Thought Paper 2

Libby Burgon
Comm 2150
Intercultural Communications
Gordon Storrs
12/15/16

The first time I knew I was different I was about four and I felt it in the hits. A
group of older boys ganged up on me as the only girl and there were physical and
ultimately emotional lasting repercussions. When looking at this experience through a
sociological lense, however, we see that I am not not unique to this feeling of isolation.
Indeed, my simple experience of othering provides anecdotal support for the Marxist
social theory, as explained by Antonia Gramsci and the Value Systems theory by
Richard Rieke and Malcolm Sillars. This paper will analyze the relationship between my
former paper on my experience and these two theories.
Rieke and Sillars state that there are six major value systems, a combination of
which any person subscribes to and subsequently forms their beliefs and attitudes. For
the purpose of this paper, I will focus on two. The Personal Success Value system
prescribes values such as friends, identity, respect, dignity, personal, individualism,
and finds disgrace as one of the negative attributes that should be avoided. The
Collectivist Value System emphasizes cooperation, unity, brotherhood, together, order
and equality, and condemns disorganization, selfishness, personal greed, and
inequality (93). These value systems aren't inherently in direct opposition, as one
prioritizes the wellbeing of the group and the other emphasizes the wellbeing of the
individual. In theory, if all individuals are successful that implies that the group is

successful, therefore these two groups are synonymous. After all, the Personal Success
Value System looks down upon hunger and poverty, and the Collectivist system
promotes humanitarian aid and comfort (93); logically one in the same. My personal
example, however, exemplifies how the application of a zero-sum environment allows
for only one option, and therefore necessitates the differentiation.
The Gramiscan concept of hegemony is that the success of the dominant class
in presenting their definition of reality, their view of the world, in such a way, that it is
accepted by other classes as common sense, and that groups holding different
paradigms are suppressed, or marginalized. Gramsci also stated that although
hegemony is perpetual, it is subject to shift and constantly realigns with different
alliances of social classes and is ultimately unstable (83). This theory is set up as a
direct struggle between the thesis, or hegemony, and the antithesis, or marginalized
group for power. It should be noted that this is not a fight between two groups for
supremacy, but rather one groups fight for domination and the others appeal for
validation. As my personal example is anecdotal, the scale of this theory is much
smaller, with groups existing of one person against another, but the dynamic remains
consistent.
To summarize my experience, when I was very young my mother invited her
friend and her sons to my house for a playdate. I was looking forward to it, but when
they came they were not interested in playing with me. When the youngest son my age
and I started to play together, the older brothers punished him by criticizing him for
playing with a girl, and by extension telling him that lost his masculinity by association. I
became upset and confronted them after they convinced their brother to exclude me,

and we all began to fight. All brothers hit me with sticks until I ran away and told my
mom, ending the interaction. She separated us and consoled me, but I carried the
experience with me as the first time I was ostracized for my identity.
When applying social theories to my story, we see that there were conflicting
values as well as a power dynamic in play. I held a Collectivist value system, taking time
to prepare my front yard for my guests before they arrived to make sure we had a fun
activity to do together. I prioritized the wellbeing, or in this case the entertainment of the
group. The youngest brother held a Personal Success value system. When he was
confronted for breaking the status quo (that boys dont play with girls), he chose to
prioritize respect and identity/the avoiding disgrace over together and equality. Because
I held opposite beliefs, valuing unity and equality, I was offended to the extent that I
started a physical fight. The situation also has a pre-existing power dynamic that should
be taken into account. The two older brothers held the hegemony in the situation,
enforcing their patriarchal belief that for a boy to play with a girl was beneath him, and
should be prevented. I acted as the marginalized group, resisting their perpetuation of
this idea, and reached out to my mother, building an alliance in an effort to shift the
hegemony. Because it was unclear if the boys later felt punished for their actions, and
ultimately stayed separate from me, the belief was sustained, and the hegemony wasnt
shifted.
When applying these systems to my single experience, it ceases to be an
unfortunate, isolated event and becomes connected to events throughout history. It
reaches back to countless causes and effects, broadening the scale to an example of a
larger issue. By stepping back in this way, the boys actions arent abrupt and

nonsensical but familiar. These system almost alleviates the blame from any one party,
and also illuminates solutions. How was hegemony shifted in the past, using what
methods? What are examples of value conflict resolution? How do you change
someones harmful beliefs? In this way an incident becomes a project, and in doing so,
helps shape future positive interactions.

Works Cited
SLCC. Comm 2150 Intercultural Communication Course Readings. Pages 83,93.