Often people feel threatened by things they cant place a label on. I believe it?s
just human nature to view something, and then try to associate or place a label on it.
This is very evident in the story of X. This is definitely, a story written to influence the
readers behavior. The bold X in the author?s writing is a deliberate attempt to confuse the reader. The X is in contrast to the rest of the article. Although the story of X contains a message of ?acceptance?, it also contains connotations that, it?s not ok to be part of the norm.
The beginning of the story opens with the scientist, a permanent group, trying to find the ?right? parents to raise baby X. To qualify as the parents, they would have to basically disregard all the norms and roles that is attributed to families, primary group, of today. When a newborn is brought home in society, it?s customary for the husband to pass out blue cigars for a boy and pink for a girl. (a type of symbol to communicate gender) In the case of X, when they arrived at home, the friends and relatives, primary formal and informal groups, didn?t know how to react when the Joneses told them X wasn?t a boy or a girl, but an X! The friends and relatives were displaying an authoritarian personality. They couldn?t say ?look at her cute little dimples? or ?look at his husky little biceps?, stereotypes. At the same time, the Joneses were displaying a Machiavellian personality, by not telling them what baby X was. They were trying to manipulate the family and friends behavior. The scientist also displayed a Machiavellian personality. By doing this, there is a definite role conflict for the parents. Family and friends were put off and confused by their inability to label X, a boy or girl.
As X was growing up, the parents had to go against the norms. When raising X, they bounced it and hugged it allot. They came into role conflict when trying to determine what type of clothes to buy, and which toys to let X play with. There would have been a role overload, if they were to raise it based on X?s gender. Occasionally the Joneses would see the scientist, interacting group, to ensure they were raising X properly. This was based on a ?manual?, the role set, which would ensure X was raised properly. Achieved status. This is an example of the scientist having a self-fulfilling prophecy of X. As X was growing up, the other families in the neighborhood looked down upon the Joneses and X. They are the in-group, and the Joneses and X, were the out-group. X had a run in one day in the sand box. A little girl hit X with a shovel. The mother took the shovel away and said ?little girls don?t hit little__?, and turned to ask what X was. This comment infers, it?s ok for little boys to hit people, so the norm for girls, is not to hit. When X informed her it?s not ok to hit X?s, the lady called her a brat. She was projecting her inability to understand X. This is a perceptual defense, and putting up a barrier to communication.
When X was ready to start school, the Joneses were worried because of all the norms and roles X would be expected to fit into based on gender. There would be a role conflict based on the division of boys and girls, and since X was neither, it would not fit into the in-group of boy or girl. This causes problems for the teachers and parents. In their perception of children in school, it has been the norm to segregate the boys and girls into informal interacting groups. However with X, they cannot attach attributes to X, as to put closure on X?s gender. X therefore stands in contrast to the rest of the children.
X started to school and was immediately stereotyped by the other children, or at least they tried to stereotype X. They would ask questions, that if answered one way or another, could be attributed to ones gender. This however didn?t work. X, on the other hand had no perceptual sets. X didn?t know girls don?t shoot hoops, and boys don?t weave baskets. These were all roles learned from the parents. X, just expected all children to like all things. There was a spelling bee and contest at school, that finally broke the barrier for the other children. X, they noticed didn?t care about winning or losing. They also noticed X was having more fun then they were. They were displaying selective perception. The parents noticed a change in their children. They saw a behavioral change in their attitudes, the clothes they were wearing were different, and they were accepting X.
The parents attributed the changes of their children to X. They formed a temporary group to try and solve the dilemma they faced. Their perceptual defense was, all the problems they were having were X?s fault. Through their committee they applied the classical decision theory to solve ?X?s? problem. The parents were afraid of X, because X was something they couldn?t define or place a label on. Once they were presented with a unique situation that didn?t fit into their role set, they put up a perceptual defense. They were all suffering from a role strain, or role conflict, but because of the learned attitudes and behaviors of all the parents, they tried to act as if X was the one with the problem, perceptual distortion.
X, was being punished for breaking the norms, transgressions. The community was comparing X based on their social upbringing, social comparison theory.
The premise of the story is; when people are raised in a society where roles and norms are taught from childhood, people tend to accept these role sets as permanent. When someone comes along who cannot be labeled or placed into a group, then we get defensive and the X becomes a recipient of societies transgressions. The story also points out that behaviors are learned. This is evident in the fact, all the parents had a perception of how boys and girls were supposed to act. X, was an external factor that through it?s proximity to their own children, caused them to have a role strain within their own primary groups, family.
I associate the ?social comparison theory? to this story. I used this theory because throughout, all the parents, children, and teachers were making assumptions and comparison?s, based on their own experiences. I think it explains why people are stereotyped. Behavior is learned from an early age. If one is taught from childhood that, girls do one thing and boys do another, then you develop a perception of what is acceptable and what isn?t in life,(the norm.) This explains the parents, children, teachers, and friends unwillingness to accept X. They developed an attitude that made them close minded. Group think takes effect in this instance. The children surrounding X however, will be brought up in a ?social learning theory? type environment. They have learned that you don?t have to be either a boy or girl, to have certain attributes associated with you.