Sociological Images

I’m back! I was in the middle of moving and just overwhelmed with everything. Anyway. Talking Points Memo posted a link to an article at Slate about income inequality in the U.S., and particularly the increasing proportion of total U.S. income earned by the very rich. Timothy Noah refers to the “great compression” as a time period when income concentration among top earners dropped significantly, and argues that in the past three decades we’ve seen a “great divergence,” with increasing income inequality hitting levels not seen since the Great Depression:

A slideshow accompanies the article, providing more info on the changes Noah discusses. A few examples (the slideshow provides the data source used to create each image):

Even among the very rich, we see increasing divergence, with the super-ultra rich, the top 0.1% of earners, now making 8% of all U.S. income:

A comparison to some other countries (I don’t know why these specific nations were chosen for the comparison):

Keep in mind, this data includes only income. Wealth — the worth of all assets, including retirement and savings accounts, stocks, homes, cars, and anything else of value — is much more unequally distributed.

Congress is about to be embroiled in a major debate about whether to extend the tax cuts on high incomes; as both sides weigh in, here’s some context to keep in mind:

The effective tax rate is what people actually pay, as opposed to what their tax rate theoretically is. While we’ve certainly seen a large drop since the late ’70s, Noah argues that, compared to other economic changes, the effective tax rate hasn’t affected the rise in income inequality much. It plays a role, yes, but changing the tax rate on the very rich doesn’t affect the overall distribution of income a huge amount, in part because the effective rate, what people end up actually paying, generally ends up being smaller than what they theoretically owe based on the stated tax rate, once you take into account deductions, write-offs, loopholes, and so on.

So…happy post-Labor Day!

Claude Fischer at Made in America offered some data speaking to the idea that Americans are especially patriotic. That they, in other words, are more likely than citizens of other nations to think that “We’re Number One!”

Fischer provides some evidence by Tom Smith at the International Social Science Programme (ISSP; Tom’s book).  The ISSP, Fischer explains…

…involves survey research institutions in dozens of countries asking representative samples of their populations the same questions. A couple of times the ISSP has had its members ask questions designed to tap respondents’ pride in their countries… One set of questions asked respondents how much they agreed or disagreed with five statements such as “I would rather be a citizen of [my country] than of any other country in the world” and “Generally, speaking [my country] is a better country than most other countries.”

Smith put responses on a scale from 5 to 25, with 25 being the most patriotic.  Here are the results from some of the affluent, western democracies (on a shortened scale of 5 to 20):

As Fischer says, “Americans were #1 in claiming to be #1.”  Well, sort of.  Americans were the most patriotic among this group.  They turned out to be the second most patriotic of all countries.  Venezuela beat us.

(In any case, what struck me wasn’t the fact that the U.S. is so patriotic, but that many other of these countries were very patriotic as well!   The U.S. is certainly no outlier among this group.  In fact, it looks like all of these countries fall between 14 and 18 on this 20-point scale.  Statistically significant, perhaps, but how meaningful of a difference is it?)

Fischer goes on to ask what’s good and bad about pride and closes with the following concern for U.S. Americans:

We believe that we are #1 almost across the board, when in fact we are far below number one in many arenas – in health, K-12 education, working conditions, to mention just a few. Does our #1 pride then blind us to the possibility that we could learn a thing or two from other countries?

Dmitriy T.M. sent us a link to a story at Slate about (mostly European) “national personifications” — that is, human figures used to represent particular countries, their citizens, or ideas of the national character.  Personification is contentious in that it aims to represent a diverse society with a single person, often representing a simple idea.  Accordingly, we sometimes see divergent, or even conflicting, personifications.

Many personifications in Europe and areas once colonized by them connect the nation to noble ideas and values through the use of Latin-derived names and the use of robes, poses, and other elements of classic statues and paintings to adorn a female figure. For instance, the United Kingdom’s Britannia (an emblem that first emerged when Britain was still ruled by Rome) is a goddess-like figure wearing a Roman-style helmet who has, over time, come to represent the nation and the idea of liberty:

The U.S. has a similar figure, Columbia:

More popular characterizations also emerge, often representing the national character not through goddess-like imagery but as an Average Citizen.  For instance, much more familiar in the U.S. than Columbia is Uncle Sam. He differs from many other national personifications in that he doesn’t represent the U.S. citizenry or the idea of the nation in general; he specifically represents the U.S. government and is best known for wanting “you” to join the military, buy war bonds, and such:

And in addition to Brittania, the U.K. is also personified by John Bull:

According to the Slate article, John Bull presents the British people as middle-class, smart in a common-sense way, and also somewhat suspicious of authority — that is, John Bull is a personification that separates the citizenry from government (the source of authority) to some extent, and thus has been used in many political cartoons to question government policies (whereas Uncle Sam has often been used to advocate them, since he represents the government itself).

Going a step further, Portugal’s Zé Povinho, a working-class personification, actively mocks the powerful, including political elites:

Competing personifications may be used by different political factions. For instance, those in favor of and opposed to Irish independence used female emblems of Ireland. Opponents of Irish nationalism used the figure of Hibernia, represented as the younger sister of Brittania and in need of her sister’s protection from the brutish (male) nationalist forces:

Nationalists responded with Kathleen Ni Houlihan, “generally depicted as an old woman who needs the help of young Irish men willing to fight and die to free Ireland from colonial rule, usually resulting in the young men becoming martyrs for this cause”:

The gender element in these competing personifications is interesting: in both cases Ireland is a woman in need of protection, but who see needs protected by (a stronger sister or men) and from (men in both cases) differs.

So here we have just a small handful of national personifications that may coexist fairly harmoniously while serving different purposes (say, Brittania and John Bull) or actively conflict (representations of Ireland). Various groups in a nation (political elites, different social classes, rebels, etc.) are unlikely to identify equally with a single personification; thus, the figures used to represent a country or its citizens can become sites of political or cultural contention, defining who has the most legitimate claim to being the backbone of the nation (the middle-class John Bull, the working-class Zé Povinho) or framing independence or other political movements.

Ok, so we know that, in the U.S., full-time female workers make about 85 cents for every dollar made by full-time male workers.  But how does the U.S. compare to other countries?  This graph, sent in by Katrin from the OECD Fact Blog, shows that we do better than some, but worse than most developed countries:

We do as badly as Switzerland, Finland, and Portugal.  We do better than the U.K., Canada, Germany and, especially, Japan and Korea.  But we do significantly worse than 13 other countries… with Belgium, New Zealand, and Poland leading the way with the smallest wage gap (at 10% or smaller).

Gavin let us know about some interesting images over at the Irish Times. The newspaper asked several advertising agencies to create posters marketing Ireland as a tourist destination and posted them on the website because, according to the article,

[Ireland’s] a fantastic product with a wonderful history and quality brand appeal, but recent sales have been sluggish and its reputation has taken something of a battering…

It’s interesting to look at the themes used to represent Ireland and Irish authenticity, and the marketing of them as “products” (which locations and the people and stereotypes associated with them clearly are when we’re talking about tourism). Since it’s St. Patrick’s Day, I found this one particularly amusing:

So here the ad is making fun of St. Patrick’s Day by saying it’s a fake version of Irishness. Irish-American ethnicity is, if not fake, derivative, and associated with sort of an “ugly American” image of the guy who thinks he’s really connecting to his Irish roots by drinking green beer.

Another poster capitalized on the imagery of what Gavin called “twee Ireland,” which includes the red-haired, pale-skinned, wild figure (in a nightgown?) running through the emerald-green landscape:

So here Irish authenticity means a connection to nature, a bit of wildness–but a gentle, elfin type of wildness, not a savage, scary type.

UPDATE: Reader Sarah points out that in Ireland, the reference to “ging-ers” would make it clear that was a joking reference to redheads, giving this a bit of a different spin that didn’t really come through to me; so the second image seems to be making fun of this idea of twee Ireland and the idea of redheads as forest creatures. Thanks, Sarah!

Just two interesting examples of different ways of representing “true” Irishness. To any readers who live or spent time in Ireland — are Irish-Americans, or U.S.-style celebrations of St. Patrick’s Day, frequent topics of at least mild ridicule? Given the degree to which being Irish American has become a largely symbolic ethnicity for most people (that is, very little social distinction is associated with it, large numbers of people claim to be Irish American, and for many, it means little else other than wearing a “Kiss Me, I’m Irish” t-shirt), I’ve wondered how it’s perceived in Ireland.

So this St. Patrick’s Day, put down your green plastic cowboy hat, take off your Shamrock earrings, stop drinking green beer, and go run around in a marsh, dammit! I hear it’s what all the cool kids are doing.

In a previous post, Gwen explained that sugar consumption rose in Britain during the late 1800s because more nutritious foods were scarce and saved for men.  Women and girls, then, consumed sugar because it offered energy, even if less nutrition.  This led to an association of sugar with women that remains to this day (think of who supposedly LOVES chocolate, binges on ice cream after a break up, etc.).

While having tea with my friend Marie in Ireland, I spotted her bag of sugar and snapped a photo for the blog:

Notice that not only do we see a giant, lipsticked kiss on the bag, but their slogan, “spread a little sweetness” (plus heart and arrow!), is a statement with a double meaning invoking both sugar and a quality associated with/required of women.

NEW! Sarah D. snapped this photo of a sugar packet, also in Ireland:

See also this post on efforts to market chocolate to men.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Angry Asian Man wrote about two East High Schools–in Rochester, New York and Akron, Ohio–with a peculiar mascot: the Orientals.

East High School merch (Rochester, New York):

Screen shot of the East High School website (Akron, Ohio):

Notice the Asian-y font and the stylistic dragon.

When high schools and sports teams recruit a type of person as a mascot, it objectifies and caricatures them.  It also encourages opposing teams to say things like “Kill the Orientals.”  This can only be okay when we aren’t really thinking about these kinds of people as real humans beings.

This reminded me:  As an undergraduate, I went to the University of California, Santa Barbara.  Our mascot was the Gaucho, which I remember being described as a Mexican cowboy (though South American cowboy may be more descriptive).  I went by the UCSB website and found these two logos.  There is a story about the first identifying it as a brand new logo; the second is for kids:

I am troubled by the Gaucho mascot for the same reasons that I don’t like the Orientals mascot, but at least authentic gauchos are not likely to enroll at UCSB the way that “Orientals” are likely students of the East High Schools.

Then again, this is the image on the front page of the UCSB athlectics website:

It does indeed read: “GLORY. HONOR. COURAGE. TORTILLAS.”  This seems to invalidate any argument that the use of the Gaucho mascot is “respectful.”

Thinking about the Orientals and the Gauchos, alongside the many American Indian mascots still found in the U.S., Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish, and the soccer team in the Netherlands who call themselves the Jews, may give us some perspective on this mascot phenomenon that thinking about one at a time doesn’t.  If we feel that one of these mascots is less discriminatory than another, what drives that feeling?  And is it logical?  Or does it stem from a trained sensibility that isn’t applied to all marginalized groups across the board?  Or is it in response to different characteristics of these different groups?  Or different contexts?

Maybe all five mascots are equally offensive and offensive for the same reasons.  But thinking about them together may also be useful for teasing out how, exactly, they are offensive.  What do you think?

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.