In their introduction to college textbooks, Sherrie Nist-Olejnik and Jodi Patrick Holschuh explain to students that college success can be achieved with the appropriate skill and will. In other words, they argue that if you know how to read, study, and write at the college-level, for example, and if you are appropriately motivated and set goals, college success–in the form of good grades and a degree–is yours.

Unfortunately, this is a model that I believed in at one point, or at least accepted without fully considering its ramifications. Earlier this week as I was walking to one of my classrooms to teach, I saw a poster that had another version of “Will + Skill = Success.” Same idea but in different words – forget exactly the iteration it used. Anyway, in that moment it hit me that such a notion is embodied with racism and classism and does not recognize intersectionality, systemic oppression, or the increasingly reality of students and mental health crises.

This semester I am teaching four classes – and there is at least one student in each of these classes currently facing a mental health crisis. They are facing health challenges that are only beginning to receive any kind of institutional recognition. For these students, any version of “Will + Skill = Success” is irrelevant at best, offensive and potentially a factor that worsens their health at worst.

On a similar note, given systemic oppression–including in too many institutions of higher education and elsewhere–no amount of will and skill will result in “success.” Society simply does not always allow some people–minorities–to be “successful.” Furthermore, given systemic problems in the United States’s public schools and everywhere else in society, some students are not able to suddenly (or ever) attain “skill” and “will.” Intersectionality matters. “Will + Skill = Success” assumes that everyone has had and has privilege and just needs to “get with it” to be successful – it assumes that students are all alike. 

Finally, such a simplistic formula does not recognize that college is not necessarily and automatically for everybody. College is not automatically required to be educated, smart, and successful. And grounded in the “Will + Skill = Success” conceptualization is the supposed inevitably of capitalism.

People are still valuable and successful even without “will” or “skill.”    

A more appropraite formual–based on current mores and social constructions–might be: Lots of Privilege + Luck + Money = Will = Skill = A Chance For Something Different .

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda 

The so-named Trolley Problem first originated in 1905, and since its full development as a thought experiment in 1967 by Philippa Foot, it has captivated the on-going attention of philosophers and psychologists for decades. More recently, as indicated on the Facebook page “Trolley problem memes,” developing various iterations of the Trolley Problem is a popular pastime for everyday people, too.

The basic scenario involves a runaway trolley that you observe. On its current path, it will kill five people who are working on the tracks (or who are tied to the tracks). If you pull the lever next to you, it will go down another set of tracks with one person in the way. What do you do, if anything? Death will occur no matter what. Unlike psychologists and philosophers who are interested in how people reason, apply ethics and morality, and about possible contradictions (or cognitive dissonance) in their ethical world views, I am not immediately interested in whether you testify that you would or would not pull the lever.

One particularly interesting alternative Trolley Problem, on the aforementioned Facebook page, calls into question our definitions of “life.” In this situation, the runaway trolley will kill one man tied to the tracks or if the lever is pulled, five plants–yes, plants–will die. But, again, for purposes here, I am not interested in definitions of life, but do like the added layer.   

Other classic scenarios say that you have an opportunity to save the five people by pushing one very large person in the way of the runaway trolley. Similarly, though, I am also not instantly interested in whether you would push this person in the way or not.

I am, however, interested in the observable identities of the people involved.

Quick: In the situations above, what identities did you immediately and mentally “assign” to the various people? Even, what kind of weather did you “assign” to the environment? How did this influence your answers and then your justifications?

Except for a handful of scenarios that involve someone who is overweight, a Nazi, or a researcher, for example, identity is not part of the equation in scenarios researchers (and internet users) regularly develop. All are basically “generic,” except for a few situations developed by high school student Tiffany Sun and to a lesser extent, some by researcher David Pizarro. Both found, unsurprisingly, that when minority variables are added, people are more willing to choose that person to die.

As a researcher always interested in the new and unusual and as a professor of both History courses and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies courses, I want much more information about the five people tied to the tracks, the one person on the other tracks, and the person who now has some control over life and death, for example. In what country does the Trolley Problem take place? Would society racialize the five as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or something else? Does this group include just men, just women, both men and women? Are these people gender-conforming or nonconforming? Are these people tall or short? Are they healthy or unhealthy? Are the people younger or older? Are they able-bodied or disabled? Are they rich or poor? From all kinds of quantitative and qualitative data from researchers across the spectrum, we know that such identity factors matter a great deal and that they matter in ways people are not even aware of and cannot be aware of.

The Trolley Problem is wholly incomplete without considering questions of identity and intersectionality, or how these identities interact and overlap. Consider the following variations of the Trolley Problem. What would happen if we found 100 people, divided them into four groups, and gave each person in each group one of the situations? How would people respond differently to the different examples? That would give richer results, especially if instead of hearing or reading the following situations, people saw an animation of it.

There is a runaway trolley. It is headed toward a group of White men. If you do nothing, this group will die. If you pull the switch a Black trans woman, who is young, tall, and physically fit will die instead.

There is a runaway trolley. It is headed toward a group of White men. If you do nothing, this group will die. If you pull the switch a Black (cisgender) woman, who is young, tall, and physically fit will die instead.

There is a runaway trolley. It is headed toward a group of White men. If you do nothing, this group will die. If you pull the switch a White trans woman, who is young, tall, and physically fit will die instead.

There is a runaway trolley. It is headed toward a group of White men. If you do nothing, this group will die. If you pull the switch a White (cisgender) woman, who is young, tall, and physically fit will die instead.

Given what we know about the history and psychology of racism, people in general would be more likely to save the White cisgender woman than a woman of Color or a trans woman. People might actually not even truly “see” the non-White woman.

Other variations could pull on the following:

There is a runaway trolley. It is headed toward a group of White men. If you do nothing, this group will die. If you pull the switch an Asian Child, who is a baby will die instead.

There is a runaway trolley. It is headed toward a group of five White men. If you do nothing, this group of five will die. If you pull the switch a group of four poor, middle-aged White man will die instead.

The Trolley Problem is much more complex, even much more beautiful by making it more detailed, by considering identity and by queering it. Why do the various iterations of the Trolley Problem involve generic “people”? Why hasn’t this conversation already occurred again and again? How does this introduce new ethical problems, ethical problems that philosophy–a discipline generally dominated by White men–might prefer to ignore or might be unaware?

The Trolley Problem could be made even further interesting by making it come to life–factoring in the weather and time of day, the political climate of the nation, the education of the people involved, and an infinite array of additional factors.

As Omid Panahi argues in a recent issue of Philosophy Now, there is no solution to the Trolley Problem. Therefore, I want people to embrace that there being no solution even available is all the more reason to make the examples more complex and more detailed, especially where identity is concerned. While I understand that the original experiment’s aim to be as clear and as simple as possible, this takes the situation completely out of the human experience, even somewhat eliminates ethics by making it ideal. (I mean, does the lever even work?) Depending on the detail provided, people will read any body language available and likewise use that to influence their unconscious decision and unconscious ethical reasoning. Embrace the power of thought experiments. And until researchers do their “thing,” we will not know how the inclusion of identity changes responses.  

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda

• Cis (i.e., cisgender) refers to people who identify with their assigned sex and gender at birth. If you’re not trans, you are usually cis and have cis privilege.
• A trans man, for example, is usually best seen as someone who was always a man, but we must be cautious of strategic essentialism and remember sex/gender is fluid. A trans man would be someone welcomed as “it’s a girl” at birth (AFAB).
• Regardless of being cis or trans, an individual’s biological sex changes over time and according to one’s activities, surroundings, and environments. Men have decreased levels of testosterone, increased oxytocin and dopamine, when taking care of children. Women in the army will be biologically more “male” with increased levels of testosterone.
• “Sex” is defined by over a dozen factors that exist on spectrums. “Males”/“Females” have far more in common than not.
• Just as sex and gender are separate from each other and separate from sexual orientation, being cis or trans is totally separate from sexual orientation. A trans woman is a woman and can be asexual, bisexual, lesbian, heterosexual, pansexual, etc. Additionally, a cishet woman dating/etc. a (trans)man is still a cishet woman.
• Drag performances/performers are separate from trans and/or cis.
• Estimates suggest that ≈2 percent of the population is trans. That’s AT LEAST 1 in 50 people.
• Trans identities fall on spectrums; “trans” is an umbrella term. People can be “transgender” in terms of gender, sex, or both. Trans people are those who are often (but not always “this is a love story between a woman and her body”) uncomfortable with their (birth-)assigned sex and/or (birth-)assigned gender. Trans people are queer people by definition, at least academically speaking, and can include androgynous(male and female gender presentations), genderqueer / nonbinary (neither male or female presentations and/or identities and/or rejects binaries of gender), transsexual (trans people who medically transition), and intersex (biological sex outside of standard binary-based deviation).
• The cis/trans binary needs to be problematized.
• Trans people and allies often find “transgendered” to be offensive – a few say it is more accurate than “transgender.” Some people find “transsexual” to also be offensive. “Male” and especially “female” are often offensive terms, too.
• For some trans people elements of social mores are sometimes, partly, involved in their identity–society doesn’t allow for “easy” movement around the gender binary spectrum. There would be less trans people, per se, if people could simply live and dress, etc., as they wanted to without fear of violence/death. But, it’s ALWAYS about much more than clothes.
• Just as there have not always been gay people, there have not always been trans people. Additionally, just as people are not “born” gay, people are not “born” trans. Queer Studies rejects notions of biological and social essentialism.
• There are many different types of surgery a trans person may want to have: “top” and “bottom” being most common. (People overlook that cis people too take hormones and get cosmetic surgery to achieve desired looks.) There are many different medications available to trans people, especially estrogen and testosterone. Some trans people don’t want either.
• Comments about any person’s ability to “pass” or “look like” any given sex/gender are usually inappropriate. Medically transitioning, if desired, and socially transitioning are an on-going processes. Even if not realized, everyone has met and seen trans people. There is no way to tell if someone is trans. (Don’t say-“I would have never know you are trans”) Also, if a person identifies as trans, they “look like” a trans person, per se. Just as any gay person “looks like” a gay person.
• More than others, trans (and genderqueer) people tend to have conflicted relationships with pronouns (“he,” “she,” “they,” plus “ze” and other neopronouns) and with “dead name(s)” / “dead pronoun(s)” and “chosen name(s).”
• Just as aspects of the early women’s movement excluded lesbian women (e.g., Radicalesbians), trans women were also excluded. Adrienne Rich, an important queer theorist, was transphobic. She thought that transwomen appropriated the identity and body of “real women.” TERFs continue to “hate against” trans people.
• Trans people typically have at least some internalized transphobia, just as non-heterosexual people have internalized homophobia. Such might be feelings of not “looking”/”behaving,” “masculine” or “feminine” “enough”/“in the right way.”
• Trans people, according to the DSM, are considered to have a “mental disorder”—gender dysphoria. Although, the DSM now provides ways to help trans people seek desired medical treatments. And trans people are not mentally ill.
• A trans person’s intersectionality affects positionality. Trans people with the “permission,” opportunity, and resources to live as they desire live longer, happier lives.
• We must always be cautious unnecessarily bringing up topics of “male” and “female” because stereotype threat is real. Focusing on individuals is far better.
• Everyone does things to “alter” their identities and/or bodies.

One of the words that could summarize my life is pain: lots and lots of really bad pain. There have been many periods–years long–during my life where I hurt essentially all of the time. Given my body’s reaction to Neurofibromatosis, I can pretty much hurt anywhere. I have dealt with all kinds of nerve pain throughout my life. My head and legs have been especially prone to pain. I am also used to post-surgery pain, having had three major, major surgeries and one minor surgery.

I have always had a very high tolerance for pain. A bad headache or migraine, for example, doesn’t (and can’t!) stop me from doing what I need to do and want to do. Various medical procedures and shots and IVs don’t bother me at all.

Recently, though, I am learning that I don’t have to deal with constant pain.

For example, I have had migraines pretty much my entire 30 years of life. I took Propranolol for these for about ten years and stopped taking it somewhere around 2001 or 2002. The headaches were better for a time, and then, I just got used to them. During the late 2000s and especially during the early 2010s, I started having really bad headaches all the time. The doctors suggested, several times, that I could start taking Propranolol again, and I kept saying, “No, it’s not that bad. I can just keep using these headache patches.” Finally, because I started having a few very minor heart problems and dizziness, I was essentially told I needed to start taking another medication in the winter of 2015. (I’m on 13 as of this month!) Propranolol was what we–I–decided on because it would also help headaches.

And Propranolol has been the wonder drug. My headaches are much, much, much better–the dosage had to be increased several times-I take the medication three times a day–my heart is doing better and the dizziness is gone.

If only I had started it sooner…

On a similar note, I had a tumor removed in the summer of 2015 on my finger because the pain–after years and years–had gotten really, really bad. Now that tumor and another tumor are growing. Instead of waiting and waiting, I am getting them addressed now. As a result, I am having surgery (#5!) this May to take care of one of them. The other tumor will be removed later on becuase it’s not large enough, according to the doctors.

So, to all the people out there with a very high tolerance for pain–just because you are used to it and can handle it, doesn’t mean you have to. See the doctor. And take medications!

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda

As I have written about before, no one is born voluntarily. Additionally, as soon as we open our eyes and see light and the doctor arbitrarily announces “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl,” we are involuntarily assigned a series of names that we are forever associated with.

Changing one’s name is an extremely difficult process, if one wants to do so. Upon marriage, laws allow for last names to be changed with more ease. 

Why does our culture make it so very complicated to be legally known by something one is comfortable with? Shouldn’t there be some kind of process whereby at a certain age people can easily change their legal name, if they wish?

“Legal” names matter a great deal, as they are what are on everything! While I personally love my name, many people find their name painful and uncomfortable, especially our trans friends.

One of the many things I love about the University of Houston is that students and faculty can log into their account and enter a “preferred name.” This is the name that appears on emails, Blackboard, graduation materials, class rosters, etc., etc. This name can be ANYTHING. Trans individuals can get a UH ID Card with their preferred name, too. 

And, on another note, why do people involuntarily edit other people’s name? For example, I use my full name on everything, including this blog. I’m (Dr.) Andrew Joseph Pegoda. Yet, all the time, people abridge my name. They omit my middle name without my permission and against how I always write my name. Or they turn my middle name into a letter and a period. And all of this irritates me! It probably shouldn’t, but it does. 🙂

Regardless, our name begins defining and shaping who we are and our positionalities from day one. We learn very, very early on whether or not we have a “male” or a “female” name and what this means. We learn very, very early on whether or not our name is “easy” to pronounce and spell. We learn early on whether our name will help us gain attention and respect and privilege or not.

Names are powerful.

People want to know your name and whether you are “male” or “female” before anything else. 

What kind of power does your name have?  

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda 

This is the type of article I am always hesitant to write and publish because the American Civil Liberties Union, or the ACLU, has done incredible work for decades. I am a proud member of the ACLU. But, someone has to write about such….

The ACLU is one of the main organizations that is consistently working toward bettering the nation and enforcing the Constitution (in the “proper,” “respectable” way). On Saturday, March 11, 2017, the ACLU hosted a resistance training summit that was also screened at thousands of various watch parties around the United States. I attended one of these! 

While listening to the various speakers, I noticed five things–problems of sort–with the ACLU’s event yesterday. (And keep in mind, these are things that I especially notice because these are related to topics I teach and research.)

• There was no recognition of intersectionality. They talked about women, about immigrants, about transgender people, and others. There was no acknowledgment that there are, for example, Black trans, immigrant women. In other words, we all have numerous identities (or “adjectives”). These combine, intersect, and interact in ways that must be acknowledged outside of Gender Studies departments. We cannot talk about women without also talking about their gender identity, gender expression, religion, sexuality, able-bodiedness or lack of, for example. In other words, it lacked queerness big time.
• The discussion was normative. When discussing current problems and solutions, everything was fairly general. The ACLU clearly did not consult with those who are in immediate danger, per se — the kind of danger that is more urgent than the slow(er) courtroom approach. Voices from the likes of bell hooks, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Cornel West or from BlackLivesMatter were not acknowledged, not included, and not represented. There was no sense of specifically asking minorities (especially “double minorities”) what they want and what they need. ACLU is radical for sure when considering the White Supremacy of United States History, but there are plenty of far more radical groups. In other words, it lacked queerness big time.
• The speakers were normative. There were “diverse” speakers, but there were not speakers who transgressed societal expectations of gender expression. All of the speakers were able-bodied, too. In other words, it lacked queerness big time.
• Neoliberalism was ignored. The ACLU and other such organizations are perfect embodiments of Neoliberalism. They are private organizations dependent on donations from private individuals that exist to do what government should do on its own. At no point today (or ever) do most people take time to acknowledge these political processes and social constructions. The ACLU also depends, in part, on another tenet of Neoliberal ideologies – paternalism or the necessity of a few important, powerful people who will take care of the rest of us. In other words, it lacked queerness big time.
• Civil religion was perpetuated. The “greatness” of the United States was perpetuated. The meeting started with the national anthem. The myth of inclusion was repeated. The nation was emphasized over humans, over the globe, and over the universe. For example, “crimes against our nation” were discussed. Nationalism only does harm. In other words, it lacked queerness big time.

As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some kind of natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. “Queer” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative.

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda

If tomorrow all the things were gone I’d worked for all my life

Think of the tragedy that would have to happen for everything to disappear (?) tomorrow. This also takes for granted the social construction of laboring for an employer. The use of “I’d” also connotes individuality alone and ignores the collective role society and government play in order for any of us to do anything. Public schools, roads, and many other things, funded and regulated with tax dollars, make it possible for society to function. The opening philosophy of history in God Bless The USA says that individuals alone make accomplishments and that they work for all of their life in order to acquire things.

It’s also worth acknowledging the male voice singing the song and what this suggests about the “proper” roles for people according to their sex. 

And I had to start again with just my children and my wife

Here we have the full embodiment of patriarchy. Man with his children and his wife. I’m curious about why all other parties are omitted. Other family members, friends, and once again, the government vis-à-vis social safety nets. “He” would certainly not be starting again with only his wife and children. 

I’d thank my lucky stars to be livin’ here today

I don’t exactly understand why “lucky stars” is used. I’m surprised Lee Greenwood didn’t have the words as “thank my God above” or something similar. “Lucky stars” would seem to suggest a very different theology than found in the overall song God Bless The USA.

‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can’t take that away

From an academic perspective, the flag itself, of course, does not automatically stand for anything. It means different things to different people. To some people, especially minorities, the flag is a symbol of violence and suppression, not freedom.

I am also interested in the lyrics “they can’t take that away.” Given its Cold War-era origins, “they” is probably the Soviet Union and/or communists. And here again, though, we have an interesting philosophy of history, one that says the United States will be a constant in history/the future. Such a view is arrogant and ahistorical. 

And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free

Here we have a version of freedom clocked in Whiteness, Maleness, Heterosexuality, Wealth, etc., etc. At the very time this song came out, freedom was deliberately not given to countless peoples in the United States. And these words suggest that freedom is only available in the United States. On another note “at least” suggest a minimum – why be satisfied for “freedom” alone? 

And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me

Such a contradictory philosophy of history is particularly interesting: The United States’s founding texts argue that “freedom” are rights of birth, and this song says that men die to provide that right. This line ignores the women who also participated in wars. It again ignores that this “freedom” people “died” for was not provided to all people. As I have written about elsewhere, it ignores the basic complexities of war – that soldiers firing at one another could easily be friends if it weren’t for governments and geopolitics.

From another perspective, the narrator of the song does not own any sense of “control” in his life. His attributions are all external, uncontrollable, and (mostly) stable.

From yet another perspective, that of historical memory, we can look at “I won’t forget.” Why is that in particular important to remember? Will this person remember other manifestations of the past? What will be erased from memory? 

And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today

The contents of the song strongly suggest that Greenwood/the narrator of the song would not step up next to “me”/”you” or people who are minorities in some way or another. This line also suggests an unquestioned defense of the United States. 

‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land

“Loving” a land–an imagined community–is odd. 

God bless the USA

The line moves the song fully into the realm of civil religion.  

Collectively, God Bless The USA embodies a philosophy of history that combines unquestioned U.S. nationalism and Christianity, that emphasizes and recognizes the (White male) individual alone, that contributes to the erasure of minorities, and that ultimately does not allow for the real complexity of time and place and the ever-changing nature of everything. The song has a very limited historical memory, one deliberately manipulated and misleading. 

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda