[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Culture of Poverty, read all about it.
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Culture of Poverty, read all about it.
- From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:40:58 +1100
- Delivered-to: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTimin5UY_JzBqgj02g5xro38CAF5cHAYQ92uu02w@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <AANLkTimin5UY_JzBqgj02g5xro38CAF5cHAYQ92uu02w@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
Thanks for the pointer, Mike. This is a topic of great interest to me
and one for which I think Vygotsky has much to offer. I have no doubt
that of the reactionary nature of the target of the writer's critique. I
am familiar with it via the writings of Francis Fukuyama, who makes the
coping strategies of Black families in the US the cause of their misery.
And we have the same guys here in Oz. But I wonder if the writer is
making himself a bad dichotomy between what I could call habitus
(meaning the family and the 'community' which determines the cultural
choices and practices of individuals) and the larger social structure.
Consider this paragraph, citing Liebow (1967) favourably:
"Liebow did not deny culture—indeed, he documented it in
scrupulous detail. However, he insisted that the streetcorner
man was not a carrier of an independent cultural tradition. To
be sure, there were obvious similarities between parents and
children, but Liebow held that these were not the product of
cultural transmission, but rather reflected the fact that “the
son goes out and independently experiences the same failures, in
the same areas, and for much the same reasons as his father.”
Thus, it is not their culture that needs to be changed, but
rather a political economy that fails to provide jobs that pay a
living wage to millions of the nation’s poor, along with a
system of occupational apartheid that has excluded a whole
people from entire job sectors throughout American history."
I think this position is untenable. It poses a version of Theses On
Feuerbach #3, i.e., he splits society into two parts, one of which is
subject to the structure while the other (e.g. the writer) is a subject
of the structure. How are the "conditions" to be changed except by the
people subordinated by those conditions (revolutionary practice in
Marx's terms), and how else will they do this but by transforming a
"culture" which is barely coping with oppression, into one which
succeeds in rolling it back, and ultimately changing the societal structure?
What did others make of the article?
mike cole wrote:
Re this topic -- while reading orasanu, boykin, mcdermott......
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/steinberg.php
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hegel Summer School: The New Atheism: Just Another Dogma?
<http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/hss2011.htm>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca