FREE ESSAY ON X

X

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