Tim Wise answers just this question in this 2 1/2 minute clip featured on his website.  Sneak peak: His answer begins with “No. You should feel angry.”

Laurie J graciously pasted the transcript in the comments; I’ve added it after the jump.

Transcript:

Questioner (off-camera): Um, as a white male, should I feel guilty for the sins of my fathers. I affirm that they exist, but should I feel guilty for them?

Tim Wise: No. You should feel angry. And you should feel committed to doing something to address that legacy. It’s like, for instance, with pollution, right? We think about the issue of pollution. Now none of us in this room, to my knowledge, are individually responsible for having belched any toxic waste into the air, or injecting toxic waste into the soil, or done any of the things… we didn’t put lead paint into the housing, you know?

Individually we’re innocent of that. But someone did that stuff, and we’re living with the legacy of it right now, or in this case might be dying with the legacy of it, getting ill, right?.

So it isn’t about feeling guilty about what someone did, even if you were the direct heir of the chemical company that did the pollution, but it is about saying, all of us in the society have to take responsibility for what we find in front of us. There’s a big difference between guilt and responsibility.

Guilt is what you feel for what you’ve done. Responsibility is what you take because of the kind of person you are, right? And so if I see a set of social conditions that have been handed to you, and which not only did wrong by othrs but elevated me and give me advantage that I did not earn, it’s not about beating myself up, I’m not responsible for that having happened, I’m not to blame for it, so guilt is totally unproductive

But in order to live an ethical life, to live ethically and responsibly, I have to take some responsibility for the unearned advantage, which means working to change the society that bestows that advantage. It’s not guilt, but it is responsiblity. It’s no different than looking at the issue of pollution or if you became the CFO of the company, you wouldn’t be able to come in and say, “I intend to use the assets of this company, and I insend to put them to greater use, and I intend to use the revenue stream we’ve got going, but that whole debt side of the ledger? No, I’m not paying any of that because I wasn’t here when the other person ran all that debt up. You should’ve gotten them to pay it before you gave me the job. Now I’m here, and I’m innocent.” We would realize that made no sense.

So isn’t about innocence and it isn’t about guilt, it’s about responsibility, that’s something we all have to take. White folks have to take it, people of color have to take it, uh, men and women have to take… everybody has got to take it, because we’re living with… if we don’t do it, no one does it, and it doesnt’ get done. We’re the only hope we have.

Philip Cohen, at Family Inequality, posted an interesting graph displaying 30-44-year-old women’s share of their household’s income by level of education:

The graph shows that, on average, women with higher levels of education have incomes closer to that of their husbands than women with lower levels of education.  Cohen writes:

It captures nicely both how women’s earning power within married couples has increased, and how that shift has been much greater for women with higher education.

In other words, the figure suggests that efforts to close the wage gap between men and women have been much more successful at the top of the economic ladder than the bottom.

For years biologists, anthropologists, and sociologists have all agreed that racial categories are social constructs.  Recently, however, new genetic information about human evolution has required that scientists re-think the biological reality of race.  In this 6-minute video, sociologist Alondra Nelson describes this re-thinking:

In this video we see people trampled at a 4am opening of a North Buffalo Target on the Friday after Thanksgiving. There is an analysis to be made here, and it involves something about American materialism and the orgy of consumption that is called “Christmas.”   But I would be happy if we would just stop calling sales “Doorbusters” given that, y’know, sometimes people actually break down doors and people die.

Via Blame it on the Voices.

One of the things that continually stuns me about the U.S. wars against Iraq and Afghanistan is how little the average American is expected to sacrifice. Yes, many Americans are losing loved ones in this war. Other than those immeasurable sacrifices, however, most Americans are not asked to change a thing about their lives.

In contrast, during World War II, Americans were asked to make significant sacrifices, changing their daily lives and consumption patterns. Carpooling, for example, to save gas and rubber and staying off the phones.

Vintage Ads posted another great example of government propaganda encouraging the average person to change their lives for the war effort. In this case, the propaganda is British and they implore citizens not to waste food:

U.S. propaganda and advertising similarly encouraged citizens (i.e., women) to save food and stretch their rations (both from 1943):

Images also found at Vintage Ads: here, and here.

Both Linda Jay and a colleague of mine, Dr. Caroline Heldman, drew my attention to the new Minnie Mouse-themed line at Forever 21. The line is a collaboration between Disney and the fashion outlet and the mouse has been re-modeled, so to speak.

What must one do to Minnie to make her an acceptable fashion icon? Starve her down to a stick figure, apparently.

Annie Leonard tackles e-waste (what happens after we’re done with our computers, cell phones, etc) in the latest 7-minute edition in her Story of Stuff series (see also her first story of stuff and her analysis of bottled water and cap and trade).

Via Reports from the Economic Front.

Advertisers have mystified chocolate, portraying it as an intoxicant possessing the power to comfort, reward and satisfy women’s sexual desires. In doing so, these ads instruct the viewer to frame and interpret their own chocolate cravings in ways that overcome any resistance to consuming it.

To begin, consider this commercial for Dove:

Consider, also, this ad for Ferrero Rocher:

In particular, advertisers portray chocolate as satisfying female sexual desires. Such advertisements lead female viewers to understand their own desire for chocolate as a natural expression of their sexy femininity.  The association of chocolate with luxury and the upper classes renders this sexuality socially acceptable. The symbolic sex is not that of the “crude lower class,” but the refined upper-class.

Text:

NOW IT CAN last longer THAN YOU CAN resist.

UNWRAP.  INDULGE.  REPEAT.

The misconception that chocolate is an aphrodisiac is exploited by these advertisements. The idea that chocolate contains chemicals that are similar to the mild-altering components found in ecstasy and marijuana, and evoke a feeling similar to falling in love, is now widespread.  In actuality, studies have found that the amounts of these mood-enhancing chemicals are at such a low level that it is unlikely they lead to the euphoria that some feel when they consume chocolate. The findings of what could be called “chocolate propaganda research,” then, are negligible.  Yet, marketing continues to perpetuate chocolate’s association with love and sex and its implied special relevance to women.

The association is so ubiquitous that it was mocked in an Axe commercial.  Screenshot:

So why the insistence on indulgence?

Chocolate marketing must overcome the chief factor inhibiting women’s consumption: the fact that consumption of a fat, sweet food is inherently taboo for women, who are supposed to watch their weight.  As a result, advertisers have replaced this food taboo with a sexual one. They have turned chocolate into a sexual, self-indulgent, private experience that invokes a taboo similar to that of masturbation. The intent is to equip her with an automatic inner-response to overcome her moment of self-restraint: the belief that chocolate consumption represents and enhances her femininity via satisfying her sexually, but tastefully, of course.  Advertisers, then, overcome viewer resistance by shaping how they interpret and frame their own desires.

————————–

Jamal Fahim graduated from Occidental College in 2010 with a major in Sociology and a minor in Film and Media Studies. He was a member and captain of the Occidental Men’s Tennis team. After he graduated, Jamal moved from San Francisco to Los Angeles with the intention of working in the film industry as a producer. His interests include film, music, digital design, anime, Japanese culture, improvising, acting, and of course, chocolate!

If you would like to write a post for Sociological Images, please see our Guidelines for Guest Bloggers.