Today in class, the conversation stuck with me. I wondered if there really were and if so who were the Jerry's and who were the Peter's in this world and more specifically of the North Shore and New Trier. It seems that there often is a dominant narrative (or in this case a dominant character) in our daily lives. It is easy to see Americans as the Peter's of the World, while other countries such as 3rd world countries are seen as the Jerry's. We often say: "Why can't they better themselves?" Yet it is not always up to them. It seems to me that on the North Shore, white, upper class citizens tend to make up the majority of the population, where as some parts of Chicago are seen as poor and black. These examples are rather obvious, yet I found New Trier a bit more intriguing.
Who is the typical student at New Trier? Looking back, I remember an exercise we did where we designed the average student, Taylor's life. Using the example Taylor, I believe that the average New Trier student is either white or of Asian ethnicity. According to Jonathan Kozol's The Shame of a Nation, 98% of New Trier students are either white or Asian. So what else makes up Taylor? Or in this case: The Peter's of New Trier. Well, I've observed that many kids are wealthy or have lots of material possessions. Most New Trier kids can be found with an Ipod or cell phone on them at any given time. I think that Taylor often would wear a T-shirt and Jeans because some kids (like those with purple hair and all black apparel are seen as the Jerry's or the zoos).
So why does this happen? What calls for this social hierarchy in each and every environment? I'd argue that it is human nature, but why? Why do people have to judge someone, like Peter judged Jerry, solely based on appearance and/or lifestyle and/or differences from "the norm"? And why do those like Peter sit back and say to themselves things like: "Why... why do you live there?" (Albee 22). It's not always a persons choice where or how they live, so why do they have to be scrutinized for it?