Invisible Resources
by
Charles Lamson
There is a bumper sticker that says "Dress for Success---Wear a White Penis." This rye slogan reminds us not only that white males have, on the average, better chances of success in a society run by white males, but that people in other groups cannot shed their disadvantages as easily as changing clothes. If the bumper sticker makes us laugh it is because we know that, as a piece of advice, it is absurd; if you are not born with a white penis, it is almost impossible to put one on, at least in any convincing way.
 |
Being sociologically mindful we can see another point: Differences between bodies are not mere differences if one body can elicit more respect than another. For example, in a society where things male and masculine are more highly valued than things female and feminine, a male body is a more valuable resource than a female body. If you dwell in a male body, you are more likely to be listened to, taken seriously, and seen as a potential leader. You can always end up proving yourself to be a fool, but at the start you will be given the benefit of the doubt because of your body.
Similarly, in a society where European features, especially light skin, straight hair, and a sleek nose are more highly valued---or seen as beautiful---then possessing a body with these features is a plus. With these features, you may be seen as having more innate goodness and intelligence, and thus be treated better. And if those who are already in power see you as looking like they do, they may be more inclined to admit you to their circles, thus giving you access to further resources.
The heading of this article suggests that skin tone and body type are somehow invisible resources. How can this be? Don't these resources have to be visible to produce results? The answer has to do with who sees what. It often happens that those who possess features that are more highly valued do not see the advantages these features provide. It is as if a person were blind to a badge s/he was wearing.
White people, for example, often fail to see that merely having light skin means they will be treated better in many situations than people with dark skin and African features. Being treated better means being listened to, appreciated as an individual, presumed competent or trustworthy, and recognized as entitled to dignity and respect. you might think, "What's so special about this? This is how it should be for everyone." You are right of course. But this is not how things are for everyone. That too can be hard to see.
Having a male body can work the same way. All else being equal, a person in a male body is likely to be presumed credible and capable. It is as if the male body were a sign that said, "Be assured that I know what I'm talking about and can back up my talk with action." And yet, as with whites and skin color, males seldom see that their bodies bring them unearned advantages, relative to women. The full value of a male body as a resource thus remains invisible to those who possess it.
Bodies can also possess other kinds of resources that are invisible and used. For example, strength, coordination, and muscle control are bodily resources. So is resistance to heat, cold, and disease. We could also include acute hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. All of these capacities reside in the body, as a result of natural endowments and training, and we might not know that a person possesses these resources until they are displayed.
Are such bodily resources differences or inequalities? Both. A difference in strength, for example, is by definition an inequality, because it means that one person is stronger than another. What matters, however, is whether strength can be used to produce other kinds of inequalities. If people could legally enslave others who were weaker, then strength would be quite an asset. Likewise, if people were paid according to how much heavy lifting they could do, strength could be turned into inequality in wealth. So we must be mindful that what counts as a resource depends on the situation.
*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 177-179*
END
|
No comments:
Post a Comment