in a white flowy gown and luscious locs.

But as usual, we can always count on Fashion Police for some crap entertainment. In their Oscar recap, the host, Giulianna Rancic, made an offensive and racist comment about Zendaya's hair, saying that someone her age with locs must "smell of patchouli or maybe weed". Now, let me explain why this is problematic. She is associating weed and patchouli oil with a hair style prominently worn by, and meant to uplift and inspire Black people while society told them everything about them was unacceptable. Locs became more popular with the Rastafari and reggae movements, and especially after Bob Marley became popular. But wearing locs was never about looking cool and being hip. So Rancic's comment, whether she knew it or not was perpetuating a historically racist view.
Well after that, the twittersphere blew up. People were lashing out at Rancic attacking her body image, and even some death-like threats. But Zendaya also replied. She said in her statement that she doesn't feel the need to comment on every negative thing said about her, but some things can't go unchecked. She listed highly educated and accomplished people who also have locs, and then went on to say that none of them smell like marijuana.

                "There is already harsh criticism of African American hair in society without the help of ignorant people who choose to judge others based on the curl of their hair."

Her response was perfect, and the whole thing was all over the news. Then Rancic issued an on-air apology.

The way the media handled it was pretty straight forward, just showing the tweets and the interactions. But then the big story became, the fact that Kelly Osbourne was so upset by the whole thing that she threatened to leave the show, and ended up doing so. When I googled Zendaya in the news tab, most of the headlines were about Kelly Osbourne, rather than the actual news about the controversy. It's unfortunate that that is what the big conversation shifted to, but at least if someone was really interested, they could still get the whole story since there were recaps and links. I do think the way it has blown up is good because it opens up a very much needed dialogue. It also shows that people are holding the gatekeepers of media accountable, which wasn't as easy to do even ten years ago. Which shows that our society cares enough to know what kind of coverage they do and don't want, even if it is Fashion Police.

Computers as Journalists? NO, thanks.

There's this company, Narrative Science, and they specialize in creating computer generated narratives, articles, etc. With the help of the Northwestern University school of Journalism, they have been having computers write data-driven articles for Forbes and other media outlets. Whaaaaaaaaat?! A computer writing articles? This is crazy. But apparently, you can hardly tell when you read it. The Chief Product Officer at Forbes, Lewis DVorkin, says that it's actually been helpful to the journalists because they can focus on other things that they would rather write and let the computers do the other,  more data focused stuff. He says they attach the story arcs to the data, and they merge, creating a well written story.

The company has perfected the algorithms for finance and sports score stories, but here's the thing. What about human interest stories? A computer can be super smart and organize data into a written story, which is actually pretty cool. But a computer can't pick up on human interaction and be able to tell a story as eloquently as a writer, you know, someone who dedicated their life to observing humans and documenting it. I just don't buy it. But according to the co-founder of Narrative Science, Kristian Hammond, computers are projected to write 90% of news in the next 15 years. So people are freaking out because that means no more journalist jobs.
As gatekeepers to the media, human journalists can sometimes fail in being completely objective. They shape the way we see the world, and what's going on in it, but it's impossible to write about everything, so not all the important things are covered. But news outlets strategically plan what they will and won't cover, and how. I guess the computers could be helpful, in covering sections of the news, because humans simply can't do everything, and users can even customize the tone of the articles, from "breathless financial reporter to dry analyst". Narrative Science has also figured out that it could be helpful in analyzing huge data information. So if you are trying to look at hundreds of pages of spreadsheets, the computer can go through it and summarize it for you in a written paragraph. That's pretty cool. But as far as writing journalistic stories, I don't like it, even if you can customize it.
The algorithm learns from other published articles, and figures out the important aspects to include. But I worry that news stories will become cookie cutter, with no individuality, so that everything we read will be pretty much the exact same format and tone. Humans integrate their individual tone and sometimes personality in their writing, and it's enjoyable. Computers don't have experiences, and experiences are what shape us as humans. I also worry that, since the computers look at other articles and learn, they will continue to perpetuate the same issues with the media that we already have, rather than learning from it and changing it, because it learns and bases itself off of it instead. So since the media disproportionately shows Brown and Black faces when talking about welfare, crime, and poverty, wouldn't the computer do the same? I think we need more human journalists that are aware of these issues and doing what they can to change it, rather than a computer continuing to perpetuate prevalent stereotypes in the media.

Bill O'Reilly and White Privilege

            Racial privilege is the unearned benefits and entitlements that accrue to members of the racially dominant group. I am part of that dominant group. I am white and therefore my whiteness grants me privileges that are not really mine to claim. They are given to me just because I’m white. But are white people really the majority of this world? Or do we just like to think we are? How does one group of people have so much power over other groups? There are many systems in the United States that are rooted in racism and thus protect the status quo. Privilege allows for power, and such power is used to marginalize groups of people. 

            According to Bill O'Reilly, White privilege does not exist. On an episode of Talking Points he claims that "African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding in our society" because of education, not race. He backs up his claims with statistics stating that Asian Americans earn the most money and have the smallest unemployment rate because they have, "stable homes and an emphasis on education." He also argues that Asians have the highest graduation rate while Blacks have the lowest. He argues that because Asian American households tend to stay together more than Black families, and because of the push for education, that Asians succeed more than anyone, and he wonders if there is actually an Asian American privilege. All he is doing is perpetuating the Model Minority stereotype that Asians must be the better minority because they have assimilated and are submissive and successful. They don't cause trouble like the Black folks, trying to take our rights away. This line of thinking is racist and ignorant. He completely negates the long history of segregation (that was separate but definitely not equal) in the education system in the U.S. not to mention the history of structural and institutional inequalities that have marginalized people of color since the "discovery" of this country. 

"Instead of preaching a cultural revolution, the leadership provides excuses for failure. The race hustlers blame white privilege, and unfair society, a terrible country. So the message is, it's not your fault if you abandon your children, if you become a substance abuser, if you are a criminal. No, it's not your fault; it's society's fault."

          He basically argues the fallacy of the American Dream. Anyone can achieve anything in the United States as long as they try hard enough. And if they're poor, and in jail, it certainly has nothing to do with how the corrupt justice system or any historical implications, it's only because you haven't tried hard enough.  But the reality is that the American Dream does not apply to everyone, it's not even a real thing. The fact that Bill O'Reilly doesn't realize he has privilege is just an example of his privilege. He doesn't have to think about it because he's not affected by the lack of white people in the media and in power positions because, oh wait, he's one of them. No one ever tells him that he's quite articulate, for a white man.  He argues that personal responsibility and cultural change are needed, and that the federal government can't fix it. He just doesn't get it, and he makes these ignorant statements on national television, which do not help anyone.

Family Guy and Stereotypes

Shows like Family Guy, South Park, American Dad, and The Simpsons have grown in popularity in the past decade or so. As for me, I don’t really enjoy watching any of them, but I will occasionally watch Family Guy if there’s nothing else on TV. However, such shows are excellent for analyzing the media.

I flipped the channel to Family Guy the other day. This particular episode featured an elderly homosexual male character named Mr. Herbert. In learning more about the character, I discovered his nickname is “Herbert the Pervert.” He has a very high, raspy voice. It’s actually somewhat creepy. He seems to be middle class, living in a house by himself, uses a walker, and almost always wearing just a bathrobe. He also has a “crush” on Chris, the teenage son of the Griffin family. In this episode, Chris’ parents want him to find a new hobby, so after Peter tries to unsuccessfully introduce him to stamp collecting and drinking, Chris discovers a puppet shop and becomes friends with the elderly German man that owns it. Mr. Herbert tries to help and warn Chris that the man is actually a Nazi and he should stay away from him, but Chris doesn’t listen, pointing out when Mr. Herbert tried to help him by having him clean the pool with his shirt off, wash his car in jean shorts and bend over in front of him to clean the rug. He then states that Mr. Herbert is only about free labor. This shows that Chris doesn’t see Mr. Herbert as a “pervert” as he is insinuated to be, by the show. But by listing such jobs he has had Chris do, tells the audience that Chris is too naïve to see what is really going on and that Mr. Herbert really is a pervert who preys on Chris.

This kind of representation is very stereotypical and homophobic. Mr. Herbert’s high-pitched voice and “feminine” qualities represent him as the stereotypical “swishy” gay man. This makes audiences think that all gay men are super flamboyant and no other representations are plausible. If that stereotype wasn’t bad enough, Family Guy goes even further, giving Mr. Herbert the predator stereotype as a gay man pedophile. The way he acts around Chris and treats him, by making inappropriate sexual comments could very well be classified as sexual harassment. No, scratch that, It's definitely harassment. Every time Chris leaves, Mr. Herbert’s comments become even more aggressive and sometimes almost like he wants to hurt Chris. He squints his eyes and his voice gets harsher, saying things like, “Get your fat ass back here,” and, “Please, I just want to smell his hat, that’s all I want,” then suddenly when the wind blows Chris’ hat off and into Mr. Herbert’s hands he sniffs it he says, “Now I need more.” Another example is when Mr. Herbert was talking to some kids including Chris, that were fighting with each other and he says, “We can settle this like reasonable and sexy teenagers. Whoever can swallow the most Tylenol p.m. wins,” insinuating that Mr. Herbert wants all the young boys to be unconscious in his presence.

These stereotypes have been around since the early 1970’s, when the first few representations of gay men even surfaced. A lot of the early representations were horror movies or thrillers, where the psychotic killer was a gay man, telling the audiences that gay men are bad and will probably kill you because they are pedophiles. Other early representations were gay men depicted as extremely feminine, or that all gay men had AIDS. This is the first step in perception, Selection. Watching shows like Family Guy and most media begin to shape the public's perception. We see things in the media, we organize them in our minds based on the ways they are represented, like appearance, social positions and behavior. We relate to what we see, and it becomes meaningful. Then we organize the meanings and interpret them according to what we have been socialized to see. These representations and stereotypes shaped the public’s views on homosexuality, making them think it was something to fear. This has affected society negatively, especially since these stereotypes are still around. People have feared queer people because of these representations, allowing them to be dehumanized, and therefore being able to strip their rights, not allowing them to get married, taking away opportunities because of discrimination in the work force, and thinking it’s okay to treat queer people like dirt simply because they don’t fit into their hetero-normative sexist roles that they have been socialized to believe is the only way to live in this world.     

Fighting the hegemony with love

As I nonchalantly scrolled through my Facebook feed, looking for something to pique my interest, I came across a compelling article featured in the Huffington Post by author, columnist and blogger, Shawn Burcaw. The title, "Laughing at My Nightmare: Strangers Assume My Girlfriend Is My Nurse" grabbed my attention immediately.  Shawn, 22, is living with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and has been in a wheelchair since the age of two. In the post, he talks about a night he went out for dinner with his girlfriend. Someone came up to their table, complementing his work, and then asked if Shawn's girlfriend was his sister. Shawn explains that they are used to such things, and have witty comebacks prepared like, "He's my dad" or "I pay her to be my friend". If you saw two youngsters out for a nice meal, wouldn't you think they were on a date? The wheelchair, obscures such a thought. 

"The mindset that causes a stranger to automatically assume that any female in my presence is my nurse, or family, is one that ignores the reality that people with disabilities can and do have "normal" romantic relationships. I place normal in quotations because I'm not sure there is such a thing when it comes to Iove." 

He's completely correct. Such an ideology (system of meaning that defines and explains the world) ignores the reality and normalizes certain social relations, ultimately serving the status quo and the hegemony (the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group). It's all about power relations, but the hegemonic (middle class, heterosexual, white, male, able-bodied, Christian) ideology becomes a staple as the dominant group view becomes the worldview that is accepted and seen as the "norm", and is often perpetuated in the media. Therefore, the public doesn't see someone in a wheelchair as "normal" because they hardly ever see them on TV or in movies in romantic relationships, so they wouldn't think that the person with them is their partner, because the hegemonic mass media avoids the unpopular and unconventional. The show "Friday Night Lights" follows the ups and downs of a Texas high school football team. One of the main characters is Jason Street. He was the best player and the top ranked quarter back in the nation. But in his senior year on the first game, he tackles a defender in a game-winning play, and severely injures his spinal cord, making him paralyzed from the waist down. But here's the thing about how his story line was portrayed: it's not all about his impairment. Of course it is a part of his story, but it's not the entire story. While he is in the hospital, his girlfriend, Lyla cheats on him with his best friend Tim. He finds out, leaves her and punches his friend. Eventually they get back together, but this time he cheats on her. Now if you ask me, this sounds like a pretty "typical" high school love triangle storyline. The only thing out of the "norm" is that Jason is paralyzed. He still has romantic relationships, he plays rugby, he works, he helps coach, he even eventually has a baby. So, what even is "normal"? The idea of the "norm" is socially constructed through the hegemony. If someone is not educated in Ethnic or gender studies, or doesn't have a personal relationship with someone with an impairment, they  wouldn't necessarily know this because they are most likely seeing the world through a hegemonized view. There needs to be more visibility of non-able bodied people in the media, and they need to be portrayed in various relationships, classes, ages, genders, sexual orientations and different situations because everyone and I do mean everyone has multiple facets to their individuality. No one is one-dimensional, and no one can be or should be defined by one aspect of themselves, because people are not their disabilities.