[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: NYT Op-Ed: Class Prejudice Resurgent



Annalisa,

I hear David Brooks speaking as a conservative but I also accept his
sincerity when he brings to our attention how the privileged in their
"imaginal" musings see "others" as lacking resolve and this form of
identity formation is a vicious form of class consciousness. In his own way
he is acting "ethically" from his standpoint
Larry

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> What does it mean then, that David Brooks is evoking this compound
> standpoint? Do you think he'll be ostracized and locked up?
>
> Does this mean that the 4th estate is feigning concern only to reproduce
> (and thus affirm) the same problems of inequality?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:45 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: NYT Op-Ed: Class Prejudice Resurgent
>
> I resonated to your argument for a race/class "​compound standpoint,"​
> Miguel.
> ​
> When I was growing up, people who argued about the social injustice of​
> class inequalities and against the rich becoming richer while the poor
> became poorer were at the very minimum ostrascized and in some cases locked
> up. There was the triumpheralism of being an "affluent society."
>
> ​Today the notion of the 1-99 percent gets lots of attention --- and the
> congress agrees to make the situation worse.
>
> Little wonder that those whose compound standpoint is from the perspective
> of the less power​ful seek out third spaces in which to embody alternatives
> to vicious inequalities.
>
> mike
>
> On Monday, December 8, 2014, Zavala, Miguel <
> mizavala@exchange.fullerton.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Annalisa,
> >
> > You raise a good question. My sense is that "race" is rendered
> (in)visible
> > because it is visually marked primarily at the level of the body and
> > interi-personal relations (both conceptualized as distinct spatial
> scales).
> >  In classroom dialogues on institutional racism, it is so difficult for
> my
> > students to come up with a working definition; yet when I ask what is
> > race, I get lots of answers akin to what Critical Race Theorists term
> > 'micro-aggressions', answers such as racial slurs, racist jokes, and in
> > some instances everyday practices that begin to resemble some form of
> > institutionalized racism as in police profiling.  I say 'begin to
> > resemble' because most (but some do) students don't quite have a working
> > definition of these practice as systemic and institutionalized (much less
> > as manifestations of a racial state [David Theo Goldberg, Charles Mill]).
> > So, we work our way through a series of readings and dialogue in trying
> to
> > understand the complexities and invisible dimensions of race (which
> > operates at other spatial scales, some so large--historically and
> > spatially--that it basically disappears from sight and our naming).
> >
> > But I think there is also something in the concrete reality of everyday
> > life that renders "class" (in)visible in the U.S.  It is not so much the
> > issue of our bodies marked as classed beings (although in Latin America,
> I
> > have seen this awareness, how the body, its clothing, use of gold, etc.
> > becomes a marker for a particular class location) but of the reality of a
> > 'middle class' or the stratification of 'class' in the U.S. People DO see
> > differences along 'social class' marked by where people live, what they
> > are able to consume, their professions, etc. -- I am not arguing for some
> > Weberian model of social class, but am arguing that that is what we
> > perceive, the phenomenon. And these differences may not be associated
> with
> > "social class" concept as articulated by Marx.
> >
> > I am currently conducting dialogues with teachers on the neoliberal
> > privatization of public education. There is yet another challenge, as I
> > try to make sense of neoliberalism philosophically and historically: how
> > we name "social class" and the discourses that operate in and through
> > social class difference. Perhaps what needs to be unpacked is our view of
> > the State and its relation to "social class."  How we conceptualize the
> > State (the working models or metaphors) will shape/color how we see
> > "social class". The Liberal model of the state, with rational actors and
> > the Individual as its central construct carries with it a kind of
> metaphor
> > where social structures and structural relations tend to disappear (they
> > are a type of landscape or spatial container of sorts, in the background,
> > with individuals as the active agents foregrounded in this image). And
> > there is of course the role of ideology in rendering "social class"
> > invisible.
> >
> > What I find more challenging is teaching how race and class intersect and
> > interlock, creating what Fanon termed a 'compound standpoint', a
> > double-articulation, a race-class dialectic. But 'social class' while an
> > objective reality, is inseparable from its historical geographies of
> > difference. How we see 'social class' will look different from the
> vantage
> > point of people living in abject poverty to folks like many of us, living
> > as academics, to those who comprise the 1%.  The same goes for "race"; it
> > will be experienced and viewed differently based on one's geographic and
> > social location.  I would argue that Colonialism, from the standpoint of
> > Indigenous, Mesitizo, Raza peoples from Latin America needs to be a part
> > of our language and register; it needs to be unpacked and made central in
> > any cogent understanding of "social class."
> >
> >
> > Miguel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/8/14 8:19 PM, "Annalisa Aguilar" <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Andy,
> > >
> > >Interesting.
> > >
> > >I'm having a hard time connecting this to the ground. It is a story,
> > >which perhaps has meaning, but I don't see how it connects to American
> > >experience. This is not to say that it does or doesn't (in reality), I
> > >mean I don't see it. It feels too conspiratorial and planned, and I
> don't
> > >think any single minority group has that much power over others. Who
> > >knows? Maybe I'm wrong.
> > >
> > >I do believe that there was a disconnect in the continuity in historical
> > >experience due to the WW II and this is for many reasons, not a single
> > >reason. So that's one reason I find it hard to accept a "settlement" as
> > >The Explanation for this.
> > >
> > >My way of thinking about it is that it was a horrific war beyond
> anything
> > >anyone could imagine. There was no way to process this, and the thing
> > >most people wanted to do was be happy and get on with life and living.
> It
> > >is understandable.
> > >
> > >For me it has more to do with our humanity and incapacity to deal with
> > >horror and the abject than it has to do with suppressing the reality of
> > >class distinctions. It still doesn't explain to me why class is harder
> to
> > >discuss than race.
> > >
> > >So I offer that to the soup.
> > >
> > >Kind regards,
> > >
> > >Annalisa
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>