Friday, February 27, 2009

Never Enough Time

There is never enough time for me to put down my thoughts - about current events, about class readings, about general life reflections. Well, here I go:

Intellect vs. Emotion

So, I attended the colloquium (see previous post) presented by the women's studies department in conjunction with UH's CEJE (Collective for Equality, Justice and Empowerment). I think what struck me most was neither the presenters, nor what they presented, but the intent of the gathering -- to bridge the gap between academic study and social justice. This got me thinking about what I think is the reason for the gap, what I see a a battle between intellect and emotion.

The battle between intellect and emotion is something that many of us (I hope) have had to deal with in our lives. It is hard because they are inextricably linked, yet for some reason we have grown to see them as dichotomous opposites. I recall a teacher in high school saying the definition of "intellectual" is not one who is smart, but one who lacks emotion - and while I've rarely heard it discussed as such, I think this is something we've come to understand. --There are the "brains" that tell you the facts. "Well, here is x and this is z. But you'll notice that when y is introduced, z has a tendency to....." And then there are the emotional ones, sometimes crying, sometimes screaming, but always full of passion, "This is an injustice! How dare you reduce this issue and my feelings and dismiss them as irrelevant!" I have to admit, I've had the tendency to steer myself away from the impassioned folks and hang out on the intellectual side of the fence.

Though to be honest, I don't think the two are all that different - they just see things from different perspectives. Or perhaps, they've made the active decision on how to present their thoughts and feelings. Or perhaps (as some of the models we've looked at in class present) we are more "mature." Hmmm. --I don't think I am lacking emotion, but I have a tendency to turn to the facts, to look at the numbers, to count, to deduce. I often turn away from the stories, the faces, the hearts full of passion, the gut-wrenching details. Am I becoming one of those "academics" that examines society as "other" as a "thing" and not something I live and breathe and am part of? Don't we want to be objective? Isn't that what makes our work valid?

At the same time I look at myself and I look at my academic passions and yes, that is what they are. They are academic passions - the meeting of intellect and emotion. So if I feel this way, why is there this seemingly daunting chasm between academic study and social justice and advocacy? Will I get lost in the abyss? Will I have to choose? Will objectivity take over completely? I hope not. I hope I never lose sight of my passions, for without my passions I am useless as a student, as a researcher and honestly - as a human being. While I don't see myself as an angry voice or an impassioned voice, I am also not a voice out of a can or out of a book. I hope I will always be able to meld the two - to always have a passion underlying my academic drive. I hope we all do.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

TOMORROW 2/27/09



In case your vision is as poor as mine, here's the info:
2/27/09
12:30pm-1:30pm
Saunders 541

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Sexual Identity Readings

Our readings for this week were on Cass’ and D’Augelli’s homosexual identity development models. When I first read through the models, I thought they were both somewhat similar in process, however, the differences lie in their framework. Cass’ model presents homosexual identity as a relationship between psychological and social factors where the individual is seeking congruence as a means to achieve their identity. D’Augelli’s model itself is incredibly succinct, but the framework in which he places his model is extensive. His model is rooted in a lifetime developmental process framework where identity is a social construct that evolves throughout the lifetime where at some points one’s sexual identity may be salient/crystallized than at other points. His model takes into account personal aspects, interactive intimacies, and sociohistorical context. I think D’Augelli did a better job at placing his model within a framework, while Cass explained her model in extensive detail just kind of throwing in an, “oh, by the way, this is subject to change depending on society.”

I’m currently reading a book called “The New Gay Teenager” by Ritch C. Savin-Williams that offers an interesting perspective on gay adolescents. From his perspective, homosexuality is an invention that today’s teenagers don’t necessarily see as relevant to them. He foresees a “postgay” future where (perhaps) sexuality is irrelevant. Some of the more interesting points the book has brought out for me thus far are the following:
1)Gay culture (and hetero culture) is the result of society.
2)Gay adolescent research has (for a long time) focused on those that were available to study – troubled teens – and how to help them. Research often completely ignored bisexual students or students that were “other” not to mention students that were not out, thus only studying one facet of the gay youth. (Not to mention that the grant money was for research to support these youth and not anything otherwise.)
3)The outcome of gay research depends on the operational definition of “homosexuality” to which we should really question “What does it mean to be gay?” Is it an inner orientation? Is it sexual behavior? Is it someone saying they are gay? What about a virgin that thinks they are gay? Or someone who labels themselves as heterosexual but sleeps with their gender? What if no sex is involved but there is an intense relationship otherwise?

As someone that identifies as a lesbian, I think this research is fascinating and it made me look at my life not just from a personal perspective, but from a historical perspective. Maybe the only reason I consider myself to be a lesbian is because society has made me a lesbian. When I was little, I saw a show on TV (maybe on Oprah or 60 Minutes) where there were gay people on TV and it seemed to me to be something that was not desirable. What if I had seen a different show – one where there were lesbian couples with children and families – maybe things would have been different. I was experiencing my most intense inner incongruence during the time of Ellen’s original sitcom. When she came out and her show was cancelled and there was media backlash, I took it personally. What if, instead, I had seen Ellen on TV with her current talk show – knowing that she’s a lesbian, but seeing its irrelevance to the show?

It took a long time for me to “come out” and it took me a long time because I was scared and I wasn’t sure. How do you know? I hadn’t even dated anyone at the time – how could I come out if I didn’t have “proof”? What if none of that mattered? What if you just had feelings for who you had feelings for? Maybe it isn’t truly a big deal – it’s all in society’s perception and in our perception. For me, it took a long time to say I was a lesbian. I started out saying I was queer. Then I stuck with “gay” for awhile. As I got older, I kind of settled into “lesbian.” When I finally said, “I am a lesbian” it was more than a declaration of who I am, but an identity with a minority group. It was acceptance of my gay history, a gay “family” of people out there that I don’t know. People that fought for my rights that have made my life easier, I see them as my “ancestors.” Here is an excerpt from an old blog of mine:

Anyhow, this pride was RI’s 30th Pride celebration. At one point, a man came up on the stage to talk about the first pride back in 1976 (the original pride folk from back then are referred to as "76ers"). His speech was brief, but it was extremely moving. He stood onstage and looked at the vast expanse of people who showed up for pride noting how many people there had children and how many people in the audience weren’t even ALIVE in 1976. I don’t remember exactly how he phrased it, but he spoke of how different it was back then, what it meant to be gay back then, as well as the rise of AIDS. He closed his speech with a message to all the younger folks in the audience saying "If we have in any way made your lives easier, than all the difficult times, and all the struggles have been worth it." -What a wonderful message, and what a great legacy. He referred to himself and the 76ers as our "ancestors" and that is truly what they are. That, for me, was what pride was all about. I felt the "Pride" - that I am a "child" of an ongoing gay revolution with ancestors who have paved the way and have responsibility to give back to this community who has made my life easier.


I don't think my lesbian identity was ever the most salient identity for me, but as I've gotten older, it has become less salient. Maybe Savin-Williams is right - maybe someday there will be no differentiation between "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals." Then something comes up like this whole civil-union ordeal and I feel like maybe that time will never come.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is. A civil-union is not "equal" to marriage - and there are people that don't even want to let people be recognized in civil-unions. This is not equality, all we want is equality. This isn't a "gay" issue or a "religious" issue. It's a human rights issue, and by not allowing some people to marry, by allowing or even not allowing civil-unions, the rights of gays are taken away.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Reflections on Race

Barbie
Age: 5 or 6
Location: Washington (State)
My parents made sure I had "boy" toys and "girl" toys and "gender neutral" toys as well. Anyhow, back to Barbie. My first Barbie was not a "Barbie." My first Barbie doll was "Miko," an Asian Barbie that came with a flower lei and wore a swimsuit. I remember being disappointed. I wanted the blonde haired Barbie that came with shoes and a dress.

What are you?
Age: 7 or 8
Location: Hawaii
I am (of course) still asked this on a relatively regular basis. My high school biology teacher thought I was Italian because my last name rhymes with Romano (cheese). But I digress. I'm talking about the first time I was asked. I didn't know the answer. I knew dad is from Japan. Dad speaks Japanese. Yet, I knew enough about the language to know that Pulmano wasn't Japanese. Why hadn't I thought of that before? I was somewhat ashamed that I didn't know what Pulmano was.

My White Mom
Age: 7 or 8 or 9
Location: Hawaii
I was walking with my mother. She was slightly ahead of me and I was dawdling behind, walking on some bricks that were raised higher than the others. Needless to say, I fell. I cried out, not because it hurt, but to get my mom's attention. A woman came over to me, consoling me, asking me where my mom was. Yeah. That's when I started crying for real. I don't think I was coherent at all. All I remember thinking was, "Yeah. That white woman standing next to you. She is my mom. My real mom. I'm not adopted, and she's not my step mom. The white woman is my mom."

Affirmation
Age: 8 or 9
Location: Hawaii
Second grade, Mrs. Shimamoto, I think after some type of "parent-teacher" conference, "You look like your mom." That was the first time I really felt affirmed that yes, you see my mom and you see me and you see the similarities. You see that she is my mom. Affirmation.

Check One
When: Senior year of high school
Location: Hawaii
I know practice has changed significantly since I applied to college and for scholarships, but I remember filling out forms where I had to "check one" where "mixed" was not an option. Some had "other" - how offensive! Thanks for trying to be inclusive, but "other?" Really??? Why don't you just put it in bold and italics? Other. I recall checking off whatever I felt I was that day. Some schools thought I was Japanese. Some thought I was Filipino. Some thought I was white. Sometimes I checked more than one anyway - if you ask questions like that, you deserve distorted data.

Wrong Language
When: Junior year of college
Location: Washington, D.C.
I was in some type of cafe and a woman who worked there came up to me, talking excitedly in Spanish. I smiled and shrugged my shoulders. Then, she stops. Shakes her head, waves her finger at me, "Shame on you, you didn't learn your language." I was so shocked I couldn't bring myself to say anything, to correct her. Well, she was half right. I didn't learn "my" language. But my language is not Spanish.

Mixing it Up
When: Senior year of college
Location: Massachusetts
Mount Holyoke College is known for its' diversity and the many ways it supports diversity - faculty, staff, clubs, organizations, etc. However, I never felt at home in the ACE House (Asian Center for Empowerment). The cultural group I spent most of my time with was the Hawaii club - my geographic location being more salient than any of my individual races or cultures. In my senior year, a group of great sophomores started a club called "Mixing it Up." I found I had more in common with my Cuban-American and Hispanic/Native-American friends than I did with the groups at the ACE House. Like the Cortes article we read, I felt I had more in common with my "mixed" friends that didn't share my races than I did with those that might have shared only one aspect. -Just the experience of being mixed bound us together.


For me, my racial mix has always been interesting to say the least. A white mother (English, Scottish, German, Dutch), and a mixed Asian father (Japanese and Filipino primarily...there's some other stuff too but primarily Japanese and Filipino). The only reason I can identify at all with the Filipino culture at all is because I grew up in Hawaii. Without Hawaii, I probably would have assumed I was just Japanese for much longer. My dad (who was born in Japan) was raised with a Japanese culture and language, and not the Filipino culture. This is what was passed on to me. I agree with the Cortes article - when it comes to students of mixed race, it is best not to box them in and not to assume anything. Let them tell you who they are.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Ethnicity & Humor

Okay, so I've been thinking about this one for a bit. Let me start by posting this video. It's from the musical "Avenue Q" -- sort of Sesame Street for adults (many of the characters are puppets). Unfortunately, I couldn't find a high quality version so I've posted this one. The song is from the soundtrack and an art student drew the pictures:



Okay. Now, I think that the song might have simplified things too much. I mean just admitting you're a racist doesn't make it okay for you to walk around telling jokes that are offensive to people. =But is there some truth in in "if we all could just admit that we are racist a little bit, and everyone stopped being so PC, maybe we could live in harmony"? This is where I want to segue this into local "ethnic" humor in Hawaii.

Here are a some examples.

Rap Reiplinger's "Chanting"
(Rap Reiplinger is a local comedian who passed away in the early 80's. I believe he was really popular in the late 70's and early 80's though his comedy lives on in recordings that have been released posthumously. I grew up with this stuff.)


This one is old stuff by Rap Rapleinger, Andy Bumatai and Mel Cabang from the 80's.


Here's some more recent stuff - Frank DeLima (I think this was originally recorded in the 90's):


So is local humor in Hawaii a form of racism? Are we contributing to prejudice? Or perhaps diffusing it? Are we masking bigotry?

Or is it part of our culture? -Something that grew out of a necessity.
Does this mean we're more "evolved"? - Certainly we wouldn't be able to take our humor to the mainland.
Is any type of ethnic differentiation a type of discrimination?

Frank DeLima discussed some of his thoughts on this in an interview in 2002 (http://www.hawaii411.com/articles/frank.asp). He said that humor in Hawaii has been around since the plantation days - where different people saw each others' idiosyncrasies in themselves and others and were able to laugh at it saying, "That's what kept them from being at each other's throats." At the same time, he notes that there still are some things you can't joke about.

He also discusses three different types of people that tell jokes: the professionals (that tell their jokes in venues where the people that see them pay to see them), "joke tellers" (that share jokes they hear that they think are funny but might be doing it inappropriately - like at work) and the one that hates (one who tells jokes to hurt an ethnic group because they think they are better and they don't like them because they are different). --Hmm. So if you're not doing it out of meanness, is it justified?

Local humor is part of local culture, though one could argue that perhaps as local dynamics change (i.e less "pidgin") then the humor may be less appropriate (reflected nicely on here: http://www.honoluluweekly.com/archives/coverstory%202001/05-30-01%20Humor/05-30-01%20Humor.html). As Hawaii becomes less isolated, more "Americanized," and less "local" perhaps the humor becomes less appropriate. Hawaii is changing.

So the question is - has Hawaii evolved? Or are we behind the times? Or perhaps, it's simply a generational thing.

What do you think?

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

A Couple Thoughts

While perusing the shelves at Borders books in one of my favorite sections (sociology), I came across an interesting book, “Asian American X: An Intersection of 21st Century Asian American Voices.” The book itself is a compilation of essays written by “Asian American” high school and college students – most of which have grown up in an “American” culture, and most of which are middle class. I didn’t read through the book entirely, just looked at a couple essays and read through the introduction of the book – which was fabulous.

In the intro they mention there is not one hierarchical path towards identity – a concept that has become increasingly salient to me the more I read. It’s not that theoretical models of development aren’t important, because they are. However, is not the step-by-step, phase-to-phase, vector upon vector that are the most important concepts for us to grasp. It is the awareness they bring, the thought behind them, and the reason they were conceived in the first place that should stick with us.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Asian American Racial Identity

I read the two articles in our reader on Asian American racial identity last night. The first article was by Alvin N. Alvarez and the second was by Corinne Maekawa Kodama, Marylu K. McEwen, Christopher T.H. Liang and Sunny Lee.

The article by Alvarez basically takes Helms' model and applies it to Asian American students. After reading the article, I took a bunch of notes that I will present to you here:

The article seemed only to try to validate that yes, Asian American students have needs relating to their Asian American identities that are important and need consideration. The article touches on some issues that are common (i.e. cultural variables) but fails to take these into account through the remainder of the article. I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water but it really was just taking Helms' model as a blanket and throwing it over Asian Americans. This could (arguably) be done for any race as long as the model can be generalized that much. Granted, even putting all Asians together is complicated as is defining exactly what Asian American is. Different groups of Asians will have different challenges because of the in-group diversity.
--Overall, I wasn't a fan of this article - it really was just taking Helms' model and putting it in an Asian American context. In my opinion, this just wasn't sufficient. (Its heart was in the right place, though - arguing for the needs of Asian American students.)

The second Asian American reading (by Kodama et al) was a much more satisfying read. They basically dismantle Chickering and Reisser's vectors and reconstruct their psychosocial model taking into account both the Asian value system from family and community and the Western values from the U.S. They discuss the strong Asian link between identity and purpose, which is closely related to academic achievement. There is also discussion about sort of a "reverse" cycle of moving from interdependence to independence for Asian American students, as well as the complexity of the idea of integrity, which must be defined for the self as well as for the family. Overall, I thought this model did a great job at examining cultural variables that Asian American students typically experience. Now, it's true that not all Asian American students will fit this model. This model is really most applicable to students whose families carry a traditional Asian value system. Asian American students that were raised with typical American values whose parents don't speak their native language at home will likely not fit into this model.
--Two thumbs up from me for this one. The only caution is that it is primarily applicable to students whose family carries an Asian values system.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Long Time No Update

Okay, so I'm a little behind in posting for this week. Between writing my paper and doing readings for class, I haven't managed to post. My mind feels it will explode with so many different thoughts and ideas that readings from the past two weeks have brought to the surface.

Since my last post, I've read Chapter 5 (Racial and Ethnic Identity Development) and Chapter 6 (Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity Development) from our Evans, Forney, & Guido DiBrito text. I ended up writing my paper on Cass' model of homosexual identity development (but will hold off discussion on this until we get there in class). I had to actually read through Anthony D'Augelli's and Vivienne Cass' models in our reader in order to actually "get" their theories - what was provided in the text wasn't enough for me to fully grasp them. This disturbed me somewhat and now I'm questioning whether I know enough about Cross, Helms, and Phinney's models of racial and ethnic identity development.

I'm making my way through the course reader as well. The Hardiman/Jackson chapter was great, particularly in the depth and clarity with which they were able to present their model.

For the remainder of our readings this week we can pick two of six articles to read. I don't want to miss out so my goal is to read (or at least skim through) them all.

-I started with Peggy McIntosh' "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." The last sentence is missing from our reader. You can find the full article here: (http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html).
She uses her awareness of male privilege to discuss her white privilege - an interesting reflection.
-If you haven't picked your two readings yet, may I highly recommend Judy Rohrer's "Haole Girl: Identity and White Privilege in Hawai'i." It is a great review of available literature up to the time of the article, and she offers a reflection of herself as well. It offers a discussion of the word "haole" itself as well and I found the quotes from the Advertiser's "Haole: Is it a Dirty Word?" that she references to be entirely amusing! You'll have to read it for yourself!
-I skipped over the two Asian identity articles (I'll read those last).
-Cortes' article on intermarriage -> multiracial identity completely spoke to me. I will eventually reflect on this later. But just a quick note - our country is becoming SO diverse, this is something that must become a priority and the concepts she discusses will become increasingly relevant in the coming years.
-I thought Vasti Torres' article on Latino identity was interesting as well. While it's not entirely the same, I'm able to see parallels between the experiences of Latino students and first generation or immigrant students in Hawaii that have a difficult time leaving their family to pursue higher education on the mainland. While Hawaii does have UH, we've still got a low completion rate and a population of students that come from families with a more "collectivist" cultural background. This is something I've witnessed with my friends, and with prospective students I interview locally for Mount Holyoke College: students have a difficult time reconciling leaving their families that have sacrificed so much for them. There may be a pressure to work in the family business, take care of an ailing family member or younger siblings, not to mention that some families feel threatened by the idea of their child leaving the islands to pursue a higher education, "Oh, so you're too good for UH, are you? Well UH was good enough for me. You're going to UH."

Anyhow, that's just an update. I will post more once I make sense of all my scribbles in the margins of these articles.....

P.S. I left my Chickering and Reisser text within reach of my dog. Needless to say, it is now missing part of its spine. :(

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Thoughts on My Paper

So, we've got a paper due on Wednesday and I'm still not 100% sure which paper I'm going to write (I know some of you are in the same boat as well). I like all the "self reflection" options but can't seem to decide which one. At first I thought I'd do a vector paper, then I thought maybe a racial identity analysis.

Then I got a great idea - how about using the theory interaction option to write a reflection on socioeconomic status identity or (as I've seen it elsewhere) "perceived socioeconomic status." We do have a couple readings on this topic but not a "theory" that I can reflect on. (Note to self: look this up in the future.) I believe that SES is the major influence in not only my identity, but on my education and my "vocation" - my inner calling. Right now, I will table this for the future since I really should be writing a paper, or at least making a decision on which paper to write.

You know, I had this professor at MHC (my favorite prof, actually) who would (for midterms) write 2 questions on the board and and give us 45 minutes and a bluebook to write an essay. Not only was writing an essay cold-turkey in 45 minutes a difficult task, but it's even more daunting because the clock ticks away as you decide which question you will answer! But I digress.....

So now I'm leaning more towards the sexual identity analysis paper, but I'm having a difficult time choosing whether to to use Vivienne Cass' theory or Anthony D'Augelli's. *sigh*

I feel that my personal experience is along the more essentialist line of theory (though perhaps more from a psychological perspective than a biological one) while my philosophical beliefs about sexual identity align better with a more constructivist perspective. I see myself as a lesbian and see my sexual identity development as a journey of discovery to find out who I was inside (well...to accept it, really) - my lesbian "essence," if you will. At the same time, I know others differ and I think that's fine - everyone IS different. I had friends in college that identified as lesbians that no longer do as well as friends that identified as lesbians and now identify as bisexual. I even have a friend that identified as straight in college and now identifies as a lesbian. We're all different and we all have our own inner truths - and you know...it's okay if your inner truth is more fluid than mine. Who am I to judge your inner truth?

All this reminds me an episode of Grey's Anatomy (I'm not an avid watcher but I'm glad I caught this episode). Callie (played by Sara Ramirez) and Erica (played by Brooke Smith) have just hooked up and Erica has a big gay realization while Callie doesn't feel the same way that Erica does. Here's the clip:



I'd say that my experience was more like Erica's. I looked back to the blog I kept in college and found this:

Friday, January 17, 2003
Frustration. I was supposed to have it all figured out by now. At least some part of it. I'm a junior. I'm 21. I'm supposed to know SOMETHING.

Sunday, February 16, 2003
I am officially "queer."

Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Dude. I am such a dyke. Hahahahahaha!

There was, of course, much more that went on before the 2/17/03 blog (a good 5 years of questioning) but the above basically represents the thought process I went through (in a short period of time) at the beginning of my "coming out" process (which, by the way, never ends as the closet follows you everywhere...).

---And now that I've spent a sufficient amount of time procrastinating (but at least it was productive procrastination!), I'm going to go and *actually* work on my paper.

PS. DrM, I found one of your citations in the text!

Friday, February 6, 2009

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Reflection on 2/4 Class

No, I cannot say "Josselson Schlossberg" five times fast BUT...I wanted to add to my previous posts based on class last night.

DrM posed the question - "Is Josselson's theory a developmental theory?"
--Interesting. After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that yes, it could be a developmental theory however, that is not the way it was presented in our text. It seems that it could sort of follow a line of development (i.e. someone could go from foreclosure to moratorium to achievement) however, that was not the way it was presented. -Furthermore, that wasn't what Josselson found. While some women did move from the original state they were classified in, many of them stayed in the same state they were in when she did her original study, ten years prior. I think GC (nice presentation!) also made a good point - that it's more of a "window" from which a woman develops. (Just as an fyi, DrM said the answer is "yes and no.")

I also found this theory to come from more of a "diagnosis" perspective - which makes sense given that Dr. Ruthellen Josselson is a psychotherapist and clinician! (As different from Chickering, who was an administrator.)

We talked about something Josselson found - that men base their identity more off what they do and what they know, while women tend to find their identity tied to relationships with others.

MJ pointed out that she saw gender differences in essay writing from students trying to appeal their admission rejection - males tended to write about their competencies and accomplishments while women wrote essays with more of a "life story" perspective that were often emotional. Hmm. This got me thinking that perhaps the gender of the person reading these essays may (or may not) make a difference. Maybe a female would be more partial to the woman's story???

It is important to remember that this is more of a 70's perspective on gender identity. I think some guys I know find their interpersonal relationships to be important to their identity and that some females might find their knowledge and competence to be as important as their relationships in the way they develop their identity. Perhaps the shift in women's roles over the last 30-40 years (i.e. the "working mom" - and the idea that a female can be the "breadwinner" of a family) might make a difference. It's kind of the chicken and the egg thing. Does your generation strongly influence your identity? Or do the shift/change in perspective of people define the generation?

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Schlossberg's Transition Theory

Schlossberg's theory is on transitions. This theory seems to be the most readily applicable of what we've read so far as it can be easily comprehended and modified for individuals and groups based on their situation. Our book warns us not to create a false dichotomy between "adult" vs "college student" development as theories may be helpful when working for both groups. -This theory is definitely one of them.

In importance or classification of an event (or non-event) as a transition depends on the significance of it to the person who is experiencing it and how they define it.

The main tenants of transition theory are:

-Type, Context and Impact
----->Types (Anticipated, unanticipated, nonevents)
----->Context (context in which the transition is taking place)
----->Impact (the extent to which the transition influences or alters one's life.)
-Transition Process (defined by Schlossberg as "moving in," "moving through," and "moving out.")
-The 4 S's to aid in coping with transition:
----->Situation
----->Self
----->Support
----->Strategies

This theory has been widely researched and applied and seems to have the most glowing "critique" thus far of what we read.

One of the thoughts in my head about transition (especially with the couple of references to athletes in the book) is with Olympic athletes. Imagine preparing your whole life for this big event with all the media, drama, anticipation, excitement and adrenaline. Then perhaps you medal, perhaps you don't...how do you transition back to your "normal" life? This has always fascinated me.

So...perhaps the recent picture of Michael Phelps that's been around in the media these past few days...maybe he's just coping with transition (in an unhealthy way). He's no longer in college, he's made Olympic history, now what?

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

On Josselson

Josselson's Theory of Identity Development in Women (Just the Gist):

Josselson based her theory on the work of James Marcia who based his work on the 5th stage of Erikson's identity development over the life-span "identity vs. identity diffusion." Marcia saw this identity vs. identity diffusion as an interplay between crisis and commitment, particularly with regard to politics, religion, occupational choice and sexual decisions. Marcia came up with four stages upon which Josselson built her theory: Diffusion, Foreclosure, Moratorium, and Achievement.

Foreclosure - These women as the type that know what they want and pursue it almost with blinders on with their eyes straight on the goal. According to Josselson, these women commit to their parents' standards without question or crisis.
Achievement - These women break from their childhood identities and form their own. According to Josselson, these women "create identity in their own way after considering who they were in the past and who they want to become in the future" (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 58). These women experience an identity crisis but are able to commit to who they are.
Moratorium - These women are in a stage where they are in conflict and are searching for their answers. While it is possible to stay in moratorium, it is possible to regress or to move on to identity achievement.
Diffusion - Josseslson found this group to be quite varied, with four subgroups ranging from those lacking healthy psychological functioning to "drifters" that go through life with neither crisis nor commitment.

Our texts warns us to use caution when applying the results of Josselson's study to students today as much of the research was conducted long ago.

These are what I think are the most important things to take away from the reading:
1) Colleges need to have a type of "safety net" to catch students when they fail in making commitments and "caring environment" to help return them back to health.
2) Professionals should reflect on their own development in order to help the students they serve. (I kind of see this as the "developmental" equivalent having a "philosophy" for your line of work - it's another level of awareness.)

A couple questions if anyone feels like answering...
Josselson found that women:
1) see themselves for who they are and not the decisions they make
2) merge connectedness with autonomy
3) at the most developed stage are able to maintain closeness with those she is individuating from (called "rapprochement")

I'm curious what you think about the above in relation to your gender. Agree? Disagree?

Monday, February 2, 2009

A Couple More Chickering/Reisser Thoughts...

In reading the criticisms of Chickering and Reisser (in Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito), I found it interesting that the motivation for Chickering's initial 1969 model was not for student affairs administrators, but for professors in hopes they would take student development into account in their curriculum. It seems that from this first model, it was the student affairs professionals that responded and where Chickering found his true audience. (And was perhaps his and Reisser's intended audience for the 1993 version.)

I've also given my blog address to my mom who was intrigued by the choice of Chickering to refer to vectors as vectors. In the book, the word "vector" is used to imply both magnitude and direction. My mom (who was a physics major) pointed out to me that "vector" is a physics term used to imply speed and direction. For example, mph is only speed, but a vector would imply both speed and direction. Chickering must have had this in mind when creating his inital model.....