Reflection on Diversity Choose one of the following topics to discuss . Reflect upon your chosen topic in a one- to two-page essay, double-spaced, in APA format. Make sure to include a title page. Based on the topic you choose, describe what the experience was like, how it made you feel and think, and what you learned from it. Connect your discussion to at least three concepts, examples, and/or quotes from the course readings or lectures. Explore a time when you felt like "other"—when you were made to feel invisible, excluded, or too visible. Explore a time when you perceived someone or some group as "other" (when you noticed someone or some group was outside or excluded). Explore a time when a connection was made between you and an "other." Introduction Back to Top Conflict between a society's dominant and minority groups is nearly always rooted in the structured inequality of access to scarce and valued resources. In the United States and most industrialized Western nations, economic resources are at the center of the conflict. Society's most powerful members are predominantly from the dominant group, and it is they who make and shape the values, ideals, goals, and means of achievement for the rest of society. Problems begin to arise, though, when these values, ideals, goals, and means of achievement become barriers to resources for some groups and gateways for others. Those for whom they are gateways are understandably protective of their advantage, and those for whom they are barriers become frustrated and discontented. What is most unfortunate is that both sides generally lose sight of the structural nature of the system and instead fall back on stereotypes and ideology. The dominant group places the blame for disadvantage on the disadvantaged, based on assumptions about group characteristics such as lack of motivation, cultural preferences, or other victim-blaming ideas. On the other side, resistance to change and a seeming refusal to open the doors of opportunity are interpreted as racist or sexist attempts to deny them their rights, strategies to oppress and exploit them, or simple hatred. While arguments for and against both sides can be made, none are very useful in addressing the real issue – inequality itself and its costs to the society at large. Dimensions of Inequality Back to Top There are three basic social dimensions or determinants of where people are placed in the social stratification hierarchy. They are economics, power,  and  prestige . Collectively, we refer to them as our  socioeconomic  status, and it is determined by how and where these three dimensions intersect and diverge. Our access to these dimensions is largely a matter of our  ascribed  or  achieved  positions in society. An ascribed position is one to which we are born or receive as a result of factors over which we have no control. Being born to a racial group is one example, as is becoming disabled as a result of a debilitating disease. An achieved po.

1. Reflection on Diversity
Choose
one
of the following topics to discuss
. Reflect upon your chosen topic in a one- to two-page essay,
double-spaced, in APA format. Make sure to include a title
page.
Based on the topic you choose, describe what the experience
was like, how it made you feel and think, and what you learned
from it. Connect your discussion to at least three concepts,
examples, and/or quotes from the course readings or lectures.
Explore a time when you felt like "other"—when you were made
to feel invisible, excluded, or too visible.
Explore a time when you perceived someone or some group as
"other" (when you noticed someone or some group was outside
or excluded).
Explore a time when a connection was made between you and an
"other."
Introduction
Back to Top
Conflict between a society's dominant and minority groups is
nearly always rooted in the structured inequality of access to
scarce and valued resources. In the United States and most
industrialized Western nations, economic resources are at the
center of the conflict. Society's most powerful members are
predominantly from the dominant group, and it is they who
make and shape the values, ideals, goals, and means of
achievement for the rest of society. Problems begin to arise,
though, when these values, ideals, goals, and means of
achievement become barriers to resources for some groups and
gateways for others. Those for whom they are gateways are
understandably protective of their advantage, and those for
whom they are barriers become frustrated and discontented.

2. What is most unfortunate is that both sides generally lose sight
of the structural nature of the system and instead fall back on
stereotypes and ideology. The dominant group places the blame
for disadvantage on the disadvantaged, based on assumptions
about group characteristics such as lack of motivation, cultural
preferences, or other victim-blaming ideas. On the other side,
resistance to change and a seeming refusal to open the doors of
opportunity are interpreted as racist or sexist attempts to deny
them their rights, strategies to oppress and exploit them, or
simple hatred. While arguments for and against both sides can
be made, none are very useful in addressing the real issue –
inequality itself and its costs to the society at large.
Dimensions of Inequality
Back to Top
There are three basic social dimensions or determinants of
where people are placed in the social stratification hierarchy.
They are
economics, power,
and
prestige
. Collectively, we refer to them as our
socioeconomic
status, and it is determined by how and where these three
dimensions intersect and diverge. Our access to these
dimensions is largely a matter of our
ascribed
or
achieved
positions in society. An ascribed position is one to which we
are born or receive as a result of factors over which we have no
control. Being born to a racial group is one example, as is
becoming disabled as a result of a debilitating disease. An
achieved position is one that results from actions or behaviors
on our part or the part of others. Being elected to a public office
is an example, and so is becoming a convict. Every social
position, whether it is ascribed or achieved, carries with it the

3. three dimensions of stratification, but they do not always have
the same value. To start, let's define each term in turn.
Economics
Back to Top
This refers to what are known as
common life
chances. The level of access to economic resources is a prime
determinant to what you will have in life. It is not enough,
however, to place everyone with the same economic resources
in the same social class position. Nor will it be enough alone to
acquire greater access to the other two dimensions.
Power
Back to Top
Power, as defined here, refers to the ability to enforce one's will
over others in spite of their resistance and the power to control
one's own life. Access to power and economics are linked, but
again, power alone is not necessarily associated with increased
economic access, nor is economic access a guarantee of more
power.
Prestige
Back to Top
Prestige in this sense refers to how well or poorly one's social
position is thought of in society. In the U.S., this is usually a
matter of occupation. High-status occupations generally are
quite prestigious, but that does not necessarily mean that they
either have great power or bring economic rewards. For
example, the occupation of college professor carries a very high
prestige rank but is not paid nearly as much as many less
prestigious occupations, nor do professors have a great deal of
social power.
Illustration
Back to Top
As an illustration, think of the two occupations of elementary
school teacher and truck driver. The U.S. starting median
income of each is around $30,000 to $35,000 a year. With that,
they have the same economic circumstances, but what about the

4. other two? Which has the greater prestige? Consider that the
teacher has received a college degree, while the truck driver
probably has a high school education, plus some formal
training. To which do we afford the most prestige? Also, which
has the most power? Neither has much in the way of social
power except that the teacher does have considerable power
over his or her students, and has potential power over parents in
cases in which the child's safety and/or health are concerned. In
addition, the teacher has considerable
autonomy
in his or her job. A teacher is generally a salaried worker
whose pay will continue uninterrupted during short periods of
illness or incapacity, while the truck driver is generally paid by
miles driven, as a percentage of the freight charge, or by the
hour. In any case, if he or she doesn't or can't drive, the truck
driver doesn't get paid. Notice that the social importance of the
occupation is not a factor; it is the nature of the work and not
the value of the end that establishes socioeconomic position.
Competition for Resource Access
Back to Top
Minority groups have lower socioeconomic positions in
American society than White Americans. Part of the problem is
related to prejudicial attitudes toward them, but most comes
from the structured nature of unequal access to the three
dimensions of socioeconomic status. The foundations of
inequality lie in the historical experiences of minorities in the
U.S. All have, at one time or another and to some degree, been
the victims of exploitation, discrimination, and mistreatment by
the dominant society (with the support of both custom and law).
Such things are now a thing of the past in the minds of most
dominant group members, but there are remnants deeply
embedded in our social structure, so deeply in fact that they are
nearly invisible. Our educational system is a good example. We
do not have a unified national public school system with a
common curriculum and uniform funding. Public schools are,
and always have been, under local control, administered by

5. local school boards and funded primarily through property
taxes. As a result, educational resources for public schools vary
widely. Areas with high property values, such as suburban
areas, have much more in the way of economic resources to
invest in teacher salaries, facilities, and technology than do
poor districts, such as those in inner city and poor rural areas.
The end result is that students from the wealthier districts
generally have better educational opportunities than those from
poor districts, and they are more likely to go on to higher
education than are their poorer cohorts. The matter is further
complicated by a concept that places a greater value on where
someone has gone to school than on what one actually may have
learned there. It becomes quite evident at the university level –
a Harvard grad applying for a job is more likely to be hired than
an equally qualified individual from a state university, simply
because of the Harvard name. The same is also true of high
schools. A student from a well-regarded suburban high school is
more likely to be accepted at a highly ranked university than
one from a poorly ranked school.
Our customs and ideology often make it difficult for the
dominant group to understand the nature of structured
inequality and also difficult for minority groups to understand
why it continues to exist, in spite of efforts to put an end to it.