asking the internets, redux
15 May 2010 12:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouOkay, with comments and discussion in mind from the previous post, and trying very hard to get out from under nation-specific or culture-specific labeling systems, how about these series of questions, instead? non-US folks please lend me your eyeballs as well, and let me know if you think your answers would match up with the answers I'm trying to get...
ETA2: first draft is colored in green, and starts here ---->
1 what is your family ethnicity? ==> select all that apply from (OMG MASSIVE) list of ethnicities
for me, I'd be clicking on "scots, irish, french, dutch, and english"...
2 what is your nationality? ==> select one (two?) from list of countries
-------that would be citizenship, as in: the name of the country on your passport
3 were you born & raised where you currently live?
a) yes, always had the same nationality
b) no, immigrated in childhood
c) no, currently seeking new citizenship
d) no, on temporary assignment (less than 2yrs)
e) no, on longterm/open-ended assignment
-------trying to determine whether living in home culture, and if not, whether trying to integrate into new culture (ie citizenship) or only passing through (ie student/work/military)
3b if you were born & raised somewhere else... ==> select one from list of countries
4 are you white? // are you/your family visually similar to 'american white'? [AWK!]
a) yes, definitely white
b) yes, somewhat similar
c) not sure
d) no, not really similar
e) no, definitely not-white
-------is "person of color" an international term? or only a western term? here, trying to measure against the dominant global force of white-culture (US/UK) media/economy/etc... but is "do you look like a white american?" a question that makes sense to non-americans?
[note: yes, I'm aware this next one is VERY problematic for a variety of reasons, just so you know before you go further, and more discussion in post & in comments]
5 do you regularly suffer institutionalized discrimination of any of the following types? check all that apply
--> sex, gender, skin color, disability, size, age, sexuality, religion, ethnicity...
-------the problem is that all I want to be able to do is track whether a respondent's statements are made as a person of privilege, or if they're speaking as someone more dis-privileged... and since I can't measure for everything (or #5 will be here all day), at least in this context I'd prefer to narrow it down to just race/skin-color, because otherwise the variables are overwhelming.
----> first draft ends here & second version starts here ------>
1 same question as #1 above, about ethnicity
2 where do you currently reside? ----> list of countries
3 is this the same as your nationality / do you hold citizenship? ----> yes / no
4 if NO, select one:
a) short-term resident (student, assignment, work, travelling) and don't intend to stay here permanently
b) long-term resident / ex-patriate / not seeking citizenship
c) long-term resident seeking citizenship
that pretty much covers the possibilities for "living outside own nation", right?
5 also if NO, are you or have you attempted to integrate as much as possible into your adopted culture, ie 'going native'? --> yes/no
although it feels to me that 'going native' is an offensive term right there, so need less loaded version that carries same connotation of "fully adopting with intentions to eventually pass as belonging".
... so now we've got ethnicity, residence, and whether the person is native to that culture or not AND whether they have or are trying to become part of a non-native culture.
5 how westernized*/white do you look? // guh. can't I just say: "look, are you racially privileged, or not!?"
a) am white
b) somewhat look white
c) don't look white
* the problem with 'westernized' is that it's class and dress and other stuff, not just skin color -- someone could look completely, say, Cantonese and still be 'westernized' due to wearing Levis and listening to American music, from what I understand, so in this case 'westernized' indicates an attempt to affiliate with global privilege but doesn't indicate whether the person is part of the national privilege
...and there I come to a complete halt. Need more dirt!
-------> second draft ends here & now back to original post -------->
I am too cognizant of the fact that race is not the only way one can be discriminated against, but is it intuitively clear that "institutionalized" means "govt-supported policy" or is that too narrowing? how to best put it so the respondent will be saying, "yes, that sort of discrimination is cultural, transnational, broad, pervasive, govt-supported" -- as opposed to "oh, I got discriminated against because I have a Philly accent and I live in Atlanta" which on paper looks the same but is nowhere near the xenophobic discrimination given as an immigrant... help.
So at this point, I'll know: where the person resides currently, whether zie is citizen, immigrant, or traveller, the person's familial ethnicity (a more roundabout way of determining likeliest racial facets, at least in general), whether the person has enough dominant Anglo/north-Europe ethnicity to match with dominant global paradigm, and whether the person feels to have suffered discrimination.
It's that last one that really really bugs me, because it requires that the person assess, on own, whether or not there's been suffering from discrimination... and any time even in general fandom, you've probably seen the same idiocy I have, where some white guy (like whotshisface in the last hollywood debacle about it) insists that he suffers a type of discrimination because he's not female/PoC/whatever. It's that whole "diversity quotas make life hard for white guys!" thing, which is stupid but also human because we always believe (if only secretly) that we're speshul snowflakes who've gotten it the worst of anyone, cue the oppression olympics. Asking people to self-assess is just opening the door, I suspect, on a whole lot of oppression olympics -- as in a woman who's a size 10 who feels the social pressure of being smaller counts as "discrimination", because she's never known life as a size 20 or greater to realize just what social pressure is really like -- thus would honestly believe she's giving a true answer to say she's experienced sizeism, even if by any external/objective standard she hasn't got a freaking clue.
That kind of self-assessment danger means I really really do NOT want to ask outright, but need to come at it from an angle, to present it via an objective kind of standard. Hmmmm.
Would it make intuitive (that is, not requiring massively long explanation) sense to simply ask whether the respondent has the same skin color as the most privileged members of his/her culture? Or can anyone think of circumstances where the objective answer would be yes, but the cultural logic would prompt a different answer?
Again, I suspect the real meat of the discussion is going to be in the comments, what with you guys around to make sure I don't go whole hog US-centric and make a complete fool of myself. Err, I hope. You did get the checks from my mom, right? So you'll keep being helpful, right? Excellent!
ETA: Hmm, isn't the question really: how can you objectively identify the most privileged group in any given culture? What terms, descriptions, categories are universal for privilege -- as in, "the majority of people with political power" or "the people you see on domestically-produced television" or "the majority of your culture's pop stars and soap opera stars"... What kind of criteria is a universal way to identify the privileged class, such that the followup question then becomes: do you look like that? ...
Of course the drawback is that "no, I don't" could mean "my skin color is different" but it could also be the person's thinking, "no, because I'm a size-something" or "no, because I'm in a wheelchair" -- or even less literally, that if the respondent sees "look like that" to mean inside as well as outside, then I could see someone thinking, "no, because I'm an unmarried female in my thirties and thus am not 'like' all the women my age on television, who are all housewives".
Not to mention gender/sex enters into it, if someone feels their sexuality, frex, is external and part of how they "look" -- so someone transgender might say, "no, I don't look like the members of parliament even if someone else might think I do, because I don't have that extra something to make me appear (truly) male", perhaps? Or even a woman saying, "I don't look like a bunch of men..."
Which just points out the importance of making the language as clear and concise and objective as possible... but is it really right to assume it's a universal thing, in every culture everywhere (or at least the ones with internet access! and that's, uhm, pretty much everywhere by now) that lighter skin = more prized? Because I am really uncomfortable with the assumption hiding in there, that of course generic-you would measure yourself against white-skin (or at least that generic-culture does) and thus grades you as closer or farther from that standard. I don't like the implications of imperialism/dominance, the "well, of course you'd want to be white!" kind of moronic offensive unspoken assumption -- but setting aside whether or not anyone wants to be American-white, would it still be generally true that the majority of cultures do prize paler skin (even if the measure of 'pale' would be equal to PoC against American-white)? Is that a decent objective standard to use, or is there something else anyone can think of, that doesn't require excessive amounts of self-assessment on the part of someone replying?
Y'know, I think now would be a good time to go play in the dirt.
ETA2: first draft is colored in green, and starts here ---->
1 what is your family ethnicity? ==> select all that apply from (OMG MASSIVE) list of ethnicities
for me, I'd be clicking on "scots, irish, french, dutch, and english"...
2 what is your nationality? ==> select one (two?) from list of countries
-------that would be citizenship, as in: the name of the country on your passport
3 were you born & raised where you currently live?
a) yes, always had the same nationality
b) no, immigrated in childhood
c) no, currently seeking new citizenship
d) no, on temporary assignment (less than 2yrs)
e) no, on longterm/open-ended assignment
-------trying to determine whether living in home culture, and if not, whether trying to integrate into new culture (ie citizenship) or only passing through (ie student/work/military)
3b if you were born & raised somewhere else... ==> select one from list of countries
4 are you white? // are you/your family visually similar to 'american white'? [AWK!]
a) yes, definitely white
b) yes, somewhat similar
c) not sure
d) no, not really similar
e) no, definitely not-white
-------is "person of color" an international term? or only a western term? here, trying to measure against the dominant global force of white-culture (US/UK) media/economy/etc... but is "do you look like a white american?" a question that makes sense to non-americans?
[note: yes, I'm aware this next one is VERY problematic for a variety of reasons, just so you know before you go further, and more discussion in post & in comments]
5 do you regularly suffer institutionalized discrimination of any of the following types? check all that apply
--> sex, gender, skin color, disability, size, age, sexuality, religion, ethnicity...
-------the problem is that all I want to be able to do is track whether a respondent's statements are made as a person of privilege, or if they're speaking as someone more dis-privileged... and since I can't measure for everything (or #5 will be here all day), at least in this context I'd prefer to narrow it down to just race/skin-color, because otherwise the variables are overwhelming.
----> first draft ends here & second version starts here ------>
1 same question as #1 above, about ethnicity
2 where do you currently reside? ----> list of countries
3 is this the same as your nationality / do you hold citizenship? ----> yes / no
4 if NO, select one:
a) short-term resident (student, assignment, work, travelling) and don't intend to stay here permanently
b) long-term resident / ex-patriate / not seeking citizenship
c) long-term resident seeking citizenship
that pretty much covers the possibilities for "living outside own nation", right?
5 also if NO, are you or have you attempted to integrate as much as possible into your adopted culture, ie 'going native'? --> yes/no
although it feels to me that 'going native' is an offensive term right there, so need less loaded version that carries same connotation of "fully adopting with intentions to eventually pass as belonging".
... so now we've got ethnicity, residence, and whether the person is native to that culture or not AND whether they have or are trying to become part of a non-native culture.
5 how westernized*/white do you look? // guh. can't I just say: "look, are you racially privileged, or not!?"
a) am white
b) somewhat look white
c) don't look white
* the problem with 'westernized' is that it's class and dress and other stuff, not just skin color -- someone could look completely, say, Cantonese and still be 'westernized' due to wearing Levis and listening to American music, from what I understand, so in this case 'westernized' indicates an attempt to affiliate with global privilege but doesn't indicate whether the person is part of the national privilege
...and there I come to a complete halt. Need more dirt!
-------> second draft ends here & now back to original post -------->
I am too cognizant of the fact that race is not the only way one can be discriminated against, but is it intuitively clear that "institutionalized" means "govt-supported policy" or is that too narrowing? how to best put it so the respondent will be saying, "yes, that sort of discrimination is cultural, transnational, broad, pervasive, govt-supported" -- as opposed to "oh, I got discriminated against because I have a Philly accent and I live in Atlanta" which on paper looks the same but is nowhere near the xenophobic discrimination given as an immigrant... help.
So at this point, I'll know: where the person resides currently, whether zie is citizen, immigrant, or traveller, the person's familial ethnicity (a more roundabout way of determining likeliest racial facets, at least in general), whether the person has enough dominant Anglo/north-Europe ethnicity to match with dominant global paradigm, and whether the person feels to have suffered discrimination.
It's that last one that really really bugs me, because it requires that the person assess, on own, whether or not there's been suffering from discrimination... and any time even in general fandom, you've probably seen the same idiocy I have, where some white guy (like whotshisface in the last hollywood debacle about it) insists that he suffers a type of discrimination because he's not female/PoC/whatever. It's that whole "diversity quotas make life hard for white guys!" thing, which is stupid but also human because we always believe (if only secretly) that we're speshul snowflakes who've gotten it the worst of anyone, cue the oppression olympics. Asking people to self-assess is just opening the door, I suspect, on a whole lot of oppression olympics -- as in a woman who's a size 10 who feels the social pressure of being smaller counts as "discrimination", because she's never known life as a size 20 or greater to realize just what social pressure is really like -- thus would honestly believe she's giving a true answer to say she's experienced sizeism, even if by any external/objective standard she hasn't got a freaking clue.
That kind of self-assessment danger means I really really do NOT want to ask outright, but need to come at it from an angle, to present it via an objective kind of standard. Hmmmm.
Would it make intuitive (that is, not requiring massively long explanation) sense to simply ask whether the respondent has the same skin color as the most privileged members of his/her culture? Or can anyone think of circumstances where the objective answer would be yes, but the cultural logic would prompt a different answer?
Again, I suspect the real meat of the discussion is going to be in the comments, what with you guys around to make sure I don't go whole hog US-centric and make a complete fool of myself. Err, I hope. You did get the checks from my mom, right? So you'll keep being helpful, right? Excellent!
ETA: Hmm, isn't the question really: how can you objectively identify the most privileged group in any given culture? What terms, descriptions, categories are universal for privilege -- as in, "the majority of people with political power" or "the people you see on domestically-produced television" or "the majority of your culture's pop stars and soap opera stars"... What kind of criteria is a universal way to identify the privileged class, such that the followup question then becomes: do you look like that? ...
Of course the drawback is that "no, I don't" could mean "my skin color is different" but it could also be the person's thinking, "no, because I'm a size-something" or "no, because I'm in a wheelchair" -- or even less literally, that if the respondent sees "look like that" to mean inside as well as outside, then I could see someone thinking, "no, because I'm an unmarried female in my thirties and thus am not 'like' all the women my age on television, who are all housewives".
Not to mention gender/sex enters into it, if someone feels their sexuality, frex, is external and part of how they "look" -- so someone transgender might say, "no, I don't look like the members of parliament even if someone else might think I do, because I don't have that extra something to make me appear (truly) male", perhaps? Or even a woman saying, "I don't look like a bunch of men..."
Which just points out the importance of making the language as clear and concise and objective as possible... but is it really right to assume it's a universal thing, in every culture everywhere (or at least the ones with internet access! and that's, uhm, pretty much everywhere by now) that lighter skin = more prized? Because I am really uncomfortable with the assumption hiding in there, that of course generic-you would measure yourself against white-skin (or at least that generic-culture does) and thus grades you as closer or farther from that standard. I don't like the implications of imperialism/dominance, the "well, of course you'd want to be white!" kind of moronic offensive unspoken assumption -- but setting aside whether or not anyone wants to be American-white, would it still be generally true that the majority of cultures do prize paler skin (even if the measure of 'pale' would be equal to PoC against American-white)? Is that a decent objective standard to use, or is there something else anyone can think of, that doesn't require excessive amounts of self-assessment on the part of someone replying?
Y'know, I think now would be a good time to go play in the dirt.
no subject
Date: 16 May 2010 07:04 am (UTC)I look as if I come from somewhere around the Mediterranean. I usually look white, but have at least once been taken for Hispanic. At my most tanned, I was darker-skinned than most Afro-Americans; and was once mistaken for a Bengali.
I'm US-born, live in the US.