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 race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Friday, May 9, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
"States' Rights" - the Refuge of Racism
With the recent success of the Tea Party and resurgent popularity of Ayn Rand and libertarianism, I think it is useful to trace the history of these strains of thought, as embedded in the "states' rights" discourse. It is important to remember how particular constellations of conservative thought have been shaped by race related issues since the founding of United States. It is too easy to become seduced by the myth that these debates have centered around abstract, noble considerations of individual rights and protection from tyranny. In fact, the debates have always been grounded in very practical concerns about race.
Some of the Founding Fathers were famously uneasy about the issue of slavery, believing it to be cruel and inhumane, even while continuing to own slaves themselves. There was strong opposition to slavery, to varying degrees, from different quarters. Hence, there was a real concern among slave owners that, if the Constitution were ratified, or if the federal government were strong, the abolition of slavery could easily enter into the Constitution. Now, of course, there were other concerns, one of which related to the economic relationship among states. However, that economic system was founded on slavery. The history of race in America has always been entangled in economic concerns, and that is important to this day.
Up until the time of the Civil War and beyond, the South united under the slogan of States' Rights. Resentment toward federal government intervention was particularly salient during the Reconstruction Era. Jim Crow seemed to be a nice way around many of these meddling regulations. ...Until the liberal activist Supreme Court screwed everything up by mandating the desegregation of schools.
It was this desegregation issue that fueled the States' Rights movement for decades. The Republican Party as Americans know it today (or, at least until it started to disintegrate as of late) and the Religious Right that formed its most loyal and important base both took shape in the 1970s. Once again, there were issues fairly unrelated to race that concerned Evangelicals: feminism, sexual liberation, social unrest, etc. Yet, it was the desegregation issue that ultimately spurred them to action. Religious schools were told that they would lose their tax-exempt status if they were segregated. And boom, the Religious Right is formed.
Lately there has been a shift in the Evangelical community, with the younger generation becoming more focused on social justice than social issues. The biggest detractors of "Big Government" are now often more libertarian in orientation. They are worried about all of the taxpayer money being spent on entitlements and social services. They want to cut spending and balance the budget. On the face of it, this seems purely economic. However, examine the discourse a bit, and it is not hard to find racially loaded words and images, playing on the correlation between race and poverty. Tea Party gatherings are no stranger to overt, blatant racism. There is a fear that lazy black and brown (illegal immigrants) people are living high off the hog on the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
And then there is good old fashioned re-imposing racially biased voting laws.
Unfortunately, it seems States' Rights has had less to do with upholding individual dignity than reinforcing a racial caste system.
Some of the Founding Fathers were famously uneasy about the issue of slavery, believing it to be cruel and inhumane, even while continuing to own slaves themselves. There was strong opposition to slavery, to varying degrees, from different quarters. Hence, there was a real concern among slave owners that, if the Constitution were ratified, or if the federal government were strong, the abolition of slavery could easily enter into the Constitution. Now, of course, there were other concerns, one of which related to the economic relationship among states. However, that economic system was founded on slavery. The history of race in America has always been entangled in economic concerns, and that is important to this day.
Up until the time of the Civil War and beyond, the South united under the slogan of States' Rights. Resentment toward federal government intervention was particularly salient during the Reconstruction Era. Jim Crow seemed to be a nice way around many of these meddling regulations. ...Until the liberal activist Supreme Court screwed everything up by mandating the desegregation of schools.
It was this desegregation issue that fueled the States' Rights movement for decades. The Republican Party as Americans know it today (or, at least until it started to disintegrate as of late) and the Religious Right that formed its most loyal and important base both took shape in the 1970s. Once again, there were issues fairly unrelated to race that concerned Evangelicals: feminism, sexual liberation, social unrest, etc. Yet, it was the desegregation issue that ultimately spurred them to action. Religious schools were told that they would lose their tax-exempt status if they were segregated. And boom, the Religious Right is formed.
Lately there has been a shift in the Evangelical community, with the younger generation becoming more focused on social justice than social issues. The biggest detractors of "Big Government" are now often more libertarian in orientation. They are worried about all of the taxpayer money being spent on entitlements and social services. They want to cut spending and balance the budget. On the face of it, this seems purely economic. However, examine the discourse a bit, and it is not hard to find racially loaded words and images, playing on the correlation between race and poverty. Tea Party gatherings are no stranger to overt, blatant racism. There is a fear that lazy black and brown (illegal immigrants) people are living high off the hog on the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
And then there is good old fashioned re-imposing racially biased voting laws.
Unfortunately, it seems States' Rights has had less to do with upholding individual dignity than reinforcing a racial caste system.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Is Oppression Fun?
I recently had a conversation with a man who explained gender studies to me thusly: “It’s a bunch of white, middle class women who have it really good, they’ve got nothing but privilege, but they want to feel like they’re oppressed too. They don’t want to be left out of that game!” Of course this sentiment has been applied, in one form or another, to pretty much every form of oppression. The basic premise is that there is something exciting or rewarding about being oppressed – so much so that everyone wants to be oppressed! It’s treated as a badge of honor. What ultimately lies behind this attitude, I believe, is discomfort with any challenge to white, male privilege.
Now, one must allow for the fact that white, middle-class feminists have all too often been blind to their own privilege. That is true. And they have often defended their race and class privilege at the direct expense of working class white women, immigrants, and women of color. However, oppression is complex, particularly in its intersectionalities. Historically, white, middle class women have enjoyed many things – especially wealth and better working (or non-working) conditions; yet during the first waves of feminism they still were not able to vote, express their opinions publicly, receive professional designations, choose when to have sex, or make high-level household decisions. Women of any race or class have been viewed as less intelligent, rational, and strong. Even today, one cannot deny the existence of pay disparities, rape and other forms of assault, rampant eating disorders, unequal treatment in the health care system, disproportionate responsibility for childcare, sexualization/objectification, false beliefs about women’s analytical capabilities, the “big strong man” motif, etc. etc.
There is, however, another variation on the “everyone wants to oppressed” routine that I frequently encounter. This one does find white hetero men trying to inhabit the role of the oppressed. Not, though, because real oppression is actually desirable to them. To the contrary, this attitude is a response to perceived challenges to their privilege – privilege that they are terrified of losing. This claim of oppression is rather a strategic means of trying to defend their privilege – without looking too overtly like they are defending their privilege. Too bad for them, though, it is very clear what they are doing.
The reason why the “while male oppression” claim should not be taken seriously - if one has any doubt that it is a sham – is the inability of these men to articulate any social/political/economic foundation for their oppression. This claim is not embedded within any structural analysis that examines the way in which “being male” inherently places one at the wrong end of relations of exploitation and domination. It is impossible to find any structural basis for male oppression. In the U.S., for example, white, middle/upper-class men are over-represented in government, in business, and in science and engineering. They make more money than anyone else (even when one removes the class dimension) and have greater educational advantages. They are not hit as hard by unemployment, wage stagnation, urban decay, and cuts in social spending. White men are grossly under-represented in prison, and less likely to have to resort to low-wage service jobs.
It is true that white men are afraid that college and employers only look for women and people of color. However, the facts prove otherwise. This unfounded fear is born, in part, out of the general competitiveness of capitalist society and the instability of current times (college admissions are more competitive as more people pursue higher education; and having a degree does not guarantee anyone a job). Despite the fact that they are often spared the full force of this competition and instability, white men feel the need to place blame on others who are far more helpless (rather than the system itself).
And then there is oppression at the micro-level. Even white, middle class women have to deal with daily impediments to their agency: when, for example, they are never able to decide who opens the door or who goes in first; when assumptions are made about their rationality; when “emotional” dimensions of their behavior are highlighted; when they are presumed to be weak and helpless in all situations (unable to open doors and lift boxes, e.g.); when their assertiveness is construed as “bitchyness” and their silence as ignorance. This may not seem significant enough to some people to qualify as real oppression (remember that this micro level is in addition to everything else addressed above); yet, one should realize the full effects: everyday women are subtly made to feel weak and helpless; they struggle to present themselves as rational decision-makers who are not at the mercy of their emotions; and they are constantly marked as “special” human beings whose fragile existence must be carefully protected. A woman can never be “just” a professional or “just” a manager or “just” an athlete or “just” a politician or “just” a scientist.
White men, on the other hand, feel that they own public space. They never hesitate to make their voices heard and to assert their agency. The other day I was on a bus, and a couple of the passengers started to rudely (and loudly) command the bus driver how to make a difficult turn. “Frat boys,” I thought. Sure enough, when I turned around I saw college aged (ish) white guys. From my own experience, when someone is being a bit too loud or a bit too pushy, more often than not it is a young, white, straight, middle/upper class male. And is it any coincidence that the people who take out their emotional frustrations via mass public shootings - the prime example of claiming ownership over public space - are almost entirely all white men? All too often, though, white men do not perceive (or perhaps, more accurately, will not admit?) that they have this freedom and sense of entitlement. Instead, they nurse their resentment over the fact that they can’t continue to behave in ways that subtly make other people feel inferior or helpless, without potentially (though I would challenge far too infrequently) being called out on it. They are horrified – horrified! – at the suggestion that they give some thought to their speech and actions, and perhaps even listen to the perspectives of others.
The usual resort to “preserving traditions” is a clumsy way of defending white, male privilege. The misguided fears about women and people of color dominating academia and employment are an expression of white, male feelings of entitlement to the upper tiers of society. And the frustration with “politically correct” language and non-traditional theories (feminism, post-colonialism, critical race theory, etc.) is born out of the desire to preserve the patriarchal/bourgeois/racist ideology that places white men at the apex of civilization and progress.
Being oppressed is in no way enjoyable, and white men know it. That’s why they’re doing everything they can to maintain their dominance.
*Disclaimer: obviously, when I say “white men” or any variation thereof, I am not stereotyping or condemning ALL white men. I am referring specifically to those people who make the types of arguments that I am addressing here – those that try to embody the archetype of the White Man as a means of dominating or placing themselves above others. The people who are too concerned with preserving traditions to actually listen to the things other people have to say.
Now, one must allow for the fact that white, middle-class feminists have all too often been blind to their own privilege. That is true. And they have often defended their race and class privilege at the direct expense of working class white women, immigrants, and women of color. However, oppression is complex, particularly in its intersectionalities. Historically, white, middle class women have enjoyed many things – especially wealth and better working (or non-working) conditions; yet during the first waves of feminism they still were not able to vote, express their opinions publicly, receive professional designations, choose when to have sex, or make high-level household decisions. Women of any race or class have been viewed as less intelligent, rational, and strong. Even today, one cannot deny the existence of pay disparities, rape and other forms of assault, rampant eating disorders, unequal treatment in the health care system, disproportionate responsibility for childcare, sexualization/objectification, false beliefs about women’s analytical capabilities, the “big strong man” motif, etc. etc.
There is, however, another variation on the “everyone wants to oppressed” routine that I frequently encounter. This one does find white hetero men trying to inhabit the role of the oppressed. Not, though, because real oppression is actually desirable to them. To the contrary, this attitude is a response to perceived challenges to their privilege – privilege that they are terrified of losing. This claim of oppression is rather a strategic means of trying to defend their privilege – without looking too overtly like they are defending their privilege. Too bad for them, though, it is very clear what they are doing.
The reason why the “while male oppression” claim should not be taken seriously - if one has any doubt that it is a sham – is the inability of these men to articulate any social/political/economic foundation for their oppression. This claim is not embedded within any structural analysis that examines the way in which “being male” inherently places one at the wrong end of relations of exploitation and domination. It is impossible to find any structural basis for male oppression. In the U.S., for example, white, middle/upper-class men are over-represented in government, in business, and in science and engineering. They make more money than anyone else (even when one removes the class dimension) and have greater educational advantages. They are not hit as hard by unemployment, wage stagnation, urban decay, and cuts in social spending. White men are grossly under-represented in prison, and less likely to have to resort to low-wage service jobs.
It is true that white men are afraid that college and employers only look for women and people of color. However, the facts prove otherwise. This unfounded fear is born, in part, out of the general competitiveness of capitalist society and the instability of current times (college admissions are more competitive as more people pursue higher education; and having a degree does not guarantee anyone a job). Despite the fact that they are often spared the full force of this competition and instability, white men feel the need to place blame on others who are far more helpless (rather than the system itself).
And then there is oppression at the micro-level. Even white, middle class women have to deal with daily impediments to their agency: when, for example, they are never able to decide who opens the door or who goes in first; when assumptions are made about their rationality; when “emotional” dimensions of their behavior are highlighted; when they are presumed to be weak and helpless in all situations (unable to open doors and lift boxes, e.g.); when their assertiveness is construed as “bitchyness” and their silence as ignorance. This may not seem significant enough to some people to qualify as real oppression (remember that this micro level is in addition to everything else addressed above); yet, one should realize the full effects: everyday women are subtly made to feel weak and helpless; they struggle to present themselves as rational decision-makers who are not at the mercy of their emotions; and they are constantly marked as “special” human beings whose fragile existence must be carefully protected. A woman can never be “just” a professional or “just” a manager or “just” an athlete or “just” a politician or “just” a scientist.
White men, on the other hand, feel that they own public space. They never hesitate to make their voices heard and to assert their agency. The other day I was on a bus, and a couple of the passengers started to rudely (and loudly) command the bus driver how to make a difficult turn. “Frat boys,” I thought. Sure enough, when I turned around I saw college aged (ish) white guys. From my own experience, when someone is being a bit too loud or a bit too pushy, more often than not it is a young, white, straight, middle/upper class male. And is it any coincidence that the people who take out their emotional frustrations via mass public shootings - the prime example of claiming ownership over public space - are almost entirely all white men? All too often, though, white men do not perceive (or perhaps, more accurately, will not admit?) that they have this freedom and sense of entitlement. Instead, they nurse their resentment over the fact that they can’t continue to behave in ways that subtly make other people feel inferior or helpless, without potentially (though I would challenge far too infrequently) being called out on it. They are horrified – horrified! – at the suggestion that they give some thought to their speech and actions, and perhaps even listen to the perspectives of others.
The usual resort to “preserving traditions” is a clumsy way of defending white, male privilege. The misguided fears about women and people of color dominating academia and employment are an expression of white, male feelings of entitlement to the upper tiers of society. And the frustration with “politically correct” language and non-traditional theories (feminism, post-colonialism, critical race theory, etc.) is born out of the desire to preserve the patriarchal/bourgeois/racist ideology that places white men at the apex of civilization and progress.
Being oppressed is in no way enjoyable, and white men know it. That’s why they’re doing everything they can to maintain their dominance.
*Disclaimer: obviously, when I say “white men” or any variation thereof, I am not stereotyping or condemning ALL white men. I am referring specifically to those people who make the types of arguments that I am addressing here – those that try to embody the archetype of the White Man as a means of dominating or placing themselves above others. The people who are too concerned with preserving traditions to actually listen to the things other people have to say.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Progress or Dystopia, Part 4
Equal Rights
The last main claim in support of progress is that modern society is so much more tolerant and progressive than “traditional” societies. We ended slavery. We ended Jim Crow. Women entered the workforce. Gays can serve in the military. Let’s pat ourselves on the back.
I addressed some of these claims in my post about issue based change versus systemic change. If you think the U.S. has eradicated its racial caste system, read Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. If you think modern, industrial societies have successfully dealt with racism, read any comment thread that exists anywhere on the internet. If you think women are liberated, look at statistics concerning rape and eating disorders, examine the gendered division of labor in any industry or organization, and look at the images of women promulgated by the entertainment industry. If you think America (or any other industrial society) is a melting pot, pay attention to discussions (and I use that word lightly) about immigration. You do not need to look hard to find hateful language directed at any particular group of people. In fact, the internet has made it easier to disseminate this vitriol.
The fact of the matter is, all of the social/economic/political processes that demand structured inequality remain in place. It is important to note that the ideological basis of these divisions and prejudices are completely modern:
-The concept of “race” developed in the Enlightenment era as a means of creating divisions among the population of people oppressed by the nascent capitalist system. It has continued to function as a mechanism for segregating interests and obtaining free or cheap labor.
-The relegation of women’s work to the domestic sphere was a product of the new division of labor that emerged when production moved outside of the home and into the factory. Furthermore, the absorption of women into the post-WW2 labor force is a reflection of the need for cheap labor, an expanded labor force and a new market for manufactured goods (dishwashers! washing machines! mass-produced clothes!). The combination of these two forces (domestic responsibility and careers outside the home) has only served to double the burden that women must bear. Now women are expected to do it all.
-Michel Foucault argued that the idea of “homosexuality” (even more, sexuality in general) did not arise until the late 19th century, and has served to make sexual activities definitive of a person’s entire identity and consciousness as a human being. Some scholars have provided evidence that the creation of “homosexuality” as a pathological mode of being was born out of eugenicist fears that white reproduction was not occurring at a healthy rate. It should never be forgotten that “homosexuality” was a scientific/medical concept before it entered popular discourse.
-It can be just as convincingly argued that fears/abhorrence of immigrants, terrorists, Muslims, and the like, are byproducts of colonialism and nation-building, especially the creation of immutable state boundaries, the ideals of ethnically “pure” states, and all the various forms of neocolonialism that produce backlash against the modern world order.
The prejudices that modernity, in all of its enlightened glory, is supposedly ameliorating are the very prejudices created by modernity.
The last main claim in support of progress is that modern society is so much more tolerant and progressive than “traditional” societies. We ended slavery. We ended Jim Crow. Women entered the workforce. Gays can serve in the military. Let’s pat ourselves on the back.
I addressed some of these claims in my post about issue based change versus systemic change. If you think the U.S. has eradicated its racial caste system, read Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. If you think modern, industrial societies have successfully dealt with racism, read any comment thread that exists anywhere on the internet. If you think women are liberated, look at statistics concerning rape and eating disorders, examine the gendered division of labor in any industry or organization, and look at the images of women promulgated by the entertainment industry. If you think America (or any other industrial society) is a melting pot, pay attention to discussions (and I use that word lightly) about immigration. You do not need to look hard to find hateful language directed at any particular group of people. In fact, the internet has made it easier to disseminate this vitriol.
The fact of the matter is, all of the social/economic/political processes that demand structured inequality remain in place. It is important to note that the ideological basis of these divisions and prejudices are completely modern:
-The concept of “race” developed in the Enlightenment era as a means of creating divisions among the population of people oppressed by the nascent capitalist system. It has continued to function as a mechanism for segregating interests and obtaining free or cheap labor.
-The relegation of women’s work to the domestic sphere was a product of the new division of labor that emerged when production moved outside of the home and into the factory. Furthermore, the absorption of women into the post-WW2 labor force is a reflection of the need for cheap labor, an expanded labor force and a new market for manufactured goods (dishwashers! washing machines! mass-produced clothes!). The combination of these two forces (domestic responsibility and careers outside the home) has only served to double the burden that women must bear. Now women are expected to do it all.
-Michel Foucault argued that the idea of “homosexuality” (even more, sexuality in general) did not arise until the late 19th century, and has served to make sexual activities definitive of a person’s entire identity and consciousness as a human being. Some scholars have provided evidence that the creation of “homosexuality” as a pathological mode of being was born out of eugenicist fears that white reproduction was not occurring at a healthy rate. It should never be forgotten that “homosexuality” was a scientific/medical concept before it entered popular discourse.
-It can be just as convincingly argued that fears/abhorrence of immigrants, terrorists, Muslims, and the like, are byproducts of colonialism and nation-building, especially the creation of immutable state boundaries, the ideals of ethnically “pure” states, and all the various forms of neocolonialism that produce backlash against the modern world order.
The prejudices that modernity, in all of its enlightened glory, is supposedly ameliorating are the very prejudices created by modernity.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Book Review: The New Jim Crow
By Michelle Alexander
The New Jim Crow has been creating a bit of a buzz. The importance of this book is its claim that America’s racial caste system still exists: the prison is the new plantation. Alexander makes the startling claim that there are more African Americans in prison today than there were enslaved in 1850. With all the attention given to America’s supposed racial progress (part of the larger Ideology of Progress, which is used to trumpet Western cultural/moral superiority), Alexander provides a sobering and much needed wake-up call to the contentedly oblivious citizens of the United States. Her challenge to prevailing ideas about racial equality is indispensible. Although she is obviously not the first person to question the true extent of racial equity in the United States, by framing current conditions as a “racial caste system” she is able to highlight structural continuities throughout U.S. history and carefully consider the difficulties presented to those who desire real systemic transformation.
To bolster her argument that the War on Drugs and the prison-industrial complex work together to sustain America’s racial caste system, Alexander describes the many critical points in the criminal justice process at which discriminatory practices are both legal and institutionalized. To start, Alexander notes that rates of drug use and sale are fairly identical across all racial/ethnic lines. In other words, African Americans do not use or sell drugs with any greater frequency than white Americans do. Yet, the War on Drugs is waged predominately in African American communities and random searches are largely targeted at people of color. Large-scale transfers of military equipment for use in drug law enforcement has increased violence and further diminished the security of “ghetto” neighborhoods. After their arrest, African Americans are subject to racial bias in the criminal justice system: prosecutors seek harsher sentencing for black defendants and are more likely to bring their cases to trial. Minimum sentencing laws ensure that minor infractions (possession of small amounts of marijuana, for example) result in years behind bars. Furthermore, these sentencing measures focus on drugs that are associated with people of color (e.g. possession of crack, a “black drug,” will land you many more years in prison than cocaine, a “rich, white person drug.”) Finally, once prisoners are released, additional punishments (such as excessive fees, ineligibility for welfare and public housing, and the loss of one’s right to vote) impact the lives of poor, urban dwellers more severely than those who have greater personal and familial financial security. The result of all of the above policies and practices is that, despite equality in drug use and sale, a very significant percentage of African American men (in Washington, D.C. for example it is around 75%) are at some point arrested and thus for the rest of their lives face all of the discrimination that was institutionalized in the Jim Crow era (hence “The New Jim Crow”).
Michelle Alexander’s broader arguments about reform and social transformation echo a number of key points that I have already discussed in this blog. 1) Policies like affirmative action and the presence of “token” minorities in the upper echelons of society, to the extent that they obscure the reality of on-going systemic oppression, may cause more harm than good. 2) Reformism is doomed to failure because it divides people’s energies and attentions and fails to confront the root causes of inequality. 3) We are not a post-racial society; our progress is, on the whole, illusory (in Alexander’s words “cosmetic”). To the third point, one need only look at the comment threads.... well.... anywhere on the internet, to see evidence of overt racism.
However, Alexander could have taken her argument even further. Yes, affirmative action is diverting attention and resources away from real systemic change. But is the War on Drugs really the root of the racial caste system? Slavery and Jim Crow were both confronted head on, but that did not stop the caste system from continuing unabated. That is because the root of racial caste is not any particular policy or institution, but rather the system itself. That is, capitalism. Alexander comes close to openly invoking capitalism as the cause of racial hostility, but always censors herself before going too far. Probably this is because she is trying to appeal to a “mainstream” audience and does want to sound too radical. Nonetheless, that is where the real battle is. That is where all of our energy and resources must be directed. If we want real change, we must confront capitalism. We need to educate the public, infiltrate the media, spread an awareness of the reality of capitalism in order to dampen the power of the propaganda currently dominating public discourse.
The New Jim Crow has been creating a bit of a buzz. The importance of this book is its claim that America’s racial caste system still exists: the prison is the new plantation. Alexander makes the startling claim that there are more African Americans in prison today than there were enslaved in 1850. With all the attention given to America’s supposed racial progress (part of the larger Ideology of Progress, which is used to trumpet Western cultural/moral superiority), Alexander provides a sobering and much needed wake-up call to the contentedly oblivious citizens of the United States. Her challenge to prevailing ideas about racial equality is indispensible. Although she is obviously not the first person to question the true extent of racial equity in the United States, by framing current conditions as a “racial caste system” she is able to highlight structural continuities throughout U.S. history and carefully consider the difficulties presented to those who desire real systemic transformation.
To bolster her argument that the War on Drugs and the prison-industrial complex work together to sustain America’s racial caste system, Alexander describes the many critical points in the criminal justice process at which discriminatory practices are both legal and institutionalized. To start, Alexander notes that rates of drug use and sale are fairly identical across all racial/ethnic lines. In other words, African Americans do not use or sell drugs with any greater frequency than white Americans do. Yet, the War on Drugs is waged predominately in African American communities and random searches are largely targeted at people of color. Large-scale transfers of military equipment for use in drug law enforcement has increased violence and further diminished the security of “ghetto” neighborhoods. After their arrest, African Americans are subject to racial bias in the criminal justice system: prosecutors seek harsher sentencing for black defendants and are more likely to bring their cases to trial. Minimum sentencing laws ensure that minor infractions (possession of small amounts of marijuana, for example) result in years behind bars. Furthermore, these sentencing measures focus on drugs that are associated with people of color (e.g. possession of crack, a “black drug,” will land you many more years in prison than cocaine, a “rich, white person drug.”) Finally, once prisoners are released, additional punishments (such as excessive fees, ineligibility for welfare and public housing, and the loss of one’s right to vote) impact the lives of poor, urban dwellers more severely than those who have greater personal and familial financial security. The result of all of the above policies and practices is that, despite equality in drug use and sale, a very significant percentage of African American men (in Washington, D.C. for example it is around 75%) are at some point arrested and thus for the rest of their lives face all of the discrimination that was institutionalized in the Jim Crow era (hence “The New Jim Crow”).
Michelle Alexander’s broader arguments about reform and social transformation echo a number of key points that I have already discussed in this blog. 1) Policies like affirmative action and the presence of “token” minorities in the upper echelons of society, to the extent that they obscure the reality of on-going systemic oppression, may cause more harm than good. 2) Reformism is doomed to failure because it divides people’s energies and attentions and fails to confront the root causes of inequality. 3) We are not a post-racial society; our progress is, on the whole, illusory (in Alexander’s words “cosmetic”). To the third point, one need only look at the comment threads.... well.... anywhere on the internet, to see evidence of overt racism.
However, Alexander could have taken her argument even further. Yes, affirmative action is diverting attention and resources away from real systemic change. But is the War on Drugs really the root of the racial caste system? Slavery and Jim Crow were both confronted head on, but that did not stop the caste system from continuing unabated. That is because the root of racial caste is not any particular policy or institution, but rather the system itself. That is, capitalism. Alexander comes close to openly invoking capitalism as the cause of racial hostility, but always censors herself before going too far. Probably this is because she is trying to appeal to a “mainstream” audience and does want to sound too radical. Nonetheless, that is where the real battle is. That is where all of our energy and resources must be directed. If we want real change, we must confront capitalism. We need to educate the public, infiltrate the media, spread an awareness of the reality of capitalism in order to dampen the power of the propaganda currently dominating public discourse.
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.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
The Recording Industry and the Monopoly on Music
I have been a long-time opponent of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Around the time they began to fight against file-sharing, and well before I was able to formulate my thoughts in a very theoretical way, I was already on my crusade. Granted, my crusade has consisted mostly of being very angry, and occasionally wearing an anti-RIAA t-shirt.
Now, of course, I can pinpoint exactly where I take principled issue with the Recording Industry:
1. No one brings entirely new things into existence, and creativity depends on a free flow of ideas.
2. Music is a social, not an individual, phenomenon.
3. The Recording Industry reinforces social boundaries.
4. The Recording Industry controls the availability of music and attempts to manipulate trends and tastes
To expand on each point….
1. See post about intellectual property. But I also want to ask, why would anyone think that no one would have any incentive to create good music if not guaranteed millions of dollars in return? Have there not been troubadores, for pretty much all of human existence, willing to live meal by meal and entertaining without any expected rate of return? Do not many people choose to be musicians knowing very well that they will probably not make much money? This is the music I WANT to hear.
2. Historically, music has been created for communal purposes: special music for rituals and rites of passage; entertainment for social gatherings and dances; songs to memorialize group history and lore; songs for travel. Of course, everyone riffs off of ideas already in existence (see point number one) and widespread recycling of popular melodies has been more of the norm than the aberration. Music is very often performed with ensembles and not infrequently through collaborative improvisation. And music still plays a vital role at parties, weddings, sporting events, public venues, religious services, civic ceremonies, holiday celebrations, and is incorporated into pretty much all nonprint media forms. Now, I do not mean to be ahistorical and absolutist and suggest that the nature and function of music can never change. But the changes that have occurred have been for the sole purpose of profit. More importantly, since changes have occurred very unevenly, it is impossible to enforce copyright law consistently, and of course the punishment seems to far FAR outweigh the "crime." Why should we consider akin to stealing a diamond something that has been so entwined with social life for all of human history?
3. It is sometimes claimed that “rock ‘n roll” finally erased racial boundaries – was the first melding of African-American and white American musical traditions. Setting aside the inaccuracy of the latter claim, I tend to get very annoyed by this utter nonsense. The boundaries were never erased. The recording industry, through its labeling and marketing techniques, has left them quite intact, if not further solidified them. The creation of charts, the organization of record stores, and the development of radio formats all depend on Recording Industry categories, which are wholly inflected with race and gender. The original term for “R&B” (the Industry’s euphemism for “black music”) was originally “race music.” At some point down the line it became not so “nice” to be that explicit, but the racial undertones remained. For example, in the 60s they felt the need to distinguish “blue-eyed soul” from plain old “soul,” in an effort, I suppose, to avoid racial mixing within a single category. I find it interesting that Hip-hop and R&B – two completely distinct genres – often appear together as Hip-Hop/R&B. The important thing is, black music is black music. On that note, I also found it interesting that Eminem (one of a scant few popular white rappers) was always played on my area rock stations, the sole form of hip-hop ever played by those formats. And then there is gender. Usually female musicians are confined to the sugary center of the industry – pop music. Even to the small extent that they have seeped into the domain of rock, they tend to be relegated to the singer role. No playing any complicated instruments for women! When female groups became popular in the rock ‘n roll era (and the new, edgy rock ‘n roll music was almost exclusively male at the beginning) they too were separated into their own marked category: the “girl group” genre. In an opposite move, the term “boy band” became popular to describe all-male groups who performed a style of music that was becoming increasingly “feminized.” Beyond race and gender, the music industry also reinforces class boundaries… but I feel this paragraph is long enough already.
4. The industry’s control over the circulation and availability of music is, I think, one of its most heinous crimes. Obviously they make it difficult for new and/or unconventional artists to “break through,” while saturating our airwaves with a couple of hand-picked photogenic performers. Fortunately, the internet has been undermining that aspect of the Industry’s control, though only very weakly. The Industry also determines what gets played, and in what proportions, by pretty much every radio station in the country. Stations used to have a lot of independence. Not anymore. This has greatly reduced the variety of music being played. The same tired old stuff gets played ad nauseum. The Industry, taking a cue perhaps from the fashion industry, has tried many times to create new “scenes” and genres. It is constantly trying to fabricate and capitalize on “the next big thing.” (As much as individual artists try vainly to protest that they “just play rock ‘n roll man.”) They discover The Darkness and wet their pants over the “Hair Metal Revival” which certainly must follow (this, of course, being an example of utter failure). Above all else: they never EVER pass up an opportunity to exploit the passions of pre-teens…. The perennial cash cow.
The bottom line is, the Recording Industry was developed to monopolize and control. I’d rather it never existed.
Now, of course, I can pinpoint exactly where I take principled issue with the Recording Industry:
1. No one brings entirely new things into existence, and creativity depends on a free flow of ideas.
2. Music is a social, not an individual, phenomenon.
3. The Recording Industry reinforces social boundaries.
4. The Recording Industry controls the availability of music and attempts to manipulate trends and tastes
To expand on each point….
1. See post about intellectual property. But I also want to ask, why would anyone think that no one would have any incentive to create good music if not guaranteed millions of dollars in return? Have there not been troubadores, for pretty much all of human existence, willing to live meal by meal and entertaining without any expected rate of return? Do not many people choose to be musicians knowing very well that they will probably not make much money? This is the music I WANT to hear.
2. Historically, music has been created for communal purposes: special music for rituals and rites of passage; entertainment for social gatherings and dances; songs to memorialize group history and lore; songs for travel. Of course, everyone riffs off of ideas already in existence (see point number one) and widespread recycling of popular melodies has been more of the norm than the aberration. Music is very often performed with ensembles and not infrequently through collaborative improvisation. And music still plays a vital role at parties, weddings, sporting events, public venues, religious services, civic ceremonies, holiday celebrations, and is incorporated into pretty much all nonprint media forms. Now, I do not mean to be ahistorical and absolutist and suggest that the nature and function of music can never change. But the changes that have occurred have been for the sole purpose of profit. More importantly, since changes have occurred very unevenly, it is impossible to enforce copyright law consistently, and of course the punishment seems to far FAR outweigh the "crime." Why should we consider akin to stealing a diamond something that has been so entwined with social life for all of human history?
3. It is sometimes claimed that “rock ‘n roll” finally erased racial boundaries – was the first melding of African-American and white American musical traditions. Setting aside the inaccuracy of the latter claim, I tend to get very annoyed by this utter nonsense. The boundaries were never erased. The recording industry, through its labeling and marketing techniques, has left them quite intact, if not further solidified them. The creation of charts, the organization of record stores, and the development of radio formats all depend on Recording Industry categories, which are wholly inflected with race and gender. The original term for “R&B” (the Industry’s euphemism for “black music”) was originally “race music.” At some point down the line it became not so “nice” to be that explicit, but the racial undertones remained. For example, in the 60s they felt the need to distinguish “blue-eyed soul” from plain old “soul,” in an effort, I suppose, to avoid racial mixing within a single category. I find it interesting that Hip-hop and R&B – two completely distinct genres – often appear together as Hip-Hop/R&B. The important thing is, black music is black music. On that note, I also found it interesting that Eminem (one of a scant few popular white rappers) was always played on my area rock stations, the sole form of hip-hop ever played by those formats. And then there is gender. Usually female musicians are confined to the sugary center of the industry – pop music. Even to the small extent that they have seeped into the domain of rock, they tend to be relegated to the singer role. No playing any complicated instruments for women! When female groups became popular in the rock ‘n roll era (and the new, edgy rock ‘n roll music was almost exclusively male at the beginning) they too were separated into their own marked category: the “girl group” genre. In an opposite move, the term “boy band” became popular to describe all-male groups who performed a style of music that was becoming increasingly “feminized.” Beyond race and gender, the music industry also reinforces class boundaries… but I feel this paragraph is long enough already.
4. The industry’s control over the circulation and availability of music is, I think, one of its most heinous crimes. Obviously they make it difficult for new and/or unconventional artists to “break through,” while saturating our airwaves with a couple of hand-picked photogenic performers. Fortunately, the internet has been undermining that aspect of the Industry’s control, though only very weakly. The Industry also determines what gets played, and in what proportions, by pretty much every radio station in the country. Stations used to have a lot of independence. Not anymore. This has greatly reduced the variety of music being played. The same tired old stuff gets played ad nauseum. The Industry, taking a cue perhaps from the fashion industry, has tried many times to create new “scenes” and genres. It is constantly trying to fabricate and capitalize on “the next big thing.” (As much as individual artists try vainly to protest that they “just play rock ‘n roll man.”) They discover The Darkness and wet their pants over the “Hair Metal Revival” which certainly must follow (this, of course, being an example of utter failure). Above all else: they never EVER pass up an opportunity to exploit the passions of pre-teens…. The perennial cash cow.
The bottom line is, the Recording Industry was developed to monopolize and control. I’d rather it never existed.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Education for Social Equity
The first two landmarks in American education in the post-WW2 era are Brown v. Board of Education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Both were reflections of a new focus, during a period of economic growth, on using the education system as a tool to promote social equity.
Brown v. Board of Education marked the beginning of the Civil Rights movement. The result of this 1954 Supreme Court case was an active effort to desegregate schools, with the intent of improving the quality of education for African American children. As the saying goes, separate is inherently unequal, and segregated black schools suffered from lack of funding and resources. In actuality, though, the project of school desegregation was another excellent way of placating those who might challenge the system, without significantly altering any social reality. Desegregation did not close achievement gaps or erase the correlation between race and poverty. What did end up happening was that African American students were often relegated to lower academic tracks (the tracking system, in which students within a single school receive differential education, supposedly according to their abilities and needs, was still popular for several more decades) and were subject to lowered expectations and discrimination by their teachers. Of course, I do not believe that desegregation in itself is bad, nor do I wish to see the schools resegregated, however schools alone cannot solve structural racism. To the contrary, educational reforms are limited by structural racism.
The ESEA of 1965 was part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty." Among other things, it provided funds (the famous Title I funding) to impoverished schools and districts. The hope here was that poverty, and the educational achievements gaps that went along with it, were simply the result of a lack of money. Hence, providing money to those in need would eliminate these gaps and help raise children out of poverty. Once again, this did more to make people feel good that something was being done, rather than do anything about poverty - or the quality of education received by those living in poverty. Poverty is a structural problem and cannot be solved with money. Even with Title I funds, children from blighted areas do not reach the same levels of proficiency, on average, as their more well-to-do peers.
"Panacea" is a word that is commonly used in the field of education. That is because educators constantly have to remind themselves and others that education is not a panacea for social problems. In fact, it is quite the opposite: educational equity begins with social equity.
Brown v. Board of Education marked the beginning of the Civil Rights movement. The result of this 1954 Supreme Court case was an active effort to desegregate schools, with the intent of improving the quality of education for African American children. As the saying goes, separate is inherently unequal, and segregated black schools suffered from lack of funding and resources. In actuality, though, the project of school desegregation was another excellent way of placating those who might challenge the system, without significantly altering any social reality. Desegregation did not close achievement gaps or erase the correlation between race and poverty. What did end up happening was that African American students were often relegated to lower academic tracks (the tracking system, in which students within a single school receive differential education, supposedly according to their abilities and needs, was still popular for several more decades) and were subject to lowered expectations and discrimination by their teachers. Of course, I do not believe that desegregation in itself is bad, nor do I wish to see the schools resegregated, however schools alone cannot solve structural racism. To the contrary, educational reforms are limited by structural racism.
The ESEA of 1965 was part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty." Among other things, it provided funds (the famous Title I funding) to impoverished schools and districts. The hope here was that poverty, and the educational achievements gaps that went along with it, were simply the result of a lack of money. Hence, providing money to those in need would eliminate these gaps and help raise children out of poverty. Once again, this did more to make people feel good that something was being done, rather than do anything about poverty - or the quality of education received by those living in poverty. Poverty is a structural problem and cannot be solved with money. Even with Title I funds, children from blighted areas do not reach the same levels of proficiency, on average, as their more well-to-do peers.
"Panacea" is a word that is commonly used in the field of education. That is because educators constantly have to remind themselves and others that education is not a panacea for social problems. In fact, it is quite the opposite: educational equity begins with social equity.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Race and Double Standards
The other night I was out with a group of people that I did not know that well. I am not sure how the topic of race came up (it seemed out of the blue).
One woman said, "If you just say what race a person is, people call you a racist." She pointed to bartender, saying, "hispanic,' and then, "I'm racist!"
She continued. "You can only say your own race - that's okay - but not anyone else's."
Some other comments followed this, including one man who, in the midst of insisting that stereotyping should be more acceptable, argued: "Some things are just fact. See, I could say, 'Black people generally come from Africa,' and then someone would say, 'Oh you're racist.'"
First, in response to the man who likes to stereotype I would say, you just demonstrated the problem with stereotyping. The example is far from cut-and-dry. For example, if you are talking about African Americans, most generally have some European ancestory; a significant number, in fact, have more European ancestory than African. So what does it mean, then, to say "Black people come from Africa.." ? The statement assumes racial purity, and more neatly separates "black" from "white" (genetically, geographically... ) than is truly the case. It also ignores an entire chunk of African American, nay, American history pertaining to slave mistresses, interracial marriage, the "one drop rule," "passing," etc. etc.
But really I would like to focus on the woman. Her first claim that to simply recognize race constitutes "racism" in our society is a misconception shared by many others. To the contrary, "color blindness" is a strategy often employed to maintain racial inequality by making it an "off limits" topic and therefore rendering it impossible to address. Obviously people in this society are going to be conscious of race because it has social significance. Racial consciousness is not a bad thing. One of my favorite definitions of "racism" is something along the lines of: racism is to knowingly benefit from a system of inequality and do nothing to change that system.
What is a problem is when consciousness of race takes the form of stereotypes. And I just touched on this above.
The woman's second point is even more contentious. I have often heard white people complain about double standards in terms of what one is allowed to say. The "N" word is one notorious example. I think that was what the woman was eventually getting at.
Ohhh the irony of white people complaining about double standards. They have enjoyed better jobs, better pay, better access to public services, the ability to take out loans and buy houses in whatever neighborhood they want... and they are upset about not being able to say the "N" word?
... Or the fact that they can't be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to say it? The thought of black people having control over one tiny area of life - over one little word (a word that was used to abuse them, no less) - drives these people nuts!
In the midst of continued educational achievement gaps, income gaps, residential segregation, differential treatment by the justice system... white people are complaining about the "unfairness" of not being able to say a word that black people can say?
As they say, if that's all you have to complain about...
One woman said, "If you just say what race a person is, people call you a racist." She pointed to bartender, saying, "hispanic,' and then, "I'm racist!"
She continued. "You can only say your own race - that's okay - but not anyone else's."
Some other comments followed this, including one man who, in the midst of insisting that stereotyping should be more acceptable, argued: "Some things are just fact. See, I could say, 'Black people generally come from Africa,' and then someone would say, 'Oh you're racist.'"
First, in response to the man who likes to stereotype I would say, you just demonstrated the problem with stereotyping. The example is far from cut-and-dry. For example, if you are talking about African Americans, most generally have some European ancestory; a significant number, in fact, have more European ancestory than African. So what does it mean, then, to say "Black people come from Africa.." ? The statement assumes racial purity, and more neatly separates "black" from "white" (genetically, geographically... ) than is truly the case. It also ignores an entire chunk of African American, nay, American history pertaining to slave mistresses, interracial marriage, the "one drop rule," "passing," etc. etc.
But really I would like to focus on the woman. Her first claim that to simply recognize race constitutes "racism" in our society is a misconception shared by many others. To the contrary, "color blindness" is a strategy often employed to maintain racial inequality by making it an "off limits" topic and therefore rendering it impossible to address. Obviously people in this society are going to be conscious of race because it has social significance. Racial consciousness is not a bad thing. One of my favorite definitions of "racism" is something along the lines of: racism is to knowingly benefit from a system of inequality and do nothing to change that system.
What is a problem is when consciousness of race takes the form of stereotypes. And I just touched on this above.
The woman's second point is even more contentious. I have often heard white people complain about double standards in terms of what one is allowed to say. The "N" word is one notorious example. I think that was what the woman was eventually getting at.
Ohhh the irony of white people complaining about double standards. They have enjoyed better jobs, better pay, better access to public services, the ability to take out loans and buy houses in whatever neighborhood they want... and they are upset about not being able to say the "N" word?
... Or the fact that they can't be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to say it? The thought of black people having control over one tiny area of life - over one little word (a word that was used to abuse them, no less) - drives these people nuts!
In the midst of continued educational achievement gaps, income gaps, residential segregation, differential treatment by the justice system... white people are complaining about the "unfairness" of not being able to say a word that black people can say?
As they say, if that's all you have to complain about...
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Evolution and Gender
The inequalities and forms of oppression that exist in this world are multiple and varied, yet they are not unrelated. In particular, although people's experiences of marginalization due to race, gender, sexuality, social class, and the like are far from identical (there is even diversity of experience within each of these non-homogenous categories), evolution is the linchpin that holds together all of these forms oppression.
Following from the ideology of white supremacy, the key to the progress and development of the human race is the survival of the white race (the fittest) combined with the natural extinction of all the inferior races. However, for the white race to survive, the white race has to reproduce. One pressing concern among the inherently white supremacist intelligencia of the 19th and early 20th century was that the white population was not reproducing at the same rate as other populations (particularly the black population). Consequently, attempts to limit the reproductive capacity of women of color have continued even to the present. These attempts have included the forced use of potentially dangerous contraceptives. As a side note, it is for this reason that the framing of "reproductive rights" solely in terms of abortion is seen as a specifically white, middle class approach to feminism. For women of color, "reproductive rights" very significantly includes the right to be able to reproduce.
In addition to curbing the reproductive rates of people of color, ensuring the survival of the white race has also entailed the promotion of reproduction among the white population. For this reason, gender (like race, a social construct rather than a biological fact) was redefined in such a way that women were encouraged to stay home and take care of their children. While the social division of labor along gender lines and the subordination of women has more less always existed, historically and geographically women have had economic roles that extended beyond their reproductive capacity.
Related to these reformed gender roles were new attitudes toward sexuality. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" emerged at this time. Within the framework of white supremacy, homosexuality is threatening because of its potential to subvert gender roles and sustain relationships that do not encourage white reproduction.
In this way, modern conceptions of race, gender, and sexuality were constructed at the same time and as part of the same project of white supremacy - itself only an effect of the overarching Ideology of Progress that sustains the social order.
It might seem that I am grasping at straws in order to make these connections among race, gender, and sexuality. However, my arguments are based on solid evidence. The same scientists who were writing about race at the time these ideas emerged were also writing about gender and sexuality, and doing so in almost exactly the same terms as presented above. I am merely repeating a discourse that was quite explicit. In the course of the 20th century, this reasoning may have become muddled and less obvious, but that has only helped to sustain its effects as the concomitant definitions of race, gender, and sexuality have become naturalized as their true raison d'etre becomes more obscured.
For further reading on this topic:
-The Heart of Whiteness: Normal Sexuality and Race in America by Julian Carter
-Sex, Race & Science: Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
-Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
-Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
-Embodying Race: Gender, Sex, and the Sciences of Difference (edited volume)
Following from the ideology of white supremacy, the key to the progress and development of the human race is the survival of the white race (the fittest) combined with the natural extinction of all the inferior races. However, for the white race to survive, the white race has to reproduce. One pressing concern among the inherently white supremacist intelligencia of the 19th and early 20th century was that the white population was not reproducing at the same rate as other populations (particularly the black population). Consequently, attempts to limit the reproductive capacity of women of color have continued even to the present. These attempts have included the forced use of potentially dangerous contraceptives. As a side note, it is for this reason that the framing of "reproductive rights" solely in terms of abortion is seen as a specifically white, middle class approach to feminism. For women of color, "reproductive rights" very significantly includes the right to be able to reproduce.
In addition to curbing the reproductive rates of people of color, ensuring the survival of the white race has also entailed the promotion of reproduction among the white population. For this reason, gender (like race, a social construct rather than a biological fact) was redefined in such a way that women were encouraged to stay home and take care of their children. While the social division of labor along gender lines and the subordination of women has more less always existed, historically and geographically women have had economic roles that extended beyond their reproductive capacity.
Related to these reformed gender roles were new attitudes toward sexuality. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" emerged at this time. Within the framework of white supremacy, homosexuality is threatening because of its potential to subvert gender roles and sustain relationships that do not encourage white reproduction.
In this way, modern conceptions of race, gender, and sexuality were constructed at the same time and as part of the same project of white supremacy - itself only an effect of the overarching Ideology of Progress that sustains the social order.
It might seem that I am grasping at straws in order to make these connections among race, gender, and sexuality. However, my arguments are based on solid evidence. The same scientists who were writing about race at the time these ideas emerged were also writing about gender and sexuality, and doing so in almost exactly the same terms as presented above. I am merely repeating a discourse that was quite explicit. In the course of the 20th century, this reasoning may have become muddled and less obvious, but that has only helped to sustain its effects as the concomitant definitions of race, gender, and sexuality have become naturalized as their true raison d'etre becomes more obscured.
For further reading on this topic:
-The Heart of Whiteness: Normal Sexuality and Race in America by Julian Carter
-Sex, Race & Science: Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
-Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
-Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
-Embodying Race: Gender, Sex, and the Sciences of Difference (edited volume)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)