Model Minority vs. Minority Pathology Myths: Examining Social Constructs
Final Exam Review
Model Minority vs. Minority Pathology Myths
(Definition) A model minority is a demographic group whose members are perceived to achieve a higher degree of socioeconomic success than the population average. This success is typically measured relatively by income, education, low criminality, and high family/marital stability. The concept is controversial, as it has historically been used to suggest there is no need for government action to adjust for socioeconomic disparities between certain groups. Minority pathology myth was built on few successful stories and made a representation that all minorities should thrive the same way. This situation was working positively for the government because that way they had a perfect opportunity to conceal the unequal aid between minorities and other citizens since as the result there is possible successful outcome for minor groups.
(Historical Context) The concept model minority was coined in 1966 when NY Times magazine released an article about the description of Asian Americans as ethnic minorities who, despite marginalization, have achieved success in the US. What followed the model is that in the 1980s almost all major US magazines and newspapers printed success stories of Asian Americans. Some have described the creation of the model minority theory as partially a response to the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement when African Americans fought for equal rights and the discontinuation of racial segregation in the United States. However, a few years after the article on Asian Americans being the model minority was published, Asian Americans formed their own movement that fought for their own equal rights and resolution of their own specific social issues, modeling it after the Civil Rights Movement, thus effectively challenging White America and the social construct of racial discrimination.
(Example) An example of the model minority stereotype is phenomena such as the high rates of educational attainment and high household incomes in the Indian American community. Pointing to generalized data, another argument for the model minority stereotype is generalized data such as from the United States Census Bureau, where the median household income of Asian Americans is $68,780, higher than the total population’s $50,221. Although some Asian American ethnic groups are economically successful, others, such as Hmong, Cambodian, and Khmer, are less successful than average.
Unequal Participation in Politics
(Definition) Unequal participation in politics is the consequence of citizens with lower or moderate incomes speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government officials, while the advantaged roar with a clarity and consistency that policymakers readily hear and routinely follow. In other words, people with wealth and power have a major influence on what is happening in politics while working and poor class are stood behind “the wall of promises” unheard.
(Historical Concept) American society has become both more and less equal in recent decades. Following the Civil Rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, racial segregation and exclusion were no longer legal or socially acceptable. But as U.S. society has become more integrated across the previous barriers of race, ethnicity, gender, and other longstanding forms of social exclusion, it has simultaneously experienced growing gaps of income and wealth. Disparities in wealth and income have recently grown more sharply in the United States than in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and many other advanced industrial democracies. All three countries reduced inequality from the end of World War I through World War II and until the 1960s. But from the mid-1970s on, the United States rapidly diverged from its two allies and became far more unequal. By 1998, the share of income held by the very rich was two or three times higher in the United States than in Britain and France.
(Example) Only some Americans fully exercise their rights as citizens, and they usually come from the more advantaged segments of society. Those who enjoy higher incomes, more occupational success, and the highest levels of formal education are the ones most likely to participate in politics and make their needs and values known to government officials. Campaign contributors are the least representative group of citizens. Only 12 percent of American households had incomes over $100,000 in 2000, but a whopping 95 percent of the donors who made substantial contributions were in these wealthiest households.
Workfare and Changing Work Relations
(Definition) Workfare is an alternative and controversial way of providing money to otherwise unemployed or underemployed people who are applying for social benefits.
(Historical Context) The term workfare was first introduced by civil rights leader James Charles Evers in 1968. The following year, it was popularized by Richard Nixon in his speech in 1969. Traditional welfare benefits systems are usually awarded based on certain conditions, such as searching for work, or based on meeting criteria that would position the recipient as unavailable to seek employment or be employed. Under workfare, recipients have to meet certain participation requirements to continue to receive their welfare benefits.
(Example) The purported main goal of workfare is to generate a “net contribution” to society from welfare recipients. Most commonly, it means getting unemployed people into paid work, reducing or eliminating welfare payments to them, and creating an income that generates taxes. Furthermore, it is argued that the combination of job search support and employment experience, even at entry level, enables one to better find gainful long-term employment. However, as time kept progressing, the change of such work relation created a problem. People who get aid money through workfare were labeled as “welfare recipient” and were not seen as “real worker,” meaning they would always get minimal wages and would never be seen as any kind of successful investment. Workfare had a noble goal to break huge cycles of poverty and economic instability, but as a result, it created labels, stereotypes, and traps for people who are in need of this kind of aid because by getting this kind of help they have minimal chances of getting a good job or at least a raise.
Uneven Criminal Justice and Felon Status
(Definition) The criminal justice system’s high volume of contact with people of color is a major cause of African Americans’ disproportionate rate of fatal police encounters, as well as of broader perceptions of injustice in many communities. Prosecutorial policies, such as plea bargain guidelines that disadvantage blacks and Latinos, compound these disparities, as do sentencing laws that dictate harsher punishments for crimes for which people of color are disproportionately arrested.
(Historical Context) Men of color have borne the brunt of these policies. Men have been over four times as likely as women to be arrested for a misdemeanor in New York City since 1980. Between 2001 and 2013, 51% of the city’s population over age 16 was black or Hispanic. Yet during that period, 82% of those arrested for misdemeanors were black or Hispanic, as were 81% of those who received summonses. The racial composition of stop and frisks was similar.
(Example) Most states inadequately fund their indigent defense programs. Pretrial release often requires money bond, which can be prohibitive to low-income individuals and increases the pressure on them to accept less favorable plea deals. Many parole and probation systems offer supervision with little support. Public drug treatment programs are also underfunded, thereby limiting treatment and sentencing alternatives for low-income individuals. New Jersey’s recently overhauled bail laws, which will increase nonmonetary release options, is an effort to create a more even playing field for low-income individuals. In Illinois, the expansion of alternative community programs has helped to nearly halve reliance on secure detention for youth.
Green Gentrification and Environmental Amenities
(Definition) Green Gentrification is a process where green amenities are provided or improved upon to attract wealthier residents to a previously polluted or disenfranchised neighborhood. Green amenities include green spaces, parks, green roofs, gardens, and green and energy-efficient building materials. These initiatives healed many environmental ills from industrialization and beautified urban landscapes. Additionally, greening is imperative for reaching sustainable futures; however, social implications are at times ignored, which leads to the uneven development of cities.
(Historical Context) 1960’s-1970s – an irregular process led by the government which hoped to reinvest capital to the inner city. 1970s – widespread in big cities and spreading to smaller towns across North America. Promotion of art communities such as Soho Manhattan to attract residents and investors. 1990s – extensive large-scale development increased in scale and complexity through public-private partnerships.