Ethics

This week in class we discussed ethics, a term just as ambiguous and difficult to define as leadership itself.  Like "leadership", the problem with "ethics" is that it is a term that is largely dependent on peoples' personal views and beliefs.  However, for the purposes of the class (and this discussion) ethics will be judged by Kitchner's 5 Ethical Principles, which is a guideline of five conditions that can be used to determine the ethical validity of something.  I have never analyzed parts of my life in such a way before, but doing so is really quite interesting.

I will be honest and admit that I have written papers that fall somewhere along the range of plagiarism.  It is a fact of life-everyone does it at some point.  Yet, what seems an obviously unethical action falls somewhere more in the gray region according to Kitchner's model.  It is obvious that plagiarizing fails faithfulness and justice-it defeats the purpose of building trust between the student and teacher, and arguably most important it is not fair to other students.  However, it does not really fail the other tests either.  For example, while plagiarizing does not benefit the group, it certainly does no harm either.  It also does not restrict choice-students can choose to do the right thing or not, and teachers have the option of designing assignments to make them harder to plagiarize.

On the other hand, what might seem like an ethical decision may actually not be.  Recently there was a debate in my hometown concerning the last remaining mobile home park in town.  Due to skyrocketing real estate prices and wealth my hometown has created a general plan envisioning a near-utopian city which included replacing the mobile home park with (another) upscale shopping center, effectively erasing the last available option for low-income residents.  I was active in trying to save the mobile home park, which to me was very obviously the right thing to do.  Yet, according to Kitchner that was a debatable action, since the mobile home park is an obstacle to the development of the city into a nice place for everyone, and it removed freedom of choice since the landowner would not be allowed to sell the mobile home park at all and the city would not be able to move forward with its plans.

Upon analyzing some of my past actions it is interesting to see that what is assumed to be ethical is not always, and vice versa.  It is not always possible to fit all five of Kitchner's principles definitively, and as a result many things actually fall into a "gray area" in which ethics can be hotly debated.  I suppose that that is one downfall of Kitchner's model, considering that no model is perfect.

Social Justice

This past week the class discussed a concept known as "white privilege", a socially-taboo subject infamous for stirring uneasy feelings and uncomfortable glances.  Much of the discussion was focused on why it is bad, how it can be fixed, what people can do about it, etc.  However, one of the things that came up in class was that "it isn't bad, it just is", an idea that I agree with wholeheartedly.

White privilege is the idea that because Caucasians live in a society where they are the dominant race, they have societal advantages because society is designed to benefit them and the expense of other races.  This is present in many situations, such as unequal pay scales in the job market, over-representation in politics, and more relatable educations, among other things.  Indeed, this is present everywhere, including my own parents who have had difficulty with job interviews.  As horrible as it may sound, I do not think this is a particularly pressing issue that needs to be dealt with.  For starters, as discussed in class, this system is not the product of a group of white people plotting against every other race-it is simply the society that developed from certain influences, and it just happens to be the society in which we live right now.  More importantly, I think the system is a logical and inevitable part of life that, even if we tried, cannot be changed.  The way that certain societies develop can be attributed to a variety of factors, including the race of people who founded that society, and it makes logical sense for a. the dominant race to be privileged (privilege and dominance being associated for this purpose) and b. the dominant race to develop their own society around themselves.  To me this is just common sense.  For example, in American society I am an immigrant, a minority, and of course I would be at a disadvantage if I did not know the language, societal norms, or anything else.  In China, I am part of the societal majority, where I can go places labelled in my language, eat food to my liking, and converse easily with other people that look like me.  Yet, the notion of there being "Asian privilege" or "yellow privilege" is absurd.

I think that privilege in general is relative to the society, because it makes sense that each society would be designed to benefit its respective dominant race.  It is only in the United States that the idea of racial privilege would be regarded as such a pressing issue because there are so many races competing against one another.  Personally, I can accept this as a fact of life because it is the way society is designed.

Culture

Culture is a broad term-some people might define it as a group's beliefs, others might say it is what is accepted as appropriate within a particular society, and the list goes on and on.  An intangible term like culture is, like leadership, difficult to define because it is so general.  However, for the purposes of this post, I am going to go ahead and define it exactly that way-broadly.  To me, culture can simply be stated as all of the social aspects that define a group of people, and that way the definition includes nearly everything someone could think of.  Regardless of the exact definition, culture generally includes the terms "social", "group", and "characteristics", but by extension the definition itself raises a problem with what we covered in class.

This week in class we discussed inclusivity and its relation to culture, specifically terms such as privilege and majority/minority.  One major theme we discussed was the importance of blending cultures and making everything more inclusive, but personally I actually disagree.  By accepted definition, culture is what socially defines a group of people, in various terms including art, food, social norms, etc.  But then, isn't cultural inclusivity regressive?  If culture itself is specifically what socially characterizes a group of people, then to me integrating culture could be a bad thing if it gets to the point where people lose their sense of identity.  Everyone wants their own sense of belonging, which is part of what culture provides.  However, inclusivity is all about combining elements of different cultures, peoples, etc.  What is to stop it from getting to the point where everything has been combined?  By that point, there would not be "a culture", there would only be "the culture".

This is already present in many cases, my own life being a striking example.  Being Chinese, actually born in China, and immigrating to the United States at the age of 3 means that I literally grew up in two cultures.  I think I turned out pretty well, being able to participate in both without integrating either-my house used almost only Chinese, while I led an average American life at school.  Unfortunately, I also see many Asians who have been so integrated into American culture that aside from their faces, a stranger would never know that they were a different race.  More examples-the Native Americans were notoriously (and forcibly) integrated into "white culture", which continues to this day.  Elsewhere in the world, many other western countries are widely known for large minorities that have integrated into the mainstream culture.  All of these situations have presented a common, acknowledged effect-resentment.

I am certainly not speaking out against inclusion, because the flip side to my argument means that everyone is so intolerant of everyone else that eventually we humans would probably kill each other and die off as a species.  However, I think it is important that everyone retains their own culture, because for many people with culture comes a sense of identity and belonging.  When cultures are integrated with others, inevitably many things become lost, and if left unchecked could lead to unfortunate situations.

Groups

I have never thought about what makes a group a group until recently, when we discussed the subject in class.  There is a lot more to discuss than I would have imagined, such as the variety of forces that keep a group together.  After discussing the information in class, I find that I agree wholeheartedly, as I have many experiences to draw upon which fit the group definitions presented in class perfectly.

The main concept discussed that keeps a group together is cohesion, which is the sense that everyone in the group wants to be, and stays, together.  The idea is that everyone is mutually attracted to each other and a common goal, and sticks together no matter what.  I have definitely experienced this, most memorably in my extensive (and most recent) years in marching band, where the demand to perform is incredible, competition is fierce, and tensions run high after hours of physical exertion.  I think to some people it might appear ridiculous to put so much time, effort, and physical work into something but the group mentality accounts for it.  This particular group is a great example of all of the characteristics of a group we discussed in class.  For starters, collective efficacy is very high largely because of a tremendous sense of pride in being widely recognized as a really good band.  As a result, many people are attracted to the group, and those who are in it stick very close with one another, especially when tensions run high during practice or after a bad performance.  As a member, I have experienced all of this and would characterize the band as the best, most cohesive group I have ever been in.

On the other hand, I have also seen groups that do not work effectively, which was due to a lack of cohesion in many cases.  Unfortunately, the Blue Chip leadership program is one example that comes to mind.  As in every case, an organization is just not the right group for some people, and for some of my friends Blue Chip just does not have anything to offer.  For example, there is the belief that the program does not accomplish much (and not important, by extension), and as a result for some people there is no sense of togetherness and team because they simply do not care enough.  While this is not accurate for a majority of the group, the people for whom this is true contribute to a low efficacy in this case.

I think the descriptions of a group-attraction, unity, etc-discussed in class are spot on.  From personal experience, I feel like the characteristics of a good group are really accurately presented.  The flip side is that bad groups don't fit some of the descriptions, and I find that to be true as well.  A good group really does fit the description, and a bad group does not.