Redefining Value
I went to a school that was in a desegregation program so I went to school in an all-white town and was bussed in with a group of other black kids. I did lacrosse, and I was on the varsity team and club team, and I was the best player, but I remember distinctly those were very white spaces. Going to club team the first week, they didn’t assume I was playing even though I had a stick and a ball bag. They didn’t think I was a player. I don’t know what they thought I was-- the cleanup? They would brush me off; I found refs were particularly rough on me. But also in the black community, particularly when I was young, I found that a lot of my friends they would shade me because I had lighter skin and they went to Boston schools and I went to suburban schools, and they thought I thought I was better than them. I’ve always experienced this kind of outsider-ness of not being black enough and not being white enough, and having to be like well shit, can’t I just be enough? (Santos)
All around the globe, different bodies are valued over others through the creation of the “other”. As demonstrated in this personal account, snap judgments are made about “others” based on how they are immediately perceived. Stereotypes concerning how different bodies are supposed to act based on their physical appearance or personal beliefs dictate the way those bodies are valued. In this anecdote, Jasmine was not only devalued by the white community because she was black, but she was also devalued by the black community because she did not adhere to black cultural stereotypes.
Early ideas of bodily value stemmed from colonialism, when racial diversity was invented “at the height of the European empire to create a cultural divide between colonizers and colonized” (Ponzanesi 165). Essentially, this separated the white, binary body from anything else and situated the “else” as the “other,” which was thus less valuable (Ponzanesi 165-166). This constant value and subsequent aspiration to whiteness is seen all throughout the world historically and currently. For example, as the caste system in India has evolved since colonialism, its structure has become more and more racialized with the higher castes often containing the lightest people (Subramaniam).
The medical tourism market for cosmetic surgery is very popular in Thailand (Aizura 150). The expansion of this market has led to something known as “self-orientalism” which “involves the performance of the stereotype of an ethnicity or a nationality to be recognized by the cultural edifice in which the stereotype originates” (Aizura 153). Thai women perform the cultural stereotypes associated with them of “infinite warmth, magic, grace, and courtesy” which in turn creates “a sexualized and racialized economy within the touristic exchange” (Aizura 153). They perform the stereotype that white people impart on them. Once more, the white body distances itself from any other body and pits that body as the less valuable “other”.
Race is not the only classification where a less valued “other” was created by colonization. Within gender, women are seen as the “other” because traditional binary roles of gender “disfavor femininity” (Wilchins 25). This has become so expansive that it has permeated every country around the world because “no nation in the world gives women and men the same access to the rights and resources of the nation state” (McClintock 61). The origins of this othering date back to colonialism, as “precolonial societies were not patriarchal or were not structured buy gender” (Connell 8). Binary roles also do another key thing in identifying the other -- they regulate the way gender is acted (Wilchins 24). Gender itself is often seen as “something we are”; however, some scholars argue that gender is instead “something we do”, and it is the way the actions of performing gender are regulated that “produces the appearance of two coherent and universal genders” (Wilchins 24). In turn, anyone that does not adhere to the binary becomes the “other” (Wilchins 25).
For my final project, I further explored these ideas of the creation of the other and the subsequent value placed on certain bodies. I examined the classifications of humans and how the other is created in different ways in different cultural contexts. I created a physical representation of that value through a system that analyzed what factors play into value and conceptualized them in the context of three countries (America, India, and Uganda) to create a price value for 6 different people. A generic formula to decipher bodily value would lack appropriate detail and nuance. To counter this, I analyzed the particular body of each of my volunteer models in each cultural context.
To determine their value, I broke each person down into, what I argue, are the basic ways of classifying people: race, religion, and sex/gender identity. These are the most basic classifications because they are the foundation for what the U.S. defines the federally protected classes (“Protected Classes”). The official protected include both race and color, whereas I have grouped them both together (the differences between race and color lie more in self-identification and this project focuses more on other people’s perceptions). Veteran status and genetic information are also included in the protected classes-- I did not include them because they would more likely be a part of someone’s resume or job application (protected classes are used to protect identifying groups of people from employment discrimination) but are not apparent upon a first encounter with someone (“Protected Classes”). Nationality, citizenship, ability, and age are also included as protected classes but because all of the models in my project were born in the U.S., identify as American, are able-bodied, and are around the same age I did not include them. Because there is no difference in these factors among my models, they would be an added amount to each of their values, skewing them all up as opposed to truly showing how nationality/citizenship/ability/age is valued over another.
Next, I analyzed each of these classifications in relation to each of the three countries to identify what was the most and least valued in each country as a basic foundation. I used general, universal understandings of who was created as the other and who that was compared to (as referenced earlier) as a starting point for all three countries. However, to accommodate more nuanced understandings of different levels of value in each country, I looked at what groups of people experienced the most violence within the confines of each category (i.e. which races, gender identities, and religions had the most violence). I chose to use violence as my metric because historically, the most marginalized groups of people who are thus the least valued, have been those that have received the most violence against them (Mattingly 748, 751, 752). With the more nuanced information, I could fill in the middle values to create a “most to least” rank for each category in each country.
To calculate the specific prices, each of the categories (race, gender identity, and religion) was given a scale of 0-10 for each of the countries. I used the most to least rank, noting if there were large gaps (i.e. the difference between the overall most valued and the most valued “other” is much greater than the difference between the most valued “other” and the second most valued “other”) to give a number value to each of the models’ identities within the categories. The numbers were added together for each country with a possibility of 30 as the maximum. The numbers earned by each model were divided by 30 for each country to get a decimal. That decimal was scaled up times 10,000 to get a price amount with $10,000 being the most.
This project illuminated some of the ways the creation of the “other” has led people to value certain bodily characteristics over others. For example, either Alexi or Maggie (white male or white female) were the most valued in each country, showing how whiteness is valued universally. In addition, they also received the two highest prices overall. The lowest price overall was given to Emily and Shana in Uganda, which displays how impactful racial violence against a particular group—in this case violence against Asians—can be in establishing value.
In every culture, value is assigned to different bodies through the creation of the other. While there are nuanced differences between each culture, there still remain some universal ideas of who is the most valuable. Colonialism established these values. Through colonialism, racism and sexism emerged (Ponzanesi 165-166) (Connell 8). Neoliberalism and globalization have led these colonial ideals to permeate every culture around the world (Connell 9). The starkness of visually seeing human beings with price tags shows how this devaluation leads to an almost dehumanization of certain bodies.
Works Cited
Aizura, Aren. “Queer Bangkok: Twenty-First-Century Markets, Media, and Rights.” Queer Bangkok: Twenty-First-Century Markets, Media, and Rights, by Peter A. Jackson, Hong Kong University Press, 2011, pp. 143–162.
Banning-Lover, Rachel. “Where Are the Most Difficult Places in the World to Be Gay or Transgender?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Mar. 2017, www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/01/where-are-the-most-difficult-places-in-the-world-to-be-gay-or-transgender-lgbt.
Connell, Raewyn. “Global Tides: Market and Gender Dynamics on a World Scale.” Social Currents, vol. 1, no. 1, Feb. 2014, pp. 5–12, doi:10.1177/2329496513513961.
“Country Policy and Information Note Uganda: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” Home Office, Jan. 2017, assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/582248/Uganda_-_SOGI_-_CPIN_-_v3_0e__January_2017_.pdf.
Gettleman, Jeffrey. “The Peculiar Position of India's Third Gender.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/style/india-third-gender-hijras-transgender.html.
“Indian Govt Admits Rise in Religion-Based Hate Crime.” Ucanews.com, 9 Feb. 2018, www.ucanews.com/news/indian-govt-admits-rise-in-religion-based-hate-crime/81477.
Jazeera, Al. “When Blacks Are Racist: Uganda's Expulsion of Indian ‘Bloodsuckers.".” Tremr, 14 May 2017, www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/when-blacks-are-racist-ugandas-expulsion-of-indian-bloodsuckers.
Mattingly, Cheryl et al. “Narrating September 11: Race, Gender, and the Play of Cultural Identities” American anthropologist vol. 104,3 (2002): 743-753.
Mcclintock, Anne. “Family Feuds: Gender, Nationalism and the Family.” Feminist Review, No. 44, no. Nationalisms and National Identities, 1 July 1993, pp. 61–80.
Ponzanesi, Sandra. (2005). Beyond the Black Venus. Colonial Sexual Politics and Contemporary Visual Practices'.
“Protected Classes.” Practical Law US Signon, content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibb0a38daef0511e28578f7ccc38dcbee/View/FullText.html?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1.
“Religion.” Census of India: Religion, 2001, censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/religion.asp
Santos, Jasmine. Personal Interview. 12 Dec. 2018.
Strickland, Ashley. “Light and Shadows: Skin Bleaching in Uganda.” CNN, Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/health/cnnphotos-skin-lightening-uganda/index.html.
“The World Fact Book .” Central Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, 1 Feb. 2018, www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/.
“Uganda Religions.” Zambia GDP - per Capita (PPP) - Economy, www.indexmundi.com/uganda/religions.html.
“Victims.” FBI Hate Crime Statistics, FBI, 30 Oct. 2017, ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/victims.
“What Is India's Caste System?” BBC News, BBC, 20 July 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616.
Wilchins, Riki Anne. “It's Your Gender, Stupid!” GenderQueer: Voices from beyond the Sexual Binary, by Joan Nestle et al., Alyson Books, 2002, pp. 23–32.
Appendix A: U.S. Price
Race: The U.S. was colonized, thus the effects of colonialism and its creation of whiteness as most valued is particularly a part of U.S. culture (Ponzanesi 165-166). Further, In the U.S. white people receive the least percent (.0003%) of hate crimes in relation to population (“The World Factbook ”) (“Victims”), reconfirming whiteness as the highest value. Asian people received the second least (.0004%), then other (.001%) (“The World Factbook”) (“Victims”). The highest percent of hate crime in relation to population was against black Americans (.005%) (“The World Factbook”) (“Victims”). Thus, white would receive 10 points and black 0. The gap between white and Asian is very small so Asian would receive a 9. The gap between other and black is larger than the gap between white and Asian, so other would receive a 3.
Gender: Again, colonialism established male as the most valued which is reflected in U.S. culture (Connell 8). In the U.S. in 2016, there were 111 victims of anti-transgender hate crimes, 20 victims of anti-gender-nonconforming hate crimes and 26 victims of anti-female hate crimes (“Victims”). However, I argue that being a female is still valued more than gender non-conforming because conforming to the binary is more socially acceptable than not (Wilchins 25). Furthermore, there is a much higher population of women than transgender people in the U.S., so, if it was a percent including population, violence against women would be a smaller percent. Going off of that, transgender would be the least valued and would receive a 0. Male as the most would get 10. Female and gender nonbinary are in the middle; however, if accounting for population there would be a wider gap between gender nonbinary and female than transgender and gender nonbinary. The gap between male and female would be even larger because women experienced significantly more hate crimes (“Victims”). Thus gender nonbinary would receive a 2 and female a 5.
Religion: Because there isn’t the same universal idea of the best religion, numbers for religion have been based on percent of hate crimes in relation to population. “No religious affiliation” received the least percent of hate crimes in relation to population (.00002%), followed by Christianity (.0001%), then Judaism received the highest percent of hate crimes in relation to population (.03%) (“The World Factbook”) (“Victims”). No religious affiliation would receive a 10, and Judaism would receive a 0. The gap between Christianity and no affiliation is much smaller than that of the gap between Judaism/Islam and Christianity, so Christianity would receive an 8.
Max: 10+2+10= 22/30= .733333x10,000= $7,333.33
Jasmine: 0+5+8= 13/30= .433333x10,000= $4,333.33
Emily: 3+5+10= 18/30= .6x10,000= $6,000
Maggie: 10+5+8= 23/30= .766666x10,000= $7,666.66
Shana: 3+5+10=18/30=.6x10,000= $6,000
Alexi:10+10+0= 20/30= .66666x10,000= $6,666.66
Appendix B: India Price
Race: India was colonized, thus the effects of colonialism and its creation of whiteness as most valued is particularly a part of Indian culture (Ponzanesi 165-166). In particular, because India was colonized at a time when “racist concepts were flourishing”, the colonizers implemented this racism within the caste system itself (Subramaniam 163-162). The Dalits -- also known as the untouchables-- are even below the caste system. They are often very dark in complexion and receive the most violence, establishing the least value in the darkest people (Subramaniam). Thus, white would receive a 10, and a very dark, almost black skin tone a 0. India’s racial classifications are different than that of the U.S. because they center more on color than on ethnicity. This is because the caste system centers around occupation and darker skin often symbolizes manual labor outside, which is a less valued occupation. Emily, Shana, and Jasmine, while each having different ethnicities, have relatively the same skin tone-- a “lighter brown” color and thus each get a 5.
Gender: Again, colonialism established male as the most valued which is reflected in Indian culture (Connell 8). India has historically acknowledged a third gender known as hijra which encompasses both transgender and gender nonbinary (Gettleman). Many believe the hijra have the power to curse and bless (Gettleman). However, many hijras are forced into sex work (Gettleman). India has recently legally recognized transgender as a third gender (Gettleman). Therefore, male and female values (10 and 5) will remain the same because of colonial influences. While transgender and gender nonbinary individuals may be more valued in India compared to the U.S., they are still least valued in India compared to men and women because they are often forced into sex work. However, because transgender is a legally recognized gender and gender nonbinary is not, gender nonbinary receives a 0 and transgender receives a 1.
Religion: The Hindu religion accounts for 80.5% of the population in India (“Religion”). The Indian government is also pro-Hindu (“Indian Govt”). Religious hate crimes India are most often perpetrated by Hindus against Muslims (“Indian Govt”). Thus, Hindu is the most valued religion rendering a 10, and Muslim is the least, getting a 0. Other religions only account for 6.1% of the population, but do not receive many hate crimes, thus they get a 5 (“Religion”) (“Indian Govt”).
Max: 10+0+5= 15/30= .5x10,000= $5,000
Jasmine: 5+5+5= 15/30= .5x10,000= $5,000
Emily: 5+5+5= 15/30= .5x10,000= $5,000
Maggie: 10+5+5= 20/30=.66666= $6,666.66
Shana: 5+5+5= 15/30= .5x10,000= $5,000
Alexi: 10+10+5= 25/30=.833333x10,000= $8,333.33
Appendix C: Uganda Price
Race: Uganda was colonized, thus the effects of colonialism and its creation of whiteness as most valued is particularly a part of Ugandan culture (Ponzanesi 165-166). This is seen as skin bleaching is very common (Strickland). Whiteness is valued so highly that people are willing to bleach their skin to look whiter, thus white gets a 10. The largest amount of racial violence in Uganda was in 1972 when Idi Amin ordered every Asian to be expelled from the country or they would be tortured and killed (Jazeera). While this same degree of racial hatred is not still present today, there continues to be an anti-Asian sentiment (Jazeera), thus Asian gets a 0. Because whiteness is valued and skin bleaching leaves darker black people a lighter brown color, brownness gets a 5 (Strickland). Again, race here is more about skin color than ethnicity.
Gender: Again, colonialism established male as the most valued which is reflected in Ugandan culture (Connell 8). Male gets a 10 and female gets a 5 to remain consistent with colonialist gender influences. Neither transgender or gender nonbinary individuals are valued in Uganda (Banning-Lover). Homosexuality is illegal and anyone not adhering to the cis related binary is seen as homosexual and often are the victims of hate crimes (Banning-Lover), thus they receive a 0.
Religion: In Uganda, 84.4% of the population is Christian, 13.7% is Muslim, and 1.9% are other (“Uganda Religions”). Anti-religious hate crimes are not very common in Uganda, as most of the hate crimes are perpetrated by Christians and Muslims condemning homosexuality (“Country Policy”). Because of this, Christianity and Islam are the most valued; however, because there is so much higher of a Christian population, Christianity receives 10 points and Islam would be in the lower middle. “Other” would get 0 because of how little of a population it has.
Max: 10+0+0= 10/30=.3333333x10,000= $3,333.33
Jasmine: 5+5+10= 20/30=.66666= $6,666.66
Emily: 0+5+0= 5/30= .166666x10,000= $1,666.66
Maggie: 10+5+10= 25/30=.833333x10,000= $8,333.33
Shana: 0+5+0= 5/30= .166666x10,000= $1,666.66
Alexi: 10+10+0= 20/30=.66666= $6,666.66
