Blue Eyed

Keith Benson Diversity and Oppression 9.28.2007 Ms. Tamara Thompson After viewing the movie Blue Eyed with the Diversity and Oppression class, along with reading the assigned texts, it is easy to recognize how easily oppression can directed at targets, and the various methodologies used to deliver it. “Blue Eyed”, filmed in 1996, featured renowned educator Jane Elliot who performed a controversial experiment in a small entirely white elementary school during the tumultuous civil rights era of the 1960’s. In effort to illustrate to her class how African-Americans experience life in America, Elliot sorted her class according to eye colors; blue and brown. Due to the lack of racial diversity in her classroom, it is possible eye color would be the easiest and most identifiable way to distinguish one group of students from another. Once the groups had been separated according to their eye color, Jane Elliot purposefully sought to praise and empower one group, while demeaning and marginalizing the other. As a result off the experiment, Jane Elliot endured years of professional mistreatment and personal disdain within her community. As years and decades past, and a zeitgeist of “diversity awareness” ensued, Elliot’s experiment became widely acknowledged for its effectiveness and innovation. Subsequently, Elliot has traveled nationwide to public schools, universities, and businesses to lecture and perform similar experiments. To be sure, Elliot’s experiment certainly was effective in temporarily allowing one group to walk in another groups’ collective shoes – if only temporarily.

Though the version of Blue Eyed viewed in class was abridged (the longer film lasting 90 minutes), the contemporary experiment differed greatly from Elliot’s first experiment with her class. While the movie features only the brown eyed group as agents and the blue eyed group as targets, in the 1968 experiment, both brown and blue eyed groups experienced acting as agents and targets. In addition, the age difference between the two test subject groups was significant. Also, the location and atmosphere in which the experiments were administered vastly differed. The contemporary Blue Eyed/Brown Eyed experiment began with adults going through a registration process of sorts where they met the facilitator of the experiment, Jane Elliot. During the registration period, the sorting process began. Some of the test subjects were given a cloth ring to wear around their necks and sent into an isolated room, where only those with cloth around their necks were confined. The group given the pieces of cloth was the blue eyed group. Simultaneously, the brown eyed group was gathered into a comfortable room where they engaged in jovial discussion with a much gentler and kinder Jane Elliot. Alone with Elliot, the brown eyed group was told of the experiment, and how to behave toward the blue eyed group. Further, employing a severely flawed historical interpretation, Elliot explained to the brown eyed group why they were scientifically and physiologically superior, and more intelligent than those with blue eyes. (It was unclear whether or not the brown eyed subjects began to actually subscribe to Elliot’s theory.) Before long, the blue eyed group was corralled into the room and was told by Elliot to sit on the floor. The brown eyed agents sat in comfortable chairs visibly looking

down on the blue eyed target group. The room was reminded me of a court room; the brown eyed group being situated similar to that of a jury, and the blue eyed group as that of a defendant. From there, the dichotomy of treatment, by Elliot, toward the two groups was obvious. After a few short minutes, the blue eyed group became aware they were purposely being mistreated, but it was unclear if they had figured out why. For the duration of the experiment, the blue eyed group was demeaned and treated harshly by a rude and callous Elliot. Some members of the blue eyed group confessed to feeling, “confused and sad”; while some grew visibly angered and frustrated by their experience. Some were reduced to tears; others were intimidated into a state of silent acquiescence and acceptance. All of this was accomplished in a total of 90 minutes. The 1968 experiment allowed both groups of students to experience being both agents and targets over a period of a few days. While targets, similar oppressive treatment was exhibited to both blue and brown eyed groups and similar responses of confusion, marginalization resulted. Similarly, when both groups were agents, they became more able, and, as a group, more intelligent. Elliot, hypothesized prior to the 1968 experiment, that if one group was empowered while the other group was oppressed and degraded, that the respective group and individual success level on tests and puzzles would positively correlate with the kind of treatment they received. In short, Elliot believed that if either the blue eyed or brown eyed groups were treated as targets on any given day, their performance on puzzles or test would be worse, than on days they felt empowered by being agents during class. Her 1968 hypothesis held true. Unfortunately, the movie did not perform similar exams.

Also, the movie used adults of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds as test subjects. In 1968, the test subjects were Elliot’s kindergarten students. In terms of life experience and internalization of information, there is a vast difference from an adult and a five year old child. While it is possible to assume that an adult could possess life experiences and power of discretion to reject any thought communicated deemed unflattering or untrue, 5 year olds, in general, do not have similar intellectual maturity or experience necessary to reject similar information. In addition, by and large, most children are taught to obey and be respectful of adults, so when Elliot began to treat one group as agents and the other as targets, it is possible that her message was internalized and accepted to a greater degree by her kindergarten class. But what was surprising to me, was the response to being targets, by both adult and child groups in the two experiments was very similar. Both children and adults grew frustrated and irritated, and both age groups had people who responded to being targets by crying. Finally, while the newer experiment using adults took place in what looked like a conference room of sorts, the 1968 experiment took place in a public school. Public Schools represent the official voices of what “is” and what “is not” accepted and even, to a larger degree, expected in our society. The buildings where the experiments were administered communicate different messages to the two audiences. The adults examined in the conference room for 90 minutes must have been aware that at some point the experiment would end, and that they could go home never to return or see Jane Elliot again. But public schools are different. Public Schools are, in fact, political institutions. From the daily required recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the designing of curriculum, everything that is taught and

communicated in public schools, in some form or fashion, is a political, and thus, an “official” expression. This cannot be overlooked in terms of determining how the student and adult perceive the information Elliot disseminated. For example, someone in a conference room saying “Latinos are naturally lazy people” is worlds apart from a teacher in a public school saying “Latinos are naturally lazy people.” This is similar to what took place in the two experiments. The adults had to ability to view Elliot as simply a random facilitator in a conference room, and her statements as her opinion only. On the other hand, Elliot’s students were likely taught and trained to view the teacher as correct in her views; in addition to being the undisputed authoritarian within the classroom. Psychically, the difference between an adult being told they are inferior by another adult, and a child being told they are inferior, and then being treated as such by their gradeschool teacher is worlds apart. Bobbie Harro, in “Cycle of Socialization”, suggests the socialization process occurs over three differing spheres; Identity, Socialization and Teaching and Experience. The Identity Lens encompasses socializing forces present before and after our existence, “mechanics already in place”. Examples of these pre-existent mechanics would be limited information about oneself, biases, stereotypes, and cultural history. In the Socialization and Teaching phase, we actively choose or interact with information, usually from institutions like churches, schools, peers and media outlets. Harro argues that the information we receive from these places, among a host of many others, contributes to our socialization and self-esteem on both conscious and subliminal levels. This results in the next stage of Harro’s Cycle which is the Experience Phase. This stage describes the various manifestations of cumulative effects of the previous two stages; particularly if the

previous stages were, generally, negative experiences. Harro acknowledges a flood of emotions can result from negative socialization experiences such as rage even guilt; which can possibly result in either the continuing of the cycle by actively adding to the pre-existing stereotypes and biases (internal subordination) and negative history, or a change or interruption of the negative cycle can result by questioning what has been presented, becoming an ally, or by educating oneself and others. Blue-Eyed, saw many facets of Harro’s Cycle of Socialization realized. Whether or not, the adults knew what the experiment consisted of, it is safe to assume most adults entered the experiment with some degree of fear, ignorance and insecurity, as Harro describes. The brown eyed group became comforted by the fact they were treated as privileged and thus treated relatively well, not because anything they had earned, but because their eyes were brown; while the oppressed blue eyed groups’ collective ignorance and confusion increased consistent with their negative treatment. Both groups entered the experiments with pre-existing mechanics that either empowered or stigmatized them. Helpful and hurtful messages were communicated by the facilitator, Jane Elliot that both groups appeared to internalize and personalize. Finally, the three phases of socialization resulted in negative triggers being exhibited by the target group in the form anger, frustration, tears, acceptance, and dis-unity. Harro argues that simply becoming aware of aware of our differences and learning to appreciate them is not enough to rid our world of oppression as it is thoroughly ingrained in our society and is systemic. Elliot’s experiment exposes quite a bit of systemic oppression Harro rallies describes.

Iris Young, in “Five Faces of Oppression”, describes the various methods employed by agent and privileged groups to direct oppression at target groups. Young explains how exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence have been used to help power and privilege stay in the hands of those who possess it. In the experiment, thankfully, no violence was used as method to oppress the target blue eyed group. Also, Young’s description of exploitation, specifically relating to economic matters, was not exposed in the test. Marginalization, powerlessness and cultural imperialism were all present however. The blue eyed group was viewed as unneeded and kept on the sidelines and without meaningful participation; they did lack authority and kept in a wholly subservient position for the duration of the exam, and were bombarded with the stereotypes and pathologies of being blue-eyed in brown eyed world. After viewing the movie Blue Eyed and watching the original 1968 experiment, it was interesting to view how people that would typically be agents in our society responded to being targets, even after a brief period of time. The reading describes how agents may not realize they are privileged in their daily lives and how that privilege comes at the expense of someone else being oppressed. Then again, these experiments provided only temporary discomfort, and memories are short; and to think that wholesale change would result from these two isolated experiments would not be realistic. The test subjects will still be agents in American society; white in a white country, with loads of white representation and vast opportunities for white people. Richard Dyer, in “A Matter of Whiteness” agrees writing, “In Western representation, whites are overwhelmingly and disproportionately

predominant, have the central and elaborated roles, and above all are placed as the norm, the ordinary, the standard” (Dyer, 23). Notwithstanding, however, the movie did provide mild entertainment if nothing else comes of it – which is what I suspect.