This semester, I am responsible for organizing the Social Brownbag Series for USC’s Psychology Department. These 1-hour, informal talks feature members of USC’s faculty as well as visiting scholars from the southern california area; we discuss various topics relating to Social Pscyhology, although our speakers come from many different disciplines. Please visit the Social Brownbag site for more information!

USC Social Brownbag Series
Mondays 12-1pm, SGM 807
3602 S McClintock Ave
Los Angeles CA, 90089

“the one drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black.”

although this narrow definition is no longer truly applicable as individuals now have the ability to identify with a number of groups and the concept of multiracial is no longer taboo. however, due to the dearth of researchers of color, the one drop rule emerges again in the academic realm, wherein one drop of non-white ancestry can come to define an individual and their work, especially in the fields of humanities and social sciences, resulting in a variety of outcomes.

one of the most pressing is the implicit responsibility to bring the topic of race to the table in seminars or discussion groups. i believe that this emerges from an academic (and cultural) desire towards multiculturalism and diversity. there is a sense of accomplishment that comes from the ability to “address all sides of an issue,” regardless of its validity. my point is really that this voice may speak even when distanced from the culture at hand. being raised by a single (mostly) chinese-caribbean mother, i am distanced from the black (read: african american) perspective that dominates the binary discussions around american politics, culture, and psychology. however, my social upbringing and research gives me the relative background to present *a* voice, if not necessarily *the* voice, and the aforementioned lack of diverse voices at the table leads me to vocalize my opinions, albeit with feelings of hesitancy because of my distanced perspective.

which leads to my second effect: the illusion of expertise. although i often feel that the one drop rule in academia is negative both for the individual and the discussion at hand, it affords the speaker some expertise, a strange position given the aforementioned hesitancy. suddenly, there is a person of color in the discussion, therefore they must have something important to say. i don’t consider this a positive aspect, it perpetuates a lack of progress similar to *not* having a person of color in the room, but everyone feels better about the decisions made due to the simple mention of alternative perspectives.

and this defines my overall impression of the one drop rule: although it gives the illusion of diversity and multiculturalism, true progress and perspective will only come from incorporating other voices (not just faces) in the discussion. diversity does not simply come from the existence of different colors, but from the mixing of different ideologies and perspectives. furthermore, researchers and academics will never be able to speak to the population at large because of this lack of diversity, a lack so great so as to expect *any* representation to be *the* representation. i had a conversation with a girlfriend of mine who studies video games regarding whether or not the experience of video games can ever speak to “minority” audiences if there is no representation of these groups at the development level. much like video games for girls, the development industry is dominated by white middle class men who cannot conceive of what will sell to girls or consumers of color; until we can encourage children of all backgrounds to pursue degrees in electrical engineering, computer science, and other necessary academic fields, components of our culture (video games *and* academia) will remain foreign and beyond their reach.

it is important to note that being a minority in a given group describes an experience that may be similar across various identity groups (e.g., women in science, or a boy raised in the Bronx as the secretary of state in the white house); individuals in these positions feel an overwhelming urge to explain and represent their minority experiences, while simultaneously trying to blend into the larger group and subdue their personal differences.

however, the academic one drop rule is special insomuch that multiracial individuals straddle multiple identifications, that is to say, that despite your personal identity as mixed, your department may identify you as black, thus categorizing you regardless of your own identification. i found this issue quite prevalent in the USC process; the fellowship application that i completed asked to “check one box” and did not offer an “other” or “mixed” option. i was shocked, as this was the application for the “diversity fellowship” which only emphasized USC’s need for actual diversity, not just color representation.

i apologize for my absence, but my current state of affairs deserves some comment…
it has been a long time since i have posted anything on this site. life has been very busy but moving in a good direction. this summer i worked in my lab, worked as a graduate assistant for the mcnair program at USC, and completed my masters thesis (technically to be submitted on monday). i also moved into a new spot about 4 blocks away from my old place. same neighborhood, infinitely better building. i was done with the old one anyway.

in my new apartment, i do not have a television [i’ll give you a minute to catch your breath]. i was tired of the clunky 8sqft cube of a TV that i had in my old spot, and it was flat screen or nothing. i was excited; but the day after i moved in, i rubbed my car against a pole in my new parking lot resulting in about $5000 worth of damage. the TV got postponed.

i like living without a television. i have a projector for movies and video games [you haven’t lived until you have played guitar hero on a 10ft screen] and my building has a media room with cable. its nice to be distanced from TV; i still go down to the media room to watch important things like the olympics and the presidential debates, and i dose a little at the gym, but my life has been strangely de-media-fied.

on that note, i listen to more internet radio now. i have started listening to NPR and KPCC (NPR out of pasadena community college). its entertaining stuff. i’ve never been a fan of talk radio, i don’t like people talking at me and not being a part of the conversation - but i find it relaxing to be an observer.

although i’m getting a little sick of media in any form [TV, Radio, Internet, NYTimes, Facebook] as it is inundated with political mumbo-jumbo. i am beginning to believe that there is nothing else going on in the world. thank heavens for the economist; their format ensures a discussion of other continents. furthermore, their political logic really speaks to me and addresses the issues that i find in the media that, of course, the media never talks about.

i’ve always tried not to take sides regarding politics. in the words of stan marsh, “I’d better get used to having to pick between a douche and a turd sandwich because it’s usually the choice I’ll have.” however, the 2008 election makes me wish i was a dedicated voter, because the crap that keeps coming out of the television is starting to drive me crazy. but i’ll save that for its own posting. if i were dedicated to one party, i could be excited for it; instead, now i’m just cynical about both…

moving on. i’ve been reading infidel by ayaan hirsi ali, an amazing story about a woman born in somalia struggling against the political turmoil and the muslim brotherhood. its phenomenal and offers perspective in our old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd…

wait. nevermind.

i had an interesting conversation this weekend with someone who is related to a whistle blower in the whitewater affair. we discussed the personality characteristics of the clintons and the clinton machine; they can get very ugly when anyone creates speedbumps to their plan, but i think that we are all aware of these tendencies. in general, i have defended hillary’s conniving nature as expectant of the US president. furthermore, i still believe that the characteristics that have been heralded as necessary for president are often defined as bitchy, which works against hillary. however, i had an epiphany this morning…

i really don’t think that anything is going to change. i understand that this is a historical election, but i really don’t think that the system will change, and if this is the case, then i think hillary will be a better president to maneuver through the preexisting bureaucratic structure. however, i understand that only the voters can create change, in which case, obama offers the promise of change. but i question his ability to retain this idealistic stance once faced with the trials of the system. in addition, i think that his distinct negative shift in his pennsylvania campaign under the stress of the election offers evidence to my point.

in addition, he claims to be running a “clean campaign,” which apparently means that he refuses to “go negative” in attacking his opponent. however, when asked about clinton’s bosnia fiasco, he said…

OBAMA: And, you know, I haven’t commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

OBAMA: Of course. But the — because we’re asked about it.

Which begs the question, is the candidate a separate entity from their campaign?

i watched the debate on wednesday night in pennsylvania and i must admit that it was fairly unimpressive. perhaps because i’m so inundated with this primary process, the candidates have simply become parodies of themselves. i know what obama is going to say before he opens his mouth, and i know that hillary is going to attack him for it. since then, he’s been commenting that the debate did not get into the issues for 45 minutes, going on to chastise the debate process for focusing away from the issues with a desire to create controversy. however when they begin to discuss the issues, they only talk about issues that they agree upon. so what’s the point?

if we have nothing more to debate and you have no real issues on which to separate yourself from each other, then clearly you must separate yourself on character and an appeal to the affective component of the american people. that’s why you campaign. not because you’re looking to share your ideas, but instead to get people to rally and be emotionally drawn. obama should know that more than anyone. furthermore, in florida, where campaigning was prohibited as well as media ads, obama managed to run ads through an “oversight” in national television time purchasing, and he still lost. i think that this is indicative of obama’s need to to reach voters on an emotional level thereby bringing them over to his side (hillary as well, i would simply argue that more people had some affective response to her at baseline). alternatively, some would claim that “clinton” has name recognition whereas obama was less known… really? really? it seems since he announced his bid for presidency,  obama is one of the most popular names in american culture (granted, a manipulation over time):

research question: during this campaign season (january - denver), has barak obama been mentioned more times than hillary clinton; a content analysis of the names “hillary clinton”, “clinton”, “barak obama”, and “obama” across major news media (i suppose the easiest would be major print media). or a primetime section of major cable media from say 7-11pm over sample weeks from now until the primaries. i understand that news networks make a concerted effort to balance their time, but biases exist, and often they manifest on this subtle level

just a thought for everyone with all that free time.

I just finished reading an article in Time magazine entitled, “Liking What White People Like,” which is a commentary on the blog  “Stuff White People Like.” The author goes on to talk about the benefit of having White people critique/mock/endorse White culture. However, as an individual of mixed heritage (Black and Chinese), the author finds herself in a quandary; she likes things that White people like!

She comes to grips with this racial divide over the course of the article, but her final conclusions leave much lacking. I truly enjoyed her postulation of what Mixed people like (“Having people guess their background… Pulling rank during conversations… Having ‘such good features’… Filling out applications”), especially since she admits, “these are things that mixed people say they hate… but secretly like.”

My qualm comes with the creation of Stuff That Mixed People Like; I think that it denies exactly what makes Multiethnic individuals interesting: the fact that no two multi-ethnics are alike. Not only is the community comprised of mixed ethnicity members, regardless of blend, but also their upbringing creates drastic differences between individuals, making group descriptions even more difficult. For example, how different would Barak Obama (everyone’s current favorite multiethnic) if his parents were switched and he was raised by a single Kenyan mother? How different would his upbringing or chances have been then? There is no single definition of multi-ethnics, or what they like, just the fact that they are multi-ethnic.

PS: Barak Obama is not #1 on my Stuff That Mixed People Like, its Prince.

obama supporter, texas state senator kirk watson was unable to state ANY of obama’s accomplishments in the senate on ‘hardball with chris matthews.” it’s a remarkable piece of footage, right down to the studio laughter in the end. somewhat painful to watch, but necessary…

however, i would also like to post the question: when did “white voters” become a significant demographic? weren’t they always just referred to as “voters”? i love progress.

i was debating on even voting at all, since a default vote is not appropriate during the primaries… i could explain this to you or you could just watch the video on realnews.com


after the democratic debate in south carolina on martin luther king jr. day, i was prompted to create a fun game to spice up the future debates, although they’re getting pretty feisty as is. introducing: debate bingo!

on each of these 6 cards, catch phrases and major subjects are categorized by candidate. when any of the candidates mention a phrase, you get the square! is a 6×6 design (i apologize for any of you who will miss the center square), which may take a little longer, but they’re pretty long debates [smile]. these cards are specially tilted towards the california debates on cnn, thursday, january 31.

they are all self explanatory, but just a few clarifications…

“green” is in reference to green technology, or green collar jobs. or any use of the term “green” as an adjective implying eco-friendliness
“i met a (wo)man in…” is a nod to any anecdotal story they recite about everyday americans that they meet on the campaign trail whose story “really touches” and “embodies the goals of this campaign.”
“day one” is specifically in references to the first day of the presidency
i think you can figure out the banter that requires a “he/she said” moment.

if there are any confusions, work them out with your fellow viewers, i leave content validation for your discussion.

also, much love to nick saponara for the graphic design. by the way, he recommends that you use pennies to mark your squares. i think i want to get a little donkey stamp.

stay tuned for the republican cards (california debate on cnn, wednesday january 30).

dem debate bingo

Democratic Debate Bingo Cards
Click to download all 6!

i’ve put a lot of thought into this one and i find it terribly frustrating that the term “urban” is equated with “black.” i understand the desperate need for political correctness in the white male dominated field of advertising, but this connection has since drifted into the black community and is used in self definitions. i keep getting invitations from the LA Urban League Young Professionals, where ‘urban’ is synonymous with black. unfortunately, i do not generally identify as black and i definitely do not need to put myself in a situation where i have to describe my ethnic background in order to achieve some level of acceptance. furthermore, i cannot bring friends of mine who i would define as ‘urban young professionals’ who are not black for fear of their discomfort.

it seems that ‘urban’ should be synonymous with a multiracial community as the most amazing component of city life (as i see it) is people from different backgrounds, cultures, and classes, living in such close proximity. this leads to knowledge, tolerance, and above all, diversity; but i suppose this perspective is inherently NY, while LA stands in direct opposition: people from different backgrounds, cultures, and classes, living distally and without any interaction, leading to ignorance, racism, and even greater disengagement from the larger community.

Next Page »