Sociological perspectives on cultural opinions

Sociological Cultural Opinions

Jane Elliot's Blue Eyed/Brown Eyed Study

From viewing A Class Divided, reasonable personal impressions of Jane Elliot and her approach are that she was a courageous, pioneering educator who devised a lesson with an approach that was: timely, because it started immediately after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination and in the late 60's, which were culturally tumultuous in America's history; profoundly effective, because you can see the stunning impact it had on the students and, frankly, because it made some people angry at Elliot, which is frequently a good sign of effectiveness; and forward-thinking, because understanding other races and cultures is a pillar of diversity, which is now acknowledged to be nationally and globally vital. Furthermore, eye color was and is an excellent metaphor for race because it cannot be helped (unless one wears those awful-looking contacts) and it has no bearing on human capabilities.

Both children and adults learned from the lesson. The children reportedly remarked to Elliot that they knew what is was like to hurt each other, what it was like to be hurt by each other, and eventually felt like a family who would not intentionally hurt each other again. The adults learned something if/when they moved past their anger. Immersed in the lesson, these people got caught up in being unfairly treated, which was the point of the lesson. The people who were discriminated against spoke of feeling powerless, hopeless and being in a glass cage. Meanwhile, the people who were not discriminated against "sat on their hands" in order to protect themselves and because they were relieved at being treated beneficially. Furthermore, Elliot was so smart and focused about the lesson that she consistently adapted and used even insults directed at her to drive home her point. Her method might be considered crude by some; however, it would be unfair to condemn her by current diversity-teaching methods that benefited from her lesson and are in place more than 40 years after her lesson.

2. Peace

a. Is it Possible?

A sober review of the world's situation makes it appear that Peace is not possible: Middle-East fighting has reportedly been going on since at least the time Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth; also, the United States -- still arguably the greatest military power on Earth -- has had many periods of war interspersed with brief periods of Peace. In fact, Zinn reports that prior to the attack of 09/11, the United States maintained more than 700 military bases outside U.S. borders and increased that number after 09/11. As Zinn states, governments cannot be depended upon to end war or to even take care of their people. Furthermore, prior to watching Zinn's videos, it appeared from one news report after another that War is inevitable-forever-and-ever-Amen.

Despite the persistence of war in History, Zinn's videos, Empire or Humanity and Just War, give eye-opening and positive views of a possible world without war. Realizing that governments and corporations cannot be relied on to avoid war, Zinn calls on a movement of human beings to refuse to support war, no matter what reason is given and no matter which liar is in the White House. Zinn's unconventional approach requires a mindset and culture that realizes a number of truths: that there is no "just" war; that governments and corporations compel us to war with seduction, propaganda and coercion, not for our good but for their own selfish purposes; that people who died in war did not "die for their country" but had their lives taken from them for their governments and for the corporations that are making money from war; that people who died in war should be honored but wars and the makers of wars should not be honored; that war is not "human nature," evidenced by the fact that governments have to work so hard at pulling their people into war; that it is possible to hearken back to true human nature, which is creative and nonviolent, by dispelling the fog of propaganda about human nature and violence; that war is not a matter of "good guys vs. bad guys" but makes everyone involved a "bad guy"; that governments can be forced to be "friendly" by the insistence of their citizens; that violence such as war is quick fix when one cannot fix a problem intelligently; that the money, talent and energy wasted on war can be better spent on solving serious world problems such as illness, poverty, homelessness and ecological problems regarding air and water; finally, and perhaps most importantly that war cannot be waged without our cooperation. All these factors, thoughtfully presented by Zinn, could make Peace possible.

b. What are the Conditions that Prevent/Support Peace?

The conditions preventing peace are certainly powerful and longstanding. The imperialism of governments/corporations, including but not limited to those of the United States, are difficult to overcome. U.S. imperialism or "empire building," for example, has existed for hundreds of years against Native Americans, Mexicans, Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc. under the guise of "spreading liberty." For example, Zinn points to GW Bush's second inaugural speech, in which he stated, "Spreading liberty around the world is the calling of our time," which Zinn bares as a blunt declaration of imperial design with phony assurances that our motives are benign, our purposes are noble and that this is "Imperialism Lite." So it appears that the greatest barriers to Peace are governments and corporations, which benefit from war and thus continuously use propaganda, coercion and seduction to involve citizens in war.