The Meaning of Difference

The conclusion that Rosenblum and Travis come to is that sex, race, sexual orientation, as well as gender and class can each be explained as a “socially created dichotomy.” American culture has also adopted interpretations for the differences in these subjects and what the differences mean.

Rosenblum and Travis state that there are several similarities in the construction of categories in race, sexual orientation, class, and gender (19). For each there are certain divisions, which are seen to be the ONLY possibilities: for race there is either black and white or white and nonwhite; for sexual orientation there is gay and straight; for class there is poor and middle class; and for gender there is femininity and masculinity. Sexual orientation and race are both described as “more straightforward than [they] really [are],” (19). Rosenblum and Travis emphasize how people choose to categorize sexual orientation and race into only two separate groups (20). Thus, everyone is asked to choose one race and one sexual orientation out of two choices for each. On the subject of sexual orientation, Rosenblum and Travis say “there is no necessary correspondence between identity and sexual behavior,” (20). Therefore, one’s behavior is not directly related to one’s actual identity. This means that “gay” is a title that can be given to a person no matter what he or she does. Also, the different groups of sexual orientation along with the groups of race struggle with the assignment of superior to one group and inferior to the other group. With one group being considered superior to the other, a sense of inequality arises. Just like we assume with color of skin, we assume with sexual orientation that it “tells us something meaningful about a person,” (21). Class is not seen as a major category of discussion with the American emphasis on race and sexual orientation (21). Even though the two groups created from social class are the poor and the middle class, there has been a recent increase in the rich-poor gap and wealth distribution has become more unequal. The more realistic division would then be between the rich and the poor. “Americans explain success and failure in terms of individual merit rather than economic or social forces,” (21). Poverty is being viewed by some as the “lack of effort.” Concerning sex, some people have conflicting physical and psychological attributes and feel compelled to achieve a consistency. The only ways available to achieve this consistency are through surgery or psychotherapy. It makes more sense to people to change who they are rather than accepting a difference, or inconsistency (23).

Are the negative effects of social dichotomy irreversible? In the world today, I would be tempted to say yes because it seems that social dichotomy in itself is irreversible. However, I do believe that it is possible to make things “not as bad.” Americans, as a nation need to put less emphasis on the divisions among themselves that they have created. Based on history, there have been positive steps taken in the subjects of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and class. However, there is always room to improve.

I think that it is wrong for divisions to be superior and inferior. I feel equality is one key to a better society. The gap between the rich and the poor has to be reduced somehow. The fact that it is increasing, and the rich are getting richer does not seem right at all. Perspective has a lot to do with the current situations. We all need to be able to put ourselves in other peoples’ shoes. If we can’t see a problem, then we can’t fix it.