Sociology 1301
Introduction to Sociology
Collin College
Professor Larry Stern

Perspectives: Ways of Seeing, Not Seeing, and Being Deceived

“Thinking Caps”

In his The Origins of Modern Science, published in 1949, the noted historian and philosopher of science Herbert Butterfield wrote,

"Of all the forms of mental activity the most difficult to induce, even in the minds of the young who may be presumed not to have lost their flexibility, is the art of handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework, all of which virtually means putting on a different kind of thinking-cap for the moment."

Throughout the semester, I will be asking you to do this. I will be trying to convince you that sociology is a “way of seeing and thinking” about things – that it entails putting on a new “thinking cap.” I will ask you to think hard about your life, your relationships, your local environment, the larger society in which you live, and the world and to take this same bundle of data that you think you know or that you tend to take for granted and see them in a different way.

Sociology is, above all else, a perspective. During this semester, I hope that you will all develop what C. Wright Mills has called a "sociological imagination" – that you will be able to see and understand the intricate connections and interplay between one's biography and the historical moment in which you live.

But let me be clear right from the start: Sociology is not the only perspective that can fruitfully be applied to human action – the disciplines of biology, psychology, economics, political science, anthropology, even theology also take human beings as their subject matter – and each of these perspectives contributes in important ways to our understanding of who we are and why we do the things that we do. As we shall see, each discipline carves out its own niche and typically focuses on different aspects of human life. They are not competing with one another to find the absolute “truth,” they are simply following different paths, each focused upon a piece of the puzzle.

So before we actually begin talking about sociology – what it is and how it will help deepen our understanding of both our personal experiences and the world-at-large – it’s important that we first consider both the strengths and the limitations of all ways of thinking – no matter what the subject matter!

We will begin, then, with a focus on what a “perspective" is and how people use them whether they are aware of it or not – and, by the way, most often they are not aware of using them – and the roles that they play.

So, let’s begin. What, exactly, do we mean by the term “perspective?”

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, the term perspective originated in the developing science of optics. A perspective was something that was used for looking or viewing something – its function was to assist seeing what was there. Then, the meaning of perspective morphed – or shifted – and was now referred to as seeing something from a particular “point of view.”

Soon after, scholars recognized that since different perspectives focus upon different aspects of the same phenomenon, no one perspective could fully describe or account for what is being seen. It’s not that what a perspective focuses your attention upon and aids you in seeing is wrong or incorrect – it’s just incomplete.

Consider the simple example of looking at this Starbuck’s mug and imagine that I am holding it in my hand standing at the front of the classroom.

If I ask you all to look at this and tell me what you see, you will probably all agree that it is a Starbuck’s mug. So far, so good..

But if I ask you to be more specific you will each report what you see from your particular vantage point. Those of you directly in front will describe the front of the mug and mention the Starbuck insignia. Given that you are sitting and I am standing (and I am 6’2”), you might also see part of the underside of the mug. I, of course, do not see the front with the insignia but, rather, the back of the mug and also its top rather than its bottom. Those viewing it from one side will not see the insignia either but will see the handle more clearly.

Now, I know what I am seeing – and you all report seeing something somewhat different. Would it make any sense for me to say that I am right and that you are wrong??? Or would it be more fruitful for everyone to acknowledge and understand that each angle of vision – each perspective – has something unique – and correct, though only partially so, to offer?

Let me put this somewhat differently: think of a perspective as a flashlight you use walking into a dark room that you’ve never entered before. You have no idea what’s in the room, only there are hundreds of things on shelves and on the floor. As you point your flashlight in one direction, the cone of light illuminates one portion of the room and you see familiar objects – the flashlight – the analogy of a perspective – aids your vision and helps you see these things. But, at the same time, you do not see what’s to your left, right, or behind you!

Each time you shift the beam of light – each time you shift your perspective – you see something different – something equally there in the room.

The “Burke Theorem”:
A Way of Seeing is also a Way of Not Seeing.

This is perhaps best summarized by what has come to be known as the “Burke Theorem” (named after the literary philosopher Kenneth Burke), and is illustrated by the Daumier lithograph in this slide. Burke writes,

 “A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing – a focus upon object A involves a neglect of object B.”

On the one hand, this is a basic fact of how our brains are wired and how “attention” affects “perception.”

For examples, look at the next four images – some of them are probably familiar to you.

Here is a graphic, popularly used in Psychology classes, that shows . . . what? Two faces in profile or a goblet?

Clearly, both can be seen . . . but not simultaneously. When you focus on one, you cannot see the other at the same time.

So, too with the duck – bunny rabbit drawing. Which is it? And see what the potential consequences are when one gets "locked in" to a particular perspective.

How about this one? Are you seeing the face straight-on or in profile? Does the image keep switching back and forth?

And the duck – bunny rabbit drawing. Which is it? And can you see what the potential consequences are when one gets "locked in" to a particular perspective?

Let's consider a few more examples that show how a way of seeing - or thinking - is also a way of not seeing - or thinking. Consider this quick exercise.

You are told that the three-number sequence, 2, 4, and 8 follow a particular rule and you are asked to guess - discover would be a better word choice here - what the rule might be. You might think that you notice a pattern – that there seems to be a “doubling effect” and perhaps this was the rule. But before making your final decision, you can test it by proposing three additional numbers. So you ask if the three number sequence 16, 32, and 64 obeys the rule - and I say "yes." Has your confidence increased sufficiently for you to say that the rule is that the rule is that each successive numbers is double what the preceding number is? But wait. Some of you might have noticed that each number in the two sequences given is an “even” number. Is the rule “a doubling of every number – even or odd – or just a doubling of even numbers. So you try another three number sequence: 11, 22 and 44. And this, too, follows the rule. Satisfied yet? But now you notice that all of the numbers used are below a certain threshold – that they are all lower than 100. Maybe that’s the rule! So you choose the numbers 99, 198, and 396 – and these follow the rule! Are you finally ready to say that the rule is simply that there is a doubling effect? If so, you would be wrong.

The problem here is that by originally noticing the pattern of doubling you were so locked in that every new sequence you chose was designed to “confirm” what you had already thought – you were just tweaking it a bit by adding new circumstances to it (it also applies to odd numbers and numbers greater than 100). You never considered to test the rule by challenging it. (A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing.) You never asked, for example, if the three number sequence 1, 2, and 3 fit the rule – and it does . . . The rule is was that each number had to be higher than the one that preceded it.

Now, don’t feel bad if you missed this. The point is that this happens all of the time. But once people know about it, they can guard against it. And it is important that we do so. As shall see, however,  this is easier said than done.

Now, click on this brief video and see if. for you, a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing. This a famous example of what psychologists call selective perception.

 

Which figure jumps out at you? The young woman or the old woman? If you don’t yet see both, the old woman’s head is much larger and notice that her chin is the young girl’s neck, her lips, the young girl’s necklace, her nose, the young girl’s chin and jawline. Again, you cannot see both simultaneously – focusing on one precludes you seeing the other at the same time.

Which of the two figures you see first depends on the perspective guiding your vision. And the perspective you hold is often affected to a large degree by social factors such as your age, sex, social class, race, and a whole host of other things. It should come as no surprise, then, to find out that, generally speaking, older folks see the old woman first, younger folks tend to see the younger woman first.

This last point – that the perspective you embrace guides your perception – can also be illustrated by the next figure.

For some, this might seem somewhat pornographic. But look again: if shown to young children they will typically only see all of the dolphins frolicking about! I’ll give you another few moments to see them before moving on . . .

Now, the main point I am trying to get you to consider is that a great many perspectives exist in the world – that there is a huge variety of ways that we can examine the world – that there are different points of view – and that each one can potentially contribute something important to our understanding. One is not necessarily “better” or “more true” than the others, each has a legitimate though different point of view. These perspectives are not in conflict with one another in the sense that if one is right the other is wrong. They are best seen, instead, as complementary and mutually enriching. Our tendency, however, is to get locked into one particular perspective and by doing so, fail to see these other legitimate points of view.

The psychologist William James was right on target when he wrote,

“A Beethoven string-quartet is truly, as some one has said, a scraping of horses’ tails on cats’ bowels, and may be exhaustively described in such terms; but the application of this description in no way precludes the simultaneous applicability of an entirely different description.”

Yes, the bow is made out of horses’ tails and, yes, the strings of a violin and other string instruments are made of catgut. But it is also true that listening to Beethoven can be a profoundly exhilarating experience and described in equally valid terms.

But let me turn to another example to illustrate that different perspectives – equally valid – by focusing upon different aspects of the same phenomenon, can each have something interesting and important to say: kissing – what some consider to be the quintessential social behavior.

 

The Plurality of Perspectives: The Science of Kissing

Sheryl Kirshenbaum, a science writer affiliated with the University of Texas at Austin who works to enhance public understanding and communication between scientists, policymakers, and the public, has recently published a short book The Science of Kissing. Here, she traces the study of “osculation” – the technical term for kissing – by various disciplines throughout history. Each has something different – and quite interesting – to tell us.

Kissing has been immortalized through some of the most famous artwork – such as Rodin’s famous sculpture, “The Kiss.”

Nevertheless, kissing has a rather uneven past and has not always been an approved mode of contact.

Over thousands of years, the kiss has been negatively viewed by poets and commentators as disgusting, venal, dirty, and worse. Popes and emperors repeatedly tried to punish practitioners, citing moral or health related reasons.

And the Popes and emperors, when citing health reasons, weren’t far off base.

According to microbiologists, kissing is the best means for two people to swap mucus, viruses, bacteria, and other germs. Our saliva contains about one hundred million bacteria per milliliter (about the size of one die in a pair of dice). I find it interesting that, generally speaking, when someone is asked whether they would use someone else’s toothbrush – even their partner’s – they grimace and mutter “that’s disgusting.” These same people, of course, think nothing of kissing their partner – or even someone on a first date who is virtually a stranger! It does make you stop and wonder . . .

Anatomists, too, have turned their attention to kissing. They describe, in full detail, how our Orbicularis oris muscle, which runs around the outside of our mouths, makes it relatively easy to change the shape of our lips – so that we can pucker up – and how our Zygomaticus major, Zygomaticus minor, and levator labii superioris work together to pull up the corners of the mouth and top lip (don’t worry: you don’t need to memorize this for the exam).

These anatomists also have much to say about the role in kissing of the tongue, covered with little bumps called papillae that feature our nine to ten thousand taste buds – so that we literally “taste” our co-kisser or kissee, and the lips, which are packed with nerve endings and extremely sensitive to pressure, warmth, cold – just about every kind of stimulus.

In fact, there is a huge disproportionate amount of neural space associated with our lips as compared with the rest of our bodies, as shown by this sensory homunculus which shows the relationship between each part of our body and the proportion of brain tissue dedicated to processing sensory information. As can be seen, Just a light brush on the lips stimulates a very large part of the brain.

Neuroscientists, too, have turned their attention to kissing, investigating how the act of kissing trigger neurotransmitters and hormones, such as dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, and norepinephrine which, in turn, have certain effects.

Dopamine, for example, which is associated with the expectation of a reward that brings us feelings of pleasure, spikes during a passionate kiss, and is responsible for a rush of elation and craving. It is likely the reason people say they feel like they are “on cloud nine” or “walking on air.”

A good kiss will also increase one’s level of serotonin, and the serotonin levels of someone who reports having just “fallen in love,” it seems rival those of patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

An increase in the level of the hormone norepinephrine may be responsible for the sensation of feeling weak in the knees.

These all have the potential to distort our perception of the kiss itself.

While all this is undoubtedly true, the kiss, of course, is also a quintessential social act: it’s not quite the same if you are alone! But you might not know that the act of kissing is found in nearly every social specie and is a rather complicated social act that occurs under many circumstances with many different cultural meanings and functions.

Kissing – or what is interpreted as kissing – though not universal in the animal kingdom – is fairly abundant.

But kissing is, in fact, found in over 90% of the cultures around the world and in those where it is not found there is typically licking or nibbling one another’s faces and bodies or rubbing noses.

And if there is a deep biological basis for kissing-like behaviors, culture is the central factor determining precisely what form a kiss takes at a particular time and place. Peoples of different cultures have developed unique social norms that shape and guide this behavioral act.

This is where anthropology, history, and sociology have much to offer.

Anthropologists have catalogued numerous forms of kissing often looking at it through the lens of their own particular culture. Edward Tylor, for example, thought that the style of European kissing – his culture – was most “civilized” because it was on the lips, whereas savages, more apt to use the sniff-kiss, which Tylor referred to as “the lowest class of salutations,” were thus considered more primitive or barbaric.

Interestingly, a British explorer recounts how, upon kissing a native girl, the girl screamed and ran, thinking that it meant that he was preparing to eat her, since cannibalism was common in her culture.

All kisses, of course, are not alike. Historians and sociologists have long noted that kisses can serve very different purposes - they have different functions. It can be a simple greeting. There are kisses of joy, of love and endearment, of passion and lust, of commitment and comfort, of social grace and necessity, of sorrow and supplication.

The Romans, in fact, created a typology of kisses, with Osculum referring to a social or friendship kiss, or kiss out of respect, Basium, which referred to an affectionate kiss for family members, and Savium, which was a sexual or erotic kiss.

To indicate its importance in German culture, we find that the German language has words for 30 different kinds of kisses, including nachküssen, which is defined as a kiss "making up for kisses that have been omitted.”

And if we were to trace the kiss through history, we would find that an individual’s social standing determined where to kiss another person in greeting. Kisses moved from the lips downward as kissers moved down the social hierarchy.

Kissing feet, for example, was customary throughout the Middle Ages.

A Kiss was a sign of trust between feudal lords and vassals.

A Kiss was a legal way to seal contracts (“sealed with a kiss”)

There are also fundamental cultural differences among industrialized nations. In Finland, people tend to be more private and rarely kiss in public. In Japan, since kissing is associated more with sex, a public display is considered inappropriate – even vulgar. In the United Kingdom, people are more likely to shake hands. The French are apparently more passionate in their kissing . . .

Although the “French kiss” entered the English vocabulary in 1923, according to Alfred Kinsey, kissing style was found to correlate with a person’s level of education. Seventy percent of well-educated men admitted to French kissing, while only 40 percent of those who dropped out of high school did.

Still, judging from a quick look at popular culture, Americans appear to be rather interested in kissing.

By the way, Tina Fey and Steve Carell set the record for the longest kiss on screen when they kissed for 5 minutes during the closing credits of Date Night.

The longest kiss on record? 58 hours, 35 minutes and 58 seconds by Ekkachai Tiranarat and Laksana Tiranarat at an event organized by Ripley's Believe it or Not in Pattaya, Thailand.

The most kisses in a minute? 258 by Paul Fremeau and Alins Evans, in Santa Barbara, California on Valentine's Day, 2012.

The most expensive kiss? Joni Rimm paid $50,000 for the privilege of kissing actress Sharon Stone at an AIDS charity event.

Last, social scientists investigating kissing note important differences between women and men, the former placing more value on the experience of kissing and being more likely to see kissing as a good way to assess a potential mate.

I hope that this brief detour into kissing has illustrated the main point I made earlier: that different perspectives – in this case different perspectives associated with different disciplines – can each have something important to contribute to our understanding of the same phenomenon. One is not necessarily “better” or “more true” than the others, each has a legitimate though different point of view. Each discipline, by focusing on different aspects of the same phenomena, carves out its own niche. And again, most important, these different perspectives are not in conflict with one another in the sense that if one is right the other is wrong. They are best seen, instead, as complementary and mutually enriching.

But let’s back up for a minute – thus far we’ve only mentioned how a perspective guides your way of seeing. We need to take seriously the “not seeing” part of the Burke theorem, because this is extremely important. All too often people have their “pet” theory or perspective and think that it – and it alone – is sufficient to account for what occurs in the world.

“Maslow’s Hammer”

The psychologist Abraham Maslow expressed the potential danger of this type of thinking when he wrote,

“It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

This came to called "Maslow's Hammer" and it should be a constant reminder that there are multiple ways to see the same thing and one should avoid an over-reliance on a particular way of seeing or thinking.

It has been argued, for example, that Freud was sometimes guilty of this when he relied on sexual drives and the role of the unconscious to explain behavior, excluding other potential explanatory variables.

So remember “Maslow’s Hammer” if you ever hear a psychologist saying that all you need to know to understand human behavior is psychology, or an economist saying all you need to know to understand consumer behavior are the laws of economics, or a biologist saying that human beings are nothing but their genes which then account for their intelligence and/or actions.

“Believing is Seeing”

We have all heard the phrase “seeing is believing” and, in fact, there are times when this phrase serves us well. But now I’d like you to consider the opposite: that “believing is seeing.”

What is meant here is that in many cases what a persons thinks they see corresponds to a picture they already have in their head. Look, for example at this picture.

Do you recognize this image? If you have ever seen Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” – it is, after all, the most recognized piece of art in the world – you will immediately recognize it here because you already know what it looks like. You recognize it even though most of the detail is missing and even though all you do see are black and white dots. The image is already in your head and you fill in the missing blanks.

Now look at this next slide.

Do you see anything? Or someone?

If not, move back a few feet from the screen and look again. Many people – not everyone – sees a rather large face. In fact, many see a particular face – the face of Jesus. Others see Charles Manson.

The slide is actually a satellite image of a mountain range in China, so if you did see a face - and interpreted it as a particular face - it, too, was because you already had that picture in your head – it corresponded to a belief that you held.

This next slide is a random series of blotches. But some peole swear that there is a Dalmatian there.

If you have never seen a Dalmatian before – if you didn’t believe in their existence – the image of one would not pre-exist and you would never have seen it here.

Or how about this: the Nun in a bun?

But this next image is far more serious.

Look at this slide depicting two men in the foreground standing facing each other on a public train.

Allport and Postman flashed a copy of this slide – for a split second – to people in the 1940s and asked them to describe what they saw. As you can see, the taller gentleman wearing a suit and tie – dressed like a businessman – is dark-skinned and the shorter gentleman, dressed in workman’s clothing, gesturing with a pointed finger at the taller man and holding a razor in his left hand, is light skinned.

But, remember: this is during the 1940s and if you were to ask most people which of the two men – the dark or light skinned man – was more likely to be dressed in a suit or which of the two men – the dark or light skinned man – was more likely to be holding a weapon, what do you think they would say? What do you think corresponded with their beliefs?

And, in fact, when viewing this picture for an instant many “reversed the races” when they described what they saw. Some actually reported that the scene showed a short dark-skinned man pointing a gun (rather than a finger) at a light skinned businessman in full view of others.

As you might guess, this has extremely important implications for studies of eyewitness accounts, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination - as shall be seen later in the semester. This next cartoon would be funny if it didn't also expose a a serious problem that people of color face today..

"You look like the guy we think might commit a crime."

What this leads up to consider, is the fact that sometimes - more often than you might think -seeing can also be deceiving..

“Seeing can be Deceiving”

In some cases, this is just a by-product of neuro-processing - and I won't dwell on this but only show you this one image and the effect of linear perspective. Look at it quickly and decide which of the three men is larger.

Most after looking quickly will say that the first person-in-line is the largest. But, no. Measure if you'd like, but all three are the exact same size. Our senses can be tricked rsther easily.

In other cases, as mentioned before, we get "locked-in" to a way of thinking and then don't realize when we are being deceived. Consider the following image:

For this experiment, two groups of 5 scientists – all physicists – were presented with the same closed box that had two holes punched out on opposite sides. There was one object in the box – a cone – but the cone could be rotated by the experimenter without any of the subjects knowing so. Each group, one at a time, was given the task of figuring out what the object in the box was. Each group was given one tool – a flashlight – and 15 minutes.

Group 1 immediately used the flashlight to shine a light through the box and saw right away the shadow of a triangle on the wall. Puzzle solved in less than 3 minutes. They were quite happy with themselves.

Next, Group 2, waiting in another room had their chance. They too, immediately used the flashlight and the shadow they saw on the wall was a circle, so the object must be a ball. As can be seen in the figure, the experimenter rotated the cone 90 degrees. Group 2, by the way, were also were quite happy with themselves.

Then the groups were brought together to report their findings. Group 1 faithfully reported that it must be a triangle-shaped object, while group 2 steadfastly argued that the circular shadow indicated that it must be a ball. Since each individual member of each group received the social reinforcement of the others in their group, their resolve simply strengthened.

Of course, both groups had been deceived by what they saw. And finally, after close to one-half-hour of each team questioning the intelligence and integrity of the other, someone finally said, “Wait a minute. Is it possible that we can come up with an explanation that incorporates what we both think we saw?”

Not long after, they figured it out.

So, being deceived - and often misled - by what we see poses difficulties. And in some cases, it is inadvertent - or, at least, not recognized at the time. Let me show you what I mean by focusing on something that, at first glance, seems simple: maps. Aren't these supposed to be objective - bias-free - depictions of the surfaces of the world?

I won't go into the extremely interesting history of cartography. But let me just mention that it has been long noted that maps drawn by citizens of a country tend to enlarge or enhance their country relative to their neighbors.

Here’s an image of a map of the world we all grew up with: it’s called a Mercater Map. There’s the United States, looming large, in the top left quadrant of the map. We do, after all, read from left to right and being on top is certainly better than being on the bottom . . .

Now look at a "Peter’s Projection Map" where the size of each continent is drawn proportional to the others. In other words, each continent is drawn so that each is the correct size relative to the others. Notice anything different?

Look again at the Mercater Map below - the one we are all familiar with.

Although the African continent - at 11.6 square miles - is more than twelve times larger than Greenland - which is actually only .8 million miles - which is depicted as being larger?

Does size really matter?

Or look at Greenland, which, again, is .8 million square miles, and China, which, at 3.7 million square miles, is more than four times larger.

Or look at the former Soviet Union, which is 8.7 million square miles – only three-quarters the size of Africa - which is 11.6 million square miles.

Or, last, look at Europe, which is 3.8 million square miles, and South America which is nearly twice as large with 6.9 million square miles.

Do you notice a pattern here? Do some continents and countries, portrayed as being larger, appear more important than others? Are our views tainted by the ways certain countries and areas are portrayed?

And, of course, what about this map of the world? You do realize, of course, that from outer space, there is no up or down. The United States, located at the bottom-right, doesn't seem as important

Or this one?

But let’s look at something closer to home – something that has serious political consequences.

“Seeing can be Deceiving” and Misleading – Electoral Politics

Hopefully, you will recall this example from the overview of the course that I provided when I mentioned the practice of “paltering.” Just to remind you, paltering is a particularly nefarious and egregious practice used by business executives and politicians. It refers to the active and deliberate use of a truthful statement to mislead and deceive someone.

Much has been made of the so-called “culture wars” and whether we live in “red” or “blue” states or counties and I suspect that you have recently seen this map before – it is hanging in the White House – which clearly indicates that the United States is red-blooded Republican and that there is a huge gulf between the two parties

And here is the map posted on Twitter by Lara Trump, the President's daughter-in-law, commenting on the impeachment proceedings. How, she asks, can you impeach a President who has such overwhelming support?

But now consider this map that, though equally “true,” gives a very different impression. Here, the population of each and county is used to resized them relative to all of the other states and counties. (This is similar to using a Peter’s Projection Map.) For example, the area where California and New York are located loom larger that in Trump’s map. Next, if the vote was very close – 51% to 49% regardless of which candidate won – the area was colored purple. Remember: Trump won Michigan by .3%, Wisconsin by 1%, Pennsylvania by 1.2%, Florida by 1.3% - and lost the popular vote.

Does this map convey the same impression as the previous one? Which one, in your view, is deceiving and misleading?

And the impression given here? This map takes “population density” into account.  As you know, much of the western portion of the United States – except along the coast – is sparsely populated and the “sea of red” shown in the first map turns to white when forests, mountain ranges, and desert areas are taken into account.

Now look one last time at the first and last slides side by side. Is the one on the left – the one we typically see – offering an accurate view or one that is deceiving? Is there really that wide a gulf between people? And are you ready to acknowledge that “seeing can be deceiving?”

“Seeing can be Deceiving” and Misleading – Poverty in the United States

But let me offer another example of how seeing can be deceiving, one that is clearly of sociological interest and has important policy implications: poverty. We will cover this in greater detail later in the semester.

According to some political commentators whose political perspective leans to the right – as well as to some ordinary citizens – America has a permanent underclass of unproductive citizens who prefer to live on welfare and other means of government support. These people, the argument goes, do not take personal responsibility for their situation and they are unwilling to make the effort to lift themselves up out of their circumstances. They remain in poverty by choice.

Moreover, the argument continues, federal spending on entitlements and other programs - such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - that provide cash benefits, for the most part, are promoting laziness and creating a dependent class of Americans who would rather collect government benefits than find a job. And since their children receive little educational encouragement at home they become stuck in a cultural setting that destroys their work ethic and they grow up to be copies of their parents thereby perpetuating the existence of this underclass.

Unfortunately, such people do exist in the United States and recent estimates are that they number between five and six million of our citizens. They are unquestionably the toughest challenge for policymakers because almost nothing about their lives equips them to escape from poverty and the circumstances that surround them.

And these people are visible –we see them on the street corners in inner cities and on the news. And it seems to many that these people – often refereed to as “the disreputable and undeserving poor” – are just  “working the system” and taking our hard earned tax dollars through government hand-outs. They lack the “character” to work hard and improve their situation – and why should they try to improve if they can live off our tax dollars with little effort? So, why should we help them?

If these 6 million were representative of those living beneath the poverty line in the United States, I might take this argument seriously. But (as of 2018) there are roughly 38 million people United States that live in poverty - 11.8 percent of the population. And we don't see them or either recognize or acknowledge their existance.

So we have to ask: does the visibility of the six million deceive us into thinking that the other 32 million are just like them?

Or is it possible – perhaps even likely – that the reason we don’t see the "other 32 million living under the poverty line is because they are working either full-time or hold 2 or more part time jobs trying to stay afloat? Could it be that many folks living below the poverty line are hard-working, reputable people – that being poor is less a matter of “character” and more a question of access to resources? Of wages?

The Disreputable and Undeserving Poor

But it's not the 32 million that come to mind when thinking about the poor, it's the 6 million, the more visible segment of the poor population – the “disreputable and undeserving poor.”

Perhaps this is why, when asked what, in their opinion, were major causes of poverty, more than half of those surveyed answered “a decline in moral values” and “poor people’s lack of motivation.” The emphasis on "individual characteristics," as shall be seen, deflects our attention away from the larger societal context. And who do you think came to mind when the respondents were answering these questions? The 6 million or the other 32 million?

More recent research has uncovered - as you might suppose - a partisan divide: When asked why a person is poor, 12% of those identiying with or leaning toward the Democrat party said that in their view poor people have not worked as hard as most other people. For those identifying with or leaning toward the Republican Party, 42% shared this view.

There are many different pathways to poverty and, of course, some involve the personal shortcomings and poor choices of individuals. There are those 6 million visible poor people in the U.S. But there are also the other 32 million – and given the COVID-19 pandemic and the 36 million who have just lost their jobs and health insurance, the numbers are certainly rising.

Nevertheless, thinking that the 6 million so-called disreputable poor are in fact representative of all those living below the poverty line has serious consequences. The attitudes toward the poor – the ways in which the working poor are perceived – certainly need improvement. Just consider McDonald’s recent interaction with its workers.

When workers at McDonald's organized a work-stoppage and demanded a $15 hourly wage, rather that acknowledging even the slightest legitimacy of the dispute, the company chose to "educate" workers to live on the salary they earned. They printed a glossy pamphlet, complete with a "Sample Monthly Budget" to show its workers that they could even save money each month if they simply lived within their means. The sample budget is below - and before you look carefully at the recommended monthly expenses - asking yourself whether or not they are reasonable - look at the top where it lists your monthly net income and notice that in order to approach the monthly net income of $2,060 - which barely gets you above the poverty line for a family of three - YOU MUST WORK TWO JOBS: the first at McDonald's for 40 hours a week, the second job (presumably of your choice) for another 35 hours a week!

Is this a respectful attitude toward their workers?

And then, perhaps because one has the stereotypical "disreputable and undeserving" poor in mind, more than a few people believe that those getting public support are "living easy." You have probably heard the outlandish statement that having more children will raise your benefits to the extent that you actually make a profit! Although this misconception can be easily checked and refuted, somehow it perseveres.

So here are the numbers, put out by the government, for poor people in Texas who receive "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families" (TANF) - this used to be the section in welfare devoted to "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" - and the "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" (SNAP) - which was once called "Food Stamps." This year, 2020, a family of three, with no reported income, will receive a maximum of $303 each month from TANF and $509 each month from SNAP..The monthly total is $812. Restrictions apply and recipients must be seeking employment or be in an approved work program. If the recipient received a full year's benefits, it would amount to $9,744 for the year. Since the poverty line for a family of three in 2020 is $21,720, these benefits will be 45% - less than one-half – of what the government considers to be the necessary amount of money a family of three needs to subsist. Put aside the SNAP food allowance and you are looking to pay rent and all other expenses from the $303 TANF funds (which Texas has consistently kept at 17% of the federal poverty line). Is this what "easy liivng" looks like?

"Getting Something for Nothing"

But still . . . you might agree that the benefits don't go very far . . . but at least it's something. But you work hard for your money and could also use a little help but don't get anything while they are getting something for nothing! An interestin gthought that deserves attention.

Of course, a majority of the people collecting these benefits have paid into the system when they were working, just as you might be doing now (remember we’re not mistaking the disreputable poor for all of those receiving benefits).

But who else gets money from the government – what some economists refer to as entitlements? Remember the Burke Theorem: A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing.

Let's say that you are buying a house. As you know, the way things are set up, homeowners can claim the interest that they pay on their home loan as a tax deduction each year until the loan is paid off. And a larger tax deduction means a larger tax refund from the government. So, look at this table with data from this year – 2020. Interest rates are fairly low at 4%, and let’s assume that you are well-off financially and in an upper tax bracket – say, 30%.

You can see the loan amount in the left column, the amount of interest paid the first year of the mortgage (it gets reduced little by little over the course of paying off the loan) in the center column, and the amount of money the taxes you owe are reduced in the right column. And let's remember that the family of three in Texas is receiving $9,744 in benefits from the government.

Amount of Loan	Interest Payment	Tax Rebate
$ 250,000	$ 10,000	$ 3,000
$ 500,000	$ 20,000	$ 6,000
$ 750,000	$ 30,000	$ 9,000
$1, 000,000	$ 40,000	$12,000
$2,000,000	$ 80,000	$24,000
$3,000,000	$120,000	$36,000
$4,000,000	$160,000	$48,000
$5,000,000	$200,000	$60,000

So let’s say that you bought a house for $1,00,000 and your down payment was the standard 25%, or $250,000. And having that kind of money available – and being in the 30% tax-bracket – is a clear indication that you are quite affluent. The amount of your loan, then, would be $750,000. You would be paying $30,000 in interest that first year, which would reduce your tax burden by $9,000. That is to say that the government is giving you, an affluent person, $9,000 – nearly as much as that family of three on TANF and SNAP – for what? And the more expensive your house – and the larger the amount of your loan – the more money stays in your pocket. What have you done to deserve this government handout? Aren’t homeowners also getting something for nothing?

Now, you might come up with all sorts of arguments, like:

“I worked hard for my money, I’m a good citizen, and I deserve to be rewarded

Yes, you did work hard and you did a good job. But you were paid rather handsomely to do so. You already got was coming to you. Why should you get the added bonus and given money because you spent money? Isn’t the nice house enough? Renters don’t get a tax break for the rent they pay . . .

“I already pay my fair share of taxes – more than most because I make a good salary – and this was my money to begin with.”

Yes, that’s true. It’s everybody’s money to begin with – then the tax laws dictate that we hand a certain percentage back to the government. If you disagree, make an effort to get the laws changed.

And by living in a nice neighborhood, you get more and quicker service than most others . . .

“By buying this house I am contributing to the economy and creating jobs.”

Everyone that buys something contributes to the economy without getting a tax rebate for doing so. Do you get – or should you get – a tax break for buying a car? A big screen television? A boat?

And let’s be honest – if your tax deduction for interest payments on a house was rescinded, you would still buy a house – creating the same number of jobs – but perhaps a slightly less expensive one.

But the facts remain: wealthy people – and, of course, corporations – get far more in government “entitlements” than the poor.

The amount of money the government "gives" to the wealthy and corporations far outstripes the amount that it spends on entitlement programs - by far . . .

I started off this section on “seeing can be deceiving” with reference to poverty by arguing that the visible poor – the one’s that many consider to be disreputable and undeserving of our help – are not representative of those living below the poverty line. So how should we think about these “other” poor?

Much attention will paid to this in Unit 7. For the moment, I would like to simply state that rather than focusing upon the individual characteristics of this or that person, we should shift our perspective and examine the structure of opportunities for the poor in contemporary society and their access to opportunities.

Why can't the 32 million "other" people pull themselves up? Consider, first, the Federal Poverty Guidelines for 2020 listed below.

As you can see, the federal minimum hourly wage - which is $7.25 - will get an individual (barely) above the poverty line, but not a family of two or more.

Entry level factory positions in the U.S. start at $18,525 per year. The average factory worker salary is $25,350 which still doesn't reach the poverty line for a family of four.

The poverty guidelines were originally designed to reflect the minimum amount of income that American households need to subsist. In the early 1960s, this amount was derived by multiplying by three the cost of food for each family size and this remains the same today, despite significant shifts in household expenses.

For example, the cost of housing as a share of household income has increased significantly since the 1960s, and families today are more likely to have child-care expenses and pay a much higher share of health care costs than was typical in the 1960s. Except in the case of Alaska and Hawaii, the guidelines do not take into account geographical differences in the cost of living, or the effects of a rising standard of living.

And as can be seen, today's minimum wage of $7.25 has less purchasing power than the $2.00 wage in 1974. And here, below, is a map of the U.S. indicating how much an hourly wage it would take to afford the fair market value of renting a two-bedroom apartment.

Conclusion

Everyone uses specific “perspectives” – ways of seeing and thinking about things –whether they recognize it or not. And they are of crucial importance. They focus our attention on some aspects of reality rather than others – they facilitate seeing.

But, by definition, they are always incomplete and no “one” perspective can reveal all things of importance. As Kenneth Burke wrote, “A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing – a focus upon object A involves a neglect of object B.”

And as helpful as perspectives invariably are, there is always the danger that sometimes, there is “too much of a good thing.” As “Maslow’s Hammer” reminds us, we have a tendency to get “locked-in” to a particular way of seeing that prevents us from considering alternative points of view. In fact, our previous beliefs – based on the perspectives that we hold dear – can actually affect what we think we see. And then, moreover, we can be deceived and misled by what we see, preferring to accept those things that confirm what we already believe to be the case.

But, again, everyone uses perspectives because they can be helpful. Scientists use them to develop hypotheses that guide their research. Politicians use them to interpret, “spin” political and then communicate ideas.  Common folk use them to better understand and navigate through their multiple worlds, learning from their experiences. Artists develop perspectives, photographers, knowing that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” frame their pictures in a certain manner.

L. J. Henderson, a world-class Harvard physiologist-historian of science once famously said, “It’s a good thing to know what you are doing.”  He was referring to a controversy that was ongoing between two schools of thought in physiology, each arguing their case from a different perspective. Each protagonist, of course, had much to recommend it – each believed that their data gave clear evidence that they were held the correct view.

And here was Henderson, above the fray, agreeing that each school had evidence in accordance with their position, but reminding them that each gave only a partial truth, that each was “locked-in” to their way of seeing things and not “seeing” things from a different, perhaps equally valid, point of view. “It’s a good thing to know what you are doing,” said Henderson, reminding them that what they were doing was of course dictated by their respective perspectives.

Sociology – as a perspective – will force your attention on such matters – it will broaden your outlook on life. At the very least it should give you things to think about – and, hopefully, to argue about. Having read this lecture, some of you might think that, through my use of certain examples, that I displayed a particular bias. If so – great! This means that you are recognizing that perspectives are everywhere – that they guide what we see and what we think about what we see.

And throughout the semester, I will be providing you with a number of perspectives that exist within the discipline of sociology. We’re not all the same.

But before we go on to the next set of materials – what sociology is and how it developed, we have one more task.

What are the different disciplinary perspectives on this fundamental question - which is the starting point for all inquiry: “What is a Human Being?"

For this, you need to go read the second lecture in this unit.