Lately I have seen a number of discussions that reveal some confusion about the concept of “privilege.” Most commonly, privilege is equated with wealth. Then, there is also the notion, recently expressed by a Princeton undergraduate, that so long as you have a personal or family history that includes some rough times, you need not consider yourself “privileged” in any way, nor must you acknowledge that other people’s experiences are fundamentally different than yours.
The reason why some people are resistant to being characterized as “privileged,” as far as I can tell, is the implication that: a) they did not completely “earn” their successes and therefore do not have any more of a “right” to certain types of power, status, and/or wealth than others; and b) they ought to be more reflective about the assumptions they make as well as more attentive to the perspectives of others (when it’s so much easier not to be either of those things).
The misconception is that privilege is something you either have, or you don’t. People view privilege as a black-and-white, all-or-nothing phenomenon. However, such a narrow view of privilege does not reflect the complexity and multi-dimensionality of our social identities and personal histories. I will admit, without disclosing any information about myself, that there are certain areas where I enjoy a lot of privilege, and other areas where I have none at all.
But let’s back up for a second and look at what privilege actually is. First and foremost, privilege is a characteristic of relationships of inequality. Privilege is about being the beneficiary of such relationships. Privilege is about institutions - legal, educational, economic, political, medical, etc. - that may constrain the lives of certain people based on a group with which they are affiliated.
Most importantly, privilege relates to current conditions - existing inequalities and institutional constraints. History is only important in so far as it serves as the foundation for present-day conditions (as history so often is preserved in current social structures). Hence, personal or group history is not always or necessarily relevant in assessing a person’s privilege. I have often heard people of Irish background make the claim that the discrimination faced by their forebears somehow proves that we’ve all had some difficult times and have had to work to get where we are at, or even that there is nothing spectacularly different about the complaints made by other racial/ethnic groups (i.e. “they have no excuse!”). Likewise, Tal Fortgang insists that because his family endured the Holocaust and had to struggle to “make it” as immigrants, his presence at an elite academic institution is therefore attributable to his character and determination, and not at all to any sort of privilege.
The arguments that I am going to make in reference to Irish Americans will apply to any other similarly situated ethnic groups, but I will discuss American Jews separately as they have a unique history to consider. It is undoubtedly true that people of Irish descent experienced some genuine racism earlier in American history, in an era where Irish were not considered “white” like they are today (although one could argue that they were never treated as property, always had civil rights, and in fact 8 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Irish). Yet the Irish are one group of people for whom changing social conditions (including new waves of immigration and recalibration of racial categories) actually served to radically alter their social position. It is clear that, despite the history of discrimination, today Irish Americans do not have to worry about educational achievement gaps, income gaps (in fact, according to the U.S. census bureau the median income of Irish headed households is higher than the national median), bias in the criminal justice system, or geographic segregation. The list of American presidents of Irish descent is quite long, and Irish Americans play a very prominent role in politics. It is clear that historical injustices do not have any bearing on the present-day relationships that Irish Americans have with social institutions and structural inequality.
It is also without question that Jews have faced a lot of discrimination throughout American history, and in contrast to the Irish, are still subject to many negative attitudes and prejudices. I frequently hear paranoid comments about Jews controlling the media or the international financial system, or the world. It is certain that Jews, as they go through their lives, will encounter many nasty comments and stereotypes (if they are particularly unlucky and happen into some White Supremacist Territory they may even fear for their safety), and this will surely impact their self identity and many of their attitudes. Therefore, yes, it is true that an American Jew will never have the same amount or type of privilege that other white Americans enjoy.
Yet, there is privilege nonetheless (for many Jews). However psychologically scarring the experience of prejudice may be, it does not seem to translate into widespread institutional discrimination of the sort that makes it so difficult for Americans of other racial/ethnic groups to attend a school like Princeton. American Jews are not disadvantaged by the educational system; they are not targeted by law enforcement; they are not subject to the type of economic exploitation that would leave a large percentage of them impoverished (to the contrary, the median income of American Jewish households is significantly higher than the national median); and they are not commonly mistaken for drug dealers and thugs. It is unlikely that Tal Fortgang, as he walks the halls of Princeton, will ever be mistaken for a janitor.
If you are a Jew, and grow up in an educated, middle or upper class family (as many, though certainly not all, American Jews do), your ability to achieve educational and economic success is not (normally) institutionally hindered solely by the fact that you are Jewish. Here is where privilege really comes in. Not only will you be starting out in a better place than all those Americans who lack basic economic and cultural resources, but if you happen to have friends and family who are well established in certain professions or educational institutions, your connections will certainly give you greater access to important opportunities than less fortunate Americans. It doesn’t even matter if your friends and family had to work really, really hard to get into that college or that profession. They may have had to work their asses off, but you will still reap the benefits of their success. That is privilege. It is entirely possible to be Jewish - even a Jew with immigrant parents or grandparents - and still have a certain amount of privilege.
Before I move on, I want to make a quick side comment about the Holocaust, only because Tal brought it up. It is undeniable that the Holocaust was an atrocity whose horror extends beyond human comprehension. No one should diminish that or ignore it. Undoubtedly, when one has family members who had to endure the worst that humans could possibly experience, it will leave a profound mark on how one views the world, and even on how one views one’s own existence. This is without question. However, in light of everything discussed above, it is clear that, apart from imparting a certain sort of consciousness, the history of the Holocaust is not embedded in American social institutions, nor does it shape one’s ability to move through various American social spaces. (It is an entirely different story in Europe, however, where neo-Nazi groups have persisted, recently resurged in many places, and even acquired political power in some cases.) To be honest, and as someone with some personal investment in the matter, I do not really appreciate people like Tal using such a horrific event to score points for an unrelated social/political agenda.
I think I’ve said enough about American Jews, though. The issue of privilege extends beyond ethnicity/race/religion, as many people on all sides of the debate have noted. For example, one should take into account social class. I mentioned above that privilege is often held to be synonymous with class or wealth. To this end, I have heard arguments that go something like this: “But, many white people are poor. Being white does not make you privileged.”
Yes, you are (almost, sort of) correct - but not completely correct. It is true that a wealthy white person is far more privileged than an indigent white person. This is obvious (hopefully). However, that does not mean that race is irrelevant. There are many types of privilege that come solely from being identified as “white.” A poor white person may not be treated the same as a wealthy white person by our criminal justice system; but just the same, that poor white person will treated a heck of a lot better than a black or latino person of any income level (just look at stats relating to the proportions of different races in prison, in conjunction with the types of crimes committed, as well as the racial disparities in law enforcement targeting and sentencing for similar types of crimes). Black and latino men are routinely followed and stopped by police and security guards, even when they belong to the upper class. Throughout their lives, poor white people will face fewer negative attitudes and assumptions about their character and intellectual abilities, fewer lowered expectations, than many people of color - from the classroom to the courtroom to the workplace. If a white person of a working-class background is able to work her way into a professional workplace - a gateway into the middle class - she will not be denied promotions and raises, she will not make less per hour, on the basis of the color of her skin, like a person of color very well could.
What all of this amount to is one fact, which really should not be so hard to grasp (and yet it is). Social identities are multifaceted, and people’s relations to different social institutions vary considerably according to which aspects of their identity are important in different situations. Alternatively, one could look at it this way: people take part in a multitude of social relationships, each one of which emphasizes a different aspect of their social identity and, altogether, may place them in completely different positions vis a vis other people or groups. Because privilege is based on these complex and context-dependent relationships, privilege is not an enduring personal trait, but rather a context-specific, heterogenous and malleable indicator of one’s relationship to society.
To be aware of one’s privilege simply means to take account of one’s relationship to society - to social institutions and other people. To “check your privilege” (a phrase which, actually, I do not believe I have ever used and have rarely heard) means to have some awareness of how these social relationships function - to acknowledge how or when you benefit from systems of inequality; to recognize the importance of learning about other people’s experiences; and to understand how, in instances in which an aspect of your identity is tied to a particular power structure, the ideologies and patterns of consciousness that are deployed to sustain that power structure become in embedded in your own thought processes. People on the other side of the inequality are particularly willing and able to assist you with the last two items.
Don’t take offense; be appreciative.
Showing posts with label social class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social class. Show all posts
Friday, May 9, 2014
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The Political Creation of the Middle Class
Marx developed an extensive, complex, and sometimes inconsistent theory of class. As with other topics, Marx wrote so much that it is possible to select different portions of his works and derive varied interpretations of class. However, if there is one least common denominator, it is that class is defined primarily by economic roles rather than arbitrary income ranges. What was salient for Marx was the fact that some members of society own the means of production while others are means of production; that some people own land while others must rent; that some have much to gain from investment while (or because) others have much to lose, and so on.
In contemporary usage, class is generally equated with the concept of income bracket and it comes in three distinct forms: lower, middle, and upper. The exact bounds of these groupings is debatable, not only because "class" is a social construct and, as such, inherently arbitrary. There is a political usefulness in this vagueness.
A lot of people self-identify as "middle class." Everyone likes to think they are somehow "average" or "normal." If you appeal to the middle class, you are targeting a good chunk of the population. But the political function of class rhetoric is more sinister than that. It goes back to the 'ol divide and conquer strategy. Split the masses into "middle class" and "poor" and you get people to fight for their own interests at the expense of others'. Except that "their own interests" are really bourgeois interests disguised as middle class values.
Want an idea of how important this strategy is? Try to find one political speech that doesn't mention the middle class.
In contemporary usage, class is generally equated with the concept of income bracket and it comes in three distinct forms: lower, middle, and upper. The exact bounds of these groupings is debatable, not only because "class" is a social construct and, as such, inherently arbitrary. There is a political usefulness in this vagueness.
A lot of people self-identify as "middle class." Everyone likes to think they are somehow "average" or "normal." If you appeal to the middle class, you are targeting a good chunk of the population. But the political function of class rhetoric is more sinister than that. It goes back to the 'ol divide and conquer strategy. Split the masses into "middle class" and "poor" and you get people to fight for their own interests at the expense of others'. Except that "their own interests" are really bourgeois interests disguised as middle class values.
Want an idea of how important this strategy is? Try to find one political speech that doesn't mention the middle class.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Divide and Conquer: Part 2
I have discussed the nefarious impacts of an ever-proliferating web of non-profits and government agencies, which diffuses the focus and energies of well-intentioned people in a multitude of different directions, preventing the emergence of a unified radical movement.
Then there is the more obvious divide and conquer strategy, of which there tends to be greater awareness. Historians and anthropologists have noted that the origin of the concept of “race” coincided with an attempt (successful) to create a wall of separation between poor whites and black slaves, and thus prevent them from uniting to overthrow the system that oppressed them both. Throughout American history, working-class whites have been told that they are competing with blacks (and immigrants) for jobs, all the while opportunist politicians cultivate an insidious racism which may be used to garner their support for the ruling elite. In the words of Bob Dylan (excerpts from Only A Pawn in Their Game):
The strategic cultivation of poor, white racism is more well-known. But I often wonder if the same tactic is used to create divisions along lines of gender, sexual orientation, and class (the latter within the same race).
For example, there has been some attention given to the fact that macho-ism/sexism is more exaggerated within white, blue-collar and African American communities (this works internationally as well, but I will stick to the American context for now). There are many scholarly and popular examples. Just recently, for example, the CNN news anchor Don Lemon, upon publicizing his sexual orientation, discussed the extreme difficulties (greater than in American society at large) of being gay in the African American community. And there has been no end to the public discussion about sexism in hop-hop music and culture. Likewise, the image of white, blue-collar life is a paragon of gender stereotypes: blue-collar men fix cars, go hunting, ride trucks and motor cycles, get wasted at the bar and get in fights. Music associated with working-class culture (most notably country and hard rock) is rife with sexism. Lyrics this time from Brad Paisley (country singer):
Effeminate men (in the above song, the "dudes getting facials"), in contrast, are associated with elitism and upper-class lifestyles.
Moreover, many people have noted, with great concern, that successful blacks tend to disassociate themselves from poor black communities. They move out into the suburbs and adopt “white” cultural preferences. Black students who do “too well” in school may be criticized for “acting white.”
All of these public images, stories, and stereotypes serve to reinforce boundaries among various groups of people who would be better served by creating a unified front to combat an unjust system. I cannot help but wonder, based on the divide and conquer strategies that have been used to put a wedge been poor white and black, if the public images of these divisions (sexist/homophobic lower-class white and blacks, middle-class versus poor blacks, etc.) spring purely from the social realities.... or if the social realties themselves were partially constructed (and are partially reconstructed) by means of the proliferation of these images and stories in the public sphere.
Is there some iniquitous force lurking in the background, purposefully trying to create and exacerbate all numbers of divisions among the large population of oppressed human beings?
I can speculate, though I have yet to come across any real research. (If anyone knows of any, please comment!) It is a bit curious that, since the time of slavery, white men publicly called into question the masculinity of black males (for instance, calling them “boy”), seemingly trying to provoke them in some way, while scientists simultaneously disseminated their conclusions that black men are inherently hyper-masculine and aggressive. Then, there is the widely-circulated idea that one must be a bread-winner in order to be a “real man,” thus inciting men who are not able to adequately provide for their families to assert their manhood in other ways. Moreover, one must consider who really gets to decide what types of hip hop/hard rock/country music is available in music stores (real or electronic), heard on the radio, featured in movies, and thus ultimately, what artists and songs become representative of these genres? Finally, one must also observe that African Americans for the most part are not allowed to be successful unless they disassociate themselves to a certain degree from black culture and the life of the ghetto. Many students find that they have to “act white” in order to avoid being stigmatized by their teachers, if they want to do well in school. Thus, I can see some evidence that these divisions may be fostered by dominant groups.
If this is the case, then it follows logically that it would be a divide and conquer strategy.
Then there is the more obvious divide and conquer strategy, of which there tends to be greater awareness. Historians and anthropologists have noted that the origin of the concept of “race” coincided with an attempt (successful) to create a wall of separation between poor whites and black slaves, and thus prevent them from uniting to overthrow the system that oppressed them both. Throughout American history, working-class whites have been told that they are competing with blacks (and immigrants) for jobs, all the while opportunist politicians cultivate an insidious racism which may be used to garner their support for the ruling elite. In the words of Bob Dylan (excerpts from Only A Pawn in Their Game):
A South politician preaches to the poor white man
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain
The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
The strategic cultivation of poor, white racism is more well-known. But I often wonder if the same tactic is used to create divisions along lines of gender, sexual orientation, and class (the latter within the same race).
For example, there has been some attention given to the fact that macho-ism/sexism is more exaggerated within white, blue-collar and African American communities (this works internationally as well, but I will stick to the American context for now). There are many scholarly and popular examples. Just recently, for example, the CNN news anchor Don Lemon, upon publicizing his sexual orientation, discussed the extreme difficulties (greater than in American society at large) of being gay in the African American community. And there has been no end to the public discussion about sexism in hop-hop music and culture. Likewise, the image of white, blue-collar life is a paragon of gender stereotypes: blue-collar men fix cars, go hunting, ride trucks and motor cycles, get wasted at the bar and get in fights. Music associated with working-class culture (most notably country and hard rock) is rife with sexism. Lyrics this time from Brad Paisley (country singer):
When you see a deer, you see Bambi
And I see antlers up on the wall
When you see a lake you think picnics
And I see a large mouth up under that log
When you see a priceless friend's painting
I see a drunk naked girl
When you think that riding a wild bull sounds crazy
And I'd like to give it a whirl
These days there's dudes gettin' facials
Manicured, waxed and botoxed
With deep spray-on tans and creamy lotiony hands
You can't grip a tackle box
Yeah, with all of these men linin' up to get neutered
It's hip now to be feminized
But I don't highlight my hair, I've still got a pair
Yeah honey, I'm still a guy
Oh, my eyebrows ain't plucked, there's a gun in my truck
Oh thank God, I'm still a guy
And I see antlers up on the wall
When you see a lake you think picnics
And I see a large mouth up under that log
When you see a priceless friend's painting
I see a drunk naked girl
When you think that riding a wild bull sounds crazy
And I'd like to give it a whirl
These days there's dudes gettin' facials
Manicured, waxed and botoxed
With deep spray-on tans and creamy lotiony hands
You can't grip a tackle box
Yeah, with all of these men linin' up to get neutered
It's hip now to be feminized
But I don't highlight my hair, I've still got a pair
Yeah honey, I'm still a guy
Oh, my eyebrows ain't plucked, there's a gun in my truck
Oh thank God, I'm still a guy
Effeminate men (in the above song, the "dudes getting facials"), in contrast, are associated with elitism and upper-class lifestyles.
Moreover, many people have noted, with great concern, that successful blacks tend to disassociate themselves from poor black communities. They move out into the suburbs and adopt “white” cultural preferences. Black students who do “too well” in school may be criticized for “acting white.”
All of these public images, stories, and stereotypes serve to reinforce boundaries among various groups of people who would be better served by creating a unified front to combat an unjust system. I cannot help but wonder, based on the divide and conquer strategies that have been used to put a wedge been poor white and black, if the public images of these divisions (sexist/homophobic lower-class white and blacks, middle-class versus poor blacks, etc.) spring purely from the social realities.... or if the social realties themselves were partially constructed (and are partially reconstructed) by means of the proliferation of these images and stories in the public sphere.
Is there some iniquitous force lurking in the background, purposefully trying to create and exacerbate all numbers of divisions among the large population of oppressed human beings?
I can speculate, though I have yet to come across any real research. (If anyone knows of any, please comment!) It is a bit curious that, since the time of slavery, white men publicly called into question the masculinity of black males (for instance, calling them “boy”), seemingly trying to provoke them in some way, while scientists simultaneously disseminated their conclusions that black men are inherently hyper-masculine and aggressive. Then, there is the widely-circulated idea that one must be a bread-winner in order to be a “real man,” thus inciting men who are not able to adequately provide for their families to assert their manhood in other ways. Moreover, one must consider who really gets to decide what types of hip hop/hard rock/country music is available in music stores (real or electronic), heard on the radio, featured in movies, and thus ultimately, what artists and songs become representative of these genres? Finally, one must also observe that African Americans for the most part are not allowed to be successful unless they disassociate themselves to a certain degree from black culture and the life of the ghetto. Many students find that they have to “act white” in order to avoid being stigmatized by their teachers, if they want to do well in school. Thus, I can see some evidence that these divisions may be fostered by dominant groups.
If this is the case, then it follows logically that it would be a divide and conquer strategy.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Role of Education in a Capitalist Society
It is not easy to answer the question, "What is the purpose of education?" There are so many competing ideas about what education should be. Furthermore, the history of the development of the institutional apparatus that has become the modern education system is incredibly complex. However, from a historical materialist perspective, neither the "should" nor the "was" directly explain what is. The past may provide the materials, and ideology may affect the nuances, but only current conditions (relationships and structures) can account for the role that education actually plays in late capitalist society.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets. The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system). Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs. Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.
The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology. Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality. One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation. In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology). Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order: most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS. Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.
But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population. During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation." Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists. Assimilation is more powerful than consent. A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control. For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.
Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor. Some argue this is THE function of education. However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes. The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system). This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence. And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.
An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in). It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.
Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education. Those goals include the use of education
-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)
The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable. The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems. The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal. However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable. And so far the system has not been challenged. Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The History of U.S. Cities
I happen to have a personal interest in U.S. urban history, so I decided to write this post on a whim.
I really love U.S. cities, and among a number of reasons is the fact that, given the period of their existence, it is possible to see the progressive unfolding of (in many cases) about two centuries worth of history sedimented in its spatial organization, architecture, and demographic patterns. And this history also happens to be the history of capitalism. There is no greater visual historical map of capitalism than the typical U.S. city.
Beginnings
Many cities in the eastern half of the U.S. were founded during the birthing period of capitalism (18th to early 19th century). The settlement patterns at this point were, in general, much the same as they had always been for a good part of human history. Namely, that they were determined by the location of waterways, which supported the primary form of human and commodity transport. Nascent U.S. cities tended to be small, both in land area and population, as the country as a whole was sparsely populated (it was still a frontier country). Downtown cores sat adjacent to seas and rivers, with industrial zones extending along the waterways. Generally, the wealthy elite either resided in central downtown areas (usually a main street), or owned large plantations in the vicinity and frequented the downtown for its services. The working class populated the rest of the downtown and the industrial zones. The outskirts of town were rural/agricultural.
Transportation Transformation
The first depression of capitalism in the 1840s was largely overcome through investment in the railroad industry. The rapid construction of railroad lines in the U.S. was a boon for British investors, and also facilitated a wave of European immigration (cheap labor). The growth of U.S. cities in the mid to late 19th century proceeded according to the following patterns:
1. Expansion of industrial zones and working class neighborhoods along railroad lines.
2. Influx of European immigrants and, in northern cities, free blacks; consequent population growth
3. Movement of white middle and upper classes away from the downtown core, facilitated by the construction of streetcare lines.
4. Deterioration and overcrowding in the downtown area.
Second Stage of Capitalism and First Wave of Urban Revitalization
Capitalism experienced its second major depression, on a larger scale than the first, in the later 19th century. However, with some reorganization on a global scale (entailing more imperialism), the era that followed was a Belle Opaque for the industrial centers, with transformed energy sources in the form of automated engines and electricity. The automobile industry accelerated growth in many cities. In keeping with these changes, the early 20th century saw a number of developments:
1. Urban renewal projects (following the "City Beautiful" movement)
2. Building boom, modernist architecture (including skyscrapers in some cities)
3. Further movement of upper classes spurred by automobiles, development of suburbs
4. Solidification of segregation, often enforced through neighborhood restrictions based on race/ethnicity
Late Capitalism and Suburbanization
After the depression of the 1930s, capitalism entered its third and current stage. The transition to this phase was marked not so much by technological changes (although automation of the entire production process via assembly line techniques and the like was an important factor), but moreso by organizational changes, including but not limited to the rise of transnational corporations, increasing vertical and horizontal integration, and the movement of manufacturing plants into the suburbs and overseas (to take advantage of lower costs).
During the economic upswing of this period, which lasted from the end of WW2 until about 1970, these organizational changes were accompanied by escalating racial tensions. Accordingly, many U.S. cities at this time experienced:
1. Race riots
2. Civil rights organizing
3. White flight
4. Manufacturing/population shift to the suburbs
5. The beginnings of urban decline
Racial tensions were fueled in part by population increases following WW2, northern migration of African Americans, and the movement of wealth and resources out of the cities (for example, manufacturing plants and offices were an important source of tax revenue) with the concomitant containment of blacks within. To make matters worse, black people were often prevented from owning their own property and were subject to exploitative rents and food prices charged by the suburban-dwelling property owners. However, riots only accelerated the process of white flight and further strained the dwindling resources of many cities.
Economic Stagnation and Urban Decay
By the 1970s, many U.S. cities were bereft of resources and political power, serving essentially as "garbage bins" for the nation's most impoverished people, and abandoned and neglected by everyone else. At this time, the global economy had entered into the period of stagnation which continues to characterize the economy today. Adding insult to injury, the conditions within cities began to deteriorate even further. For the next two decades, city dwellers faced problems of urban blight, a crack epidemic (and consequent imprisonment of a large portion of the young African American male population), and various "revitalization" projects that seemed to uproot, disturb, and harm local communities more than they "revitalized" anything.
Gentrification
When a large bubble was manufactured within the U.S. economy by the mid 90s, young professionals and new (often internet/tech-related) companies began to move back into cities to take advantage of the lower rents and property values. Furthermore, rapidly declining crime rates made these locations more attractive. The combination of temporary (and limited) economic growth along with the new migrations back into the city led to gentrification in circumscrbed neighborhoods, and in some cases, revitalization of entire cities (Washington, D.C. being a prime example).
However, this has been a heterogenous process and it is too early to tell what the lasting effects will be, particularly as the global economy still has not emerged from its longstanding period of stagnation. Stagnation generally ends with a transformation of the foundations of the economy, which in turns shapes the dynamics of city life. It is even possible that the old distinctions - urban/rural/suburban - may not be salient anymore as the spatial organization of economic processes undergoes yet another metamorphosis.
I really love U.S. cities, and among a number of reasons is the fact that, given the period of their existence, it is possible to see the progressive unfolding of (in many cases) about two centuries worth of history sedimented in its spatial organization, architecture, and demographic patterns. And this history also happens to be the history of capitalism. There is no greater visual historical map of capitalism than the typical U.S. city.
Beginnings
Many cities in the eastern half of the U.S. were founded during the birthing period of capitalism (18th to early 19th century). The settlement patterns at this point were, in general, much the same as they had always been for a good part of human history. Namely, that they were determined by the location of waterways, which supported the primary form of human and commodity transport. Nascent U.S. cities tended to be small, both in land area and population, as the country as a whole was sparsely populated (it was still a frontier country). Downtown cores sat adjacent to seas and rivers, with industrial zones extending along the waterways. Generally, the wealthy elite either resided in central downtown areas (usually a main street), or owned large plantations in the vicinity and frequented the downtown for its services. The working class populated the rest of the downtown and the industrial zones. The outskirts of town were rural/agricultural.
Transportation Transformation
The first depression of capitalism in the 1840s was largely overcome through investment in the railroad industry. The rapid construction of railroad lines in the U.S. was a boon for British investors, and also facilitated a wave of European immigration (cheap labor). The growth of U.S. cities in the mid to late 19th century proceeded according to the following patterns:
1. Expansion of industrial zones and working class neighborhoods along railroad lines.
2. Influx of European immigrants and, in northern cities, free blacks; consequent population growth
3. Movement of white middle and upper classes away from the downtown core, facilitated by the construction of streetcare lines.
4. Deterioration and overcrowding in the downtown area.
Second Stage of Capitalism and First Wave of Urban Revitalization
Capitalism experienced its second major depression, on a larger scale than the first, in the later 19th century. However, with some reorganization on a global scale (entailing more imperialism), the era that followed was a Belle Opaque for the industrial centers, with transformed energy sources in the form of automated engines and electricity. The automobile industry accelerated growth in many cities. In keeping with these changes, the early 20th century saw a number of developments:
1. Urban renewal projects (following the "City Beautiful" movement)
2. Building boom, modernist architecture (including skyscrapers in some cities)
3. Further movement of upper classes spurred by automobiles, development of suburbs
4. Solidification of segregation, often enforced through neighborhood restrictions based on race/ethnicity
Late Capitalism and Suburbanization
After the depression of the 1930s, capitalism entered its third and current stage. The transition to this phase was marked not so much by technological changes (although automation of the entire production process via assembly line techniques and the like was an important factor), but moreso by organizational changes, including but not limited to the rise of transnational corporations, increasing vertical and horizontal integration, and the movement of manufacturing plants into the suburbs and overseas (to take advantage of lower costs).
During the economic upswing of this period, which lasted from the end of WW2 until about 1970, these organizational changes were accompanied by escalating racial tensions. Accordingly, many U.S. cities at this time experienced:
1. Race riots
2. Civil rights organizing
3. White flight
4. Manufacturing/population shift to the suburbs
5. The beginnings of urban decline
Racial tensions were fueled in part by population increases following WW2, northern migration of African Americans, and the movement of wealth and resources out of the cities (for example, manufacturing plants and offices were an important source of tax revenue) with the concomitant containment of blacks within. To make matters worse, black people were often prevented from owning their own property and were subject to exploitative rents and food prices charged by the suburban-dwelling property owners. However, riots only accelerated the process of white flight and further strained the dwindling resources of many cities.
Economic Stagnation and Urban Decay
By the 1970s, many U.S. cities were bereft of resources and political power, serving essentially as "garbage bins" for the nation's most impoverished people, and abandoned and neglected by everyone else. At this time, the global economy had entered into the period of stagnation which continues to characterize the economy today. Adding insult to injury, the conditions within cities began to deteriorate even further. For the next two decades, city dwellers faced problems of urban blight, a crack epidemic (and consequent imprisonment of a large portion of the young African American male population), and various "revitalization" projects that seemed to uproot, disturb, and harm local communities more than they "revitalized" anything.
Gentrification
When a large bubble was manufactured within the U.S. economy by the mid 90s, young professionals and new (often internet/tech-related) companies began to move back into cities to take advantage of the lower rents and property values. Furthermore, rapidly declining crime rates made these locations more attractive. The combination of temporary (and limited) economic growth along with the new migrations back into the city led to gentrification in circumscrbed neighborhoods, and in some cases, revitalization of entire cities (Washington, D.C. being a prime example).
However, this has been a heterogenous process and it is too early to tell what the lasting effects will be, particularly as the global economy still has not emerged from its longstanding period of stagnation. Stagnation generally ends with a transformation of the foundations of the economy, which in turns shapes the dynamics of city life. It is even possible that the old distinctions - urban/rural/suburban - may not be salient anymore as the spatial organization of economic processes undergoes yet another metamorphosis.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Evolution and Social Class
There is one more obvious type of inequality supported by the concept of evolution that I would like to discuss. I think I may be rather brief with my remarks because the connection between evolutionary theory and social class is more well known and can be summed up in two words: Social Darwinism.
Quite simply, Social Darwinism is the idea that class inequalities exist because of natural differences in characteristics such as intelligence and discipline. Thus, class inequalities are right and just, and to attempt to question income disparities is to subvert the natural order by which the strong survive and the weak perish. In fact, some have argued that charity is dangerous as it prevents the "survival of the fittest" mechanism from weeding out the weaker human beings.
Now, of course, Social Darwinism does not follow from the principles of actual Darwinism for multiple reasons (for example, the definition of "fitness" in the Darwinian scheme being more tautologically definied as the ability to survive - i.e. reproduce - and containing no implications about any other sort of "value"). However, this does not mean, as some people suggest, that Social Darwinism is simply a distortion or perversion of a valid scientific concept. For one thing, Social Darwinism is certainly in line with other paradigms of evolution that have held more sway over general consciousness, including among contemporary scientists.
More importantly - and this is the point I would like to emphasize with this post - the Ideology of Progress, of which evolutionary theories are a component, is, at its essence, a mechanism of naturalizing inequalities of all forms and thus upholding the social order. This fact, along with the relationship between evolutionary theory and inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality, all seem to suggest that Social Darwinism is less a distortion of the concept of evolution, and more one specific manifestation of the general inherent nature of evolutionary theory and the Ideology of Progress.
Social Darwinism reveals the true nature of evolutionary theory more than it distorts it.
Quite simply, Social Darwinism is the idea that class inequalities exist because of natural differences in characteristics such as intelligence and discipline. Thus, class inequalities are right and just, and to attempt to question income disparities is to subvert the natural order by which the strong survive and the weak perish. In fact, some have argued that charity is dangerous as it prevents the "survival of the fittest" mechanism from weeding out the weaker human beings.
Now, of course, Social Darwinism does not follow from the principles of actual Darwinism for multiple reasons (for example, the definition of "fitness" in the Darwinian scheme being more tautologically definied as the ability to survive - i.e. reproduce - and containing no implications about any other sort of "value"). However, this does not mean, as some people suggest, that Social Darwinism is simply a distortion or perversion of a valid scientific concept. For one thing, Social Darwinism is certainly in line with other paradigms of evolution that have held more sway over general consciousness, including among contemporary scientists.
More importantly - and this is the point I would like to emphasize with this post - the Ideology of Progress, of which evolutionary theories are a component, is, at its essence, a mechanism of naturalizing inequalities of all forms and thus upholding the social order. This fact, along with the relationship between evolutionary theory and inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality, all seem to suggest that Social Darwinism is less a distortion of the concept of evolution, and more one specific manifestation of the general inherent nature of evolutionary theory and the Ideology of Progress.
Social Darwinism reveals the true nature of evolutionary theory more than it distorts it.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Myths About Marx
In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser. Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded. Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more. (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
- Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
- Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement. It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
- Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
- The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist. For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.
I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)