(eBook PDF) The Social Construction of

Difference and Inequality: Race, Class,

Gender, and Sexuality 7th Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-the-social-construction-of-difference-an
d-inequality-race-class-gender-and-sexuality-7th-edition/
 The Social
Construction
of Difference
and Inequality

ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd i 02/16/18 10:33 PM

 viii CONTENTS
**15. I llegality as a Source of
Solidarity and Tension in Latino
Families 190
Leisy J. Abrego
**16. Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals
and Same-Sex Couples 208
Gary J. Gates
Social Institutions: Education 222
**17. T he Racial Achievement Gap,
Segregated Schools, and
Segregated Neighborhoods: A
Constitutional Insult 222
Richard Rothstein
18. Civilize Them with a Stick 235
Mary Crow Dog and Richard Erdoes
19. Missing in Interaction 241
Myra Sadker and David Sadker
Social Institutions: Work and Economy 251
**20. Black Men and the Struggle
for Work: Social and Economic
Barriers Persist 251
James M. Quane, William Julius Wilson, and
Jackelyn Hwang
21. R acializing the Glass Escalator:
Reconsidering Men’s Experiences
with Women’s Work 256
Adia Harvey Wingfield
22. S tressing Out the Poor: Chronic
Physiological Stress and the
Income–Achievement Gap 269
Gary W. Evans, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and
Pamela Kato Klebanov
Social Institutions: The State and
Public Policy 276
**23. J ezebel at the Welfare Office: How
Racialized Stereotypes of Poor
Women’s Reproductive Decisions
and Relationships Shape Policy
Implementation 276
N. Tatiana Masters, Taryn P. Lindhorst, and
Marcia K. Meyers
ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd viii
24. B eyond Crime and Punishment:
Prisons and Inequality 291
Bruce Western and Becky Pettit
25. T he Treacherous Triangle:
Justice, Immigration Enforcement,
and Child Welfare 297
Seth Freed Wessler
Social Institutions: Media 306
26. T he Digital Reproduction of
Inequality 306
Eszter Hargittai
27. Winnebagos, Cherokees, Apaches,
and Dakotas: The Persistence of
Stereotyping of American Indians in
American Advertising Brands 315
Debra Merskin
28. T he Prime-Time Plight of the
Arab American after 9/11:
Configuration of Race and Nation
in TV Dramas 324
Evelyn Alsultany
Language and Culture 341
29. H ow the Right Made Racism Sound
Fair—and Changed Immigration
Politics 341
Gabriel Thompson
30. S elf, Identity, and the Naming
Question: Reflections on the
Language of Disability 349
Irving Kenneth Zola
**31. T he Florida State Seminoles: The
Champions of Racist Mascots 359
Dave Zirin
Violence and Social Control 362
32. C limate of Fear 362
Southern Poverty Law Center
**33. Ruling Out Rape 367
Lisa Wade, Brian Sweeney, Amelia Seraphia
Derr, Michael A. Messner, and Carol Burke
02/16/18 10:33 PM

34. C yberbullying, School Bullying,
and Psychological Distress: A
Regional Census of High School
Students 375
Shari Kessel Schneider, Lydia O’Donnell,
Ann Stueve, and Robert W. S. Coulter
Part III: Experiencing Difference and
Inequality in Everyday Life 387
Examining the impact of constructions of
difference and maintaining inequalities on
members of society.
35. M aking Systems of Privilege
Visible 391
Stephanie M. Wildman with Adrienne D.
Davis
**36. You May Know Me from Such Roles
as Terrorist #4 396
Jon Ronson
37. A Dozen Demons 402
Ellis Cose
38. The Story of My Body 410
Judith Ortiz Cofer
39. Separated by Deportation 417
Tram Nguyen
40. “ Gee, You Don’t Seem Like an Indian
from the Reservation” 430
Barbara Cameron
**41.  T he Transgender Crucible 435
Sabrina Rubin Erdely
ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd ix
Contents ix
42. N ickel-and-Dimed: On (Not)
Getting by in America 445
Barbara Ehrenreich
43. Not Poor Enough 456
Susan Sheehan
44. Learning to Fight 464
Geoffrey Canada
Part IV: Resistance and Social Change 469
Examining how people working within
individual and institutional contexts transform
difference from a system of inequality to a
system of liberation.
45. T oward a New Vision: Race, Class,
and Gender as Categories of
Analysis and Connection 483
Patricia Hill Collins
46. Good for the ’Hood? 494
Anmol Chaddha
47. S eeing More Than Black & White:
Latinos, Racism, and the Cultural
Divides 500
Elizabeth Martinez
**48. Reform or Transformation?: The
Pivotal Role of Food Justice in the
U.S. Food Movement 506
Eric Holt-Giménez and Yi Wang
49. Voices of a New Movimiento 520
Roberto Lovato
**50. The Next Civil Rights Movement? 524
Fredrick C. Harris
02/16/18 10:33 PM
 P R E FA C E

T eaching about issues of inequality in a culture that focuses on individualism can be

a daunting task. Having been raised in such a culture, students in my classes often
arrive with little knowledge of the systemic nature of inequality in society. While they
may be aware of their own experiences of disadvantage (and perhaps privilege), they
are generally not aware of how structural arrangements in society result in systems of
difference and inequality. This book, which focuses on how race, class, gender, and sex-
uality are socially constructed as categories of difference and are maintained as systems
of inequality, is an effort to help students move toward a more systemic understanding.

why another race, class, gender (and sexuality) reader?

With the plethora of readers on race, class, and gender currently on the market, one
may wonder why another is needed. Indeed, some excellent anthologies are available
that can be effective in demonstrating the impact of race, class, and gender inequality
on the life chances of various individuals and groups in our society. However, few of
these texts thoroughly explain how such categories of difference are created, and even
fewer demonstrate how social institutions work to maintain systems of inequality. The
text here is structured in a way that examines how and why the categories of race, class,
gender, and sexuality are socially constructed, maintained, and experienced.
This anthology is divided into four parts. Each part begins with an introductory
essay that offers a conceptual framework illustrating concepts and theories (which are
designated by boldface type) useful for understanding the issues raised by the readings
in that section. These essays are not merely introductions to the readings; rather, they
provide material that will enable students to move beyond them. Part I provides a thor-
ough discussion of what it means to think critically, as well as an extensive overview
of how and why categories of difference are socially constructed. Part II discusses in
greater detail how categories of difference are transformed and maintained as systems
of inequality by social institutions. Part III examines how categories of difference and
systems of inequality impact the everyday experiences of individuals in our society.
Finally, Part IV offers a useful look at perspectives on social change and provides ex-
amples of barriers to and opportunities for transforming systems of oppression and
privilege into systems of equal access to opportunity.
In each section, the readings and examples were selected to cover a variety of racial
and ethnic groups as well as experiences of multiracial identity and immigration. In ad-
dition, issues of sexuality are incorporated throughout each part of this book. While a
few anthologies have begun to incorporate readings that address inequality on the basis
of sexuality, the majority do so on only a superficial level. With the continuing political

ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd x 02/16/18 10:33 PM

 Preface xi

and social debate regarding civil rights and sexuality, it is important that texts provide
sufficient material to address this area of inequality. Overall, the readings represent
myriad individuals with various perspectives and life experiences. Such diversity will
aid students’ ability to understand perspectives and experiences that differ from their
own. Finally, the part introductions as well as many of the readings selected demon-
strate the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality and stress the importance of
viewing them as interlocking systems of oppression and privilege. By moving beyond
traditional additive models of examining inequality, students will be better able to see
how forms of inequality are interconnected.

a note on language
As discussed in Part II, language serves as a link between all the different forms of cul-
ture in a society. Although language enables us to communicate with and understand
one another, it also incorporates cultural values. Thus, the words we use to describe
ourselves and others with regard to race, class, gender, and sexuality reflect not only our
own values but also those of the dominant ideology and popular discourse.
In discussing the experiences of different groups, issues of language can become
particularly problematic. For example, as discussed in Part I, categories of race and
ethnicity are socially constructed. In addition, the externally created labels for these
categories are not always accepted by those viewed as belonging to a particular group.
For example, individuals of Latin American descent may not accept the term Hispanic.
Similarly, those who are indigenous to North America may not accept the term Ameri-
can Indian. However, there is rarely agreement among all members of a particular racial
or ethnic group regarding the terminology with which they would like to be identified.
Recognizing the problems and limitations of language, I have attempted to be con-
sistent in the terminology I have used in each part introduction. For example, I use the
term Latina/o to refer to those of Latin American descent, although not all people in
this group may identify themselves in this way. I also use the terms black and African
American interchangeably, as I do with American Indian and Native American. In using
such terms it is not my intention to homogenize divergent experiences. Rather, it is
done in an effort to allow discussion of common experiences within as well as across
groups. The terminology used by the authors of the readings was not altered, however.
It is important that readers be mindful of the limitations of my language use as well as
that of the other authors within this anthology.

changes to this edition

With this seventh edition, I have continued to cover a variety of racial and ethnic
groups and to incorporate sexuality throughout. In addition, I have maintained the
focus on the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality as interlocking systems
of oppression. To keep the text current with regard to economic conditions, issues of
gender and sexuality, the political and social discourse on race, and recent events in
our country and world, I have updated all relevant statistics and changed many read-
ings, adding fifteen new readings. These readings include articles discussing issues of
immigration and documentation, updated discussions of the relationship between the

ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd xi 02/16/18 10:33 PM

 xii PREFACE

growing racial wealth gap and social policy in the United States, and the impact of
stereotypes held by case workers regarding poor women’s reproductive decisions and
relationships that shape policy implementation as explained in the article “Jezebel at
the Welfare Office.” As with the sixth edition, I have selected readings that are engag-
ing for students and that reflect a variety of experiences. I welcome any feedback that
instructors and students may have.

online resources
An instructor’s manual to accompany this text is located on the Ancillary Resource
Center. The instructor’s manual contains guidelines for discussion for each reading,
short-answer and essay questions, suggestions for classroom activities, and recommen-
dations for films/videos. These items were compiled to help instructors further student
comprehension of the issues addressed in this volume.

acknowledgments
The inception and completion of this project were made possible through the efforts of
many people. Foremost among these, I would like to acknowledge the students at the
University of Illinois (1995–98) and their efforts in lobbying for a class on multicultur-
alism and inequality that would incorporate students doing service in the community.
Without their perseverance and commitment, I would likely not have had the opportu-
nity to teach a course that provided such a wonderful foundation for this book. As has
been the case throughout my teaching career, my students are my best teachers. Thanks
go to all of my students at the colleges and universities where I have taught. I continue
to learn from each of them.
I also would like to acknowledge the work of a wonderful team of reviewers: Jodi
Burmeister-May, St. Cloud State University; Denise M. Dalaimo, Mt. San Jacinto C ­ ollege;
Sharon Elise, California State University at San Marcos; Kristin G. Esterberg, University
of Massachusetts at Lowell; Susan A. Farrell, Kingsborough Community College; Lisa
M. Frehill, New Mexico State University; Melinda Goldner, Union College; Kelley Hall,
DePauw University; Melissa Herbert, Hamline University; Eleanor A. Hubbard, Uni-
versity of Colorado at Boulder; Melissa Latimer, West Virginia University; Betsy Lucal,
Indiana University South Bend; Anne Roschelle, State University of New York at New
Paltz; Steve Schacht, State University of New York at Plattsburgh; Susan Shaw, Oregon
State University; and Brett Stockdill, California State Polytechnic University at Pomona.
Their insights, comments, and suggestions served me greatly in clarifying the direction
of this project. I value the contribution each of them made to its completion.
For the second edition, I would like to thank the following team of reviewers:
Peter Meiksins, Cleveland State University; Jackie Hogan, Bradley University; Philip
A. ­Broyles, Shippensburg University; Heather E. Dillaway, Michigan State University;
Elizabeth J. Clifford, Towson University; Tom Gershick, Illinois State University; Susan
A. Farrell, Kingsborough Community College; Kristin G. Esterberg, University of
Massachusetts–Lowell; and Eleanor A. Hubbard, University of Colorado at Boulder.
For the third edition, I would like to thank the following reviewers: Kristin E
­ sterberg,
University of Massachusetts–Lowell; Susan Farrell, Kingsborough Community College;

ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd xii 02/16/18 10:33 PM

 Preface xiii

Eleanor Hubbard, University of Colorado at Boulder; and Peter Meiksins, Cleveland

State University. Again, their suggestions and comments enabled me to continue to
improve this project.
For the fourth edition, I would like to thank the following team of reviewers:
­Tiffany Davis, University of Minnesota; Spencer Hope Davis, Elon University; Mary
Ferguson, University of Missouri–St. Louis; Christina M. Jimenez, University of Col-
orado at Colorado Springs; Peter Meiksins, Cleveland State University; Chadwick L.
Menning, Ball State University; and Tracy Woodard Meyers, Valdosta State University.
Their suggestions and comments were incredibly helpful in continuing to produce a
text that will be useful to others.
For the fifth edition, I would like to thank the following team of reviewers: C
­ hristina
Accomando, Humboldt State University; Rose Brewer, University of Minnesota–Twin
Cities; Edith Brotman, Towson University; Julie Rauli, Wilson College; and Mark Rauls,
College of Southern Nevada. Their thoughtful reviews helped to guide me in providing
a text that will continue to be useful to instructors in the field.
For the sixth edition, I appreciate the work of the following team of reviewers:
Debora Barrera Pontillo, Cascadia Community College; Catherine Felton, Cen-
tral Piedmont Community College; Timothy Pippert, Augsburg College; Yvonne
Moody, Chadron State College; Jason Martin, University of Missouri at Kansas City;
Ann Wood, University of Missouri at Kansas City; Linda Bynoe, California State
­University–­Monterey Bay; Daniel Egan, University of Massachusetts–Lowell; Lynn
Jones, Northern Arizona University; Leslie Richards, University of the District of Co-
lumbia; Lissa Yogan, Valparaiso University; Nicole Hendricks, Houston Community
College; and Adrianna Bohm, Delaware County Community College. Their input was
helpful in assisting me in developing an edition that is timely and relevant.
For the seventh edition, I would like to thank the following team of reviewers:
Karen Hossfeld, San Francisco State University; Hortencia Jimenez, Hartnell Col-
lege; Diane McMahon, La Roche College; Deinya Phenix, St. Francis College; Michael
Polgar, Pennsylvania State University; Alfred Prettyman, Ramapo College of New
Jersey; Dominick Quinney, Albion College; Rosemary Shinko, American University;
Nivedita Vaidya, California State University–Los Angeles; and Christi Young, South-
western Michigan College. Their invaluable feedback helped me to make the revisions
necessary to continue to provide a tool that will be beneficial to educators.
The production of the first edition of this book and its adherence to schedule was
due to the work of many people. Specifically, I would like to thank Jan Fisher, Kathryn
Mikulic, and Dave Mason at Publication Services for their excellent copyediting and
other support. At Mayfield Publishing I would like to thank Mary Johnson, April Wells-
Hayes, Marty Granahan, and Jay Bauer. My deepest thanks go to Serina Beauparlant
for believing in this project and for supporting me throughout. With her vision and
perseverance, I couldn’t have asked for a better editor.
The creation of the second edition is due to the work of Jill Gordon, Sally
­Constable, Amy Shaffer, Ruth Smith, Lori Koetters, Jenny El-Shamy, Nathan Perry, and
Dan Loch at McGraw–Hill. I appreciate your patience, creative efforts, and attention
to detail.

ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd xiii 02/16/18 10:33 PM

 xiv PREFACE

The creation of the third edition is due to the work of Sherith Pankratz, Trish
Starner, Larry Goldberg, Jill Gordon, Kim Menning, Melissa Williams, and Randy
Hurst at McGraw–Hill. I appreciate your work, imagination, and thoroughness.
The creation of the fourth edition is due to the work of Gina Boedeker, Amanda
Peabody, Leslie Oberhuber, Rich DeVitto, and Margarite Reynolds at McGraw–Hill.
I am in great appreciation of your patience and commitment.
The creation of the fifth edition is due to the work of Andrea Edwards and Meghan
Campbell at McGraw–Hill. I am grateful for your persistence and excellent work.
The production of the sixth edition was supported by Sara Jaeger at McGraw–Hill.
I greatly appreciate all that she did to assist me with the completion of the project.
This most recent edition is the result of the most able assistance of Grace Li at
Oxford University Press. I am especially appreciative of her patience as the project was
delayed because of unforeseen circumstances. Her professionalism and commitment
went beyond all my expectations.
Completing this project was also made possible through the support and caring
of a wonderful community of friends. I could always count on them for unconditional
support, and I am thankful to them for sharing their knowledge and insight. Thanks
also go to my fellow activists who help me to always keep one foot in reality so that I
do not lose perspective. Finally, I am incredibly grateful to my partner Kramer, a con-
sistent and stable force in my life. Her love, support, and understanding continue to be
all I need to get by.
Tracy E. Ore

ore47964_fm_i-xiv.indd xiv 02/16/18 10:33 PM

 I
PA R T

Constructing
Differences

Introduction

I n the United States, the Census Bureau attempts to conduct a complete account-
ing of all residents every ten years. The data gathered by the Census Bureau are
extremely important because they serve to determine the distribution of federal
dollars to support housing assistance, highway construction, employment services,
schools, hospital services, programs for the elderly, and other funding targets. In
the year 2000, persons filling out census forms were given a unique opportunity.
For the first time, those with mixed racial heritage were permitted to select more
than one racial category. As a result of new governmental policy, the category mul-
tiracial is now a reality in the United States.
Does this mean that people who are multiracial have never before existed in
this country? Of course not. Even a superficial exploration of US history will show
that multiracial people have been present throughout. The recent study using DNA
tests to confirm that Thomas Jefferson was the father of at least one child by his
slave Sally Hemings (Foster et al. 1998) is but one example of how the history of
slavery in the United States has contributed to the existence of people of multi-
racial descent. However, until recently, government policies in the United States
have not allowed for the recognition of a multiracial identity. Rather, they have
1

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 1 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 2 PART I. CONSTRUCTING DIFFERENCES

enforced policies such as the rule of hypodescent—one drop of black blood makes
you black—to maintain distinct racial categories.
The preceding example clearly illustrates that the categories we use to describe
ourselves and those around us are the product of social rather than biological factors.
Biologically, people who are multiracial certainly exist throughout the United States.
Indeed, it is unlikely that anyone is racially pure. Nevertheless, it is the social recog-
nition, definition, and grouping of these factors that make them culturally significant
in our daily interactions. Our reliance on such distinct categories is made clear when
we ask someone whose race is not immediately discernible to us, what are you?
These culturally defined classifications are also significant in that they are struc-
tured as categories that are fundamentally different from one another. Thus, we
expect people to be black or white, never in between.1 It is important to point out,
however, that difference is not necessarily a negative quality. On the contrary, the
existence of categories of difference adds a great deal of richness to our lives. The
presence of different cultural traditions, types of food, forms of music, and styles
of dance serves to make society more interesting. It is not the differences that are
the causes of inequality in our culture. Rather, it is the meanings and values applied
to these differences that make them harmful. For example, it is not that people of
color are defined as different from whites in the United States, but that whites are
viewed as superior and as the cultural standard against which all others are judged
that transforms categories of race differences into a system of racial inequality.
The readings in this text explore how categories of difference with regard to
race/ethnicity, social class, sex/gender, and sexuality are constructed and then
transformed into systems of inequality. We will investigate what creates these cat-
egories and how they are constructed, and we will consider some explanations
about why these categories are created. It is important that we understand how
the processes that construct these categories simultaneously create structures of
social stratification—a system by which society ranks categories of people in a
­hierarchy—and how social stratification results in systems of inequality. The read-
ings in this text will aid us in understanding the effects that categories of differ-
ence have on all members of our society and how this inequality can be addressed.
By examining closely the processes that construct categories of difference, we will
better understand how they impact our lives. Furthermore, by recognizing how
systems of inequality are socially created, we can gain a greater understanding of
how to transform such systems into ones of equality.

Critical Thinking
A fundamental component in examining constructions of difference and systems of
inequality is critical thinking about the social constructs on which systems of inequal-
ity rely. This requires us to examine how the social structure has affected our values,

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 2 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 Part I. Constructing Differences 3

attitudes, and behaviors. The object of this text is not to negate your current belief
system and provide you with a new one, but rather to provide the tools that will allow
you to think critically about the attitudes and opinions you have been given. By think-
ing critically, we are better able to develop a belief system that we can claim as our own.
Many of us are unsure of what is meant by critical thinking. According to
­various scholars, critical thinking can involve logical reasoning, reflective judg-
ment, exploring assumptions, creating and testing meanings, identifying con-
tradictions in arguments, and determining the validity of empirical findings and
generalized conclusions. For the purposes of this text, to think critically is to ask
questions about what is assumed to be real, valued, and significant in our culture.
Stephen Brookfield (1987) offers a useful framework for asking these questions. He
sees critical thinking as having four primary elements.
First, we must identify and challenge assumptions. We should try to identify the
assumptions that are at the foundation of the concepts, values, beliefs, and behav-
iors that we deem important in our society. Once we have identified these assump-
tions, we need to explore their accuracy and legitimacy, considering whether what
we take for granted does indeed reflect the realities we experience. For example, a
common assumption in the United States is that women are inherently more nur-
turing than men and that men are inherently more aggressive than women. When
thinking critically, we ask whether such assumptions reflect reality or if they shape
what we observe in the behaviors of women and men. In other words, do we ob-
serve women indeed being more nurturing, or do we make note of only their nur-
turing behavior? In addition, we need to ask whether our expectations of women
and men shape the ways in which they act. For example, do men behave in a more
aggressive manner because that is what is expected of them? Through identifying
and challenging assumptions, we become more aware of how uncritically examined
assumptions shape our perceptions and our understanding of our environment.
Second, thinking critically involves awareness of our place and time in our cul-
ture. When asking questions about aspects of our culture, we need to be aware of
our own standpoint—the position from which we are asking these questions. In
other words, we need to be aware of our location at a particular intersection of
culture and history; how that is influenced by our race/ethnicity, social class, sex/
gender, sexuality, ability, age, and other factors; and how these in turn influence the
questions we ask and the answers we accept. For example, a millionaire examining
the strengths and weaknesses of the US economic system would likely see different
problems and solutions to these problems than would a working-class individual.
Their respective class standpoints (as well as their race/ethnicity, sex/gender, sexu-
ality, etc.) affect the ways in which they examine the world.
One’s standpoint also influences what one sees as normal or ordinary behavior.
This relates to the concept of enculturation—immersion in our own culture to the

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 3 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 4 PART I. CONSTRUCTING DIFFERENCES

point where we assume that our way of life is natural or normal. Because we are so
enculturated into our own societal standards and practices, we often assume that
they are the only options and, as a result, we are unaware of alternatives. Further-
more, we often view those who have other cultural standards or practices as behaving
in a strange or unnatural manner. For example, people raised in a culture with strict
religious teachings based on the idea of a supreme being may be so enculturated that
they view those with different notions of religion (or none at all) as strange or odd. As
a consequence of the depth of our enculturation, we also often possess some level of
ethnocentrism—the practice of judging another culture using the standards of one’s
own. Such judging is based on the assumption that one’s own group is more impor-
tant than or superior to other groups (Sumner [1906] 1959). Thus, we may judge those
who possess different religious beliefs than ourselves not only as strange but also as
wrong. For example, many non-Muslim Americans, fueled by media stereotypes,
view the practices of those who follow Islam as inappropriate, if not un-American.
It is important to point out, however, that ethnocentrism is not in and of itself
problematic. Every social system to some degree promotes its ideas and standards.
Ethnocentrism becomes a problem when such ideas are used as a basis for treat-
ing people in an unequal manner. An alternative to ethnocentrism is cultural
­relativism—judging a culture by its own cultural rules and values. By being cul-
tural relativists, we can gain a better understanding of the real meaning of another
culture’s ideas and standards. In thinking critically it is important that we recognize
the depth of our enculturation and how it is manifested in our ethnocentrism, so
that we can become aware of our own standpoint and be better able to judge other
cultures by their own values and ideas.
Third, when thinking critically we need to search for alternative ways of think-
ing. This means examining the assumptions that form the basis of our ideas and
ways of behaving. For example, the United States is currently a society based on the
notion of civil rights—a system based on majority rule. When we vote, the will of
the majority becomes the will of all. This system is designed to bring the greatest
good for the greatest number. In addition, there is a fundamental belief that if one is
a good citizen, one earns rights within society, such as liberty. In a civil rights system
some people inevitably do not benefit. Implicit in the statement “the greatest good
for the greatest number” is the assumption that society cannot provide for everyone.
To think critically about a civil rights system, we must imagine an alternative to this
reality. For example, what might it be like to live in a society that operates under a
human rights framework? Such a system recognizes each person as an individual
and as valuable. It is based on the belief that everyone has inalienable rights to hous-
ing, food, education, and health care and that society must provide these rights
to people who are unable to provide for themselves. What structural changes are
necessary to bring about such a society? Furthermore, if we were to create such a

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 4 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 Part I. Constructing Differences 5

society, how might our own lives be transformed? Considering alternatives to cur-
rent ways of thinking can provide us with new insights about widely accepted ideas.
Fourth, to think critically one must develop a reflective analysis. Such an analy-
sis requires that we be skeptical, not in the sense that we do not believe anything we
see, but rather that we question rigid belief systems. For example, once we become
aware that it is possible to have a society that operates under a human rights frame-
work, we come to question those who claim that a system based on civil rights is the
only way to operate. A reflective analysis requires that we challenge dominant ideas
and popularly held notions regarding solutions to social problems.
Thinking critically frees us from personal, environmental, and institutional
forces that prevent us from seeing new directions (Habermas 1979). Furthermore,
once we become critical thinkers, we are no longer passive recipients of knowl-
edge and products of socialization. Rather, through practicing thoughtful scrutiny
and continuously asking questions, we become active participants and arrive at our
own ideas and commitments. As a result, we ground our ideas on a solid and in-
formed foundation, all the while realizing that we may still be wrong. When we face
challenges to our ideas, we are better prepared to provide justification and evidence
in their support. The readings in this text provide us with many essential tools for
becoming discerning critical thinkers.

Essentialism and Social Construction

As mentioned earlier, in the United States we have a system of stratification that is
based on many categories of difference, including race/ethnicity, social class, sex/
gender, and sexuality. We tend to view this system as fixed because of our assump-
tions that these categories are unchangeable. Such assumptions are often based on
a belief of essentialism—the tenet that human behavior is natural, predetermined
by genetic, biological, or physiological mechanisms and thus not subject to change.
Human behaviors that show some similarity are assumed to be expressions of an
underlying human drive or tendency. In the United States, gender and sexuality are
among the last realms to have their natural or biological status called into question.
For most of us, essentialism informs the way we think about such things as gender
and remains the hegemonic or culturally dominant belief in our culture. For ex-
ample, many of us attribute great importance to what we perceive as biological
differences between women and men and see them as central to the organization
of human society. Essentialism guides the way we order our social world and deter-
mines what we value as well as what we devalue.
This text proceeds from a different perspective, however. As you read the se-
lections in Part I, you will note that they all begin with the premise that categories
such as race/ethnicity, social class, sex/gender, and sexuality are socially constructed.
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, on whose work this premise is based, state that

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 5 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 6 PART I. CONSTRUCTING DIFFERENCES

“social order is not part of the ‘nature of things,’ and it cannot be derived from the
‘laws of nature.’ Social order exists only as a product of human activity” (1966, 52).
Social construction theory suggests that what we see as real (in this case, cultural
categories of difference and systems of inequality) is the result of human interaction.
Through such interaction we create aspects of our culture, objectify them, internal-
ize them, and then take these cultural products for granted. A suitable companion
to critical thinking, social construction theory encourages us to ask new questions
but does not imply a particular answer. Using a critical thinking framework based on
the notion of social construction requires that we be committed to asking questions
and challenging assumptions that impair our ability even to imagine these questions.
Adopting a framework based on social construction theory means understand-
ing that we are not born with a sense of what it means to be male, female, or intersex-
ual; with a disability or not; black, Latina/o, Asian, white, or Native American; gay,
straight, asexual, or bisexual; or rich, working class, poor, or middle class. We learn
about these categories through social interaction, and we are given meanings and
values for these categories by our social institutions, peers, and families. What we
learn depends on the culture in which we live as well as on our place within that cul-
ture. Further, how we are defined by our culture often determines how we experience
our social world. As W. I. Thomas noted, if we “define situations as real, they are real
in their consequences” ([1931] 1966, 301). For example, when we define one group
as inferior to another, this does not make that group inferior, yet it may result in the
group being experienced as inferior. To illustrate this, consider the vicious cycle that
results from the assignment of substandard resources to people who are poor. For
example, low-income housing is generally located in geographic areas that lack qual-
ity resources such as good public schools and access to adequate health care. Lacking
such quality resources results in further social disadvantage, which can perpetuate
the poverty of this group. Thus, although reality is initially soft as it is constructed,
it can become hard in its effects. We will examine these effects throughout this text.
According to Berger and Luckmann (1966), reality is socially constructed in
three stages. In the first stage, externalization, we create cultural products through
social interaction. These cultural products may be material artifacts, social institu-
tions, or values or beliefs concerning a particular group. When these products are
created, they become “external” to those who have produced them; they become
products outside ourselves. For example, as Judith Lorber describes in Reading 7,
“The Social Construction of Gender,” the construction of gender identity starts at
birth with placement within a sex category (male or female). Through dress and
adornment, others become aware of the sex of the child and they treat the child
according to the gendered expectations they have for that particular sex. Children
then behave and respond differently because of the different treatment they receive.
A situation defined as real thus becomes real in its consequences. Girls and boys are

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 6 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 Part I. Constructing Differences 7

taught to act differently from each other and thus do act differently. As a result, boys
and girls are seen as being different from each other.
A second example of externalization can be found in the first reading, “Racial
Formations,” by Michael Omi and Howard Winant. They note that the concept
of race has varied over history and is subject to a great deal of debate. Using the
term racial formation, they describe “the process by which social, economic, and
political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories, and by
which they shape racial meanings.” The example cited at the beginning of this essay
clearly illustrates the social forces involved in determining racial categories. The
recognition of a multiracial identity involves more than individuals being identi-
fied as multiracial. Rather, interaction that takes place at the social, economic, and
political levels serves to construct such categories of race.
The second stage, objectivation, occurs when the products created in the first
stage appear to take on a reality of their own, becoming independent of those who
created them. People lose awareness that they themselves are the authors of their
social and cultural environment and of their interpretations of reality. They feel as if
the products have an objective existence, and they become another part of reality to
be taken for granted. For example, most of us take race categories for granted, em-
ploying an essentialist perspective that views race categories as the result of biological
or genetic factors. However, as mentioned earlier, a variety of social, economic, and
political forces are involved in the construction of race categories. When we forget
our part in the social construction of race or fail to recognize the social forces that
operate to construct race categories and the meanings associated with them, these
categories take on objective realities. The objective realities that many of us attribute
to racial categories can be seen in the findings of the 2010 census conducted by the
US Census Bureau. Nationwide, just under 3 percent of respondents identified them-
selves as being of mixed race. The reasons for such a low response rate vary from a
lack of knowledge of the options to a strong identification with one race, regardless of
one’s multiracial heritage. These findings demonstrate that most respondents hold on
to what they see as the objective reality of clear and mutually exclusive race categories.
In the final stage, internalization, we learn the supposedly objective facts about
the cultural products that have been created. This occurs primarily through social-
ization, the process of social interaction in which one learns the ways of the society
and one’s specific roles—the sets of rules and expectations attached to a social posi-
tion (or status) in that society. In this stage we make these facts part of our subjec-
tive consciousness. Because of the process of internalization, members of the same
culture share an understanding of reality and rarely question the origins of their
beliefs or the processes by which the beliefs arose. For example, as Gregory Man-
tsios discusses in Reading 5, “Media Magic: Making Class Invisible,” the mass media
serve as a powerful tool for shaping the way we think. A significant part of our

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 7 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 8 PART I. CONSTRUCTING DIFFERENCES

culture, mass media operate as an extremely important socialization mechanism.

What we see presented in the mass media, as well as how it is presented, delivers im-
portant messages about who and what is or is not valued. Specifically, mass media
help us to internalize certain constructs about class in our society, perpetuating a
variety of myths. Among these myths are that poverty is not a significant problem
in this country, that those who are poor have only themselves to blame, that we are
a middle-class society, and that blue-collar and union workers are to blame for de-
clining economic security. As mass media present us with these images, we develop
a particular view of the class structure in our country. In addition, we internalize
beliefs about members of a specific class (e.g., the poor are lazy) as if they were ob-
jective facts. The role of the media in maintaining constructions of difference and
the resulting systems of inequality will be explored in Part II of this text.
It is important to note here that viewing cultural products as being produced in
stages does not imply that the creation of reality occurs in a neat and overt progres-
sion. In some cases, the process of externalization in the creation of a social category
is clear. However, the construction of reality is not always such a clear process. Think-
ing in terms of a cultural product as produced in stages, however, provides a general
understanding of how the knowledge that guides our behavior is established and
how it becomes a part of culture and common sense. In addition, it is important to
be aware that while categories of difference are being constructed and subsequently
transformed into systems of inequality, such systems of inequality are often being
maintained by the same social forces and practices. To clearly understand how cat-
egories of difference become systems of inequality, we begin by examining the pro-
cesses that construct them. The social factors that serve to maintain these constructs
and their corresponding systems of inequality will be examined in detail in Part II.

What Constructs Categories of Difference?

The readings in this text explore how the categories of race, class, gender, and sexu-
ality are socially constructed and transformed into systems of inequality. The pre-
ceding in-depth explanation of social construction theory was intended to give us
an understanding of how these categories are socially constructed. To thoroughly
comprehend this process, however, it is important to understand what social fac-
tors are at work in creating these categories.
Simply put, categories of difference are the result of human activity guided by
the values of our culture. When parents teach their child how to behave like a lady
or act like a gentleman, when one child labels another gay as discussed in the read-
ing “‘If You Don’t Kiss Me, You’re Dumped’: Boys, Boyfriends and Heterosexualised
Masculinities in the Primary School” (Reading 11), or when a girl decides to stop
playing rough to avoid being labeled a tomboy, each is engaged in the process of

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 8 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 Part I. Constructing Differences 9

creating categories of difference. We take these everyday actions for granted, but
they play a fundamental role in how we view the world. The kinds of categories we
create, as well as the meanings we give to them, are guided by our cultural values
regarding who or what is important.
The process of creating these categories occurs in a variety of contexts that
we encounter every day. Perhaps the most significant of these is the institutional
context. An institution is the set of rules and relationships that govern the social
activities in which we participate to meet our basic needs. The major social institu-
tions that we will examine are as follows:
The family: responsible for reproducing and socializing and protecting the young, reg-
ulating sexual behavior, and providing emotional comfort and support for
each of its members
Education: responsible for teaching members of society the knowledge, skills, and
values considered most important for survival of the individual and society
The economy: creates, controls, and distributes the human and material resources of a
society
The state: possesses the legal power to regulate the behavior of members of that soci-
ety, as well as the relationship of that society to others
The media: responsible for supplying members of society with information, for rein-
forcing the policies of other institutions, and for socializing members of
society with regard to appropriate ways of behaving and accepted cultural
values
From the policies and practices of each of these institutions, influenced by our cul-
tural values, categories of difference are created. Thus, when parents teach their
child how to behave like a lady or act like a gentleman, they create categories of
difference within the institutional context of the family.
Another context in which we create categories of difference is the interper-
sonal context—our daily interactions with others. In these interactions we rely on
common guidelines for behavior (norms) to define situations and create these cat-
egories. For example, when an individual, operating on stereotypes based on race
and ethnicity, labels another a foreigner, she or he is relying on what are assumed
images of what is an American. As a result, she or he creates categories of difference
within an interpersonal context.
Finally, we create categories of difference in internal contexts by internalizing
the values and beliefs established in institutional and interpersonal contexts. When
a girl decides to stop playing rough to avoid being labeled a tomboy, she is internal-
izing the ideas of what it means to be a girl that were taught to her by her family as
well as her peers.

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 9 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 10 PART I. CONSTRUCTING DIFFERENCES

Constructing Race and Ethnicity

The institution of the state, which determines how the census should be taken and
how individuals should be counted, plays an integral role in defining race categories
in an institutional context. Race denotes a group of people who perceive themselves
and are perceived by others as possessing distinctive hereditary traits. Ethnicity de-
notes a group of people who perceive themselves and are perceived by others as shar-
ing cultural traits such as language, religion, family customs, and food preferences.
As Omi and Winant illustrate in “Racial Formations,” what is important about the
construction of race categories is not necessarily our perception of our own race, but
the recognition by social institutions of our membership in that race category. Fur-
thermore, racial and ethnic categories are significant in that they are constructed in a
hierarchy from superior to inferior. Additionally, as illustrated by Roberto Gonzales
in “Learning to Be Illegal” (Reading 3), a person’s position in the racial stratification
system may shift as policies define and redefine which groups are granted legal status.
Racial categories are also constructed in interpersonal contexts. As Waters dis-
cusses in “Optional Ethnicities” (Reading 2), many of us, particularly whites, will
ask someone whose race or ethnicity is not immediately apparent, what are you?
We do not, however, generally ask such a question of those whom we perceive to be
white. Thus, in our efforts to define others we not only attempt to construct distinct
racial categories but also create white as an unmarked category and as a standard
against which all others are judged.
Finally, race is constructed in internal contexts, where we reinforce those cat-
egories and the meanings associated with them within ourselves. This process is
particularly evident when a person of color who is light skinned attempts or desires
to “pass” as a white person. Through internalizing the idea that to be other than
white is to be less valued, they participate in constructing race categories as well as
the meanings associated with them.

Constructing Social Class

The categories of social class are also constructed within institutional contexts. Al-
though we may view social class as a result of how much income (wages and salaries
from earnings and investments) and wealth (the total amount of valuable goods)
a person possesses, it is in fact more than this. What class we belong to is deter-
mined not only by how much money we have or the material possessions we own,
but also by the institutions of our society, including state policies and the structuring
of the economy. For example, definitions of poverty created by the government affect
the access some members of our society have to certain important resources. The
Thrifty Food Plan—the least costly of four nutritionally adequate plans designed by
the Department of Agriculture, based on their 1955 Household Food Consumption

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 10 02/09/18 03:44 PM

 Part I. Constructing Differences 11

Survey—demonstrates how the establishment of the poverty line, an annual income

level below which a person or family was defined as poor and therefore entitled to
certain benefits, creates who is seen as poor. The poverty line is problematic, how-
ever, in the way it is determined because it relies on material standards of the 1950s
rather than contemporary standards. For example, expenses for items we consider
essential today—for things such as transportation, childcare, and technology—were
not essential costs for families of the 1950s. As a result, while the government deter-
mined in 2017 that the poverty line for a family of four was $28,290, a more accurate
calculation, employing contemporary standards, would have been closer to $48,000.
The more accurate figure would result in doubling if not tripling the number of in-
dividuals defined as poor. Additionally, it is important to note that measures such as
the poverty line miss a significant aspect of what it means to be poor. Poverty is more
than how much money one has; it is also a process of social exclusion (Neal 2004).
According to the United Nations, “poverty is more than a shortage of income. It is
the denial of opportunities and choices most basic to human development—to lead a
long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity,
self-esteem, and respect of others” (Townson 2000). When institutions establish defi-
nitions and measures, they determine a person’s access to resources (i.e., the ability of
people living in poverty to receive aid from the government). In this way, construc-
tions of class provide the foundation for a system of inequitably distributed resources.
The impact of such a system will be discussed in greater detail later in this text.
In addition to establishing who is poor, institutions such as the economy and its
related public policies also function to create a social class stratification system that
is increasingly divided by a “wealth gap,” as illustrated by Laura Sullivan, Tatjana
Meschede, Lars Dietrich, Thomas M. Shapiro, Amy Traub, Catherine Reutschlin,
and Tamara Draut in “The Racial Wealth Gap” (Reading 4). Finally, the values that
we place on members of social classes are further influenced by social institutions
such as the media, as explained by Gregory Mantsios in “Media Magic: Making
Class Invisible” (Reading 5). According to Mantsios, those who control the media
(i.e., the upper class) can use this institution to create class divisions and to define
our attitudes about members of different social classes. Both these articles clearly
illustrate that the rules, practices, and policies of social institutions serve to con-
struct categories of class differences and establish a system of class inequality.
Categories of social class are also constructed in interpersonal contexts. We
define who is rich, poor, middle class, and so forth in our interactions with others.
In addition, we attach meanings to each of these categories. For example, if we see a
well-dressed, clean-cut individual driving an expensive car, we not only may judge
the individual as belonging to the upper class but also admire her or him and the
class position we assume she or he has achieved. However, if we observe people
purchasing groceries with food stamps and then taking the bus, we not only judge

ore47964_pt01_001-140.indd 11 02/09/18 03:44 PM

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
„Gij zijt werkelijk zenuwachtig, inspecteur”, klonk het uit Marholm’s
mond, terwijl hij kalm een pijpje stopte. „Maar omdat ik u helaas geen
bevelen kan geven, verzoek ik u alleen vriendelijk, mij niet mee te
nemen naar de Lincoln-Bank. Ik heb niet veel lust om mij tegenover
de geheele wereld belachelijk te maken.”

„Ik zal voorzichtig handelen”, antwoordde Baxter, „en mij allereerst

met den brief naar den bankdirecteur begeven om dezen
vertrouwelijke inzage ervan te verschaffen.”

„Doe wat gij niet laten kunt”, bromde Marholm ongeduldig.

Een half uur later bevond inspecteur Baxter zich in de spreekkamer

van Mr. Geis in het gebouw der Lincoln-Bank.

Toen Geis de brieven las, welke de inspecteur hem overhandigde,

verbleekte hij een oogenblik, zonder dat Baxter het merkte. Daarop
lachte hij hartelijk en riep uit:

„Daar heeft men getracht u voor den mal te houden, heer inspecteur.
De procuratiehouder van onze Bank, Mr. John Govern, is een hoogst
respectabel mensch. Als gij het verlangt, zal ik hem hier laten komen,
opdat gij er u persoonlijk van kunt overtuigen.”

Baxter bedankte daarvoor en sprak:

„Ik verzoek u, u verder geen moeite te geven, heer directeur. Ik ben

het volkomen met u eens, dat dit een misplaatste grap is, maar het
was mijn plicht, mij tot u te vervoegen.”

Met beleefde woorden nam hij afscheid van Geis en verliet het
gebouw.

Zoodra inspecteur Baxter was heengegaan, verzocht Geis Raffles om

bij hem te komen.
„Er is een verrader in onze omgeving”, sprak hij tot Raffles, toen deze
zijn kamer binnenkwam, „daarjuist was de inspecteur van politie
Baxter bij mij om mij mede te deelen, dat hij bericht had gekregen,
dat Raffles als procuratiehouder aan onze Bank werkzaam is. Ik
stelde de geheele zaak als een grap voor en de inspecteur geloofde
het.”

Raffles keek scherp naar het gelaat van Geis, want hij vermoedde
een nieuw bedrog.

„Dat is onmogelijk”, antwoordde hij, „niemand kan weten, wie ik ben.

Zelfs geen flauw vermoeden kan men ervan hebben.”

„Ik zweer u echter, dat ik waarheid spreek”, riep Mr. Geis uit, „en gij
moet nog dezen nacht ons plan ten uitvoer brengen. Misschien is het
morgen reeds te laat.”

„Uitstekend”, antwoordde Raffles, „ik ben in het bezit van de sleutels,

ik behoef dus alleen de brandkasten te openen en mij het geld toe te
eigenen.”

„Hoeveel millioenen hebben wij onder onze berusting?” vroeg Geis.

„Vier millioen!” antwoordde Raffles.

„Jammer”, vond Mr. Geis, terwijl hij gejaagd met zijn vingers op de
schrijftafel trommelde. „Ik had gehoopt, dat wij niet eerder ons plan
behoefden uit te voeren dan wanneer wij zes millioen in de
brandkasten hadden liggen. Deze vervloekte brieven aan inspecteur
Baxter kosten ons twee millioen. Maar wij mogen niet wachten, er
dreigt ons gevaar.”

„Ik vrees geen gevaar”, antwoordde Raffles, „ik ben gewend aan
verrassingen. Het eerste gevaar leerde ik bij u kennen, Mr. Geis. Ik
zal hedennacht ons plan ten uitvoer brengen.”
„Ik zal om vier uur in den morgen een automobiel bij den hoek der
straat laten wachten”, sprak Mr. Geis, „daarmee kunt gij de kist met
geld naar mijn villa brengen.”

„In orde”, antwoordde Raffles, „dus dan zien wij elkaar morgen terug.”

Zoodra Raffles hem had verlaten, haastte Mr. Geis [21]zich naar Huis,
waar hij woedend de kamer van McIntosh binnenstormde.

„Jij bent de grootste stommerik, dien ik ooit heb gezien”, brulde hij tot
zijn handlanger.

„In hoeverre?” vroeg de ander op onverschilligen toon, dikke

rookwolken uit zijn sigaar halend.

„Je hebt twee brieven aan inspecteur Baxter geschreven over Raffles
en hem ons plan verraden.

„Ben je krankzinnig geworden?— —”

„In ’t geheel niet”, antwoordde McIntosh met een spottend lachje,

„maar jij bent zelf niet wijs, om dien Raffles te vertrouwen.”

„Bemoei je niet met mijn zaken, dat herhaal ik je nog eens. Je schijnt
niet te weten wat je doet.”

„Zeker”, spotte McIntosh, „ik weet heel goed wat mijn plan is. Ik wil
onze millioenen redden.”

„Een mooie manier!” hoonde Mr. Geis, „je hebt een grenzenlooze
domheid begaat. Als het mij niet gelukt was, den inspecteur gerust te
stellen en de heele zaak als ’n grap te doen voorkomen, dan zou ik
nu ook het genoegen hebben kennis te mogen maken met de
gevangenis.”
„Dat begrijp ik niet”, sprak McIntosh opstaande. „Zou je mij dat nader
willen verklaren?”

„Zeer eenvoudig”, antwoordde Mr. Geis. „Als de inspecteur naar

aanleiding van je brief Raffles gevangen had genomen, dan had deze
mij natuurlijk als den hoofdschuldige aangewezen.”

„Daaraan heb ik niet gedacht”, bromde McIntosh, „maar je hadt

immers kunnen ontkennen.”

„Ontkennen?” riep Mr. Geis. „Had ik kunnen ontkennen. Raffles

draagt in z’n borstzak een schriftuur van mijn hand, dat hij zich
zekerheidshalve door mij liet geven.”

„Wat voor een schriftuur?” vroeg McIntosh ongerust.

„Eene verklaring”, antwoordde Mr. Geis, „waarin ik bekende aan

Raffles te hebben opgedragen, de millioenen-deposito’s uit de Bank
te nemen en ze met mij te deelen.”

„Je bent waarachtig de grootste dwaas, die er bestaat”, riep Mr.

McIntosh uit, „waar had je je verstand, waarop je je altijd zoo
beroemt?

„Hoe kon je dien man zoo’n schriftuur geven?”

„Hij eischte het, en ik vertrouwde hem.”

„Je zult eens zien, hoe bedrogen je uitkomt,” zei Mr. McIntosh. „Ik
geloof, dat ons heele plan in ’t water is gevallen.”

„Jij maakt me zenuwachtig,” sprak Mr. Geis, „doch ik kan aan je

woorden geen geloof schenken.”

„Ik mag het lijden,” antwoordde Mr. McIntosh, „wanneer zal de diefstal
plaats hebben?”
„Reeds vannacht,” gaf Mr. Geis ten antwoord.

„Allright,” sprak Mr. McIntosh, „morgen zul je de millioenen kwijt zijn.”

Terzelfder tijd was Raffles met Mr. Brand in zijn werkkamer bezig
honderden stadsbrieven in couvert te sluiten. Ze droegen de
adressen van de depositeuren der Lincoln-Bank, terwijl de inhoud der
brieven, door Charly Brand geschreven, eensluidend was.

Het liep tegen tienen ’s avonds, toen Raffles zich, vergezeld van zijn
vriend en secretaris, naar de Lincoln-Bank begaf. De beambte, die
nachtdienst had, keek verwonderd op, toen beiden toegang
verzochten. Hij herkende echter den procuratiehouder der Bank en
opende zonder wantrouwen de deur der zware ijzeren poort en het
zich daarachter bevindende hek.

Raffles en Charly Brand traden de vestibule binnen. Het was doodstil

in het groote gebouw. Aan den nachtportier, een ouden vroegeren
militair, verzocht Raffles hem met zijn op de borst bevestigde lantaarn
op de trappen voor te lichten.

toen zij Raffles’ kamer hadden bereikt voelde de portier zich

plotseling van beide kanten aangegrepen en vóór dat hij had kunnen
schreeuwen was hij geboeid.

Doodsbleek van schrik keek hij naar den gewaanden

procuratiehouder en diens makker en met trillende lippen fluisterde
hij:

„Spaart mijn leven, heeren”.

„Wij doen u niets,” antwoordde Raffles, „als gij u stil houdt. Het spijt
mij, u onaangenaam te moeten zijn, maar het is onvermijdelijk. Ik
moet u een prop in den mond stoppen, opdat gij niet schreeuwt. Doe
uw mond maar open.”
De nachtportier gehoorzaamde willoos, als verlamd van schrik en
Raffles knevelde hem.

Nu nam hij hem de sleutels van het gebouw af, ook zijn lantaarn en
begaf zich met Charly Brand naar de stalen, onderaardsche
schatkamers.

Het was. voor Raffles een kleinigheid, de zwaar gepantserde deur te

openen en de millioenen uit de brandkluizen te halen. Het was
geldswaardig papier der Engelsche Bank en niemand zou hebben
vermoed, dat het pakket, dat niet grooter was dan een gewone
reiskoffer, millioenen bevatte.

In een eenvoudige houten kist droeg Raffles de millioenen weg.

Ongestoord verliet hij met Charly Brand het gebouw, sloot de deur en
begaf zich naar de Oxford-Street. [22]Hij en zijn vriend waren reeds
een paar honderd meter van het gebouw der Bank verwijderd, toen
hij tot Charly sprak:

„Ik hoor, dat iemand ons volgt. Laat ons langzamer loopen en zoodra
wij stappen achter ons hooren, moeten wij ons plotseling omdraaien
om te zien, wie ons volgt.”

Langzaam gingen hij en Charly verder en duidelijk hoorden zij achter

hun rug de haastige schreden van een man. Hij was nog wel eenige
meters van hen verwijderd, toen Raffles zich plotseling omkeerde, in
het volgende oogenblik de kist met bankpapier op den grond liet
vallen en met een behendigen sprong den man bij de keel greep, die
juist van plan was, met opgeheven dolk Raffles neer te steken.

Een zware vuistslag van den grooten onbekende trof den man tegen
den slaap, zoodat hij zonder een kik te geven neerviel.
„Daar ligt hij als een meelzak,” sprak Raffles, terwijl hij den
bewustelooze het wapen afnam.

„De kerel komt mij bekend voor,” meende Charly.

„Zeker,” lachte Raffles, „het is onze oude vriend, dien wij geboeid op
het rotseiland hebben achtergelaten. Hij is ontkomen. Een kranige
kerel! Nu zou ik wel eens willen weten, hoe die man achter ons plan
ten opzichte der Lincoln-Bank is gekomen en in welke betrekking hij
tot Mr. Geis staat. Hij moet iets met hem te maken hebben.

„Ik vermoedde dadelijk, dat hij een werktuig was van dien
schurkachtigen Geis en dat de vent wilde probeeren, mij uit den weg
te ruimen. Nu, ik zal het morgen van Mr. Geis persoonlijk vernemen.
Laat ons verder gaan.”

Zij namen de kist met de geldswaardige papieren weer op en, zonder

zich verder om den bewustelooze te bekommeren, verdwenen zij in
het nachtelijk duister.

Tegen vier uur in den morgen verscheen de auto, zooals Geis het
met Raffles had afgesproken, op de bepaalde plaats, maar
tevergeefs wachtte zij op Raffles. Na een uur te hebben gewacht
reed de chauffeur heen en deelde Mr. Geis mede, dat de heer dien hij
moest meebrengen, niet was gekomen.

Deze tijding maakte den bankdirecteur zenuwachtig.

Wat kon er gebeurd zijn?

Zou McIntosh toch gelijk hebben en Raffles den buit alleen willen
behouden?

Met een vloek holde hij de kamer van McIntosh binnen, maar daar
was niemand aanwezig.
Terwijl hij nog nadacht over de zaak en zich afvroeg, wat er toch
gebeurd kon zijn, werd de deur geopend en McIntosh sleepte zich
met moeite de kamer binnen.

Hij zag er vreeselijk uit. Zijn rechteroog was met bloed beloopen en
door den slag, dien Raffles hem had toegediend, had hij een
geweldige neusbloeding gekregen, zoodat zijn overjas met een korst
bloed was bedekt.

Zijn roode haren hingen verward over zijn voorhoofd en het straatvuil
kleefde overal aan zijn kleeren.

„Wat is er gebeurd?” vroeg Geis, den arm van McIntosh angstig

grijpend.

De gewonde ging met moeite zitten, braakte een vreeselijken vloek

uit en riep:

„Dat jij in een gekkenhuis behoort, is zeker!”

„Waar kom je vandaan?” herhaalde Geis.

„Van Raffles,” antwoordde McIntosh, „van dien vervloekten schurk.

Kijk eens, hoe hij mij heeft toegetakeld. Een half uur lang heb ik
bewusteloos in de Oxfordstreet gelegen en de millioenen zijn naar
den bliksem.”

„Ben je krankzinnig?” hijgde Mr. Geis, „wat is er dan met het geld? Ik
verwacht Raffles elk oogenblik!”

McIntosh barstte uit in een hoongelach:

„Ik had gelijk. Een dief kan men niet voor zich laten stelen. En ik
herhaal, dat de millioenen zoo zeker naar den duivel zijn, als ik hier
voor je zit. Zoek ze, waar de peper groeit! Je ziet er geen penny van
terug.”

Mr. Geis moest gaan zitten, zijn knieën knikten, hij begon te beven en
de geheele kamer draaide met hem rond.

„Is het werkelijk waar?” fluisterde hij met gebroken stem.

„Als ik in God geloofde, zou ik het je in zijn naam zweren”, sprak

McIntosh. „Luister, wat mij overkomen is.

„Ik wilde het geld voor ons redden want ik begreep, wat er zou
gebeuren. Ik nam mijn dolk en wachtte voor de Lincoln-Bank, totdat
deze ellendeling en zijn vriend het gebouw zouden verlaten. Was hij
volgens afspraak naar de wachtende auto gegaan, dan zou ik naast
den chauffeur, dien ik goed ken, zijn gesprongen en mee naar hier
zijn gereden.

„Dan had ik mij vergist en alles was goed geweest.

„Maar het ging anders en wel juist zoo, als ik dacht. Raffles ging niet
naar links, maar rechts de straat in. Dadelijk begreep ik, wat mij te
doen stond. Zoo zacht als ik kon, sloop ik achter het tweetal aan in de
schaduw der huizen en wilde eerst Raffles en daarna zijn vriend mijn
dolk tusschen de ribben stooten. [23]

„Het zou mij ook gelukt zijn, als Raffles niet zulke uitstekende ooren
had. Terwijl ik hem naar de andere wereld wilde helpen, verraste hij
mij met een ouden truc, bij de detectives bekend. Hij keerde zich om
en velde mij neer door een enormen vuistslag.

„Wat er verder gebeurde weet ik niet. Een ding is echter zeker, hij is
met zijn millioenen niet naar hier gekomen. De duivel hale den hond.”
Het gelaat van den bankdirecteur was vaalbleek geworden. Hij
begreep, dat hij bedrogen was. Zijn gedachten joegen door zijn brein
als stormvogels en hij wist geen uitweg, hoe de gestolen millioenen
terug te krijgen.

„Het spel is verloren,” sprak McIntosh, die zijn gelaat met water bette.
„Als je mijn raad had gevolgd en den kerel aan de politie
overgeleverd, dan had ik vannacht het geld gehaald en wij waren rijk.
Als ik je niet dankbaar moest zijn, dan zou ik je voor je grenzenlooze
domheid doodslaan.

„De eenige raad, dien ik je geven kan, is deze, dat je morgenochtend

dadelijk naar de Bank gaat, Scotland Yard op de hoogte brengt en
tracht, Raffles en zijn buit te achterhalen.”

Dat was een laatste stroohalm voor Mr. Geis, waaraan hij zich kon
vastklampen en de eenige hoop, die hem overbleef. Toen hij de
kamer wilde verlaten, sprak McIntosh:

„Ik geloof, dat het het verstandigst zou zijn, als wij Londen verlieten.
De duivel mag weten hoe deze geschiedenis afloopt!” [24]

[Inhoud]
ZESDE HOOFDSTUK.
 BEDROGEN.

Het was ongeveer tegen negen uur des voormiddags van den
volgenden dag, toen zich in de Balfourstraat een groote volksmenigte
verzamelde. Men haalde de politie erbij en deze had moeite om de
orde weder te herstellen. Allen die daar tegenwoordig waren, mannen
en vrouwen, menschen uit elken stand, hielden enveloppen in de
handen, en de een liet den ander zijn brief zien.

Een half uur later werd de deur van het kleine huisje geopend en
Charly Brandy die op den drempel stond, hield orde in de
opdringende massa.

„Langzaam!” riep hij, „langzaam, menschen! Eén voor één. Gij krijgt
allen uw geld terug, niemand zal een penning verliezen.”

Het eerste liet hij een oud vrouwtje binnen.

Het huis scheen onbewoond en alleen een kamer gelijkvloers was in

gebruik. Achter een groote tafel, die vol geld lag, zat Raffles, de
groote onbekende.

Voor hem lag het groote depotboek van de Lincoln-Bank.

„Hoe heet gij?” vroeg hij het oude moedertje.

„Jenny Groz”, antwoordde zij met bevende stem.

„Hoe groot is uw tegoed?”

„Zeventig pond sterling, mijnheer. Ik heb er dertig jaar voor gespaard.

Het zou later voor mijn begrafenis zijn, ik wil niet van de armen
begraven worden.”
Raffles sloeg het boek open om zich te overtuigen of de inlichtingen
juist waren. Vervolgens vulde hij een formulier in, betaalde haar de
zeventig pond uit en sprak:

„Onderteeken deze kwitantie.”

Met trillende vingers deed de oude vrouw wat Raffles verlangde,

streek liefkoozend over het geld, pakte het in een oud taschje en
sprak met vreugdetranen in de oogen:

„De hemel moge het u vergelden, dat gij mijn spaarpenningen hebt
gered.”

Toen de oude vrouw naar buiten kwam, werd zij door de menigte
omringd en met vragen bestormd, of zij haar geld terug had
gekregen.

Toen zij dit bevestigde, ademden de omstanders verlicht op. De

gezichten klaarden op en een voor een gingen zij het huis binnen,
waar Raffles hun het hun toekomende bedrag terugbetaalde.

Lister had de helft der gedeponeerde gelden nog niet uitbetaald, toen
er door de courantenjongens extra tijdingen werden verspreid.

„Millioenendiefstal op de Lincoln-Bank” schreeuwden zij.

De wachtende menigte voor het huis verschrikte bij het hooren van
dit bericht.

Dat was hun geld, dat daar gestolen was, hun zuur verdiende
spaarpenningen! En een onbekende gaf het hun terug?

De uitbetaling duurde reeds een uur en nog kwamen laatkomers

opdagen, met den geheimzinnigen brief van Raffles in de hand.
Ook journalisten en detectives kwamen vol nieuwsgierigheid een
kijkje nemen.

Men had hun het vreemde verhaal gedaan, dat de millioenen welke
dien nacht op de Lincoln-Bank gestolen waren, door een onbekende
in de Balfourstraat werden terugbetaald.

Maar de journalisten en detectives beproefden tevergeefs, het huis

binnen te gaan. Charly Brand weigerde iedereen den toegang, die
niet kon bewijzen, dat hij schuldeischer der Bank was.

Terzelfder tijd was Mr. Geis naar de Lincoln-Bank gesneld en vond

daar zijn ambtenaren, die den diefstal reeds ontdekt hadden, in de
grootste opgewondenheid.

Men had den nachtportier in de kamer van den procuratiehouder

[25]vastgebonden gevonden en de man had verteld, dat hij het eerst
was overvallen.

Alsof er een bom voor de voeten van inspecteur Baxter was ontploft,
zoo ontstelde hij toen hij het bericht ontving.

„Raffles!” kermde hij, „Raffles! Deze streek van hem zal mij mijn
ontslag kosten. Die man maakt mij krankzinnig. Ik had mijn hand
maar behoeven uit te steken om hem te kunnen arresteeren en
inplaats daarvan — —”.

Hij haastte zich met een dozijn ambtenaren naar de Lincoln-Bank en

ontmoette daar Mr. Geis. Deze was totaal gebroken en zat wezenloos
in zijn bureau. Hij zag zoo wit als krijt.

„Waar woont de procuratiehouder?” vroeg inspecteur Baxter,

binnentredend.
„In Ashbury Ark,” antwoordde Mr. Geis zachtjes. „Ik zond reeds een
boodschap naar zijn huis, maar hij was niet aanwezig.”

„Dat laat zich begrijpen,” antwoordde Baxter, „dat zou al heel dom
van hem zijn. Op welke aanbevelingen hebt gij dien man in uw dienst
genomen?”

„Hij toonde mij uitstekende getuigschriften,” loog Mr. Geis, „hij stelde
bovendien een tamelijken borg.”

„Heeft hij dien achtergelaten?” vroeg inspecteur Baxter.

„Neen,” antwoordde Mr. Geis, „hij heeft alles meegenomen en niets

achtergelaten!”

„Een vreemde zaak,” zei de ambtenaar nadenkend, „waarlijk, een

zeer vreemde zaak! Dit is de eerste keer, dat de procuratiehouder
van een Bank iets dergelijks doet.”

„Jawel! Het is ongehoord!” mompelde Mr. Geis.

„Hoe zult gij nu aan uw verplichtingen tegenover de schuldeischers

voldoen? Hebt gij daarover weleens nagedacht?” vroeg Baxter.

„Neen,” antwoordde Mr. Geis, „wij zijn niet in staat, den menschen
hun geld terug te betalen.

„Het doet mij leed voor die arme menschen. Het verwondert mij, dat
er nog niemand is geweest.

„Toen ik hierheen kwam, riep men mij reeds toe, dat de millioenen der
Lincoln-Bank gestolen waren.”

„Welnu, ik zal een voldoend aantal agenten te uwer bescherming hier

laten, opdat de opgewonden menigte niet alles zal kort en klein slaan.
Reeds eenmaal maakte ik iets dergelijks mee en ik zal dat nooit
vergeten.

„De lui zijn als krankzinnig. Het is ook treurig, als iemand met groote
moeite een klein kapitaaltje heeft bespaard, en het wordt hem door
een spitsboef ontstolen.”

Op dit oogenblik kwam Marholm het vertrek haastig binnen terwijl hij
uitriep:

„Mijnheer de directeur! mijnheer de directeur! Ik moet u iets

ongeloofelijks vertellen. Daar juist komt detective Schultz mij
meedeelen, dat de millioenen van de Lincoln-Bank worden
uitbetaald.”

„Zijt gij krankzinnig?” vroeg inspecteur Baxter.

„Ik hoop het niet,” antwoordde Marholm.

„Raffles!” steunde Mr. Geis.

Die naam werkte als een bliksemstraal op de beide politie-

ambtenaren.

„Wat zegt gij?” vroeg Baxter, terwijl hij op hem toetrad.

„Ik vermoed, dat het Raffles is geweest, die de millioenen heeft

gestolen!”

„Gisteren dreeft gij er nog den spot mee,” sprak inspecteur Baxter,
„en tot uw voldoening kan ik u verklaren, dat mijn secretaris Marholm
er evenzoo over dacht als gij. Nu blijkt dus dat de heer John Govern
een en dezelfde persoon is als de door ons gezochte meesterdief!

„Laat detective Schultz binnenkomen!”

Detective Marholm bracht zijn collega, een Duitscher van geboorte,
binnen en inspecteur Baxter liet dezen nogmaals het wonderlijke
verhaal doen betreffende de uitbetaling der gelden in de
Balfourstraat.

Toen de detective zijn verhaal geëindigd had, sprak Baxter:

„Het is reeds twaalf uur en de courantenjongens schreeuwen reeds

een uurlang hun berichten omtrent den diefstal der millioenen uit,
maar geen der depositohouders verschijnt op de Bank om zijn geld
op te eischen.

„Dus de zaak moet inderdaad waar zijn. Laat ons naar de

Balfourstraat gaan.”

Hij wendde zich tot Mr. Geis, die zich gereedmaakte, om het bureau
te verlaten en sprak:

„Ik denk, dat u er belang bij hebt om deze vreemde zaak verder te
onderzoeken. Ik hoop, dat gij met ons mee zult gaan.”

„Natuurlijk,” sprak Mr. Geis, „ik ga met u mee!”

De politie-inspecteur verliet met verscheidene beambten en Mr. Geis

de Bank, om zich naar de Balfourstraat te begeven.

Reeds van verre zag hij een groote volksmenigte om het gebouw
staan. Slechts met moeite baande hij zich met zijn begeleiders een
weg tot het huis.

Toen de inspecteur aan de deur kwam, bracht Charly Brand hem

persoonlijk naar de kamer, waar Raffles [26]stond en bezig was, den
laatsten schuldeischer zijn tegoed uit te betalen.
„Daar staat Raffles,” sprak Mr. Geis, terwijl hij met zijn hand op den
grooten onbekende wees.

„Arresteer hem, heer inspecteur!”

Raffles stond in elegant gezelschapstoilet bij de tafel met de

linkerhand in zijn broekzak, in de rechterhand zijn onafscheidelijke
cigarette.

Hij glimlachte spottend, toen hij Mr. Geis zag binnenkomen en met
een beleefde buiging keek hij inspecteur Baxter en detective Marholm
aan.

Charly Brand stond met gespannen belangstelling naar het tooneeltje

te kijken, tusschen Raffles en de binnenkomenden staande.

„Goeden dag, heer inspecteur,” riep Raffles, „ik heb al op u gewacht!”

Baxter bleef aarzelend staan, toen hij Raffles zag en ook de

detectives durfden nauwelijks binnenkomen. Zij dachten, dat Raffles
een revolver op hen af zou schieten.

„Weest onbezorgd, heeren,” riep Raffles, die hun angst opmerkte. „Ik
zei u reeds, dat ik u verwacht had.”

„Dat is de grootste onbeschaamdheid, die ik ooit heb beleefd,” riep

Mr. Geis uit. „Deze kerel durft ons bespotten! Leg hem de boeien
aan, heer inspecteur en acht u gelukkig, dat het u is gelukt, dit
gevaarlijk sujet eindelijk onschadelijk te maken.”

Raffles klopte lachend de asch van zijn cigarette. Daarop vervolgde

hij op kalmen toon:

„Gij hebt gelijk, Mr. Geis, ten minste als gij de woorden, die gij
zooeven hebt gesproken, niet op mij, maar op uzelf toepast.”
Mr. Geis verbleekte.

Raffles merkte dit op, evenals inspecteur Baxter en daar deze laatste
wel wist, dat de groote onbekende zijn slachtoffers alleen zocht onder
schurken met glacé’s en hoogen hoed, wachtte hij met gespannen
aandacht op dat, wat de beschuldigde nu zou antwoorden.

„Veroorloof u geen brutaliteiten!” riep Mr. Geis woedend, terwijl zijn

gelaat blauwrood werd.

Onbeweeglijk als een marmeren beeld keek Raffles den

bankdirecteur aan, wierp het overschot van zijn cigarette weg, stak
op zijn dooie gemak een versche aan en antwoordde:

„Ik moet den heer inspecteur eens even uitleggen, wie gij zijt. Kijk
dien man eens goed aan, mijnheer Baxter. Tien jaar geleden bedroog
hij mij, zoodat ik mijn geheele vermogen kwijtraakte. Vier en een half
millioen pond sterling. Klopt dat?”

Hij wendde zich tot Geis.

Deze schudde ontkennend het hoofd:

„Een leugen, heeren! Een leugen! De kerel liegt, ik ken hem niet!”

Raffles zocht in zijn borstzak en haalde daaruit een document te

voorschijn, dat door Mr. Geis was onderteekend.

„Misschien is dit ook een vervalsching?” vroeg hij.

„Ja!” hijgde de bankdirecteur. „Ja zeker! Ik weet niet wat dat is, ik heb
dat stuk nooit onderteekend!”

„Luister eens, heer inspecteur, wat dit schrijven behelst:

 Hierbij verklaar ik, dat ik Lord Edward Lister aanstel bij de Lincoln-Bank en
hem bevel geef, de bij de Bank berustende gelden uit de brandkasten te
nemen en met mij te deelen.

CHARLES GEIS,
zich noemende STEIN.”

Raffles had met duidelijke en langzame stem den inhoud van het stuk
voorgelezen en gaf het nu over aan den inspecteur van politie.

Mr. Geis leunde zoo bleek als een lijk tegen den muur. Zijn knieën
knikten, want hij begreep, dat hij het spel verloren had.

Inspecteur Baxter had het stuk gelezen en sprak verbaasd tot

Raffles:

„Waarom hebt gij echter de gelden, die bij de Bank gedeponeerd

waren, gestolen?”

„Dat moest ik doen,” antwoordde Raffles, „want anders zou deze

kerel het met een handlanger van hem te zamen hebben gedaan en
dan waren de millioenen voor eeuwig verdwenen geweest.

„Zooals gij ziet, heer inspecteur, nam ik de gelden alleen met het doel
om ze aan de rechtmatige eigenaars te doen toekomen. Hierbij
overhandig ik u de quitanties van de menschen die hun geld aan
dezen schurk hadden toevertrouwd en tevens de boeken der Bank.

„Mijn werk is afgeloopen, ik heb de millioenen gestolen voor een

goed doel. Vaarwel!”

Bliksemsnel wendde Raffles zich om naar een deur, die zich achter
hem bevond, opende deze en eer iemand der aanwezigen het hem
kon beletten, had hij de deur achter zich gesloten en gegrendeld en
was verdwenen.