Paul,
I think you are asking some very pointed questions, and I don't know the
answers. From my position class has tended to be defined as a pathology
which Walkerdine speaks powerfully to. I am very concerned about this
positioning. Class seems if anything to come from a non-working class
perspectives (e.g conservative, progressives, intellectuals etc.) as in
terms like socioeconomic status. So, in that sense I see references to
"false consciousness" within rather than outside these perspectives.
I think we have a long tradition that is embedded in our constitution and
federalist papers that attempts to negate a class consciousness. Madison
was very explicit who the majority was and what was meant by "evil
fractions". It was workingclass movements like the Shay's rebellion.
Class is complicated because it seems most of the world's diversity is with
the "working" or "peasant" classes. The world's middle and upper class seem
to have a more united psyche. I think it is probally both cultural and a
relationship to wage labor that embeds the psych of the working class. And
as some of the narratives of Freirian dialougue attest to the problem of
their oppression is everything but the capitalist. My point is all this
diversity becomes exploited by those in power(Willie Horton). As one
educator recently shared, she taught a very racist student who celebrated a
Nazi fame of mind, but all the anger was along class not race lines. Race
becomes the sign for an expression of class anger and dissatisfaction.
And Paul, I do appreciate your pointed questions on this topic. If we take
that its a relationship with wage labor as Apple points out there is a long
history of segregation as in putting African Americans on one floor, the
imigrants on another, and whites on still another. This of course embedded a
relationship where the tensions were within the working class itself, rather
than those that exploit their labor. In a metephorical sense it seems it is
important that they be on the same floor so identification is not displaced.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Dillon [mailto:dillonph@northcoast.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 8:20 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: want more?
Mike,
What can the Jensen stuff inspire among a group already committed to the
cultural historical nature of the mind (a commitment within which there are
obviously wide differences), especially since it seems that everyone is
aware of him (how could one not be aware?) I'd be curious to know why you
think the obvious issue that Rachel first raised concerning the racial
category "black, Afro-american, etc" hasn't been sufficient to widely
discredit him. It doesn't surprise me that Jensen exists, what surprises is
the wide spread willingness to entertain these ideas among folks who you
would think should know better. It's almost as though he would have to
prove a "dumb gene", absolutely dominant, that African ancestry brings. But
even then, the existence of different "races" in Africa (Bantu, Nilotic,
etc.) would be necessary.
On another front, both Rachel and Nate invoked class or social-class as the
underlying reality of race in America. Class is a very disputed term
itself. I'd like to hear more about how they use this concept. What are
classes? How are the formed? What is the relationship of class and class
consciousness? Are they identical or is it possible that there are classes
in themselves but not for themselves? Alternatively, does class exist as a
purely cultural phenomena or is it tied to trans-cultural economic relations
(i.e.., relationship to the means of production independent of class =>
bourgeoisie is bourgeoisie whatever their ethnic origin; working class
consciousness emerges as a consequence of the economic relation of wage
labor)? What reproduces class relations and how is ones position in a class
system determined?
There's a lot of questions in this area that would seem important to CHAT
especially since Engestrom expanded the triangle and included division of
labor creating a possibility to link psychological analyses to substantive
economic analysis.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 10:56 AM
Subject: want more?
>
> Rachel, Paul, Nate, et. al--
>
> I am glad the posting re Jensen are energizing if not inspiring. Note that
> various commentators have adopted some, but not others, of your positions.
> Should I keep forwarding, or dump?
> mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:09 PST