Dark Money in The Art World: Nan Goldin Takes On Sackler Drug Money

Once a little known yet always hugely influential family, the Sackler’s, have recently been thrust into the spotlight for their Purdue Pharma empire built on the pain-killing drug OxyContin. With an estimated family wealth of $13 Billion, they are easily among the 1% and power elite of today’s society.[1] As history dictates those with the most power strive to stay out of the spotlight, keeping their influence elusive to the public. Unfortunately, the recent string of lawsuits claiming that the family has profited off the opioid crisis has brought a new wave of undesired attention to their name.

However, before this recent wave of backlash, the family was noted for their philanthropic contributions to the arts. Those familiar with the museums and the art world will have first recognized their name from the Museums, wings, galleries, and installations that bear the Sackler name. An expert example of Conflict Perspective and the Power Elite, the wealth they make from the national Opioid Crisis helps fund major cultural institutions throughout the world and their place among the wealthiest and most influential members of society. This silent yet deadly position has afforded them, until recently, the unchecked power of fueling OxyContin drug addiction for personal gain. An international cultural powerhouse the Sacklers expertly positioned themselves as connoisseurs of art, distancing their name from the drug empire they were building their wealth off of.

The attention that the opioid crisis has brought to the Sackler family has also helped the public take note of their presence in the art world. Some of the most identifiable Sackler contributions are seen in the galleries and exhibitions of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Guggenheim in New York City, The Smithsonian, The British Museum, The London National Portrait Gallery the Louvre and many other organizations. Despite the destruction of the opioid crisis, the press around the family has also triggered a new set of legal protests and demonstrations against the institutions that accept Sackler money.

Last March, world renown American Artist Nan Goldin staged a demonstration in the Temple of Dendur Exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in protest of the Sackler Wing and the Met’s Sackler money. Goldin, a former Oxycontin addict and the creator of the activist group, Sackler P.A.I.N, has been fighting the art worlds acceptance of their philanthropic donations. Also staging “die-in” demonstrations at The Harvard Art Museums and The Smithsonian, she emphasized in an interview in September that “direct action is our only hope.”[2] Her protests have inspired an international movement against the art world that is creating waves throughout the community.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by P.A.I.N. (@sacklerpain) on Mar 11, 2018 at 7:31pm PDT

These days protests and demonstrations can feel like a lost cause, fighting against a government of Elite Power that has no interest in changing, however, the art world seems to be taking a different approach. Instead of alienating their public supporters and further tarnishing their names Museums are beginning to listen, a rare ray of hope amidst the tumultuous state of the world. Although not concrete, in January the Mets President and CEO said that “the [Sackler family] is a large extended group and their support of The Met began decades before the opioid crisis. The Met is currently engaging in a further review of our detailed gift acceptance policies, and we will have more to report in due course.”[3]

Other demonstrations have also happened across American and European institutions. The first museum to drop Sackler money was London’s National Portrait Gallery. On March 19 it officially dropped a $1.3 Million gift from the Sacklers.[4] One of the first legitimate institutional acts against the family proves the power of the public's voice and sends a message to the Power Elite that they are no longer untouchable. In addition, the National Portrait Gallery is currently in talks with Nan Goldin about a future retrospective exhibit. Following the National Portrait Gallery, a few other high profile museums in London have rejected Sackler gifts.[5] Recently, on March 23, the Guggenheim announced it will not be accepting a recent Sackler donation, an important move for The Met to take into consideration.[6]

The current movement against the Sackler family is important and impressive, but it can not be the beginning and end of keeping Museums and other cultural institutions in check. Money and support from corrupt weapons dealers, drug empires, colonizers, and thieves still line the pockets of these cultural powerhouses and while those in power may seem beyond reach, the strength of a unified public movement has already, albeit slowly, proven to be more powerful.

Sources

[1] "Sackler Family," Forbes, accessed March 20, 2019, https://www.forbes.com/profile/sackler/#2e466e2f5d63.

[2] Kate Brown, "'Direct Action Is Our Only Hope': Anti-Opioid Activist Nan Goldin on Why People Need to Go Offline to Fight for Their Beliefs," Artnet News, September 04, 2018, accessed March 20, 2019, https://news.artnet.com/art-world/nan-goldin-on-sacklers-and-opioids-1338254.

[3] Victoria Stapley-Brown, "The Met Is Re-evaluating Its Gift Acceptance Policy in Wake of Sackler Lawsuits," The Art Newspaper, January 21, 2019, accessed March 20, 2019, https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/the-met-is-re-evaluating-its-gift-policy-in-wake-of-sackler-lawsuits.

[4] Kate Brown and Javier Pes, "In a Landmark Decision, London's National Portrait Gallery Drops a $1.3 Million Gift from the Sacklers," Artnet News, March 19, 2019, accessed March 20, 2019, https://news.artnet.com/art-world/sackler-trust-national-portrait-gallery-1492120.

[5] Philip Kennicott, "Two Major Museums Are Turning down Sackler Donations. Will Others Follow?" The Washington Post, March 22, 2019, accessed March 23, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/two-major-museums-are-turning-down-sackler-donations-will-others-follow/2019/03/22/20aa6368-4cb9-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?utm_term=.f9092ab8b8f6.

[6] Liam Stack, "Guggenheim Museum Says It Won't Accept Gifts From Sackler Family," The New York Times, March 23, 2019, accessed March 23, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/arts/guggenheim-sackler-family-donations.html.

"Woke" Advertisements

You might have found yourself scrolling through Instagram or Twitter recently when all of a sudden you see a pair of shoes on fire or a man smashing an unopened box of razors with a sledgehammer on your feed.  While all of this is going on, the national anthem might be playing in the background while the men in the videos tell you that they're boycotting Nike or Gillette.  Within the next day or two, news about these companies would be mentioned everywhere with reporters and journalists talking about the controversy surrounding razors and running shoes.

Could it be child labor?
Unfair working conditions?

No. The reason for the conservatives' outrage over Nike, Gillette, and other brands stems from the recent advertisements these brands have been producing that take a political stance.  For Nike, it was using the voice of Colin Kaepernick in their advertisement, Dream Crazy.  For Gillette, it was implying that masculinity can be problematic and calling for men to raise boys to be better in their short film, "We Believe: The Best Men Can Be".  The response to both of these advertisements has been incredible- news outlets wrote about them, college campuses had symposiums about them, and more importantly, the internet went wild for them.

It leaves us to wonder why these multibillion dollar corporations would risk causing such a stir and even facing boycotts all for the sake of making a political statement.  While we might hope these companies really embody the inspirational messages in their ads, the answer lies in the money.  Nike released its Dream Crazy advertisement on September 5th of 2015, and as a result, earned $6 billion.

However, Gillette's controversial advertisement didn't pay off financially as Nike's did.  The company's stock largely remained the same after releasing its controversial advertisement a few months after Nike on January 13, 2019.  Instead of a wave of positive reactions after the initial negative feedback like Nike experienced, Gillette's commercial kept raking in more and more angry men making reaction videos.  Today, the video has over 1.4 million dislikes with a sparse 785,000 likes.

Still, Gillette's advertisement along with other brands' political stances can largely be seen as reactionary to the success that Nike's advertisement caused.  While it's true that Nike's advertisement caused quite a few conservative groups to be outraged and try to boycott the brand, this feedback did nothing but encourage liberal groups to promote the advertisement and congratulate the company for taking a stand.  Nike's advertisement has been viewed over 28 million times since September 2018, and in an age where many people consume media on computers with ad blocks, an advertisement that's seen that many times is phenomenal, so it's easy to imagine why other companies would find this sort of advertisement appealing.

However, Nike is not as progressive in actions as it is in words.  The company still has sweatshops powered by child labor.  Many of the workers aren't given a salary that they can live on, and the company has stopped workers from unionizing.  This is a harsh reminder that while Nike might be saying progressive things, its main goal is still to make a profit, not to change the world for the better.

While it might not seem like a problem for companies to make these inspiring and progressive advertisements that spark debate, thinking of where this newfound power of "woke marketing" will lead us is necessary.

It's important to remember that these companies all share a common goal that comes first: making a profit.  Nike still represses labor unions and uses child labor because they're profitable methods of producing goods.

If these companies are producing these political advertisements primarily for a profit and not for the betterment of society, where do they draw the line?  In our already polarized political climate, it can be hard to relate or even be civil with people on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Do we really need companies intentionally stirring people up and making them angry just so they can turn a profit?  How far are companies willing to go to make money, and are they thinking of the implications their actions have on our political climate outside of their own financial interests?

All of these questions are important to keep in mind as we move forward and corporations continue to appeal to the political issues that divide us.

Works Cited:

Woke Washing: what happens when marketing communications don't match corporate practice. The Conversation. Dec. 5, 2018.  Accessed April 7, 2019. https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/12164/Woke%20washing_%20what%20happens%20when%20marketing%20communications%20don't%20match%20corporate%20practice.pdf?sequence=2

Why Nike's Woke Ad Campaign Works and Gillette's Doesn't. Barro, Josh. Jan. 15, 2019. Accessed April 8, 2019.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/why-nikes-woke-ad-campaign-works-and-gillettes-doesnt.html

America's Fear of the Unknown

Source: https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/things-you-do-that-really-tick-off-tsa-agents.html/

The greatest terrorist attack in American history occurred on September 11, 2001 when planes flew into the Twin Towers in New York City. Over 2,996 people died and over 6,000 were injured. The images of people launching themselves off of burning buildings or the sounds of civilians calling their family members from the planes as they sped to their deaths stimulates strong emotions of sadness, anger, and most importantly fear. This attack was not orchestrated by people inside the United States, but instead by the Islamist extremist group called Al Qaeda which originated in Saudi Arabia.

When this devastation struck the country, the US  needed a strong leader that would both echo their sentiments of anger and sadness but also channel that anger into assertive action that would remind everyone America was still the "greatest country in the world." President George W. Bush delivered this message perfectly. He sat in front of Congress and declared that terrorists had tried to destroy the very essence of what it meant to be a free American. He declared a "War on Terror," which included legally allowed the government to tap civilian phones and means of communication, target specific ethnic or religious groups, search through civilians bags and materials at airports without probable cause, and more. (Liptak 2011).

All of this directly violates the Fourth Amendment. This amendment prevents the government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures of property." This includes preventing unwarranted surveillance.The government was suddenly looking through American's personal information and physical objects and no one was overly upset. In fact, President George Bush during that time accrued the highest approval rating of  any president in American history. 92 percent of people approved of him and by extension the decisions he made at that time (Gallup History). America was afraid and wanted someone to keep them safe even if that meant sacrificing fundamental rights. The removal of these rights have technically been effective. My question is, why is America not willing to sacrifice their second amendment in the way it was willing to sacrifice the fourth?

Although there has not technically been a single terrorist attack that has yielded as many casualties as 9/11, America is still familiar with terrorism. Arguably, school shootings have become the new terrorism epidemic. 20 years ago, two kids walked into Columbine High School and killed 13 people (CNN 2018). This murder of teachers and students who are arguably the face of goodness and innocence in America caused incredible sadness, anger, and certainly some fear. However, it clearly wasn't the same degree of fear that inspired change after 9/11. America was given far more opportunities after Columbine to increase gun control.  223 people have died in school shootings since Columbine (San Diego Union Tribune 2018).

Somehow, the idea of banning or limiting the usage of guns has become an intensely debated and extremely polarizing issue. When presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested gun reform, the National Rifle Association actually published an ad implying that if Clinton is elected you will probably be murdered in front of your family (NRA).

It is evident that fear strengthens the government and makes people in general more willing to sacrifice their Constitutional rights. However, it is less conclusive about what kind of fear makes people more willing to sacrifice these rights. I concluded the main reason for why people are more scared of terrorists attacks like 9/11: a greater fear of the unknown.

In terms of Sociology, fear is directly related to knowledge and ignorance (Rietzer 491). If we have some level of understanding about something, we are less afraid of it. When a kid shoots up a school, the media often reports that the kid did it because they were rejected by a love interest or bullied. While obviously almost no one else would resort to gun violence, almost everyone can understand the horrible feeling of feeling lesser. Conversely, when a radical Islamist group from a different country flies planes into American buildings, we are more confused about the rationale.

In conclusion, America was willing to sacrifice their fourth amendment rights because they did not fully understand the situation and did not know whether they were going to be attacked again. If giving away the fourth amendment would somehow keep them safer, that was a risk they would take. Conversely, the politicization of gun control and the home-grown nature of kids that shoot up schools makes our country much less willing to sacrifice the Second Amendment.

Works Cited:

"Columbine High School Shootings Fast Facts." CNN. March 25, 2018. Accessed April 08, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/us/columbine-high-school-shootings-fast-facts/index.html.

NRA. ""Don't Let Hilary Clinton Take Your Guns Away"." Advertisement. September 20, 2016.

Gallup, Inc. "Bush Job Approval Highest in Gallup History." Gallup.com. September 24, 2001. Accessed April 08, 2019. https://news.gallup.com/poll/4924/bush-job-approval-highest-gallup-history.aspx.

Liptak, Adam. "The 9/11 Decade: Civil Liberties, Before and After." The New York Times. September 07, 2011. Accessed April 08, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/sept-11-reckoning/civil.html.

"Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics." Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. May 11, 2015. Accessed April 08, 2019. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/.

Riezler, Kurt. "The Social Psychology of Fear." American Journal of Sociology 49, no. 6 (1944): 489-98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2771546.

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board. "All of These People Have Died in School Shootings since Columbine. Enough." Tribune. April 02, 2019. Accessed April 08, 2019. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-columbine-anniversary-school-shootings-20180420-htmlstory.html.

"September 11 Terror Attacks Fast Facts." CNN. September 04, 2018. Accessed April 08, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11-anniversary-fast-facts/index.html.

Inequalities Behind the Price Tag

The fashion world is much more multifaceted than simply fabrics and price tags. There are driving forces that push trends and set prices. Currently, fashion’s state of globalized markets compounded with consumer’s desire for cheap and on-trend clothing has led to the extremely rapid growth of fast fashion. As explained by Megan Lambert, fast fashion is a business model which “[aims] to provide low-cost, low-quality, trendbased clothing to consumers at unprecedented speeds” (Lambert 2). Lambert’s definition of the fast fashion business model explains how the popular model is unsustainable and unethical.

The goal of fast fashion is to produce “low-cost clothing collections that mimic current luxury fashion trends” (Joy 1) at a very high rate of production. The issue with production on trend is that trends are constantly changing. Companies like H&M, Zara, and Forever 21 (to name a few) are in a constant state of mass production and mass sales of affordable/trendy clothing. Mass production, combined with the low-quality of fast fashion garments, has led to a “disposable fashion” culture.

• Consumers purchase affordable, trendy, low-quality garments
• Garments are either disfigured due to their low-quality or they are no longer trendy due to quickly changing trends
• Garments are discarded, disposed, and likely end up in landfills
• The cycle of consumption is repeated

This culture of disposable fashion has a major ecological impact. Aside from the oxygen, water, and land necessary to construct a garment on a globalized market, decomposing garments in landfills are contributing record Methane emissions. Currently, 13.1 million tonnes of textiles fill up American landfills per year (Wallander 1), leading to 1.26 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) of Methane per year (nature 1). Not to mention the carbon miles necessary to construct and deliver the rapid production of fast fashion on a global scale. Fast fashion --as its relevance at the Paris Accord displays-- is an emerging contemporary concern of climate change.

Aside from its ecological detriments, the effects of fast fashion extends into the exploitation of human populations. The goal of many businesses, namely fast fashion firms, is to maximize profits off of the cheapest production available. This leads to industrialized nations --in which fast fashion firms most abundantly exist-- outsourcing to developing nations for textile labor. Fast fashion “firms exploit vulnerable populations through low wages and inadequate safety investment” (Lambert 12) in order to meet the high demands of on-trend fashion. Textile workers in countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka experience brutal, inhumane work environments in which they are stripped of humans rights. In addition, fast fashion power houses “subcontract production to manufacturing companies, or suppliers, that are not officially authorized by or affiliated with the fast fashion brands... Without authorization or affiliation, fast fashion brands carry no legal obligation to ensure decent working conditions in the bottom tiers of their production network” (Stafford). Essentially, fast fashion firms have strategically placed themselves at the top of the economic model. They are legally non-binded to the harsh exploitation of developing populations that benefit them.



It would be impossible to discuss the exploitation of fast fashion textile workers without discussing the intersectionality of the gender, class, and nationality. The exploited are majority low class working women from developing nations who are managed by their male superiors. She works in environments in which she “[experiences] physical, verbal, and sexual violence… Disciplinary measures disproportionately inflict physical, mental, and sexual harm on women” (Stafford). A worker from an H&M supplier factory speaks about her experience as a textile worker under the H&M umbrella:

“We are not allowed to go to the toilet, the targets are so high. The in-charge things like, ‘if you go to the toilet, who will do the work? Who is going to complete the target? Go to work and finish it.’ If I take even a bit too long returning from bathroom, the supervisor will take away my machine coil. I have to go and ask him for it. Then I have to tell him why it took me so much time in the bathroom.” (Stafford).

The cruel, dehumanizing power dynamic between demanding fast fashion firms and developing nations clearly illustrates the tyrannical exploitation behind the price tags and the fabrics sitting on the shelves and racks of developed nations. From a conflict theory perspective, the structure of fast fashion is set up to benefit developed nation’s firms while exploiting developing nations --disproportionately, the women of developing nations.

Citations

Joy, Annamma, et al. “Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands.” Fashion Theory, vol. 16, no. 3, 2012, pp. 273–295., doi:10.2752/175174112x13340749707123.

Lambert, Megan. “The Lowest Cost at Any Price: The Impact of Fast Fashion on the Global Fashion Industry.” Lake Forest College Publications, 1 Dec. 2014.

Stafford, Victoria. “Factory Exploitation and the Fast Fashion Machine.” Green America, 8 Aug. 2018, greenamerica.org/blog/factory-exploitation-and-fast-fashion-machine.

“The Price of Fast Fashion.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 2 Jan. 2018, www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0058-9.

Wallander, Mattias. “Why Ban Textiles From Landfills?” HuffPost, HuffPost, 30 Apr. 2012, www.huffpost.com/entry/why-ban-textiles-from-lan_b_1308038.

Ivy or Bye-vy!

Do you remember around this same time last year (maybe 2-3 years ago) when you were refreshing your email everyday? Your eyes would nervously shift to and from the clock in the back of the classroom, fingers tapping, looking down at your shoes color coded to match the college of your dreams, maybe that would bring you a sliver of luck! College decision time. You had been chatting with your friends at lunch two days prior about your chances of getting admitted. You shared that you read online that admission chances had decreased by 5% over the year.

Time goes by, the emails are out! You read that this year is the record number of applicants. Again, again, and again. School after school after school. Sure enough it says that is every email... you applied to 12 schools after all....

"Record number of applicants selected for the Class of 2022". 

What is the cause for these consistently upward trends? What ideologies, objectives, facilitations, and encouragement is happening in high schools and households that is substantially increasing the amount of applicants for top schools across the United States? Are applicants making the choice themselves to apply to many schools or are they encouraged by parents and college counsellors? What prompts the urgency to apply to so many universities of similar nature? Through a personal lens, I hope to tackle some of the these questions. 

First and foremost, the applicant pool is increasingly more and more competitive, with the highest range of SAT scores and 4.00's across the board. Thousands of students exactly like yourself applying for the same position at the exact same schools... how scary is that! So why is there is such a drive to apply to a school where uncertainty is guaranteed and luck of the draw if a given? What is the allure to ravaging competition and little promise? 

Due to new online college application catered platforms such as Naviance, the system of applying to College can often be divided into "safety schools", "match schools" and "reach schools". Hence, schools that would be an almost guarantee get into,  schools that you match with perfectly, and schools that will be hard to get in to. This classification certainly contributes to the great influx of applicants over the past year. College counsellors promote the usage of this platform to create structure for students, however the number of schools students end up applying to triples in order to fit each category. Students end up applying to nine schools of similar region, programs, and values despite differing acceptance credentials. When everyone applying is encouraged to do a similar strategy,  overlaps happen, even if one person's safety school is one person's reach etc. 

A large proponent of the mentality involved when applying to so many schools is "I'll apply to every thing I'm interested in and if I don't get in, then I'll just go to _________". In some cases, the blank can be filled with Canada or the UK! Personally, growing up at an international school, I watched a lot of peers apply to the top schools in the US, and if not accepted, ultimately end up a less competitive equivalent in Nottingham, United Kingdom.  This strategy was implemented by their parents who, in hopes of them receiving a top education, encouraged choosing the best schools in the United States. Though this is an extreme, American parents do the same. They encourage their children to apply to their alma matter, as well as the school their aunt went to, also the school where their high school pal is a professor at... so on and so forth! Children begin to beef up the list of the schools they apply to based on parent influence, perhaps out of guilt, and safety they feel with such a large life decision at hand... much more research can be done to investigate the record hitting numbers of applicants at American universities, but taking a close look at personal experiences, we can understand on national sociological level.

Works Cited 

“Mail from Colleges.” Homeschool Success, 28 Jan. 2019, homeschoolsuccess.com/mail-from-colleges/.

“USC Sees Record Number of Applicants for Fall 2018 Admission.” USC News, 23 Mar. 2018, news.usc.edu/139338/usc-acceptance-rate-fall-2018-admission/.

Gentrification and Displacement in Washington D.C.

A study that was released on March 19, 2019 conducted by the National Community Reinvestment
Coalition from 2000 to 2013 found that Washington D.C. has the highest intensity of gentrification
than any other city in the country (NCRC). Gentrification involves an increase in people moving
into an area that was not previously being invested in, raising the value of property there. Although
improvements are made to communities because of increased investment and economic revitalization,
this also causes increases in rent and cost of living which forces the residents already living there, who
are frequently people of color, to move away to less expensive areas. This means that they not only
have to leave everything that is familiar to them, such as social and support networks, but they also
do not get to benefit from any of the positive changes to their community, such as reduced crime and
higher employment and opportunity levels.

The process of gentrification relates to the concepts involved in conflict theory such as the ways in
which those in power maintain that power and gain further privileges at the expense of groups who
are already disadvantaged and oppressed. This is clear in the way that gentrification disproportionately
impacts people of color and low income residents. For example, the study stated that, “Displacement
of black and Hispanic residents accompanied gentrification in many places and impacted at least
135,000 people in our study period. In Washington, D.C., 20,000 black residents were displaced, and
in Portland, Oregon, 13 percent of the black community was displaced over the decade.” (NCRC)
The high numbers of people who have been forced to move out of communities that they have been
a part of for many years are some of the most devastating impacts of gentrification. They lose their
homes and the community loses many of its members, resulting in the loss of historical memories
and culture within the area.

The loss of historical and cultural institutions and traditions is another significant effect of
gentrification. For example, in a Washington D.C. neighborhood, researcher Van Tol, “...recalled
the 2015 closing of the popular Jamaican restaurant Sweet Mango Cafe in Petworth and the end of
the neighborhood’s annual Caribbean parade.” (Washington Post) These were just two examples in
one small area of Washington which shows how a community’s sense of identity may change as a
result of so many of the original residents being unable to afford to stay there. While affluent and
frequently white people move into these neighborhoods, people who are already oppressed in society
are driven out of their homes. Communities should work to discover ways that could promote
economic investment while ensuring that the original residents are not displaced and can still enjoy
the benefits and positive qualities of their neighborhoods.

This image is an example of the type of business that replaces ones that are unable to continue paying
for their space after rates of rent increase. Often the businesses that are unable to stay have been a part
of the community for many years and are missed by residents of the area, who are frequently unable
to stay themselves because of the increase in cost of living. Those who are able to afford to remain in
the community can feel isolated in a place that used to feel like home because of the loss of “neighbors,
social networks and local businesses.” (Washington Post)

These images are an example of before and after an area has been gentrified. Smaller businesses such
as the ones above are forced to leave and are replaced by more expensive businesses that do not hold
the history of the city and the memories of those who spent time there.

Sources

Richardson, Jason, et al. “Shifting Neighborhoods: Gentrification and Cultural Displacement in American Cities.” NCRC, 19 Mar. 2019, ncrc.org/gentrification/.

Shaver, Katherine. “D.C. Has the Highest 'Intensity' of Gentrification of Any U.S. City, Study Says.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 19 Mar. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/03/19/study-dc-has-had-highest-intensity-gentrification-any-us-city/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e384232681e4.

“The 14 Best Coffee Shops in Philadelphia.” Time Out Philadelphia, www.timeout.com/philadelphia/restaurants/best-coffee-shops-in-philadelphia.

“13 Before & After Photos That Show The Changing Face Of New York City.” Guest of a Guest, guestofaguest.com/new-york/nyc/13-before-and-after-photos-that-show-the-changing-face-of-new-york-city.

Helicopters and Tigers and Lawnmowers, Oh My!

Chances are you've heard these terms before. Educators rant about the helicopter parent and the PTA moms deny knowing of their existence. With a simple google search, you can find a quiz that will let you know if you're a "Lawnmower? Helicopter? Tiger? Attachment? Free Range?" ("Meet the Lawnmower Parent, 2018). Popular blogs such as Cafe Mom provide "11 Ways to Know if You're a Lawnmower Parent". Lighthearted as some of these articles may be, the obsession our culture seems to have with identifying parenting styles and analyzing actions as small as bringing your child's water bottle to school for them, requires critical examination. 

(USA Today: Meet the Lawnmower Parent)

The newest phenomenon of parenting is the rise of the lawnmower parent. Dr. Karen Fancher, a college professor, reflects on these parents in her article in which she describes lawnmower parents as, "parents who rush ahead to intervene, saving the child from any potential inconvenience, problem or discomfort," ("How Not to Be a Lawnmower Parent", 2016). Fancher goes further to describe the potential dangers of lawnmower parenting on students, including lacking the ability to grow, minimal personal motivation, inability to make decisions, and the idea that the student can not successfully complete hard tasks on their own. 

Many of the educators and bloggers who have commented on lawnmower parenting stipulate that this new parenting style differs from the "Helicopter Parent", who received harsh commentary started in the mid-2000s. While helicopter parents hover around their children, monitoring all activities and weighing in on decisions, lawnmower parents seem to actually go in front of their child to clear difficulties and obstacles before they even appear. However, despite this apparent difference in the blogging world, there is a glaring similarity between the two types of parents: almost all of the articles found in searches for these parenting styles are negative, opinion-based pieces, instead of grounded research. These labels invite us to consider the impact the blogging world may have on the ways parents modify their behavior and interaction with their children.

"These are the parents who rush ahead to intervene, saving the child from any potential inconvenience, problem or discomfort." -Dr. Karen Fancher

The statistics found in research, instead of just blogged opinions, presents a very different, often opposite, view on these engaged styles of parenting. Research done at Indiana University examined data from the 2007 National Survey of Student Engagement to evaluate the impact of high parent involvement on student achievement in response to the critique of helicopter parents. The study found that on average, students who reported having high levels of parental contact and involvement also reported having high engagement, academic gains, use of learning activities, and college satisfaction (Shoup, Gonyea, & Kuh, 2009, pg 19). Another study done by the National Council on Family Relations interviewed parents and students to find that although the media is correct in the idea that parents are reported as having heavy involvement with their students lives, these students also reported having beneficial outcomes in their happiness, academic success, and even later vocational success (Fingerman et al. 2012, pg 892).

To further, it is widely known that authoritative parenting is considered to be the most effective way of parenting. It has been shown to result in high self-esteem, success, social skills, and motivation. Surprisingly enough, many of the aspects of authoritative parenting are also reported by so called “Helicopter” parents and “Lawnmower” parents, such as having high expectations, frequent communication, and nurturing guidance.

(Mind's Eye: Children and Parenting)

There may be some truth in the Café Mom’s warnings through their 11 signs of lawnmower parenting. It is supported that lacking discipline and structure for your child, consistently intervening on their behalf, and failing to teach autonomous behavior (all characteristics of the permissive parenting style) can lead to dangerous consequences for children and students (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995). However, the extent to which the media has ragged on all parenting styles from the lawnmower to the tiger to the helicopter may be dangerously misguided. It is vital that parents do their own research into parenting styles that have been supported by developmental psychology, such as the authoritative parent, and look more to their own child’s responses to situations and needs than to their favorite blogger.

Across the board, the obsession our culture has with examining, labeling, and dragging different types of parents, is one that must continue to be taken with a grain of salt. Instead of worrying about which type of parent you may be, it is important to continue to stay in tune with your child and with grounded research in order to continue to raise a healthy child in a world saturated by pop psychology and opinionated voices.

Sources:

11 Signs You're a 'Lawnmower Parent'. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://thestir.cafemom.com/being_a_mom/178648/signs_of_lawnmower_parent_helicopter

College Professor Warns: How Not to Be a Lawn Mower Parent. (2017, December 29). Retrieved from https://grownandflown.com/college-professor-warns-lawnmower-parent/

Fingerman, K. L., Cheng, Y., Wesselmann, E. D., Zarit, S., Furstenberg, F., & Birditt, K. S. (2012). Helicopter Parents and Landing Pad Kids: Intense Parental Support of Grown Children. Journal of Marriage and Family,74(4), 880-896.

Haller, S. (2018, September 20). Meet the 'lawnmower parent,' the new helicopter parents of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/09/19/meet-lawnmower-parent-new-helicopter-parents-types-parents-tiger-attachment/1347358002/

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Practices: Development of a New Measure. Psychological Reports,77(3), 819-830. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819

Shoup, R., Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2009). Helicopter Parents: Examining the Impact of Highly Involved Parents on Student Engagement and Educational Outcomes.

11 Signs You're a 'Lawnmower Parent'. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://thestir.cafemom.com/being_a_mom/178648/signs_of_lawnmower_parent_helicopter

College Professor Warns: How Not to Be a Lawn Mower Parent. (2017, December 29). Retrieved from https://grownandflown.com/college-professor-warns-lawnmower-parent/

Fingerman, K. L., Cheng, Y., Wesselmann, E. D., Zarit, S., Furstenberg, F., & Birditt, K. S. (2012). Helicopter Parents and Landing Pad Kids: Intense Parental Support of Grown Children. Journal of Marriage and Family,74(4), 880-896.

Haller, S. (2018, September 20). Meet the 'lawnmower parent,' the new helicopter parents of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/09/19/meet-lawnmower-parent-new-helicopter-parents-types-parents-tiger-attachment/1347358002/

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Practices: Development of a New Measure. Psychological Reports,77(3), 819-830.

Shoup, R., Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2009). Helicopter Parents: Examining the Impact of Highly Involved Parents on Student Engagement and Educational Outcomes.

Talukdar, R. (2015, February 21). Programme on parenting. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/DrRupaTalukdar/programme-on-parenting

College Professor Warns: How Not to Be a Lawn Mower Parent. (2017, December 29). Retrieved from https://grownandflown.com/college-professor-warns-lawnmower-parent/

Fingerman, K. L., Cheng, Y., Wesselmann, E. D., Zarit, S., Furstenberg, F., & Birditt, K. S. (2012). Helicopter Parents and Landing Pad Kids: Intense Parental Support of Grown Children. Journal of Marriage and Family,74(4), 880-896.

Haller, S. (2018, September 20). Meet the 'lawnmower parent,' the new helicopter parents of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/09/19/meet-lawnmower-parent-new-helicopter-parents-types-parents-tiger-attachment/1347358002/

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Practices: Development of a New Measure. Psychological Reports,77(3), 819-830. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819

Shoup, R., Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2009). Helicopter Parents: Examining the Impact of Highly Involved Parents on Student Engagement and Educational Outcomes.

Talukdar, R. (2015, February 21). Programme on parenting. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/DrRupaTalukdar/programme-on-parenting

11 Signs You're a 'Lawnmower Parent'. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://thestir.cafemom.com/being_a_mom/178648/signs_of_lawnmower_parent_helicopter

College Professor Warns: How Not to Be a Lawn Mower Parent. (2017, December 29). Retrieved from https://grownandflown.com/college-professor-warns-lawnmower-parent/

Fingerman, K. L., Cheng, Y., Wesselmann, E. D., Zarit, S., Furstenberg, F., & Birditt, K. S. (2012). Helicopter Parents and Landing Pad Kids: Intense Parental Support of Grown Children. Journal of Marriage and Family,74(4), 880-896.

Haller, S. (2018, September 20). Meet the 'lawnmower parent,' the new helicopter parents of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/09/19/meet-lawnmower-parent-new-helicopter-parents-types-parents-tiger-attachment/1347358002/

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Practices: Development of a New Measure. Psychological Reports,77(3), 819-830. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819

Shoup, R., Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2009). Helicopter Parents: Examining the Impact of Highly Involved Parents on Student Engagement and Educational Outcomes.

Talukdar, R. (2015, February 21). Programme on parenting. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/DrRupaTalukdar/programme-on-parenting