Social Dynamics Theories

Theories of Social Dynamics

My textbooks claim that the goal of sociology is to improve society, “Since its inception, sociology has been considered a means to understand and improve what is wrong with the world” (Leon-Guerrero 2014 p. 457). The principle of the “sociological imagination” proposed by C. W. Mills is that the sociologist explores the relationships between the individual and society (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014). The texts also present a very important concept; the tension between individual responsibilities called “agency” and “structure” or the larger forces beyond our control, “Sociologists take a strong interest in the relationship between structure and agency. On one hand we all have the ability to make choices….on the other hand, the structures that surround us impose obstacles or opportunities for us” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 5). I really appreciate the way they present this concept. I am one who leans towards personal accountability for actions. I believe that a society that emphasizes personal accountability is healthier than one that gives people excuses for misbehaviors. This should be balanced by the realization that people have limited choices imposed by structural systems. These dynamics are apparent daily in American society as minority groups claim to be victims of systems of oppression and majority groups claim that minorities are just seeking excuses to justify their poor behavior. We will examine specific cases later.

If the goal of this study is examining our social problems then we are going to be absolutely honest about when individuals are making choices and to what extent they are responsible for the results of those choices, balanced with structural obstacles. We must look at choices made by society as a group choice and impose accountability for these. We must hold corporations accountable. The concept of agency is vital in analysis and finding solutions. Most modern sociology leans towards holding the structures responsible for social problems and dismissing individual accountability. This is a significant difference in approach and may define the conflict between conservative and liberal approaches.

Foundations of Sociology

Two founding fathers of modern sociology were Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) whose branch of sociology is called functionalist, and Karl Marx (1818-1883) whose thoughts were foundational in the social conflict branch of sociology.

Durkheim used a metaphor comparing society to a biological body in which every part is necessary. Functionalist theory adapts evolutionary principles by seeing all the parts of society as evolving to serve a purpose. Example; humans have two arms and not three because a third is a hindrance. He could view institutions such as marriage, the educational system, capitalism, and the military as necessary and benign for our world. His theory led him to this reasoning; “since deviance is universal, it must serve a social function – if it did not serve a function, it would cease to exist” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 16). Maybe he was just seeing these objectively without casting them as harmful. He was concerned about the ways that industrialization and urbanization would affect society. He observed the social solidarity that people in villages had because they all shared similar values and norms. He observed waves of migrants moving into the new industrial centers such as London and foresaw the breakdown of social solidarity because of a lack of common norms, or “anomie” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014). This seems very insightful to our American problems. He was optimistic that the new society would form new shared norms. However, in America today our new norms seem to be socially destructive or very shaky at best.

The evolutionary principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest supported the theories of Marx. He viewed the essence of all things as struggle, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles” (Marx & Engels 1888, p. 11). He viewed the capitalist structures as oppressing workers. He saw social conflict as the norm, and that social evolution would eventually lead to a state where, “all societies would advance to the same final destination; a classless, stateless society” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 449). Marx focused upon economic principles as the base for conflict but modern sociologists recognize other contributing factors such as gender, status, religion, or race. Feminist sociology is categorized by the texts as a subcategory of conflict theory, with patriarchy as the oppressive structure.

Each of these theories is unashamedly biased. The functionalist view is biased towards preferring the majority. The Marxist social conflict perspective views capitalism as oppressive without considering its positive aspects. It also views human nature as negatively controlled by competition and does not consider the aspect of human nature that rises above conflict. The feminist perspective assumes that male leadership is always oppressive and ignores aspects of gender roles that are imbedded within nature. I value each of these perspectives for significant observations into our society. The textbooks were clear that none of the theories present absolute truth but are merely lenses for viewing society (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 15). The common theme seem in all of the social theories seems to be power; power to control a society and its norms, structures, and laws. That is the nature of our struggle in society.

Alternative Theory

Since the texts treats these theories as subjective I began taking some freedom to form my own sociological theory to analyze society. It is very biased towards creationism and personal accountability. My social theory begins with a premise that life was created as good, but humans distort things to create oppressive structures. Capitalism is not inherently oppressive but because of greed capitalism needs to be restrained. Gender roles are part of nature as based upon biology, but humans distort nature and use gender as a means of oppression. Even in race; it is natural to value and appreciate one’s own group, but racism is when we elevate our group others or oppress members of another group or race. My theory is interested in discerning the relationship between agency and structure. It holds to the premise that a healthy society is one in which individuals and groups are held accountable for their actions. It attempts to recognize systemic structural problems and hold those institutions accountable which is the beginning of change. It seeks to recognize the significance of the contribution of agency that all humans make to their own life and to society. I will continue working on my sociological lens but this is my starting point.

 

References:

Chambliss, W. J., & Eglitis, D. S. (2014). Discover sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leon-Guerrero, A. (2014). Social problems: Community, policy, and social action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marx, K. (1888). The communist manifesto (F. Engels, Ed.; A. Lutins, Trans.) [Release date 1993 Etext #61]. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23905

Advertisements

Sociology and Bias

I just finished 2 classes; “Introduction to Sociology,” and “Social Problems.” This will be the beginning of a short series on sociology and social problems. I hope to cover immigration, race, the achievement gap in education, and crime. My textbooks were: Discover Sociology; by Chambliss and Eglitis, 2014 Sage Publications, and

Social Problems; Community, Policy, and Social Action 4th; by Anna Leon-Guerrero, 2014 Sage Publications.

Sociology is

Sociology as a modern science began in the 19th century in the same era that Darwin developed his theory of evolution. This is important to note because the main sociological theories share some principles with evolution. Sociology, though it was not labelled that, is actually an ancient art covered in the past by philosophers. Plato speculated that if we could understand the principles of the universe as designed by the master craftsman then we could understand how to organize and run society. Confucius philosophy was addressing social crises because society was in chaos. His remedy proposed a restoration of order by restoring respect for authority. Modern sociology is different in that it proposes to be a science, “Sociology is the scientific study of human social relationships, groups, and societies” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 3).

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) gave us the name “sociology” and set forth principles for the new science, it is to be based upon facts alone and these facts should, “be allowed to speak for themselves” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014, p. 9). From my observations, modern sociology attempts to use facts, but mostly it is highly opinionated and biased. All of the statistical facts must still be interpreted, and this is a subjective process. Chambliss and Eglitis warn us about misuse of statistical data, “statistics illuminate the social world around us…on the other hand….may also obscure some important issues” (2014 p. 169).

Correlations and Theories

The scientific method begins with observations and inquiry, then forms a hypothesis and tests it, confirming or rejecting it and then forms a new hypothesis. After a hypothesis is confirmed with tests it becomes a theory. The beginning observations are typically in the form of correlations. We seek factors that have a causal relationship to what we have observed. With statistics there may be many factors involved in what is observed, the challenge is determining which factors have a causal relationship and which are spurious. This is where the element of bias becomes critical; bias can, “misrepresent the full dimensions of what is being studied” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 35). A good sociologist is aware of their own bias, and the bias of others, and takes precautions. The bias apparent within both texts leans towards blaming institutions for social problems and denial of agency as a contributing factor.

Examples of bias

Here are some examples of bias in these texts: In chapter one, Leon-Guerrero is giving an example of using the sociological imagination to understand social problems and says, “Let’s consider homelessness. …it emerges from familiar life experiences. The loss of a job, the illness of a family member, domestic violence, or divorce could make a family more susceptible to homelessness” (2014 p. 20). These are all valid contributing factors but it seems that the exclusion of substance abuse conveniently portrays the homeless as only innocent victims. Substance abuse is a major factor in homelessness and should not be ignored. Go to any homeless shelter and take your own survey by asking or getting to know the people. There are many types of homelessness and many circumstances such as the underemployed so I am not judging all homeless, but pressing for objectivity.

Leon-Guerrero’s author bias is evident in chapter 2, Social Class and Poverty. She presents the functionalist and conflict perspectives without challenge, but debunks the interactionist perspective. Some from that perspective have proposed that lifestyles contribute to poverty as she explains, “Some sociologists have suggested that poverty is based on a culture of poverty, a set of norms, values, and beliefs that encourage and perpetuate poverty” and she sites sociologists who claim that “the poor are socialized differently and pass these values on to their children” (2014 p. 51). It did not bother her when the conflict theory claimed that capitalism oppressed the poor into poverty, but now she spends two more paragraphs explaining why the poor never contribute to their own situation through poor lifestyle choices, and she shames those who suggest otherwise.

We should have expected this bias because in the introductory chapter referencing (Irwin 2001) she states that we can use the sociological imagination to find the source of problems not “based on individual behaviors, instead reminding us how the problem is rooted in society, in our social structures themselves” (2014 p. 8).

Science delivered us from harmful superstitions of the dark ages and it is this critical thinking that I expect of a social science. Religion and science sometimes diverge because religion claims that physical science does not have the capacity to test or analyze non-physical realms. Like religion, maybe sociology recognizes that dealing with humanity is very different from hard physical sciences, yet it does proclaim to be a science. I propose that if sociology is a valid science then it should stay connected to physical science as much as possible.

In chapter 7; Families, Leon-Guerrero says, “The nuclear family – two parents and their biological children living together – is exalted as the ideal family” (2014 p. 166). This is more than a social construct; this is the biological definition of family. In nature there is no other way to have family. Today, as always, it still takes X and Y chromosomes to make babies. Our text has a problem with nature, “In addition to the false image of the nuclear family, we also embrace other myths about the family” (2014 p. 167). This textbook, and possibly sociology in whole, quickly loses credibility.

A concept presented in sociology is social construction and socialization which both mean that we are products of society. The tension between nature and nurture or between biology and socialization is presented relating to family, gender, and deviance. Chambliss and Eglitis begin with a fair discussion of gender, “Sociologists acknowledge that a complex interaction between biology and culture shapes behavioral differences associated with gender. They seek to take both forces into account, though most believe culture and society play more important roles in structuring gender and gender roles” (2014 p. 209). They are upfront declaring that most of sociology leans towards the contributing factors of socialization. After this declaration they spend the remainder of the chapter explaining how harmful and oppressive gender roles are to society and portray a neutered society as preferential, “When parents interact with their children on the basis of gender stereotypes, they may reinforce them. Yet parents can play an equally important part in countering such patterns, by being role models and socializing their children into norms and values reflecting greater gender equality” (2014 p. 212). The premise of modern sociology that gender differences mean inequality frustrates the sociologist as they continually attempt to separate humanity from biology. They attempt in vain to show that inclinations in education are socialized rather than innate (I guess that without this they would be unemployable). It is frustrating to them that in general males do prefer certain subjects and females prefer others.

And so

I agree with sociology that many aspects of gender are social constructs. I do appreciate the insights into social dynamics that sociologists have observed. But I start with biology and see gender as based in biology. I see no advantage or equality benefit with a neutered society. What I see is that the social constructs are often distortions of nature. For example: biology has equipped females for child bearing and some societies attempt to limit the role of females only to childbearing. This is a harmful distortion of nature. We should be able to affirm nature and still affirm the rights of individuals to be all that they dream of.

It troubles me that these textbooks go unquestioned as authorities into higher education. I am concerned that the great influence of higher education over society is used for perpetuating sloppy thinking. If these text books are used as standards in many classes across the country, what is the effect on our society? Is academia a social problem? The conflict theory would propose that the elite class uses education to maintain their status through the illusion that they have authority, because we are a “credential” society. If sociology and it representative texts is a truly valid science, then it should make sincere efforts to be objective.

 

References:

Chambliss, W. J., & Eglitis, D. S. (2014). Discover sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leon-Guerrero, A. (2014). Social problems: Community, policy, and social action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Modern Scientific Method

I returned to college a few years ago as an older student, now age 62, and am surprised at some modern knowledge. It may be that I am old and inflexible, which is typical in older folks. Or it may be that our society is departing from sound reason.

About a half century ago in the mid 60’s I learned the scientific method (amazing I can remember anything from then) in this way: begin with observations, form a hypothesis, perform tests, revise hypothesis, if tests confirm hypothesis then it becomes a theory. So far this is the same today, but back then we took another step not included today. A theory may become a law or fact IF all other possible options are excluded. For some reason this last step is no longer taught and I don’t know why.

This last portion must be valid in much of science because my math teacher still insists that 2 + 2 = 4, and it always will. The law of gravity is considered a law because there are no other explanations for falling apples and all other explanations have been excluded. The physical elements as stated in the table of elements says that water or H2O is one molecule of hydrogen and two molecules of oxygen and that is a fact, not a theory.

Here is what the textbook of my environmental science class says; “Despite the fact that theories are generally accepted, there is no absolute truth in science, only varying degrees of uncertainty. Science is continually evolving as new evidence comes to light, and therefore its conclusions are always provisional or uncertain. It is always possible that the results of a future experiment will contradict a prevailing theory and show that at least one aspect of it to be false.” (Berg, Hager, & Hassenzahl 2012, p. 20). In this section the author was emphasizing science as a dynamic process so should be seen in that context. But still, environmental science should not be seen as a soft science like sociology. It is still based upon the laws of physics. If environmental science presents itself as the “maybe” science then how can we take it serious? Maybe carbon in the air is a greenhouse gas?

I appreciate the new humility within science. In the past the scientific method was used as a disproof of god or unseen things; “Prove there is a god! If you can’t test it by physical science then it does not exist.” Now the approach has shifted to admit that humanity never possesses all knowledge because there is always more to learn, and possible other dimensions we know nothing about. This aspect of modern science is truly refreshing.

I still hear textbooks and people claiming truth for the sake of an argument without any qualifications. In my current sociology classes they claim to use the scientific method because sociology is a science. That is what my text claims. The text makes many claims about underlying premises that are critical in forming policies in how we get along. It seems we humans can be very selective about when we desire truth to be rigid or flexible, to suite our current need. In many ways I deeply appreciate my textbooks and the accumulated knowledge our world has gathered. But because of these issues I am skeptical about the education I am currently receiving at an institution of “higher” learning. At my core I will reserve the right to stand back and discard as necessary.

 

Reference:

Liebman, M., Berg, L. R., Raven, P. H., Cann, A. J., & Verrell, P. (2012). Visualizing environmental science, by Berg, Hager, and Hassenzahl: SCI 103. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Custom Learning Solutions.


On Ferguson

It is odd that Whites tend to believe Wilson’s story and Blacks do not. Race must run deeper than we think.

When anyone, Black or White, attacks an armed person, especially an officer, they enter into a life or death struggle. I am convinced that if Brown had gotten the officer’s gun then Wilson would be dead today.

This country is in deep danger of increasing racial tension. I hold the media accountable for contributing to much of the social unrest surrounding this case. Media sensationalizes issues to benefit their own ratings and profits. The media’s choice of words to describe Michael Brown has mostly been, “unarmed teenager.” Numerically Brown at age 18 was a teen but legally at 18 he is an adult; a man. The word teen implies child and by using this word our sympathies are provoked. What if the media had used words such as, “man assaults officer and dies in scuffle”? The media should be more responsible and less greedy. They should at least attempt to be objective. Social unrest is at stake.

It has been noted by many that there are social problems in Ferguson that lead up to the Brown incident. A majority White police force serving a community of color will likely produce conflicts. White government officials over a community of color will produce conflicts. The Ferguson city website shows a city council of 5 members and one is Black. So who is to blame for this situation? Often in the media it sounds like Whites are being blamed. I really do not understand why Blacks and other people of color do not join the police in Ferguson. This is not a segregated government. The jobs must be available so I ask the community what is the problem? I commend the one Black city council member but wonder why the ratio is not reversed so that the community is better represented. Anyone one can run for these offices  so what is happening there? We White observers look from a distance and it all seems crazy. When Obama was elected president I and many Whites felt that this would helps Blacks, and all people of color, embrace this country as their own. When people feel alienated from society then the result is an increase in social problems.

Bottom line; I cannot accept that every police officer is unleashing his racial bias against the public, but when this does happen police need to be held accountable. I pray for our country; for our leaders, our police, to do their jobs without racial bias.

The Bible describes the kingdom of Jesus, “people from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Therefore I cannot follow God and be a racist. I must treat all people with respect.


Fix Immigration Proposal

Fixing immigration could mean lawless anarchy to some, or locking down more rigid controls to others. The phrase gets tossed around like a cheap hamburger by anyone wanting to take advantage of our crises. I want to hear discussion on some real solutions. Here is my proposal.

#1- Widen the gap between citizenship and legal residency. When we only talk about immigration with the term citizenship then we are using a broad generalization that does not do justice to the immigrant workers who do not desire US citizenship nor are patriotic to the USA. If I were to go work in another country for a few years that would not change my allegiance to America so why should we expect immigrant workers to forsake their allegiance to their homeland? US citizenship should also carry certain rights such as voting that are not given to other people residing in America.

#2- Building upon principle #1 we should greatly increase the number of work visas and make them much easier to obtain while making citizenship more difficult to obtain.

#3- The “anchor baby” law should be modified so that citizenship is not automatically offered to those born on US soil. Only those with at least one parent who is a US citizen should be offered citizenship. With the current law we entice people to take advantage of the law by entering the country temporarily to give birth then hope for the day that their citizen child can bring them to the USA. Obama cited a situation in which an undocumented mother of two citizen children would be granted legal status for her children’s sake. We should honor the heritage of parents by giving the children the same citizenship.

Our crises over immigration reveals a much deeper problem with economics. It reveals that Americans still desire to remain at the top of the economic food chain. We should really be talking about global economic reform. If economic conditions were better in other countries there would be much less pressure to leave those lands for the “land of opportunity.” I propose a minor remedy in which workers in the electronic industry are paid a living wage as discussed in the essay, “Wages To Live By” which you can read here: Wages to live by You can also support this cause by liking the page Facebook.com/Big world Dreams


Assad Must Stay

American foreign policy, bent on democratic expansion while being ignorant of the cultures beyond its own borders, naively supports the undoing of rulers that are deemed unworthy by American liberal values. In support of the Syrian revolution President Obama proudly proclaimed that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go. He cited the cruelties inflicted by Assad upon the revolutionaries as justification. So the USA in coalition with Saudi Arabia has been arming the revolutionaries. In a radical turn of events this week the Syrian revolutionaries have formed ISIS the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and have invaded Iraq. What our naïve American government does not understand is that Assad understands his people better than we do. There is something in the Islamic culture that only understands heavy handed leadership. Islam at its core is based upon sever authority and when outsiders attempt to meddle then we are messing with things we just do not comprehend. George W Bush began the invasion of Iraq declaring that Iraq would become a democratic “beacon of light” in the region. This was a classic beacon of American arrogance and ignorance. The only hope for American foreign policy is a constitutional amendment that would limit the ability of the USA to interfere in other countries.


Terms that Burn; white privilege

Since returning to College it has been good for me to be challenged to think deeper about social issues. It was in my first class that I encountered the term “white privilege.” There were several terms tossed around that students could not really define, we could only discuss the symptoms. My philosophical nature compels me to analyze issues to find the core problems and establish a working premise that will be a consistent guide. For the issue of racism and privilege I first start with the premise that each race or ethnic heritage has a right to its own place of respect; that each person should be allowed to rejoice in and affirm their own race or ethnic group. So if each group is allowed a healthy sense of identity, then what is racism? Racism is when we distort that healthy sense of identity and exalt our group above another group, in a way that leads to oppression of any kind. And privilege is defined as any group holding a place of “advantage or special benefit” (Oxford).

I would like to propose alternatives to the term “white privilege.” The problem with this term is that it is inherently a racist term, criminalizing a race of people rather than addressing behaviors and policies, which are the root issues of our social problems. I propose use of the terms “majority privilege,” “elitist privilege,” “power privilege,” “financial privilege,” and “race privilege” which are more accurate in dealing with the true problems and remove any one race from being the primary perpetrator of injustice.

I am not raising this issue as a means to deny, ignore, or obscure the privilege that white people in America have held and continue desperately grasping. It would be devastating to our social progress, and deceitful to deny the association of race and privilege. But when the source of privilege is addressed rather than blaming a group then we will truly be working towards a society based upon justice for all.

Majority privilege is an asset enjoyed by a group that gives them a larger voice and establishes their cultural values over other groups. In many of our social science classes we have discussed Peggy McIntosh’s essay “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Most of the privileges listed in it can really be attributed to majority privilege. For example privilege #1 “I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time” (McIntosh). Globally this is true of anyone living a community where they are part of the majority. In China who holds majority privilege? In Japan who holds majority privilege? It is not whites. This is not denying that white people have partaken of and relished in their majority privilege. However, acknowledgment that there is a degree of privilege that all majorities receive is a key to analyzing our social injustices.

Related to majority privilege, is our democratic value; majority rule. The writers of our US Constitution were apprehensive about majority rule referring to it as “mob rule” and cautioned against the potential of the majority trampling the rights of the minority. If majority rule really is a cause of injustice for minorities then we need to amend our laws. If democracy is really an illusion, then get rid of it.

Elitist Privilege is often gained through education. Colleges advertise that privilege can be gained through education and is a valid motivation for enrollment. At times white people in America have dominated this area and so have held privilege. But it is not really an issue of race; it is a systemic problem. For example, two highly educated professors may both experience privilege; one is white the other a person of color. If we say that one holds white privilege and the other has earned status through the hard work of education, is this justice? If there is something wrong in our society with granting privilege to the educated, then let’s fix the real problem.

Power Privilege may be seized through violence or military force. Whites have obviously committed this aggression. They violently seized lands from the original inhabitants of this continent and they violently bought and sold people. The principle of privilege by power is as old as mankind. That does not justify it. But it also should be noted that people of every color have committed this aggression. What color was Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, or Chairman Mao? By using a term such as “power privilege” rather than “white privilege” we objectively look at the issue of power and violence. By re-framing the conversation around actions rather than a particular race we will focus on the problem of power, violence and privilege.

Financial Privilege has allowed whites to hold inordinate amounts of privilege. Financial privilege is claimed in various parts of the world by people of various colors. Maybe Marx was right, our capitalist system is at fault. We cannot assault whites with racist terms for doing only what other groups are trying to do. This is only envy, not justice.

Every person in America, regardless of color, holds great financial privilege over the workers in other countries who manufacture our goods. But why is this called “white privilege?” We all want to retain this privilege! Can’t we all share the guilt? In reality this has become American privilege. The challenge for us is to see beyond our borders and realize that as a country our privilege may be an issue of injustice on a global level.

Race Privilege: When any race of people is able to use a combination of these sources to gain control over others then this should be acknowledged as race privilege. At the core of race privilege is racism, or tribalism; one group against another. By using the term “race privilege” we are able to identify behavior, which ever race is committing the injustice.

When one tribe of people is able to align several of the sources of power in their favor they become similar to a dirty card dealer, one that you can never win against. Imagine a poker game in which you and the dealer are both dealt hands that at first seem fair. You naively believe that you could play by the rules and win. You begin to be suspicious when his opening hand has three aces. You try harder and double your bet. But after the draw the dealer gets four aces and a wild card-the race card. This is why race privilege is resented so deeply, and is an obvious source of injustice.

Why be upset about a term? Clearly terminology is important in our society. Derogatory racial words that were acceptable in previous generations have now been banned, which has effectively sent a message to the public that racism is not acceptable. Proper terminology should:

Not stereotype groups but address behavior

Not deprive people of their constitutional right to innocence

Seek justice for all

Continued use of the racist term “white privilege” is an insult to our entire society because it reveals that our quest for justice is not impartial and not justice for all. A failure to recognize the demeaning nature of this term reveals our double standards and shows that racism against whites is acceptable in America. To truly seek justice for all, we cannot use racism to fight racism. We cannot forbid racist terminology for most groups and then use and even promote racist terminology for others. And most of all, it alienates whites from the conversation, to which they so desperately need to be involved in. In the cases that this term may be used in our textbooks or in public discourse, I ask that this racist term be removed and replaced with terminology that will truly help to address our social problems.

 

Works Cited

 McIntosh, Peggy. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1988. Paper 189. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

Urdang, Laurence. The Oxford Desk Dictionary. New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.

 

Copyright; Mark Anderson 2014