Writing for a Real World 2006-2007: a multidisciplinary anthology by USF students

              Writing for a Real World
1
Writing for a Real World
2006 - 2007
A multidisciplinary anthology by USF students
Published by the University of San Francisco
Program in Rhetoric and Composition
Writing for a Real World
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND GRATITUDE 5
HONORABLE MENTIONS 8
Essays
FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS: A STUDY OF RISK
FACTORS AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF HIV/AIDS
Jamila Sinlao 11
CRIMINAL
Taylor Hobin 27
KENT: THE SERVICE OF BETRAYAL
Stephanie Bautista 36
THE MULTIFACETED NATURE OF STREET ART
Theresa George 52
LIFESTYLE TRANSITIONS: INVESTIGATING COMMUNICATIVE
PATTERNS UTILIZED AMONG LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Katie Caughman 60
OVERMEDICATION: THE OVERLOOKED THREAT TO
AMERICA’S HEALTH
Aimee Meyn 74
FORCED TO BE FREE: VEILING IN LIBERAL WESTERN
DEMOCRACIES
Lucile L. Hall 89
TEACHING MASCULINITY
Sara Seltzer 101
Table of Contents
Writing for a Real World
3
WEST MEETS EAST: CULTURAL CONFLICT IN EUROPE
BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND NON-MUSLIMS
Elizabeth Hess 108
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOVEREIGNITY AND
GLOBALIZATION AND ITS EFFECT ON SELF-DETERMINATION
Diego Loira 120
WHY PUNISH?
Elizabeth Moyer 135
Science, Technical and Business Writing 142
RELATIVE, EXPERIENTIAL, AND INCOMPATIBLE: THE
KUNDALINI’S FUNCTION IN OCCIDENTAL PSYCHOLOGY,
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Jacob G. Levernier 143
HOLISTIC CARE FOR CHILDREN WITH SPINA BIFIDA
Amir Karimabadi 160
DE QUERVAIN’S THYROIDITIS
Jellila Khatib 166
Index 172
Authors 172
Teachers 173
Reviewers 174
Assistants 175
Writing for a Real World
4
Our Fifth Year
With this issue, Writing for a Real World celebrates its fi fth
anniversary. In this short time, WRW has anthologized
86 refereed essays written by 82 USF student authors. What is
remarkable is that these papers were chosen from a variety of
disciplines such as Biology, Communication Studies, English,
Environmental Science, Media Studies, Nursing, Philosophy, Physics,
Politics, Psychology, Rhetoric and Composition, and Sociology.
The cross-disciplinary nature of WRW is evidence that writing
receives a distinctive undergraduate emphasis at USF. But perhaps
the most signifi cant aspect about WRW is not just the demonstration
of subject matter and disciplinary knowledge but the illustration
of the broad range of student thinking on genre, context, process,
lexicon, axioms, and theory. One social motive for putting together a
student journal is to help our academic audience explore and examine
how writing serves to demonstrate textual similarities and diff erences
between the disciplines.
Examining these areas is important because comprehending
disciplinary and interdisciplinary norms will help us better understand
the complicated role writing plays in the creation and expression
of knowledge. For instance, to what extent could we improve our
instruction if we truly understood how writing is used in biology,
philosophy, and rhetoric? Or psychology, media studies, and nursing?
Bringing together student work is the fi rst step to understanding
how we can help students better respond to instruction for the
purposes that teachers intend, and, just as important, prompt
teachers to better design the purposes for which they intend student
writing.
The WRW Project
As part of our continuing project to honor student writing, we
have archived all of the winning essays at our website (www.usfca.
edu/rhetcomp/journal) to make their work available to students
and faculty. Our hope is that our readers will use their work as a
departure for further studies and will encourage other lively voices in
Writing for a Real World
5
our classrooms.
To honor these student-writers, we have listed their names in
the back of this issue. And because we cannot select essays without
the help of their teachers and our journal referees, we have listed
these folks to honor their eff ort at making writing an integrated part
of classroom instruction and to thank our referees for their tireless
service.
Acknowledgements and Gratitude
Our special anthology off ers two distinct sections: the fi rst
devoted to remarkable examples of the traditional academic essay;
the second is a forum for excellent models of scientifi c, business
and technical writing. Preceding these papers are introductions
from the writers and their teachers. Overall, the commentaries and
introductions help elucidate the intentions behind the assignments
and give insight into the responses of the students.
With this issue, the Program in Rhetoric and Composition
announces its second annual Fr. Urban Grassi, S.J. Award for
Eloquentia Perfecta, an award that will be shared by two students:
Jacob G. Lavernier, for his essay, “Relative, Experiential and
Incompatible: the Kundalini’s Function in Occidental Psychology:
A Review of the Literature,” and Jamila Sinlao for “Falling Through
the Cracks: A Study of Risk Factors and the Social Construction of
HIV/AIDS.” Named after USF’s (then Saint Ignatius College) fi rst
professor of English and Elocution, Fr. Urban Grassi, S.J., this special
award is given to the entry that earned the highest rating among our
journal referees. This year two students tied for this honor, and we
congratulate Jacob and Jamila for their outstanding accomplishment.
Choosing the winning entries is a day-long task that requires the
voluntary eff orts of already busy USF faculty and staff . Our judges
reviewed carefully 96 submissions (from which the students’ names
had been removed), and every submission was read by at least two
readers, and every winning submission had to pass the review of at
least four readers. For performing this task with unfailing patience,
we thank the superb eff orts of our volunteer readers: Brian Komei
Dempster, Jennifer Dever, Joe Garity, Johnnie Johnson Hafernik,
David Holler, Devon Christina Holmes, Ron Key, Theodore Matula,
Lee Mazmanian, Mark Meritt, Greg Pabst, Darrell Schramm, Sara
Solloway, and Freddie Wiant.
Writing for a Real World
6
Continuing a project like WRW requires the selfl ess eff orts of
many people, and we acknowledge the contributions of those who
continue to support this project. As always, we are deeply grateful
to Jennifer Turpin, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and
Dean Rader, Associate Dean of Arts and Humanities, College
of Arts and Sciences, for their generous fi nancial support and
remarkable commitment to reinvigorating undergraduate writing
at USF.
A large debt, as well, goes to Freddie Wiant, Coordinator
of the Program in Rhetoric and Composition, for her tireless
support and unending energy. This debt extends to David Holler
for designing our cover and associate editors Brian Komei
Dempster, Devon Christina Holmes, and Mark Meritt for
shepherding another edition of this anthology and for providing
timely and astute editorial support. Without the support of
everyone, this publication of WRW would be unthinkable.
Our program assistant, Theresa Newman, and our publication
assistant, Lizz Heim, deserve special mention for helping
us in ways too numerous to describe. Thanks to John Pinelli
and Norma Washington for paying the bills and to Johnnie
Johnson Hafernik, Chair of Communication Studies, for her
encouragement of this project. Finally, our deepest gratitude is
reserved for those many students who challenged themselves
and submitted their papers. The competition was stiff , and, as
our Honorable Mention list illustrates, we received many more
commendable essays and reports than we were able to publish.
Congratulations to those who earned honorable mention—we
hope to hear from you again.
And, of course, congratulations to this year’s winners, two of
whom repeat from last year. Our newest authors bravely enter the
realm of published authors writing for a real world.
This journal is dedicated to them.
—David Ryan
Writing for a Real World
7
Writing for a Real World
2006 - 2007
Editor
David Ryan
Managing Editor and Cover Art
David Holler
Associate Editors
Brian Komei Dempster
Devon Christina Holmes
Mark Meritt
Publication Assistant
Elizabeth A. Heim
Journal Referees
Jennifer Dever, Biology
Joe Garity, Gleeson Library
Johnnie Johnson Hafernik, Communication Studies
Ron Key, Rhetoric and Composition
Theodore Matula, Rhetoric and Composition
Lee Mazmanian, Communication Studies
Greg Pabst, Communication Studies
Darrell Schramm, Rhetoric and Composition
Sara Solloway, Offi ce of Student Academic Services
Fredel Wiant, Rhetoric and Composition
and Brian Komei Dempster, David Holler,
Devon Christina Holmes, and Mark Meritt
Rhetoric and Composition
on the web at www.usfca.edu/rhetcomp/journal/
Writing for a Real World
University of San Francisco
Cowell Hall, 4th Floor
2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Writing for a Real World
8
Honorable Mention
Stephanie Bautista
Shaka: The Manipulation of History to Create a Political Icon
written for History 340: History of South Africa
Heather Hoag
Department of History
Amber Harris
Broken Homes, Broken Nation: U.S. Campaign for Development Strands
Iraqis as Collateral Damage
written for Written Communication II
Darrell Schramm
Rhetoric and Composition
Department of Communication Studies
Jacob Levernier
Violent Yearning
written for Writing in Psychology
Lisa Biesemeyer
Rhetoric and Composition and
Department of Psychology
and
On Leadership
written for Ancient Philosophy
Stephen Black
St. Ignatius Institute
Aimee Meyn
The Biology of Exclusion
written for Rhetoric and Composition 140:
Seminar in Rhetoric and Composition
Devon Christina Holmes
Rhetoric and Composition
Department of Communication Studies
Writing for a Real World
9
Erika Privett
Broken Families: Gay Parents and Child Custody
written for Written Communication II
Darrell Schramm
Rhetoric and Composition
Department of Communication Studies
Jamila Sinlao
Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte: A Comparison in Works
written for Jane Austen Tutorial
Val Dodd
St. Ignatius Institute, USF Study Abroad Program
and
Happiness in God, Community, and the Individual: Eudaimonia through
Egoistic and Altruistic Love in Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae
written for Christian Scholasticism II
Richard Cross
St. Ignatius Institute, USF Study Abroad Program
Shaine Scarminach
Mountaintop Removal: the Destructive Face of Radical Strip Mining
written for Written Communication II
David Holler
Rhetoric and Composition
Department of Communication Studies
Chloe Schildhause
The Threat to Marriage
written for Written and Oral Communication II
David Ryan
Rhetoric and Composition
Department of Communication Studies
Honorable Mention
Writing for a Real World
10
David H. Vu
It Takes a Village to Raise a Child
written for Written Communication II
Devon Christina Holmes
Rhetoric and Composition
Department of Communication Studies
Stacey Wu
Adolescent Adherence to Diabetic Treatment: Underlying Factors and
Suggestive Nursing Implementations
written for Family Health II
Judith Lambton
College of Nursing
Honorable Mention
Jamila Sinlao
11
Writer’s Comment:
As a sociology major, I have had the unique opportunity to take a closer
look at many facets of society typically taken for granted. My experience in
the Sociology of Health was no exception. With the guidance of Professor
Dale Rose, I was able to turn the sociological lens upon the highly complex
institution of health and biomedicine within the United States. This paper
deals with the development of risk factors in understanding HIV/AIDS.
My research reveals that the discourse of risk, rich with emphases upon
“lifestyle choice” and “personal responsibility,” has contributed to a deeply-entrenched
worldview which teaches that this disease only affects a select
portion of the population who are then stigmatized and isolated. This
realization is deeply disturbing, for it suggests that the very tools the medical
profession uses to identify disease are also partly responsible for impeding
the public’s understanding and awareness of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Only by
acknowledging that risk for HIV/AIDS is universal can we take the fi rst real
steps in addressing this pandemic.
—Jamila Sinlao
Instructor’s Comment:
I fi nd no greater joy in my work than when students show not only sparks
of insight, but exhibit it as a matter of routine. Jamila Sinlao’s submission for
this anthology, a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of our society’s “biomedical
model,” was in some sense the epitome of her thinking in our class, Sociology
of Health. It is a thoughtful and rigorous piece, one that very concisely
situates and problematizes health—and importantly, knowledge about health
as viewed through the lens of risk. It is an exemplary piece of undergraduate
scholarship, written in a way that smoothly interweaves arguments with
evidence, content with style. Its specifi c subject matter, HIV/AIDS, is as
timely today as ever; I suspect, sadly, the same will be said a decade from
now. I am elated to have read this paper, and to introduce it to the USF
student body, staff and faculty.
—Dale A. Rose, Department of Sociology
Falling Through the Cracks
12
Jamila Sinlao
Falling Through the Cracks: A Study of Risk
Factors and the Social Construction of HIV/
AIDS
I. Introduction: The Biomedical Model, Its Legacy, and
HIV/AIDS
The roots of biomedicine can be traced, like so many of the
sciences, to the Age of Enlightenment. As popular history
illustrates, the Enlightenment served to free society from its bonds
of the irrational, subjective ways of thinking, liberating all in the
West with a new system of knowledge based upon rationality and
objectivity. This new way of looking at the world – a positivist,
empirical approach, emphasizing reason and logic – replaced an age-old
system that included “medical concepts… directed at the health
of the soul rather than the body” (Turner 2003:10). A reductionist
paradigm developed, one that focused solely upon microbes, germs,
and the biological cause for disease, one that isolated the individual
from the social context of illness and disorder. Thus, medicine came
to privilege the knowledge of “the pathological lesion” (Armstrong
2003:24) over the understanding of disease as the product of a
complex web of social, political, and economic interactions. This
biologically dominated viewpoint is one that has grown in power
and strength over the years and continues to shape society’s
understanding of health, medicine and the body today.
In recent decades, there has been a push to turn a critical
eye upon the biomedical structure, a pervasive and seemingly all-powerful
institution that has grown to dominate much of our society.
It is, as David Armstrong notes, “[T]he major formal explanatory
framework for illness in all countries of the world” (24). Because
the biomedical model holds so much power, however, and because
it holds such a fi xed position within our society, infl uencing and
coloring our views of the world in often unseen and unnoticed ways,
it is important and necessary to strongly question the invisible
underpinnings of such a monolithic organization. To undertake
such an analysis, a number of assumptions must be made. Firstly, we
Jamila Sinlao
13
will operate under the belief shared by many social scientists that
our encounters with sickness and disease stem from the way our
society is organized. In other words, society, which is stratifi ed on
the basis of race, class, gender, sexuality, and many other levels, is
one in which individuals face lives of unequal privilege depending on
one’s position and situation. Looking beyond the surface of health
issues in the United States reveals the consequences that these
inequalities have had on how illness is understood and experienced.
Secondly, we will presume that the reductionist model of thought,
one that is dominated by a narrow view of illness and disease, has
obfuscated the complex interactions between the individual and the
social world. Thirdly, we will conjecture that an emphasis upon the
individual, fueled in part by the Cartesian “mind/body dualism,” has
resulted in an artifi cial separation between “normal” and “abnormal”
bodies, leading to the idea of disease as the result of immorality and
deviance, thus giving rise to moral stigma and blame.
The shortcomings of the biomedical model have particular
salience when examining the global pandemic of HIV/AIDS. As
Nancy Goldstein argues,
The history of the HIV/AIDS pandemic can be
read as yet another narrative about the workings
of determinst ideology embedded in the allegedly
dispassionate discourse of biomedicine: In short,
it reads as a virtual textbook of the ways in which
prejudice becomes naturalized as biological
fact. This history of early AIDS research and
epidemiology, the ‘discovery’ of HIV, and the course
and current direction of scientifi c inquiry, while it
may not tell us as much about preventing HIV as we
would like, has much to tell us about how available
epistemologies of knowledge determine the ways
in which a public health crisis is characterized,
responded to, and classifi ed. For many years, the
only stories that could be told, as directed by the
CDC’s defi nition, were ones in which demonized
identity gave proof to their own promiscuity,
profl igacy, and dereliction by falling prey to a disease
Falling Through the Cracks
14
that told the truth of their sins as marked on their
bodies.
(1997:7)
Goldstein’s words articulate perfectly the constraints that
the biomedical model exercises upon our understanding of HIV/
AIDS. The scientifi c model used to explain and study HIV/AIDS
has given birth to deeply entrenched ideas that infl uence how we
think of AIDS and those who are HIV-positive. It has given rise to
an image that is deeply infl uenced by prejudice, by stereotypes, by
misperceptions of sexuality, of race, of class, and of gender. Ironically,
these misperceptions have been both overtly and inadvertently fueled
by the very fi eld working to fi nd discover cures and treatments to
stem the rising tide of infections and diagnoses.
The Research Question, Its Signifi cance, and This Paper’s
Purpose
Over the years, the use of risk in determining a population’s
susceptibility for a certain disease or disorder has fallen under
sharp criticism for reproducing systems of oppression and common
stereotypes. At fi rst glance, the use of risk groups seems to make
sense, particularly in the case of HIV/AIDS. African Americans,
for example, who make up approximately 12% of the United States
population, now account for roughly half of new HIV/AIDS cases
and 40% of known diagnoses since the start of the epidemic (Henry
J. Kaiser Family Foundation 2006a). Race and class seem to play
important factors when considering the rates of infected women as
well; in 2004, women accounted for 27% of AIDS cases diagnosed in
that year, but women of color, especially African American women,
are noted to be aff ected disproportionately due to disparities
on the basis of class, race, and gender (Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation 2006b). Clearly, then, people of color constitute a large,
overwhelming population of HIV/AIDS patients. Continuing along
this vein of logic, it seems to be common sense to say that people of
color constitute a risk group for HIV/AIDS.
But does this mean that those who are not “at-risk” – White
heterosexuals, both male and female; those of the middle and upper
classes; non-drug users; and those who are monogamous and/or
practice “safe sex” – do not need to worry about contracting HIV/
Jamila Sinlao
15
AIDS? The discourse of risk that has been presented by the CDC
and the public health institution over the past twenty-fi ve years,
it seems, would say yes. Those who do not fi t the risk groups, it
would appear, are far safer and far less likely to fi nd themselves
HIV-positive. Research and studies, however, indicate otherwise.
There is a growing body of literature studying the populations who
have historically been left out of the HIV/AIDS discussion, namely
White women who have enjoyed a certain amount of societal
privilege through race and class. While I acknowledge that factors
such as racialized health structures and practices, as well as prejudice
based upon sexism, homophobia, and classism are all causes for the
disparities in HIV/AIDS infection rates, I would like to argue that
the creation of risk categories have also served to shape society’s
understanding of who becomes HIV-positive and who does not.
Through doing so, I will also seek to illustrate the concept of the
social construction of HIV/AIDS. In the case of HIV/AIDS,
revealing the constructed defi nitions of risk can not only work to
dismantle the deep-seated fears, emotions, and stigma associated
with the disease, but contribute to a new, refocused understanding
that views all people as at-risk for contracting AIDS.
II. The Role of Risk Factors in Medical Practice
A Background on Risk Factors
As noted in the introduction, the attention of the biomedical
model has long been focused upon diseases, both in their roots and
in their treatment. A recent movement has taken place in the past
fi fty years, however, that has shifted the discourse from diagnosis
and treatment to prevention and risk. Risk factors, in the words of
Peter Conrad, “are usually statistically-based associations derived
from epidemiological research” (2001:383). As a tool, risk factor
studies have focused upon the probability of illness occurring within
specifi c populations.
Risk factors can be divided into three main categories:
biological, environmental, and behavioral. Biological risks are
internal, associated with specifi c genes and one’s genetic makeup;
the fi nal two are associated with individual lifestyle. These fall into
the category of “modifi able” risk, those behaviors and actions that
can be changed to reduce one’s probability of contracting disease
Falling Through the Cracks
16
(Conrad 2001a). On the whole, risk factors are an accepted aspect of
the medical model, prevalent in all facets of today’s society.
This method of understanding disease, however, has not always
been so widespread or as accepted, as physician and researcher
Robert A. Aronowitz (1998) reveals in his study of coronary
heart disease risk factors. Through his work, Aronowitz seeks to
problematize the issue of risk factors, examining how in the span
of a few short decades, the discourse surrounding coronary heart
disease could shift so drastically. As he fi nds, the idea of risk emerged
in the 1960s, the product of a confl uence of varied but interrelated
events: new and increasingly complex mathematical and statistical
models; increases in funding for epidemiological studies; and a
cultural shift towards individual control over health and medicine.
Doctors and clinicians, many of who still worked in private settings
in fee-for-service arrangements, embraced the use of risk factors out
of economic incentive. Risk factors were constructed as a technique
focused upon treating the danger of disease, rather than the
protection and preservation of health. This brought many sideline
disorders under the clinical gaze, medicalizing them and transforming
them into chronic disorders, thus off ering medical professionals “the
creation of new reimbursable diagnoses that have specifi c defi nitions
and treatments, as do other ‘real’ diseases” (128).
In addition to economic factors, the changes in overall cultural
norms and societal beliefs need to be stressed and underscored.
“Attention to risk factors,” Aronowitz writes, “allowed individuals a
framework with which to understand and modify the ill eff ects of a
materialistic culture about which they were increasingly ambivalent,
and to move the locus of control for health from biomedicine to
themselves” (131). It is precisely this emphasis upon the individual
that has become problematic and, some would argue, harmful in the
discourse surrounding health and illness.
The emergence of risk factors, Aronowitz demonstrates, did
not occur within a vacuum. This technique was instead the product
of societal interaction, including (but not limited to) economic
incentives for doctors and medical professionals, advancements in
research and statistical tools, and shifting cultural attitudes and
norms. It is only logical, then, that risk factors should give rise to
tangible and concrete social consequences.
Jamila Sinlao
17
Stigma, Blame, and Individual Responsibility: The Legacy of
Risk Discourse
As Aronowitz indicates, the use of risk factors today is largely
unquestioned; the medical profession and the general public accept it
as truth. This “common sense” attitude serves to obfuscate the very
real consequences risk factors have upon society.
In her article, “Risk as Moral Danger: The Social and Political
Functions of Risk Discourse in Public Health,” author Deborah
Lupton utilizes a confl ict theory-related approach to the study of risk
factors, suggesting that the individualistic approach to disease and
health is one that is inherently harmful, serving to stratify society,
create a hierarchy of power, and reproduce inequalities. She makes
the assertion that the very notion of risk carries with it strong moral
and emotionally charged connotations. Risk, she states, “is no
longer a neutral term” (395); instead, it now connotes danger, hazard,
morality, and personal responsibility. The word is now a “sociological
concept laden with meaning” (396), particularly in regard to the
notion of internal, or lifestyle, risk, which places the burden of health
maintenance solely onto the shoulders of the individual. Emphasis
upon individual responsibility also implies moral judgment. Those
who do not abide by “common sense” rules set in place by the public
health system and medical health professionals (“smoking causes lung
cancer;” “lack of cardiovascular exercise contributes to obesity and
heart disease;” “unprotected sex can lead to unanticipated pregnancy
and the spread of STIs”) not only harm themselves but can be held
responsible for harming society as well. In other words, it becomes
the individual alone who is at fault for his or her own sickness.
Defi nitions of who is at risk and who is not can be found
everywhere, ranging from billboards for popular HMOs (for example,
Kaiser Permanente’s “Live Well and Thrive” campaign) and media
advertisements to headlines in the newspaper and on the news. This
sort of information on health risks can be seen as some of the easiest
to access and the most widespread thanks to the virtual universality
of the media; as Lupton notes, however, this gives the news media
a great deal of power and control over the information given to the
general public:
The categorization of which risks are deemed to
be external and which internal infl uences the moral
Falling Through the Cracks
18
judgments made about blame and responsibility for
placing health in jeopardy… Because members of
the general public do not have access to suffi cient
information to assess environmental risks, they
must rely upon intermediaries such as scientists,
government offi cials, environmental campaigners,
and the news media to inform them. These
intermediaries have their own agenda, and therefore
tend to exaggerate and distort the ‘facts’ to further
their own cause, making it diffi cult for the layperson
to conceptualize risk in the face of confl icting
perspectives. (398)
Following with this line of reasoning, power is concentrated into the
hands of those with the ability to infl uence the public, namely the
news media and those able to utilize the media, such as politicians.
Because of this, Lupton makes the case that lifestyle risk factors give
the state itself “power over the bodies of its citizens” (400). From
a Foucaldian perspective, the state can use risk factors as an agent
of surveillance, simultaneously controlling individuals through the
use of defi nitions, controlling images, and hegemonic ideology even
while claiming to maintain standards of health. “In doing so,” Lupton
writes, “it draws attention away from the structural causes of ill
health” (400). Although this interpretation of power and control may
seem akin to a conspiracy theory, the use of risk discourse has shaped
a society that speaks in a language of censure, deviance, and blame.
No other contemporary concern can illustrate this situation as clearly
as the issues surrounding the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
II. The Development and Role of Risk in HIV/AIDS
The story of HIV/AIDS in the United States, as well as around
the world, is one characterized by blame, stigma, shame, and
condemnation. Despite the passage of years, mere mention of
the disease still holds the taint of its initial onset and discovery.
Regardless of contrasting evidence, HIV/AIDS was early on
labeled a gay disease, a deviant disease, refl ecting the prejudices and
assumptions of the researchers and health professionals studying
Jamila Sinlao
19
its source and cause. Gerald Oppenheimer (1998) points to
epidemiologists as major players in the naming and labeling of this
new disease, and highlights the concept of power that stems from
the ability to defi ne. Although it can be argued that epidemiologists
distorted the choice of models and hypotheses, “determined which
data were excluded from consideration until later in the epidemic,
and off ered scientifi c justifi cation for popular prejudice, particular
against gay men,” Oppenheimer indicates that they were able to paint
a human face upon the new disease, “counter[ing] attempts to reduce
the etiology of HIV infection to a virus alone” (268).
The damage done by epidemiologists and those who framed
the risk discourse surrounding HIV/AIDS, however, cannot be
underestimated. When the CDC fi nally formed its four main risk
groups – homosexuals, Haitians, heroin (and other injection drug
users) users, and hemophiliacs, also known as the “4-H Club” – an
identity was given to HIV/AIDS, linking the disease with “‘bizarre,’
‘immoral,’ and ‘foreign’ behavior” (Goldstein 1997:8). The “sexual
‘promiscuity’ of urban gay men, the fetishized foreignness of Haitian
immigrants, and the moral and psychic bankruptcy of sex workers
and the drug-addicted” (8) became used as scapegoats for the
disease’s existence.
Bill Rodriguez (1997) continues this criticism, pointing out that
once these risk groups were defi ned, clinicians, researchers, and
others in the medical profession virtually ignored studies on the
causes of HIV/AIDS that existed outside of this narrow, biased
paradigm, choosing instead to focus on “how much virus was present
in diff erent bodily secretions, and whether or not mosquitoes,
toothbrushing, casual contact, or contact sports could lead to
transmission of the disease” (35). There was no mention of poverty,
of class issues, of oppression by race or gender or sexuality in the
analysis of roots and causes of HIV/AIDS, but merely an increasingly
biological discourse directed towards fi nding the vector, the germ,
the pathogen from which the disease stemmed.
The above summation, though grossly generalized, demonstrates
the concept of the social construction of disease in action. While
HIV/AIDS is caused by a specifi c retrovirus, the meaning and
understanding of what the disease is has shifted and changed over
time and social conditions. As we have seen, those with the power
Falling Through the Cracks
20
to name and defi ne gave an identity to a disease, one that in reality
was striking all members of the population, gay and straight, male
and female alike. This, however, was ignored and hidden, concealed
through the construction of risk groups. Those who were defi ned
as “at-risk” refl ected the biases and prejudices entrenched in our
society at the time; these risk groups served to reproduce the same
assumptions that led to their formation. By narrowing the focus
and the responsibility of HIV/AIDS upon discrete portions of
the population, epidemiologists, researchers, and other medical
professionals simultaneously augmented the stigma and blame that
was levied upon those diagnosed as HIV-positive. However, Anthony
J. Lemmelle, who posits that the United States health system is
inherently racialized and structured in a way that has historically
harmed African-Americans and other people of color, points out,
Engaging in high risk behaviors has more to do
with the way of life that is produced by structures
of inequality than with individual choices. When
we make believe race no longer matters, we
become lulled into a faith that individuals control
their destinies by making choices. According to
such logic, if individuals would stop doing the
things that lead to their illnesses and take personal
responsibilities for their actions, then society
would be a better place.
(2002:19-20)
It is this very logic that has informed the direction of the United
States health system with regards to HIV/AIDS for the past twenty-fi
ve years. Although the concept of “race” that Lemelle brings up can
be substituted with any identifying category (class, sexual orientation,
gender, etcetera), the point remains the same: By pointing a fi nger
at the individual, rather than taking into account the entirety of
social processes related to the spread of HIV/AIDS, we turn a blind
eye to structures and institutions that are inherently unfair and
biased. Furthermore, we leave out an entire body of people from the
equation, a move that is threatening to not only their health, but to
society’s as a whole.
Jamila Sinlao
21
The paradigm that the risk factor discourse traps us in is one that
negatively and harmfully infl uences health practices and muddles the
way that individuals conceive of their personal risk. A number of
studies have investigated this very dynamic. The use of risk factors
in making a diagnosis, also known as “medical profi ling” (Poindexter
2004), can serve to ameliorate the decision-making process for
medical professionals, but in the case of HIV/AIDS, it can result in
an inaccurate or false diagnosis. In their respective articles, Cynthia
Cannon Poindexter and researchers Kathleen A. Grove, Donald P.
Kelly, and Judith Liu (1997) make use of medical narratives to examine
how women outside of defi ned risk groups (homosexuals, people of
color, drug users, those who engage in “risky” behavior) can miss their
chances for early diagnosis and, thus, early prevention due to biases
held by their physicians. Both articles also examine the biases and
misconceptions the studied sample held before they were diagnosed
as HIV-positive, revealing the false sense of security and immunity
many women originally held.
Poindexter uses the transcripts and interviews with the parents
of a young, heterosexual, White woman who is HIV-positive to
examine the ideas of privilege, prejudice, and stigma. Peg and Mike,
the parents of Kate, an HIV-positive woman, off er their stories and
memories about Kate’s long road to diagnosis. They highlight Kate’s
position as “normal” – as parents, they always ensured that she had
talented, intelligent doctors; as an adult, Kate did not engage in
high-risk behavior typical of an individual at-risk for HIV. She went
undiagnosed for at least two years; even as Kate’s illness progressed,
her physician, who regularly treated HIV-positive patients, never
made the connection. As Poindexter summarizes, “Peg juxtaposes
the presence of good medical care with the fact that the doctors
did not test Kate for HIV, and she off ers the hypothesis that
Kate’s ‘lifestyle’… did not alert physicians that she might have had
‘exposure’” (6). Peg, the mother, later off ers the idea of “stigma” as
being another reason why doctors may have neglected to test her
daughter, even when all of the symptoms were present; in the end,
the diagnosis did not come until Kate had almost reached the point
of full-blown AIDS. As it is, Peg’s shock at her daughter’s diagnosis
stemmed from her own misconceptions of HIV risk factors. Her
husband, Mike, states it best:
Falling Through the Cracks
22
“I thought it was, like I said, one segment of the
population that had it. And, uh, I thought it was
strictly a gay thing, that was it. Geez, was I wrong,
Huh! you know? Shame on me. But, no one’s going to
put a lot of eff ort into something unless it concerns
them, everybody’s selfi sh in their own right. If it isn’t
going to bother you, you have nothing to gain by
learning about it, why bother?”
(504; emphasis in original)
This fi nal summation is tragic and poignant. In a sense, one feels as
though he and his wife cannot be faulted. To a certain extent, the
dialogue that has centered around HIV/AIDS for the past twenty-fi ve
years has specifi cally targeted homosexuals and drug users (consider,
once again, the “4-H” club mentioned by Goldstein), which was later
expanded to include people of color and “promiscuous” women. For
those who do not fi t these risky populations, “Why bother?” becomes
a relevant question. Mike’s words articulate the feelings of many
who feel as though ignorance does not imply danger, who mistakenly
believe that “it can never happen to them.” His testimony highlights
why it is necessary and essential to break down and unpack the
discourse of risk.
The women of Grove et al.’s ethnographic study tell similar
stories. “‘Do I fi t the risk group?’” one woman asks. “‘When I went
into the hospital the doctors kept saying, ‘Look, she’s White, she’s
been married for almost seven years, she’s been with her husband
for seven years, she has a child, the child is well. Her husband is
well. They come from a good family’” (par. 25). Again, we see that
defi nitions of risk not only blindside patients but, frighteningly
enough, physicians as well. We also see a repeat of the idea of
normalcy, of morality, and of decency. Because HIV/AIDS is
associated with deviance and abnormality, this woman could not
possibly be HIV-positive. She, Kate, and the other women profi led
are the “ideal” women, middle-class Americans who are not viewed
as deviant, irresponsible, or pathological. They hold symbolic capital,
as Grove et al. would say, a concept taken from social thinker Pierre
Bourdieu.
Jamila Sinlao
23
They are White, heterosexual, married, educated,
and/or middle class. Possession of any of these forms
of symbolic capital defl ects the public’s perception
of them as being ‘carriers’ for a potentially fatal
disease and helps them have more control over the
management of their possible stigma.
(par. 7)
This combination of economic, cultural, and social privilege
transforms these women; instead of being viewed by others as
promiscuous vectors, the way that HIV-positive women of color
might be regarded, they are instead unfortunate victims, “good
girls” who are harmed not by their own actions, but because of the
actions of others – an unfaithful husband, a dishonest boyfriend, and
other such scenarios. “‘I slept with one guy and I got it from him,’”
one woman claims. “‘I’m just an innocent. I mean, all people have
to do is look at me to see that I’m a normal person’” (par. 63). As
the authors note, this construction of innocence and victimization
states that there are some who are “considered more ‘deserving’ of
being infected than others because of their socioeconomic status,
sexual preference, occupation, or use of illegal (or illicit) drugs – the
very social markers used to defi ne risk groups” (par. 8). However,
as Poindexter illustrated in her discussion of Kate, these women
are far less likely to be diagnosed until the illness has progressed to
dangerous levels. This irony is upsetting; Poindexter refers to it as
“a double-edged sword” whose “destructiveness and virulence stems
from cutting in both directions” (511).
Grove et al.’s compiled narratives are fascinating, heart wrenching,
and angering to read. The same emotions and experiences are
repeated countless times: overwhelming shock at the diagnosis;
feelings of stigma and shame; and fears of societal exclusion.
However, because of their cultural capital and their outward
appearance, many of these women were able to “pass” as HIV-negative,
fabricating stories and excuses for their illnesses and poor
health. For those women who chose to disclose their true illness to
friends and confi dants, they were more likely to receive sympathetic
and understanding responses. “They were seen as individuals who
Falling Through the Cracks
24
merited genuine concern without being socially isolated – the fate
of many who are discredited” (par. 58). These stories point to every
pitfall, every danger associated with medical profi ling and utilizing
risk factors. The very argument that some people have a greater
chance of contracting HIV/AIDS because of their lifestyle creates an
inevitable distinction between those who are normal and those who
are pathological; it all but ensures that there will be some people who
are stigmatized and some who are not, and virtually guarantees that
there will be people who fall through the cracks, just as we have seen
with these women.
III. Conclusion and Final Thoughts
The biomedical model, as discussed above, is one that is fi rmly
entrenched in our society; it is not going away anytime soon. What
must be changed and what must be countered is the overwhelming
push to privilege single-minded biology and rational science over
multifaceted studies of society. This is particularly the case with
risk factors in HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Although these artifi cial
distinctions of lifestyle risk may serve to assist doctors, medical
professionals, and the general public in understanding the nature
or face of an illness in better terms, the aforementioned scenarios
demonstrate that lifestyle risk also reproduces stereotypes, prejudices,
assumptions, and biases, skewing the overall perception of illness
and creating systems of privilege by way of rewarding social capital,
and enforcing stigma, blame, and censure upon those labeled as
deviant. At the same time, those same people who have the luxury
to exercise their social capital become trapped by the very system
that favors them, losing out on the chance to obtain early diagnosis
and, thereby, a greater likelihood of surviving HIV. These missing
pieces of the HIV/AIDS puzzle inadvertently help to perpetuate
the same stereotypes of risk and likelihood. Grove et al. points out
that “[a] woman who possesses socially recognized symbolic capital
can choose to be an invisible deviant; her HIV status may never be
revealed.” Even if she does disclose her status, “[S]he can draw on
dominant cultural conceptions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and continue to be
seen as an innocent victim. Thus, to confi dants and acquaintances,
the association of AIDS with outsiders is perpetuated” (par. 71).
Jamila Sinlao
25
Finally, all that can be said is that the paradigms created by risk
factors place society into a metaphorical box, one that constrains and
limits how we understand HIV/AIDS. Because of this, they unfairly
single out certain members of the population as responsible for the
epidemic because of their lifestyle while hiding other members of
the population who are also at risk. The results are ugly and painful
and dangerous: stigmatized individuals who bear the weight of a
life-threatening and debilitating disease along with the censure of
society, and individuals who may escape the initial censure received
by stigmatized communities but who, in the end, still feel the sharp
sting of HIV’s bite.
Works Cited
Armstrong, David. 2003. “Social Theorizing About Health and
Illness.” Pp. 24-35 in Handbook of Social Studies in Health and
Medicine, edited by Gary L. Albrecht, Ray Fitzpatrick, and Susan
C. Scrimshaw. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Aronowitz, Robert A. Making Sense of Illness: Science, Society, and
Disease. 1998. Pp. 111-144. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Conrad, Peter. 2001. “The Relevance of Risk.” Pp. 383-4 in The
Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives. 6th Ed., edited by
Peter Conrad. New York: Worth Publishers.
Goldstein, Nancy. 1997. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-22 in The Gender Politics
of HIV/AIDS in Women: Perspectives on the Pandemic in the United
States, edited by Nancy Goldstein and Jennifer L. Manlowe. New
York: New York University Press.
Grove, Kathleen A., Donald P. Kelly and Judith Liu. 1997. “‘But Nice
Girls Don’t Get It:’ Women, Symbolic Capital, and the Social
Construction of AIDS.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Vol.
26 (3): 317-338.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, The. 2006a. “HIV/AIDS Policy
Fact Sheet: African Americans.” <http://www.kff .org/hivaids/
Falling Through the Cracks
26
upload/6089-03.pdf>.
____. 2006b. “HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet: Women and HIV/AIDS
in the United States.” <http://www.kff .org/hivaids/upload/6092-03.
pdf>.
Lemelle, Anthony J. 2002. “Racialized Social System and HIV
Infection: The Case of African Americans.” International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy. Vol. 22 (4):133-158.
Lupton, Deborah. 2001. “Risk as Moral Danger: The Social and
Political Functions of Risk Discourse in Public Health.” Pp.
385-401 in Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives. 6th Ed,
edited by Peter Conrad. New York: Worth Publishers.
Oppenheimer, Gerald M. 1998. “In the Eye of the Storm: The
Epidemiological Construction of AIDS.” Pp. 267-299 in AIDS:
The Burdens of History. Eds. Elizabeth Fee and Daniel M. Fox.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Poindexter, Cynthia Cannon. 2004. “Medical Profi ling: Narratives of
Privilege, Prejudice, and HIV Stigma.” Qualitative Health Research,
Vol. 14 (4): 496-512.
Rodriguez, Bill. 1997. “Biomedical Models of HIV and Women.” Pp.
24-42 in The Gender Politics of HIV/AIDS in Women: Perspectives on
the Pandemic in the United States, edited by Nancy Goldstein and
Jennifer L. Manlowe. New York: New York University Press.
Turner, Bryan S. 2003. “The History of the Changing Concepts of
Health and Illness.” Pp. 9-23 in Handbook of Social Studies in Health
and Medicine, edited by Gary L. Albrecht, Ray Fitzpatrick, and
Susan C. Scrimshaw. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor Hobin
27
Writer’s Comment:
Under the new harsh sentencing rules of modern juvenile laws, we are
placing psychologically underdeveloped and vulnerable individuals, who will
inevitably be released from prison, into an environment that breaks down
even the most cunning and heinous adult criminals. When Professor Brian
Komei Dempster gave my Rhetoric and Composition 120 class the option
to create a research-based paper of our choice, I knew it would be a chance
to highlight this pressing and underreported social problem. I chose to use
the story of a real youth offender from Los Angeles in order to illuminate
the way that California’s new youth laws function, treat youth offenders, and
affect our State. The facts and the story in this essay will help to separate
the reality from what we have been presented by the media and politicians.
Read this short paper about what we are doing to our kids and, if you are
concerned, get educated about the subject, take an active stand against the
laws, and work to support justice based on facts instead of prejudices.
—Taylor Hobin
Instructor’s Comment:
Taylor Hobin’s essay, Criminal, creates a strong pathos by focusing on the
life-altering consequences of Proposition 21 on a particular individual, Duc
Ta. Taylor skillfully weaves refl ections upon Ta with effective appeals to logic
that show the adverse impact of this proposition on Ta and various members
of the legal system, including judges and lawyers. Taylor’s piece also makes
us examine the connection between these laws and the vicious cycle of
recidivism. Through this humane and balanced argumentative approach,
we both understand and feel the deeper implications of this legislation on
juveniles and our society. This bold and insightful analysis brings to light an
urgent problem we must confront.
—Brian Komei Dempster, Rhetoric and Composition
Criminal
28
Taylor Hobin
Criminal
Alone in a cell, Duc Ta felt the concrete walls press in on him.
He often thought that if he had one wish, it would be for a
window, so that he could see something natural. His dreams would
call him back to Los Angeles and to his memories of the rolling
hills, frustrating afternoons in traffi c, and the ocean in Long Beach
where he had spent many summers in his early youth. But now
he was fl ooded in a sea of concrete and artifi cial light. Many days,
the articulate young man could not shake the feeling that he was
drowning. He began to paint in order to pass the time, but he found
it hard to overcome the dark images that demanded to take form
from his brush. A life in a cell was inconceivable in his childhood,
and during an interview many years into his incarceration he would
admit, “I am no longer me, the man you see sitting in front of you is
no longer Duc” (McRae). This young man’s incarceration has forever
altered his spirit. We must strive to make punishments that are as
transforming and painful as Duc’s congruent to the crimes that he,
and other young men and women, commit. Why should the public
be concerned about the hardships or pain of this convicted criminal?
Because an unexplained and insidious side to this story reveals that
Duc Ta is just an unfairly targeted kid who does not deserve the
severe punishment that the state of California has given him.
He is now serving his sentence of thirty-fi ve years to life in
a maximum security adult prison for his off ense. His profi le fi ts
California’s new defi nition of a youth criminal precisely, and he is
paying the appropriate debt to society as set forth by the law. In
California, many young men like Duc Ta are paying similar debts,
losing their lives, and being treated as hardened adult criminals. The
change in the sentencing practices for youth off enders in California
makes it necessary to question the validity of the defi nition of crime
and the sentences that are being upheld as appropriate punishments
by the State. Although the shift in sentencing for youth crime has
gone largely unnoticed by the public, it has been drastic and has
Taylor Hobin
29
far-reaching implications. The policy hurts California’s kids by
incarcerating them for simply being present at crimes, and it hurts
the State by socializing these kids into the prison system only to
send them back to the streets with staggering rates of recidivism. In
addition, it cripples the State by upholding blatant double standards
between policy and law, it ties the hands of people in the legal
profession, and it is based only on opinions of policy authors who
pose viewpoints that are incongruent with the State’s public opinion.
Duc Ta is a prime example of the dangers and the dark side
of California’s new youth criminal laws. The voter pamphlet for
Proposition 21, the driving force behind redefi ning youth crime in
California, clearly states, “It doesn’t lock up kids for minor off enses,
place minors in contact with adult inmates, or raise your taxes! It’s
not about typical teenagers who make stupid mistakes; these kids
can be reached through mentoring, prevention and rehabilitation”
(“Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 21”). Duc Ta, the El
Monte resident who was a sixteen-year-old at the time of his arrest,
however, would disagree with this voter pamphlet’s proclamation.
Ta’s experience with California’s new defi nition of youth crime and
his imprisonment demonstrates the harsh punishment that Prop. 21
allows and the type of “justice” that society is now upholding. The
policy promises a utopian view of increased punishment that has
been contradicted by the actual reality being dealt out. Consider,
for example, the crime for which Duc Ta received thirty-fi ve years to
life.
Ta was driving a vehicle with friends when a passenger from his
car produced a weapon and fi red it out the window. The passengers,
who were confi rmed members of an Asian boys’ gang, admitted that
they were following a car containing rival gang members when the
shot was fi red. The gunshots did not hit anyone, and no one was
injured in the incident. However, Duc Ta, the articulate sixteen-year-old
with no former criminal record, was sentenced to thirty-fi ve years
to life. The prosecution or defense never contested the fact that the
gun did not belong to Ta and was never fi red by him, yet those facts
did nothing to reduce his sentencing. “It is the citizens who passed
these laws . . . which require more stringent punishment for gang
conduct,” states Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney May Chung,
who prosecuted the case (McRae). The judge sentenced Ta to serve
Criminal
30
15 years for attempted murder and 20 years for a gun enhancement.
The sentence before Prop. 21 would have been seven years for
attempted murder with an additional year for a gun charge. The
trial judge, Charles Horan, said after the trial that, “The law for gang
motivated crimes gave me NO OPTIONS” (McRae). “No options” is
unacceptable for the judges who are supposed to sentence our State’s
children who are in trouble and for the prosecutors who are supposed
to propose appropriate sentences for our criminals. However, both
these parties are standing with their hands tied behind their backs
because of the current laws, which force them to put kids away for
most of their lives for minimal criminal involvement. It is appalling
to watch our legal professionals, even prosecutors who make a living
out of fi ghting to put people in jail, complaining that the system is
too harsh . When these professionals talk, the public should see a
giant warning sign to which we must listen.
The Duc Ta case is a perfect example of the way that the new
laws are binding our judges and lawyers to unfair sentencing. The
prosecutor was forced to press charges for harsh and long sentencing
that she clearly did not agree with, as evidenced by her post-trial
comments. The judge also released a comment that alluded to his
discontent in the face of his duty to uphold California law. These
laws are unfair to the juveniles, the lawyers, and the judges in cases
like that of Duc Ta; indeed, everyone is losing under the current
system. Unfortunately, this is not a rare case of events that can be
brushed aside. In fact, this type of sentencing is becoming very
prevalent in courtrooms all over the state.
Duc Ta is far from being an outlier in the new climate of
punishment for the youth criminal. He is only one portrait of
injustice faced by young people who are labeled criminals in this
state. The far-reaching reforms that drove the law drastically to the
right of the political spectrum are forcing the defi nition of a criminal
onto many youth off enders and taking away the power from the legal
system to fi t the appropriate punishment to the crime. In turn, the
reforms are living up to Pete Wilson’s, the main endorser of Prop.
21, goal of giving, “Adult time for adult crime” to kids all throughout
the state. However, the tightening of rules and broadening of the
defi nition have not only led to an enhanced criminalization through
harsh jail sentences, but they are also threatening the safety of the
Taylor Hobin
31
State. Although the legislation was passed in 1996, and the full
repercussions of it have not yet been felt, a number of trends have
recently arisen which are troubling and worth exploring. The data
points to the reality that the State is, in fact, creating more criminals
by giving small time youth off enders the same sentencing as the very
serious off enders.
A California Department of Justice study from 2000
demonstrates that arrests for violent crimes in juveniles account
for only 1.2% of juvenile arrests with only small fl uctuations in this
percentage over the years (OJJDP). A huge problem with Prop.
21 has been the eff ect that it has had on the other 98.8% petty
crime off enders in this equation, also known as the shallow end
off enders in the juvenile justice system. It has created fi fty new
felonies, including small off enses like $500 graffi ti damage, that now
requires six months of jail time. In addition, it has harshly increased
sanctions on “violent crime,” which includes acts like simple assault,
such as schoolyard fi ghts, verbal abuse, or fi ghts with parents. These
crimes can now carry such harsh penalties that kids are seeing jail
time of over ten years for off enses that many view as a general part
of maturation for juveniles. In this way, many juveniles from the
“shallow end” of juvenile off ending are being pulled into the “deep
end” through longer sentencing, where their hope for rehabilitation
is compromised by their separation from society.
The juveniles who end up in the deep end of criminal system are
causing a threat to California society. When these impressionable
young people emerge from years of living with hardened criminals,
many use their skills and earn enough money to satisfy their “quick-fi
x” expectations through only one career—a life of crime. In
addition, it is not a small number of youth off enders who are being
acculturated to a life of crime, and the number is clearly large enough
to substantially aff ect the amount of crime on California streets in
the future. The sentences have become staggeringly more severe for
shallow end off enders. Thus, an ever increasing group of normal kids
are going to prison rather then receiving probation or rehabilitation.
As these kids return to society, the streets will become a more
dangerous place, and the statistics clearly point to this hypothesis.
In eff ect, the 98.8% of children who commit small time off enses
are being incarcerated in order to curb future crime. However, this
Criminal
32
philosophy is having the reverse eff ect when we analyze statistics of
youth recidivism.
A close examination of California’s prison system reveals the
apparent impact of penitentiary and penitentiary-like juvenile
settings on inmates who, upon release, contribute to ominous
recidivism rates. Juveniles who leave penitentiary settings exhibit a
60% rate of recidivism, which means that 60% will be re-arrested
and will return to prison for committing another crime (Chesney-
Lind 273). The number is closer to a 12% rate of recidivism at
successful, and less expensively priced, rehabilitation programs, such
as San Francisco’s Detention Diversionary Advocacy Project (DDAP).
These statistics clearly illustrate that society would rehabilitate
juveniles inmates with approximately a 50% higher success rate than
what we have now. This means that 50% more juvenile off enders
would never re-off end if rehabilitative programs like DDAP were
instituted in place of penitentiaries. It is unjust for the public to pay
more for a system that is not working and has a clear and eff ective
alternative model. The winner in this situation is hard to fi nd, but
the taxpayers or the kids of California clearly are not benefi ting.
Through the enactment of Prop. 21, the state of California is
processing kids, even for minor off enses, in a setting where they will
not be reformed and where they will pose a substantial threat to
society when released. The state of California is, in fact, training the
shallow end youth off enders with the skills of hardened criminals,
which are necessary to survive in the prison system, and then turning
them loose on the streets. The methodology is counterproductive
to reducing crime in society because it assures that shallow end
off enders will be exposed to the tools and the philosophies necessary
for a life of crime. Furthermore, these kids will be released from
prison into the same environments that pushed them toward
off ending, and then, 60% of the time, they will choose a life of crime
again once they are back on the streets.
If we examine the ideologies of the players behind the new laws,
their motives may become illuminated. In 2005, former Education
Secretary William Bennett, and a co-author of the theories which
underlie the youth crime reform, was quoted on his radio show
as saying, “If you wanted to reduce crime—if that were your sole
purpose—you could abort every black child in this country and
Taylor Hobin
33
the crime rate would go down” (“Bennett Under Fire for Remarks
on Blacks, Crimes”). When confronted with his statement and the
possible ramifi cations he refused to apologize and said it would be
“morally unacceptable, but true” (“Bennett Under Fire for Remarks
on Blacks, Crimes”). It is hard to imagine that California fought
to change its defi nition of youth crime based on theories that were
originated by a man with these deep prejudices imbedded in his
morals. This makes it plausible to assume that these same injustices
are creeping into our system and being written into law. Our laws are
not a distant code that have no bearing on our citizens and our way
of life, and until they are changed California will continue to suff er on
many levels. In the meantime, while California stalls to take the steps
necessary to ratify the defi nition of a youth criminal which it upholds,
Duc Ta will fall asleep another night in a concrete cell and wonder
how he will survive his next day. How many more like him will have
to do the same?
The time is upon California to reassess the defi nition of a youth
criminal and expose the dangers of “adult time for adult crime” in
the state. The new defi nition of youth crime is unjust for kids like
Duc Ta who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time or who
have grown up with the wrong friends. It also ties the hands of the
legal professionals who are in the best place to eff ectively analyze the
cases. Most importantly, however, the law is treating youth criminals
as adults who will be locked away forever. Instead, they will inevitably
be released to the streets after having been trained and acculturated
to the practices and the lifestyles of California’s most brutal prisons.
Critics would say striking the laws from jurisprudence would be an act
that is “soft on crime” and idealistically weak and liberal. However,
most of the supporters of this issue in politics today are members
of, or deep into the pockets of, the prison guard unions, the food
companies, and the contractors who make billions in the prison
business every year. The remainder of the supporters in the public
sphere are largely misinformed and in the dark on the cold hard facts
of this issue. There is no other reason to endorse this system after
the facts are clear: we are paying more then necessary for a failing
system. This analysis has proven that the consequences are heavy for
the taxpayers, the legal professionals, and the state. Kids like Duc Ta,
however, suff er the ultimate consequence; the dreams of kids like Duc
Criminal
34
fade every moment as they lose their days, their hope, and ultimately
themselves inside small, cold cells. These losses cannot be justifi ed
with the information that we have, and we can no longer allow the
pain that California’s kids like Duc feel while locked inside their
concrete tombs.
Works Cited
“About Proposition 21.” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 28 June
2006 <http://www.cjcj.org/jjic/prop_21.php>.
“Bennett Under Fire for Remarks on Blacks, Crimes.” CNN.com. 30
September 2005 <http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/
bennett.comments/index.html>.
Chesney-Lind, Meda. Shelden, Randall G. Girls, Delinquency, and
Juvenile Justice. Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 2004.
Dilulio, John. Superpredator Thesis. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1995.
Kolhatkar, Sonali, “Proposition 21: Further Degrading a Flawed
System.” 3 March 2000 <http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~progress/
articles/sk_prop21.html>.
Males, Mike. “Exposing the Myth of ‘Youth Violence.’ ” San Francisco
Attorney. April-May 2000.
McRae, Susan. “Filmmaker Puts Focus on Plight of Young
Off enders.” DailyJournal.com. California Council for the
Humanities Press Room. 3 March 2004 <http://www.calhum.org/
programs/doc_juvies_article.htm>.
Muwakkil, Salim. “Why is America So Afraid of Its Children?”
Chicago Tribune. 2 April 2001.
OJJDP. Juvenile Off enders and Victims: 2006 National Report. US
Taylor Hobin
35
Department of Justice. Offi ce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. 2006 <http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/enews/07juvjust/070413.
html>.
“Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 21.” CA Secretary of State-
Primary Election 2000. <http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/
Propositions/21norbt.htm>.
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
36
Writer’s Comment:
King Lear is considered one of Shakespeare’s greatest dramatic plays.
However, as I discovered in Professor Brown’s Renaissance in England
seminar and during my extensive research for this paper, this play is also
extremely misinterpreted. Hundreds of Shakespearean scholars contend King
Lear is a tragic story of love and devotion, and the characters that epitomize
these qualities include Lear’s youngest daughter Cordelia, Lear’s faithful Kent,
and Gloucester’s son Edgar. But Professor Brown challenged each student
to see beyond the traditional interpretation of Shakespeare’s plays, to read
between the lines, and to follow the subtle actions of every character. In
doing so, the true nature and intention of each character is clear. In my
paper, I re-evaluate the long held belief of Kent as a noble servant, and I
argue that he is actually a cunning and deceptive Machiavel who intends to
drive Lear insane to make way for a military coup either by Cordelia or her
husband, the king of France.
—Stephanie Bautista
Instructor’s Comment:
For the Renaissance in England Honors Seminar, students write a fi nal paper
in which they argue an innovative reading of an assigned literary work
that the class has discussed. The essay must go beyond a surface reading
and offer a close textual analysis of pertinent passages, as well as show a
familiarity with scholarship on the topic. Among other literary works, the
class reads a selection of Shakespeare’s sonnets and three of his plays, the
last being King Lear, one of his most sophisticated and critically challenging
works. The class discusses Shakespeare’s most distinctive motifs, some of
which are “mutual cunning,” duplicity, the unreliability of appearances, and
Machiavellian politics. Several characters in King Lear are “too good to be
true,” and the class discusses the possible deception of Cordelia, Kent, and
Edgar. Stephanie chose to develop a reading discussed in class, arguing the
seemingly selfl ess Kent, who goes into disguise to serve a king who has
misjudged and banished him, is not as benefi cent as he appears and has a
private political agenda. Stephanie’s essay is an excellent example of an
argumentative essay that tackles a critically challenging subject with aplomb
and conviction, offering a lucid, new reading of an old text.
–Carolyn Brown, Department of English
Stephanie Bautista
37
Stephanie Bautista
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
Shakespeare’s King Lear is a tragic story in many respects, but
especially for Lear’s devoted and loving servant Kent. Not even
Lear’s hasty banishment of Kent in the fi rst scene diminishes his love,
and he goes to great lengths to ensure Lear is protected from the evil
working against him in England by serving his master in disguise. Even
though Kent’s noble acts go unnoticed by Lear and he is unable to
prevent Lear’s death, Kent is willing to continue following the master
whom he adores, even in death. At least this is how a traditional read
of King Lear interprets Kent’s character. However, a close examination
of the text compromises the long-held belief in his faithfulness to Lear.
This paper will deconstruct the traditional depiction of Kent
by reinterpreting his dialogue and actions as intending to instigate
trouble between Lear and his daughters, it will investigate why
Kent takes on a disguise and keeps it for so long, it will call into
question his methods of caring for Lear, it will discuss the possibility
of a suspicious alliance with Cordelia, and it will discuss the Fool’s
seemingly idle prattle as off ering proof of Kent’s ulterior motives.
After I examine each of these topics it will be clear that Kent is not
a selfl ess and caring servant of Lear, but rather he is a deceitful man
intent on pushing Lear to insanity and thus allowing his true master
and ally, France, to usurp control in England.
In their assessment, Jonas A. Barish and Marshall Waingrow
describe Kent as “the quintessence of the good servant and the
touchstone for service throughout the play…His code can be reduced
almost to two commands: absolute loyalty to his master and absolute
loyalty to truth…[and] Kent’s good service therefore starts with
an act of disobedience.”1 Barish and Waingrow attribute Kent’s
uncharacteristic disobedience to Lear in Act I, scene i, to both his
commitment to honesty and to his master. They argue that Kent
knew Lear misunderstood Cordelia’s seemingly cool response during
the love test and that banishing her was a mistake; and rather than
1 Jonas A. Barish and Marshal Waingrow, “’Service’ in King Lear,” Shakespeare
Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1958): 349.
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
38
allow Lear to make such a rash decision, he selfl essly sacrifi ced his
reputation as a subservient attendant in order to protect Lear from
emotional distress. In doing this, Kent gave up his “role of servant
for that of master – and teacher.”2
Unfortunately, the argument of Barish and Waingrow is fl awed.
In this scene, Kent does not simply try to convince Lear that he
has made an error in his judgment of Cordelia, he actually commits
insubordination and insults the man he supposedly loves. Rather
than address Lear with a term of endearment or respect, Kent refers
to him as an “old man” in line 148; and he further disrespects Lear
by interrupting him in line 163 and by accusing Lear of committing
“evil” in line 168 (I.i.148-168). Kent played on Lear’s sadness and
anger at being rejected by the daughter he loved most. He intended
to insult him so that he was assured banishment in order to get the
plot to overthrow Lear underway.
Those arguing in favor of Kent’s loyalty and goodness state that
he is an “honest counselor who off ers unpalatably sound advice”3
instead of fl attery to the king and who was reacting to Lear’s insult to
Cordelia’s integrity, which resulted in his disfavor in the eyes of Lear.
But the interpretation of Kent as the noble counselor who has Lear’s
best interests at heart is challenged by his actions toward Goneril’s
servant Oswald. In Act I, scene iv, Kent does nothing to stop Lear
from attacking Oswald, and he instead provokes Lear into further
humiliating Oswald by tripping him and pushing him around. This
leads Goneril to castigate her father, resulting in Lear being further
alienated from his daughters.
Moreover, in Act II, Kent, rather than immediately delivering
a message to Regan at the request of Lear, begins insulting Oswald
unprovoked. After Oswald politely greets Kent upon his arrival at
Gloucester’s castle, Kent responds by calling him “a base…whoreson,
glass-gazing, superserviceable, fi nical rogue…and the son and heir of
a mongrel bitch” (II.ii15-22); and he, then, attempts to duel Oswald,
who refuses to engage him. When Cornwall, Gloucester, and Regan
enter the scene and prevent Kent from doing more harm to Oswald,
2 Barish and Waingrow, 349.
3 Kenneth Muir, William Shakespeare: King Lear, (New York: Penguin Books
Inc., 1989), 57.
Stephanie Bautista
39
Kent begins insulting Cornwall and the others and is placed in
the stocks for his behavior.
In defense of Kent’s violent outburst against Oswald, Barish and
Waingrow state:
Oswald is Kent turned inside out, the bad servant
anatomized, and their altercation in the courtyard of
Gloucester’s castle [is]…the confrontation of true service
with false. The true servitor arrives meanly clothed, his
coarse garments the emblem of his humility and of his
“unpublish’d virtue”. The false servant, on the other had,
appears fastidiously arrayed in the livery of his mistress’
house, in fi nery signifying not only his own narcissism and
that of his mistress Goneril, but the total immolation of his
will in hers, his failure to exist at all except as her creature.4
The traditional read of King Lear assumes that Goneril and
Regan are vain, cruel, and unfaithful daughters to Lear; and therefore
Oswald, by his association with Goneril, is also a devious and
grasping person who deserves the insults that Kent infl icts upon him.
Defenders of Kent also argue that his outbursts are a result of his old
age. In Act II, scene ii, Kent is described as an ‘ancient ruffi an’ (line
63) with a grey beard, and he informs Cornwall that he is ‘too old to
learn’ in line 129. Even if a reader fi nds Kent’s outbursts somewhat
irrational, scholars disregard these instances as the actions of a senile
man who is thoughtless and enraged at the treatment of his master by
those people who should love him most.
However, scholars advancing the traditional interpretation
of Lear overlook the fact that Kent never delivers Lear’s message
to Gloucester even though the two men are alone together after
Kent is placed in the stocks. In fact, Kent only states that he is at
the king’s service in line 131, but he never mentions that he has a
message specifi cally for Gloucester. If Kent truly is senile as scholars
suggest, how could he remember that he is Lear’s messenger without
remembering that he was sent to give a message to Gloucester?
A reader should also recognize that although it was considered
4 Barish and Waingrow, 349.
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
40
disrespectful to punish a king’s messenger as Kent was,5 Kent
deserved chastisement for his ill-treatment of Oswald. Kent’s unruly
and disturbing behavior would also serve as confi rmation for Goneril
and Regan’s belief that their father and his attendants are destructive
and violent, which is mentioned in Act I, scene iii when Goneril
explains that “every hour / [Lear] fl ashes into one gross crime or
other / That sets [them] all at odds” (lines 5-6). This complaint is also
reiterated in Act I, scene iv when Goneril explains that Lear’s men
are “so disordered, se deboshed, and bold, / That this…court, infected
with their manners, / …Makes it more like a tavern or a brothel
/ Than a graced palace” (lines 248-252). Kent purposely acts in a
disruptive manner in order to deepen the rift between Lear and his
daughters, thus leaving Lear without companions or allies, with the
exception of Kent. Lear’s alienation and “mistreatment” also provide
Cordelia with a reason to invade Britain with the French army.
Furthermore, contrary to the traditional belief that Kent intends
to be a trusted caretaker to Lear after his banishment by disguising
himself, there are instances that force the reader to question how
well Kent is caring for the king. Readers should note that in Act
II, scene iv, Kent lies to Lear, which refutes the idea that he is an
honest servant. After being found in the stocks, Lear inquires how
it happened that his servant should be treated like this, and Kent
responds with the following grand story:
My lord, when at their home
I did commend your Highness’ letters to them,
…My duty kneeling, came there a reeking post,
Stewed in his haste, half breathless, panting forth
From Goneril his mistress salutations,
Delivered letters, spite of intermission,
…And meeting here the other messenger,
Whose welcome I perceived had poisoned mine,
Being the very fellow which of late
Displayed so saucily against your Highness,
Having more man than wit about me, drew;
He raised the house, with loud and coward cries.
5 Muir, 67.
Stephanie Bautista
41
Your son and daughter found this trespass worth
The shame which here it suff ers.
(II.iv.26-44)
Kent, rather than telling Lear the truth, invents a story which
makes him seem like a victim who was unfairly treated. However, we,
the audience, know that Kent did not attempt to deliver the message
in the manner he explains to Lear. We know that Kent did not enter
Gloucester’s castle respectfully and that he was not rudely interrupted
by another messenger. One should wonder why Kent decides to tell
such a grandiose lie if his intention in confronting Oswald in Act
II, scene ii was to uphold the integrity of Lear. Furthermore, when
Kent is asked if he made any more off ence than what he told Lear, he
responds with another blatant lie by saying that he did nothing wrong
(lines 59-64).
Not only does Kent incite more feelings of hostility and ill-will
between Lear and his remaining daughters, but he also proves to be
a poor caretaker after Lear removes himself from both Goneril and
Regan’s homes. After Lear confronts both his daughters in Act II,
scene iv, he leaves them with Kent, Gloucester, and the Fool in the
middle of a storm; but when Act III, scene i begins, Kent enters
without Lear. The scene begins with a conversation between Kent
and another character with no other name than that of Gentleman,
and Kent goes on to ask this man where the king is. The Gentleman
informs Kent that Lear is out in the violent storm “contending with
the fretful elements” (line 4). Kent then inquires who is with Lear
and the Gentleman explains “[n]one but the Fool” (line 16) is with the
king.
The reader should wonder why Kent does not know where Lear
is and why he is not with the king whom he is supposedly protecting.
Some scholars of the traditional interpretation of the play, such as
Richard Knowles, suggest that there is a time gap between this scene
and the previous one that the audience is not aware of. But, if a
signifi cant amount of time has passed from the time Lear departed
from his daughters until this scene, why is the storm that began in
the previous scene continuing just as violently into the next scene?
Furthermore, the audience should question why the Gentleman
knows were Lear is, but Kent does not. If Kent is the devoted
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
42
servant that he is made out to be, he should be with the king all the
time or at least know where he is. However, Kent is obviously not a
loving servant because while Lear is out in a dangerous storm losing
his mind, Kent is busy carrying out secret plans with the Gentleman.
This brief scene shows that the only person truly to protecting Lear
is the Fool.
Besides Kent’s questionable care for Lear, his use of a disguise
and the amount of time he retains it confl ict with the idea of Kent
as a selfl ess servant devoted to Lear. A traditional read of the play
assumes that Kent took on the disguise of Caius in order to continue
serving Lear. But even scholars upholding this idea fi nd Kent’s
intentions vague. In Act I, scene iv, Kent states:
If but as well I other accents borrow,
That can my speech defuse, my good intent
May carry through itself to that full issue
For which I raz’d my likeness.
(lines 1-4)
Hugh Maclean fi nds this statement problematic because the so-called
“‘full issue’ is never precisely defi ned in the play.”6 Maclean
and other supporters of the traditional read therefore presume that
Kent’s “full issue” involves service to Lear and active concern for
Lear’s safety. However, their presumptions are proven false by Kent’s
actions against Oswald, his subsequent deepening of the rift between
Lear and his daughters, and his lack of concern for Lear’s safety in
Act III, scene i, when Lear is out in the tempest. Because the true
purpose of Kent’s disguise is never mentioned, and because Maclean’s
assumptions of Kent are wrong, one can easily see that Kent’s true
intention for taking on a disguise was to sabotage the leadership of
Britain and to push Lear to the brink of insanity.
Further proof of Kent’s sinister intentions in disguising himself
is revealed in his maintaining the disguise for so long. Cordelia
makes the audience aware of Kent’s unnecessary prolonged use of the
disguise in Act IV:
6 Hugh Maclean, “Disguise in King Lear: Kent and Edgar,” Shakespeare Quar-terly
11, no. 1 (1960): 51.
Stephanie Bautista
43
Cordelia
Be better suited.
These weeds are memories of those worser hours.
I prithee put them off .
Kent
Pardon, dear madam.
Yet to be known shortens my made intent.
My boon I make it that you know me not
Till time and I think meet.
(IV.vii.6-11)
If the purpose of the disguise is, as traditionalists contend, to
continue caring for Lear and to ensure his safety, the disguise is no
longer needed by the time Cordelia has the above conversation with
Kent because her father was already brought to her in scene iv of
the same act. If one were reading the play traditionally, Lear in the
hands of Cordelia relieves Kent of his obligation to protect the king,
thus making his disguise unnecessary. But because Kent is not really
concerned with the well-being of Lear, and because his true “intent”
is not complete, he cannot discard the disguise yet.
Hugh Maclean suggests Kent keeps the disguise because he
became fond of it for its own sake, and that in a sense the disguise
becomes master over his being.7 Maclean believes that Kent, through
the disguise, is freed from his usual social constraints, which is why
he acts so outrageously toward Oswald earlier in the play; and that
it is for this reason that Kent wishes to keep it. Maclean then states
that Kent’s refusal to abandon the disguise when requested to do
so by Cordelia in Act IV confi rms that he has “lost control” of the
disguise and of himself.8
Although Maclean makes an interesting argument for why Kent
keeps his disguise, the idea of Kent “losing control” is faulty. Kent
proves that he is in control of himself because he is aware in Act IV
that his disguise has an “intent;” and the fact that he uses the same
7 Maclean, 53.
8 Maclean, 53.
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
44
word, “intent,” to describe the purpose of the disguise proves that
he is just as much in control of his faculties as he was at the onset of
the play. Furthermore, although Kent’s “intent” is obscure, it would
be correct to assume that it remains the same from Act I to Act IV.
Obviously, his “intent” in taking on a disguise was not to protect
Lear because his actions prior to Act IV, which have already been
discussed, suggest otherwise.
Moreover, the audience should question why Kent does not
reveal his true identity to Lear earlier in the play if his intention
was to protect him. As the play progresses, Lear steadily loses his
sanity because he is deprived of the companionship of familiar
people, especially after Act III, scene vi, when his Fool mysteriously
disappears for the remainder of the play. When Lear re-enters the
stage for the fi rst time after Act III, the stage direction explains that
he enters fantastically dressed with wild fl owers, and his dialogue is
much more erratic and distressing. If Kent was actually concerned
about the well-being of Lear, he would remove his disguise; instead,
he leaves Lear to the care of the Gentleman in Act IV, scene iv
because some other “dear cause” (line 52) demands his attention.
What “dear cause” is Kent referring to if caring for Lear is supposedly
his primary concern and the reason for his disguise?
Kent fi nally decides to reveal his true identity in Act V, after
Lear’s mental and emotional states are beyond restoration because
Cordelia is dead. Just after Lear enters the scene with Cordelia’s dead
body, Kent begins to explain that he is both Kent and Caius; but Lear,
emotionally drained and mentally unstable is unable to comprehend
the revelation. Barish and Waingrow claim that “Kent’s tragic fate
is to fail to see his service consummated by an earthly reunion with
Lear; [because] in the fi nal meeting, the King, numbed by the death
of his daughter, scarcely recognizes his vassal and friend.”9 Barish and
Waingrow then go on to claim that Kent intends to rejoin Lear in
death because of his concluding lines:
I have a journey, sir, shortly to go;
My master calls me, I must not say no.
(VI.iii.324-325)
9 Barish and Waingrow, 355.
Stephanie Bautista
45
However, Lear, in his last words, does not request Kent to follow him;
and it could therefore be surmised that Kent does not intend to end his
life, but rather that he will go to France, where his true master resides.
Upon his arrival in France Kent and the king will begin preparing another
invasion of Britain; but this time to avenge the death of the king’s wife,
Cordelia.
With regard to his relationship to Cordelia, a traditional read of King
Lear holds that Kent suff ers banishment because he defends the honor
and integrity of Cordelia in Act I, scene i. A.C. Bradley claims that not
only should Kent be a beloved character for standing up for Cordelia,
but we should also be grateful to him because “when [Cordelia] is out of
sight, he constantly keeps her in our minds.”10 Scholars who agree with
Bradley probably assume that Kent refers to Cordelia intermittently
throughout the play because he is reminding the audience that Lear’s
only noble daughter, despite her unworthy banishment, is worried about
her father; and the manner in which Kent refers to her could suggest that
the two made plans to keep Lear safe.
But these ideas do not examine the suspicious nature of the possible
alliance between Kent and Cordelia. The fi rst clue that there is a
secret alliance between these two characters is in Act II, scene ii. In
this scene, Kent is already in disguise and has been placed in the stocks
as punishment for his violent quarrel with Oswald. The audience
should remember that Kent assumes his disguise in Act I, scene iv, after
Cordelia’s departure for France in scene i of the same act; therefore,
Cordelia should have no knowledge of Kent’s actions. However, while
Kent is in the stocks he reveals that he has a letter from Cordelia:
Approach, though beacon to this under globe,
That by thy comfortable beams I may
Peruse this letter…
I know ‘tis from Cordelia,
Who hath most fortunately been informed
Of my obscurèd course. And shall fi nd time
From this enormous state, seeking to give
Losses their remedies.
(II.ii.166-173)
10 A.C. Bradley, Shakespearian Tragedy (London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1922),
307.
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
46
From his dialogue, it seems as though Kent has just received the
letter because he has not read it yet. But the audience should take
into account that the journey between France and England is long,
making it impossible for a messenger to travel to France to inform
Cordelia of Kent’s plans and to have already returned to Britain to
give Kent Cordelia’s response. The only reasonable explanation for
Cordelia’s knowledge of Kent’s disguise is that the two planned that
he should take on a disguise. If this is the case, the idea of Kent
deciding to be in disguise in order to protect and serve Lear is proven
wrong.
Also, the idea that Kent responds in defense of Cordelia in Act I,
scene i, is unlikely. For a disguise to be necessary, Kent and Cordelia
would have to enrage Lear in order for him to banish Cordelia, and
in turn to banish Kent for defending her, thus making Cordelia’s cool
response to Lear’s love test and Kent’s interference on her behalf
intentional. The disguise was not a reaction to the events of Act I,
scene i; the events were purposely induced by Kent and Cordelia in
order to make Kent’s disguise necessary.
Further evidence of a devious alliance between Kent and Cordelia
is in Act III, scene i. It is here that Kent informs the Gentleman
that “from France there comes a power / Into this scattered kingdom,
who already, / Wise in our negligence, have secret feet / in some of
our best ports, and are at point / To show their open banner” (III.
i.30-34). It should strike the audience as curious that Kent knows the
French have landed troops in Britain and that they are prepared to
fi ght.
But what is more curious is the supposed purpose for France’s
invasion. Kent explains that the French are responding to the
“unnatural and bemadding sorrow / [that] The King hath cause to
plain” (III.i.38-39). According to Kent, the French are acting on
behalf of Lear because of the insults and threats he has endured from
his ungrateful daughters Goneril and Regan. However, the insults
that Lear supposedly receives from his daughters happened in the
previous scene, and in this scene Kent is informing the Gentleman
the French have already landed in Britain and are prepared for battle.
Given the distance between the two countries, even if a messenger
was dispatched to France directly after the confrontation between
Lear and his daughters, it would take a great deal of time for the
Stephanie Bautista
47
message to reach Cordelia in France and it would take even longer for
her to prepare her army and send them to England.
Richard Knowles acknowledges that the arrival of French troops
to Britain occurred before Cordelia knew about her father’s ill
treatment, but he rationalizes this peculiar incident with the theory
of double time. This theory suggests that “Shakespeare creates the
impression of passionate and vehement haste in the foreground
action, while suggesting suffi cient, deliberate time in the background
events for the overall action to seem probable…Invoking this
theory allows the critic to say that chronological inconsistencies
in background events occur but do not matter because they go
unnoticed.”11
Although Knowles’ theory is interesting, it does not discuss the
insuffi cient amount of time between Cordelia’s banishment and Kent
receiving a letter from Cordelia while he is in the stocks. Shortly
after Kent goes into disguise and puts himself at the service of Lear,
he is sent with a message for Gloucester, fi ghts with Oswald, and is
placed in the stocks. Never is there an occasion for the theory of
double time to be used to explain how Cordelia knows Kent is in
disguise or when Kent receives this letter. If Shakespeare did intend
to employ the method of double time in order to heighten the tension
of the play, he probably would invoke it in more than one scene. But
Knowles’ theory is only used to explain events of Act III, scene i; it
is therefore likely that this is the only instance where double time
could be possible. Every theory needs ample evidence to support its
validity, and because Knowles is unable to apply double time to any
other scene but this one, it cannot be used as an explanation for why
Cordelia returns to Britain with an army before her father suff ers any
injuries.
With Knowles’ assumptions out of the way, the only plausible
reason for Cordelia’s sudden return with soldiers is that she intends to
overthrow her sisters in order to claim all Lear’s kingdom for herself.
At the start of the play, Lear divides the kingdom among his three
daughters; and even though Cordelia was to inherit a greater portion
of land, she desired and expected more. Her return, at a time
11 Richard Knowles, “Cordelia’s Return,” Shakespeare Quarterly 50, no. 1
(1999): 44.
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
48
when Lear is vulnerable, not only makes her appear to be the noble
defender of her father, but it also provides her with the opportunity
to “give losses their remedies” (II.ii.173). In other words, this is her
chance to right the wrongs she feels she has suff ered.
If the audience still has any doubt about the devious intentions
of Kent, a close examination of the dialogue of the Fool reveals the
dark nature of Kent’s plot. Although the other characters are fooled
by Kent’s disguise, the Fool seems to be the only character who sees
Kent and his disguise for what they really are. Just after Kent off ers
himself as a servant to Lear in disguise as Caius, the Fool engages in
the following speech:
Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest,
Lend less than thou owest,
Ride more than thou goest…
And thou shall have more
Than two tens to a score.
(I.iv.121-130)
Even though the speech seems senseless and confusing, if it is
closely examined and related to Kent’s sinister plot, it makes perfect
sense. The fi rst two lines apply directly to Kent; he is more than he
makes himself seem in his disguise because he constantly pretends
he is “an honest man and plain” (II.ii.101) and he describes himself as
“having more man than wit” (II.iv.41). Although scholars advancing
the traditional interpretation of Kent agree that he is a simpleton,
interpreting Kent as carrying out the plot to overthrow Lear and his
appointments reveals that he is much more. Thus, by the time his
plot is complete, he will come away with more than what he started
with, which relates to the last two lines of the Fool’s speech. For
instance, Kent will come away with an alliance to the powerful king
of France. And, even though most audiences and characters in the
play seem to disregard the Fool because he is deemed an illogical
buff oon, Kent realizes that the Fool is aware of his plot and responds
to the above speech with the hasty remark: “this is nothing, Fool”
(I.iv.131).
The Fool again exposes Kent’s plot in Act II after Lear fi nds
Stephanie Bautista
49
Kent in the stocks. The Fool states:
That sir, which serves and seeks for gain,
And follows but for form,
Will pack, when it begins to rain,
And leave thee in the storm.
But I will tarry; the Fool will stay,
And let the wise man fl y.
The knave turns Fool that runs away,
The Fool no knave, perdy.
(II.iv.77-84)
In this speech, the Fool is referring to Kent as a man who serves
and pretends to be a faithful attendant only when he stands to gain
something in return for his service. But when the fortunes of his
master change, as they have for Lear in his old age, the once faithful
servant will ally himself with the person who will rise to power
next. This is why Kent is allied to Cordelia at the start of the play.
It is not for the purpose of protecting Lear as he outwardly claims,
but because Cordelia, with her marriage to the king of France, will
become a powerful asset. But as Cordelia’s fortunes change after her
capture, Kent allies himself with the king of France. Further evidence
that Kent is actually allied to Cordelia and to France is found in Act I.
After he is banished, Kent leaves the scene saying “he’ll shape his old
course in a country new” (line 189). The lines referring to the storm
also seem to predict what will happen to Lear in Act III, scene i.
When Lear is out in the violent storm, Kent, his supposed guardian,
is safely indoors, whereas the Fool, Lear’s true guardian and servant,
braves the storm in order to be with the king.
A.C. Bradley claims that to consider the Fool as “a sane man
pretending to be half-witted is a most prosaic blunder…[because]
being slightly touched in the brain, and holding the offi ce of
fool, he performs the duties of his offi ce intentionally as well as
involuntarily.”12 Although Bradley obviously regards the Fool as a
nonsensical idiot, it could be argued that Shakespeare makes the fool
or clown of his works the wisest and most perceptive of all
12 Bradley, 311.
Kent: The Service of Betrayal
50
his characters. In Twelfth Night, Shakespeare depicted the Clown
as engaging in diffi cult word-plays that only the most intelligent
characters, like Viola, could understand and engage in. It was also the
Clown who recognized Maria’s plan to marry Sir Toby Belch in Act I,
scene v; and it was this same Clown who Viola regarded as:
“wise enough to play the fool,
[because] to do that well craves a kind of wit.
He must observe their mood on whom he jests,
The quality of persons, and the time;
And…check at every feather
That comes before his eye. This is a practice
As full of labor as a wise man’s art;
For folly that he wisely shows, is fi t;
But wise men, folly-fall’n, quite taint their wit.
(III.i.61-69)
If Shakespeare intends for the Clown of Twelfth Night to be the voice
of wit and understanding, it is reasonable to assume that the Fool in
King Lear serves the same purpose. It is also possible that the Fool’s
keen understanding of Kent’s true intention is the reason why the
Fool never appears again after Act III, scene vi, and why Lear in Act
V, scene iii exclaims that his “poor fool is hanged” (line 307).
Scholars interpreting King Lear traditionally disregard Kent as
an essential character. They defi ne Kent as a self-sacrifi cing, honest,
noble, and unyielding servant, who serves no other purpose in the
play than to protect Lear. But when one takes note of how often
Kent is on-stage and his signifi cant number of lines, it becomes
diffi cult to agree that his character is unimportant to the action of
the play. The opening lines of the play are spoken by Kent, which can
be interpreted a clue from Shakespeare to his audience that Kent is
an integral character to the plot. What is more, the play opens with
Kent discussing the king’s changing allegiance which sets the tone
the remainder of the play’s action and for all of Kent’s subsequent
actions, his change in allegiance from Lear, to Cordelia, and fi nally to
France.
Although Kent does not speak the last lines of the play, he is
Stephanie Bautista
51
second to last to speak, and the fi nal lines could be viewed ominously
as a prediction of future bloodshed on account of France’s return to
usurp control; and they are, therefore, a response to Kent’s comment,
in the lines just before them, that he will journey to his master:
The weight of this sad time we must obey,
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
The oldest hath borne must: we that are young
Shall never see so much, nor live so long.
(V.iii.325-328)
Whether this interpretation of the beginning and end of the play is
true or not cannot be certain. But what is certain is the suspicious,
devious, and deceitful nature of Kent. The non-traditional
interpretation of Lear reveals that he is as the Fool describes,
faithful to his master only when his master is powerful, and when his
servitude results in his personal gain.
Bibliography
Barish, A. Jonas and Marshall Waingrow. “‘Service” in King Lear.”
Shakespeare Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1958): 347-55.
Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. London: Macmillan and Co.,
Ltd., 1922.
Knowles, Richard. “Cordelia’s Return.” Shakespeare Quarterly 50, no. 1
(1999): 33-50.
Maclean, Hugh. “Disguise in King Lear: Kent and Edgar.” Shakespeare
Quarterly 11, no. 1 (1960): 49-54.
Muir, Kenneth. Shakespeare: King Lear. New York: Penguin Books
Inc., 1989.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Lear. Edited by Sylvan
Barnet. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc., 1963.
The Multifaceted Nature of Street Art
52
Writer’s Comment:
After reading and discussing multiple pieces from the New Humanities
Reader anthology of articles and essays, we were assigned to write a paper
incorporating one or more of the readings. I chose to use an excerpt from
Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point. The chapter “The Power of
Context” described the effects that environment have on people’s actions,
more specifi cally in this chapter, graffi ti. My initial desire was to write a
paper on the difference between graffi ti and tagging, which is simply writing
one’s name on a wall or sidewalk, and to analyze their different meanings and
effects; but as my research developed I found that in the social sphere the
two could not be separated. I uncovered more purposes and meanings of all
types of street art than I had ever imagined existed. Through my thorough
research, I was able to create a surprising account of the poignant place that
graffi ti and tagging alike have in our society.
—Theresa George
Instructor’s Comment:
In this essay, Theresa delivers a powerful argument for why it is so important
to avoid making negative generalizations about graffi ti. Instead, she insists,
we must view it as a complex and valuable form of artistic expression for
individuals and communities. Theresa is particularly adept at choosing just
the right quotations to help illustrate her claims, and then integrating those
quotations into her prose in a seamless fashion. She also recognizes and
articulates for her readers the connections (and disconnections) among
her source texts—a sophisticated writing skill that I emphasize in my
composition courses. As is true of the graffi ti that Theresa discusses so
eloquently in her essay, there is nothing ���random” about the way in which
this argument is organized and crafted.
—Devon Christina Holmes, Rhetoric and Composition
Theresa George
53
Theresa George
The Multifaceted Nature of Street Art
“These mysterious heroes of wild communication, these spontaneous
artists whose signs were volatile and abrupt, tough and angry,
vehement and vital, created a great fresco … irreverent and complicit,
committed and contrary, implicated and distant, sentimental and
caustic.” Here, Lea Vergine, author of Art on the Cutting Edge: A Guide
to Contemporary Movements, speaks of graffi ti, a passionate form of art
and expression that is rarely regarded as such. This unique art form
provides a feeling of social belonging, literacy practice, and political
and educational outreach for many of its creators. Unfortunately,
a great number of city planners and criminologists have worked
together in eff orts to try to eliminate street art and in eff ect the
stigmas that allegedly go along with it. The problem we must face
is not how to control these spontaneous, and many times planned,
events of artistic ability but how to approach each of these works as
authentic and meaningful as they relate to their creators and their
environments.
Just like many other socially accepted phenomena, street art can
and does take many diff erent forms, from innocent public displays
of individuality to upscale alternative art. It takes on names of
“tagging,” “graffi ti,” and even “writing,” all of which will be used
synonymously in this paper to refer to street art for the sake of
discussion. As Lea Virgine describes, graffi ti includes “graphic-isms,
graphemes, scratches, clashes, grazes, twistings and lacerations
of the world or the surface on which they are applied” (215). She
passionately declares that they are the “grapho-spasms of love” (215).
Regrettably, the majority of graffi ti’s onlookers do not regard it with
the same respect and admiration. What Verigne believes is “the
painting of desire or wild communication” (215) is seen as “symbolic
of the collapse of the [societal] system” (qtd. in Gladwell 183) by New
York City subway director David Gunn. His remark surfaced amidst
a citywide eff ort to eliminate graffi ti from the subway stations and
cars. Graffi ti was believed to be a signifi cant contributor to the high
crime rate in New York City at the time. On behalf of criminologists
James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, the “Broken Windows theory”
The Multifaceted Nature of Street Art
54
explains,
If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking
by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge.
Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy
will spread … relatively minor problems like graffi ti … are …
the equivalent of broken windows (Gladwell 182).
And with the birth of this sociological theory came swift yet diligent
action to rid New York City of street art. Subway cars with graffi ti
were labeled “dirty cars” while those lacking any signs of life were
clean cars (Gladwell 183). In eff ect, indication of any creativity or
interpersonal memos from city dwellers was associated with fi lth
and the undesirable. This is not, however, the correct representation
street artists would like their art to be identifi ed with. In
photographing and assessing the street art in New York City, David
Robinson states in the introduction of his book, Soho Walls: Beyond
Graffi ti:
Whereas the city establishment sponsored or at least
tolerated community murals, it viewed graffi ti as defacement
and vandalism. For the writers themselves…the graffi ti
created points of beauty and something positive amid the
pervasive decay, desolation and brutal ugliness of their
neighborhoods (6).
It is crucial for onlookers to understand that street art does not
serve just one purpose or create only one reaction. It does more
than merely exist on a wall for visual pleasure or disgust. Not only
does graffi ti create beauty for those living in hostile environments, it
can be a source of educational outreach for those same inhabitants.
Laurie MacGillivray, author of “Tagging as a Social Literacy Practice,”
explains,
In vilifying the practice of tagging, society too easily
overlooks its evolving symbol system and the complexities
of the phenomenon. The public’s misunderstanding
is particularly relevant for … teens from working-class
backgrounds because of their historical academic
underachievement … (354).
Theresa George
55
The inaccessibility to canvases for artistic expression and other
activities that middle and upper class adolescents usually have leads
lower class adolescents to the streets to utilize “public canvases” of
walls and sidewalks. In this sense, graffi ti holds special signifi cance
for their creators and their creators’ communities. Many associate
graffi ti with gang communities since many violent gangs mark their
territory with types of graffi ti. But MacGillivray clarifi es that there
is a well-defi ned diff erence between gangs who tag to inform other
gangs of their territory and those who tag because of the innocent
desire to tag: “Taggers are not gang members … tagging is a social
practice. Tagging has its own rules and codes, it is a literacy practice
imbued with intent and meaning” (354). This statement may be a
shock to those who generally see street art as random, undisciplined,
and meaningless. However random acts of graffi ti may be, they are
surely not undisciplined, as MacGillivray discovers when researching
and interviewing taggers.
Just as subway directors and criminologists see graffi ti as
undesirable, street artists see poor and meaningless art or tags as
extremely unwanted as well. It is of great signifi cance to the street
art community that every piece of writing on walls, sidewalks, or
subways possesses meaning and signs of talent. In interviewing
taggers educated on the subject, MacGillivray fi nds, “While anyone
can participate in tagging, it is only those who display talent that
are valued in the tagging culture” (363). She cites that one tagger
even stated, “if individuals are not talented, they should not engage
in tagging” (363). MacGillivray continues on with this idea: “Most
of our participants talked with disdain of those who tag poorly
and explained that it hurts the reputation of taggers as artists”
(363). This attitude towards their way of life illustrates the “social
responsibility and non-elitism advocated by most graffi ti artists” that
Robinson experienced while photographing their work (Robinson
8). In assessing the artists’ system of tagging MacGillivray expands
on this idea of responsibility within their community: “In choosing
the nature of their message and deciding on placement, taggers
displayed sophisticated decision making which parallels the values
of conventional writers” (367). This recognition of street artists
as comparable to “conventional writers” qualifi es them for a place
in society far beyond what the average onlooker would imagine.
The Multifaceted Nature of Street Art
56
Perhaps if more people were aware and understanding of the codes
of conduct that exist within the graffi ti community, as does exist with
mural communities, then street art might be more welcomed and
perhaps respected.
There are many similarities between murals—communal art
completed on public spaces by a group of people with permission—
and graffi ti. Malcolm Miles, author of Art, Space and the City: Public
Art and Urban Futures, even categorized graffi ti as “unoffi cial street
murals” (206). Of his observations, Robinson adds, “The motives of
graffi ti writers seem to have been similar to those of the community
muralists: self-assertion, pride and self-expression” (6). These
comments are quite foreign to the paradigm of public art that Jane
Golden, author of Philadelphia Murals and the Stories They Tell and an
active member of the Philadelphia Anti-Graffi ti Network, accepts.
Her value of murals stands high above her regard for graffi ti and
tagging. She has the following admirable remarks to say about
murals in the preface of her book: “Murals work on a symbolic level,
providing opportunities for communities to express important
concerns, values, and aspirations…” (2). In the foreword of Golden’s
book, Timothy W. Drescher states, “murals express community, but
they also help create it…sometimes designing and producing a local
mural begins a process of social connections and political activism
that previously did not exist” (8-9). However distinct Golden
and Drescher may fi nd their observations of murals to be from
that of graffi ti, let’s recall and compare comments made by Laurie
MacGillivray in assessing the purposes and consequences of tagging:
Tagging…can be conceived of as a local literacy practice and
as an avenue into the construction of youth identity and
group affi liation…[it is able] to sustain social relationships; it
is a form of dialogue and conversation…Another purpose of
tagging can be to provide commentary on larger social issues
(355, 360, 362).
The word use of Golden and Drescher (“community,” “values,”
“concerns,” and “social connections”) to describe murals closely
identifi es with that of MacGillivray’s in regards to graffi ti (“identity,”
“group affi liation,” “social issues,” and “social relationships”). Most
appropriately in this sense and for the respect of varying ways of
Theresa George
57
expression in our culture, the two should be regarded with similar, if
not the same, value. It appears here that street art provides just as
much community building and strengthening as does mural creation.
Onlookers, sociologists, and criminologists must not forget the
crucial value that street art holds for those who have little if nothing
else in their lives.
As stated above, graffi ti can be a means of expressing views on
larger social issues when no other means is available, especially to
young adults with low-income and undereducated backgrounds.
Graffi ti is the result of “an individual event [that] takes place in
response to the social relationships with the expectations and norms
of others” (MacGillivray 367). This unique style of communication
between people of limiting backgrounds developed from “a need
to express shared urban experiences” (MacGillivray 357) as well
as to educate each other on social and world events. Images that
MacGillivray came across in her observations included genuine
reactions to political occurrences such as the recent bombings in
Iraq and the “negative eff ects of corporate-sponsored deforestation
on the environment” (362). It is an amazing ability of young urban
dwellers to communicate such information to each other and to
the public when the common means of obtaining it are generally
inaccessible to them. Joe Austin, author of Taking the Train: How
Graffi ti Art Became an Urban Crisis in New York City, believes graffi ti’s
development follows one of several pathways by which
young people’s political education became transformed…
demonstrating some of the ways that youth cultures have
continued to create and appropriate cultural and physical
spaces of relative autonomy (270).
Rather than seeing graffi ti as “dirty” and representative of a lack
of education and discipline it should be viewed as the collective
experiences, desires, and desperation for communication between
city dwellers and their peers. Whether or not these progressive
feelings towards graffi ti infi ltrate the mainstream way of thought
graffi ti will remain active: “In all likelihood the…eff ort will continue,
undertaken by individual artists outside the mainstream who want to
express themselves, make a point and provoke others while claiming
their own freedom” (Robinson 15). The freedom to express oneself
The Multifaceted Nature of Street Art
58
or one’s experiences in an artistic way is a highly respected manner
in the United States; it is only just that this freedom be granted to
persons of all ages, education level, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Among the profound purposes of street art such as political and
education outreach lies an aesthetic purpose—the expression of the
organic nature of art. While David Robinson photographed the
art-covered walls of SoHo, New York City, he discovered an intense
nature possessed by graffi ti that he had not expected:
Art was in the SoHo air, its energy palpable, spilling out of
the lofts onto the streets—and onto the walls … I found the
“public galleries,” out on the streets, just as compelling as the
art displayed indoors … the art … was organic, not restricted
to white walls and neutral space (8, 5).
His experiences with the art in New York City were so powerful that
he compared the essence of the art on the walls to that of Abstract
Expressionism. There are even many art critics who see graffi ti as a
form of modern art, hence its presence in numerous galleries around
the world, including the famous Museum of Modern Art in New
York City.
If the great importance of graffi ti art to the art community
can be recognized by the prestigious taste of famous galleries, then
the public too can recognize its societal, educational, and political
importance to the communities that create it. From literacy practice
to social belonging, street art serves multiple essential purposes
to its creators and their surrounding environments. Whether
the public chooses to accept the messages that artists display on
walls and subway cars or continue to refute their art as legitimate,
street art will not relinquish its existence. And as David Robinson
so vehemently declares, “Their voices cannot be silenced, their
creativity cannot be erased” (15).
Works Cited
Austin, Joe. Taking the Train: How Graffi ti Art Became an Urban Crisis in
New York City. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Power of Context.” The Tipping Point:
Theresa George
59
How Little Things Can Make a Big Diff erence, 2000. Rpt. in The New
Humanities Reader Ed. Richard E. Miller and Kurt Spellmeyer. 2nd ed.
Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 2006. 178-195.
Golden, Jane, Robin Rice, and Monica Yant Kinney. Philadelphia Murals
and the Stories They Tell. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2002.
MacGillivray, Laurie, and Margaret Sauceda Curwen. “Tagging as a Social
Literacy Practice.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 50.5 (Feb.
2007): 354-369.
Miles, Malcolm. Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. New
York: Routledge, 1997.
Robinson, David. Soho Walls: Beyond Graffi ti. New York: Thames and
Hudson, 1990. 5-15.
Vergine, Lea. Art on the Cutting Edge: A Guide to Contemporary Movements.
Milan: Skira, 1996.
Lifestyle Transitions
60
Writer’s Comment:
Have you ever stopped to analyze what your everyday words and
actions are really communicating to the world around you? If you
have, you just may be a natural-born ethnographer! While conducting
interpretive research, ethnographers strive to demonstrate that
the seemingly mundane ways in which we communicate speak
volumes about our cultural values. In hopes of studying culture
through communication, I enrolled in Dr. Evelyn Ho’s Ethnography of
Communication course and, for the fi rst time, plunged into the fascinating
world of ethnographic research. The goal of my ethnographic research
project was to closely examine the naturally occurring communicative
patterns of a nonprofi t organization. Accomplishing this required me
to become both an ethnographer and a volunteer at a local nonprofi t
agency. As a result, I was able to utilize communication as a tool to
uncover the cultural values of this agency and as a skill for working with
others to improve the world.
—Katie Caughman
Instructor’s Comment:
Katie Caughman’s paper was written for an upper-level service-learning
course titled, Ethnography of Communication. During the semester,
students perform their service-learning hours at a variety of non-profi
t organizations throughout San Francisco. As an advanced research
methods course, students use their service-learning experiences as
sites to study naturally occurring talk in organizations. This paper is
one of two written papers that Katie produced based on her fi eldwork
in an adult work-skills course. Based upon many hours of participant-observation,
interviews, audio-recording, analysis, drafting and re-drafting,
she produced an interpretive ethnography in which she insightfully
examines the different phases of lifestyle transition that the work-skills
students display in their talk. Katie’s paper provides a rich description
of how one can see cultural meaning and participant understanding in
everyday discourse.
—Evelyn Ho, Communication Studies Department
Katie Caughman
61
Katie Caughman
Lifestyle Transitions: Investigating
Communicative Patterns Utilized Among
Low-Income Families
Abstract
This fi eld-based research project investigates the ways in which various
factors of communication help or hinder “down and out” trainees of City
Healthcare’s Work Outreach program1 in gaining skills and confi dence
to enter the work force. Furthermore, it explores the struggles low
socioeconomic status individuals encounter when trying to change
their lives for the better. All research is based around a group of eight
participants of various ages, races, gender-orientations and backgrounds.
Primary data-collection methods for this research include a combination
of participant-observation, audio recording, semi-structured interviews
and unstructured interviews. Open coding and thematic construction, used
to organize communicative patterns, were the primary tools employed
in analyzing fi eld notes, transcript excerpts, memos, and jottings. The
results of this research examine the apparent commitment and lifestyle
transition-based communication found in this culture’s speech patterns
and add data to the following areas of research: communicative patterns in
service organizations, lifestyle transitions among low-income communities,
communication levels of commitment, and motivational strategies.
Sirens blare as I exit the bus and enter my crime-ridden
ethnographic destination: San Francisco’s Needle Point. Needle
Point, a neighborhood where minimizing eye contact and walking
with purpose, or even “attitude,” is the best way for an outsider to
avoid trouble, is impacted with a large homeless and HIV/AIDS
population. Needle Point is also home to many service agencies,
including City Healthcare, the non-profi t health care agency where I
recently volunteered and conducted fi eld research. According to City
Healthcare’s volunteer handbook, San Francisco, the 13th largest city in
the United States, has the third largest population of homeless people
and the third largest number of residents diagnosed with AIDS 1.
1 Note: name of organizations, programs, locations, and research participants, with
the exception of the city of San Francisco, have been changed to protect privacy.
Lifestyle Transitions
62
Known to some as the “epicenter” of HIV infections in San Francisco,
Needle Point is relatively small in size and contains only 10.4% of the
city’s population, yet, it has the highest concentration (46%) of the
city’s homeless as well as the highest proportion of residents living in
poverty (88%) in San Francisco2.
Prior to this research study, I had no knowledge of City
Healthcare or its services. After attending a volunteer orientation,
reviewing the organization’s handbook, and visiting the site on a
weekly basis, I became more aware of City Healthcare’s background
and mission. As explained through the volunteer handbook, City
Healthcare is a recently reconstructed agency that serves the
homeless and poor who are at high risk for acquiring HIV/AIDS by
providing services addressing substance use, mental illness, health and
poverty. The mission of City Healthcare, also stated in the volunteer
handbook, is to optimize the health of the neighborhood’s most
homeless, poor and vulnerable residents. City Healthcare serves
those living with and at the greatest risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS,
who have diffi culty obtaining services elsewhere, especially due to
substance use, mental illness, sexual orientation, gender identity, race
and ethnicity and/or social barriers.
I volunteered in the agency’s Work Outreach program which
works to educate and train eight, well-screened members of the
downtown community to become community health workers. The
program is held Monday through Friday, twenty-fi ve hours a week,
for twenty weeks, and consists of vocational training and counseling
with special emphasis on the “soft skills” that are particularly
important for clients who are transitioning into employment or
volunteer positions. Guest speakers and teachers work to eff ectively
communicate knowledge of these areas to the eight trainees of
various ages, races, sex and gender-orientations and backgrounds,
who are enrolled in these weekly classes. While I have previously
volunteered in the neighborhood, I have never worked with this
particular program or agency. In conducting this study, I became
a new member of the community. Within the Work Outreach
program, I had the opportunity to both plan for and be part of
the trainees’ learning process, which also allowed me to actively
participate within the community and gain insight into their
communicative patterns. To fi nd a focus for my study, I crafted the
Katie Caughman
63
following research question: What is the primary force that drives
these trainees to participate in a program like Work Outreach on a
consistent basis? Based on my experiences in the fi eld, I propose
that communicating a steady sense of commitment to program goals
and lifestyle transitions enables Work Outreach trainees to move
closer towards reaching the primary goal that drives them: self-improvement.
Methods
Over the course of six weeks, I visited my fi eld site a total of
seven times. These visits, which include weekly three to four hour
classroom sessions as well as an agency orientation and meetings with
program supervisors, amount to approximately twenty-and- a-half
hours of participant-observation.
Data Collection
My data-collection methods consisted of participant-observation,
audio recording, three semi-structured informal interviews, and
two unstructured informal interviews. All of the interviews were
conducted in person, except for one, which was conducted through
email. None of the interviews were audio recorded, so I constructed
memory-based fi eld notes and transcripts regarding the nature and
content of the interviews. In addition, it should be noted that, from
February 2, 2007 to April 6, 2007, by employing the data-collection
methods listed above, I compiled the following data: roughly twelve
hours of audio recording, nine pages of fi eld notes, two memos, two
pages of jottings, four pages of relevant transcript excerpts, and fi ve
pages of theme-related notes.
Informed Consent
All names of organizations, programs, locations, and research
participants that appear in this study have been changed to protect
privacy. Before conducting research, I received informed consent
from all participants, explaining to them the purpose of my study
and asking their permission to observe and record their nonverbal
actions through note taking. A similar approach was taken regarding
permission to audio record verbal interactions. As they freely
Lifestyle Transitions
64
consented to the audio recording process, I asked them to state
their name and consent on tape. I emphasized the importance
of confi dentiality, and insured protection of individual identities
through the use of code names. Additionally, I informed them that,
if at any time, they wished to withdraw from the audio recording
process, retract statements, or erase footage that included them, I
would certainly comply. Yet, no one has requested this.
Special attention was given to the privacy of research participants
during interviews. As mentioned earlier, City Healthcare caters to
those who have had close experiences with the following issues: HIV/
AIDS, substance abuse, mental illness, sexual orientation, gender
identity, race and ethnicity, and/or social barriers (Names omitted,
2006). Because my research participants belong to this population,
I took a somewhat sensitive approach to my interviewing process. I
asked the research participants questions about their personal lives as
well as the Work Outreach program. Keeping in mind that some of
the personal questions might spark controversial answers, I made sure
the research participants were comfortable addressing these types of
questions. I received their consent when asking personal questions
about sensitive issues, and reminded them that all responses would
be kept private and their identities would be protected. Again, I
informed them that, if, at any time, they wanted me to withdraw any
of their responses from my project, I would not hesitate to do so.
Data Analysis
I began my data-analysis by engaging in two main processes:
open-coding and theme construction.
Open-coding. I completed this inductive process by closely
examining all of my data and recording observations in the
corresponding columns. My goal during this process was to make as
many notes as possible to more effi ciently reveal developing patterns
of communication within the group’s culture.
Theme construction. From the open-coding process I derived
several insights into the communicative themes that exist among the
Work Outreach Program community. I looked to reoccurring speech
patterns to develop larger themes, some of which were transformed
into my main points and resea