At 08:45 AM 10/4/97 -0700, you wrote:
> Isn't it interesting how three straight white guys with
>fat salaries and academic jobs are the ones folks "like" on
>the topic of "diversity".
>nothing persona Joao, promise
>It's just that I don't actually think they "know" anything about
>diversity.
>aka
>knower and known and all that transaction stuff
>Mary
You definitely touched my nerve by this message! If I believe that such
thing as identity had existed, I would have said that you torn my "idenity"
apart. On one hand, I really do not like when people are judged as
objects: by gender, race, nationality, language proficiency, income, social
class, and so on and not as actors and subjects that, as I believe
constitute, universe each and every each capable to transcend any of their
"objectily" limits. I personally hate to be dismissed just on the basis of
a chemical analysis of my genes, my origin, or whatever.
On the other hand, I agree that it is ironic that it is white males with
good academic position write about minority/working class struggle. I was
puzzled (together with friends of mine) that three people who probably will
be remembered in connection to the transition from Russian totalitarism to
democracy are Sakharov, Gorbachev, and Yeltzin -- all three were very high
level Soviet functionaries (and extremely successful in their Soviet
careers). In some sense, it is "natural" that the visible part of the
iceberg of social and political changes belongs to those who has power and
resources. For me, the judgmental issue of this power holding
reformers/revolutionaries is about whether these people use/exploit the
energy of the change wave or they are genuinely a part of the wave. In the
case of the three Russian politicians, I know for sure that Sakharov was
genuinely a part of the changes, while Gorbachev tried to exploit it
(initially successfully and unsuccessfully for his own career). I'm still
indecisive about Yeltzin (maybe both). By the way, a lot of former
communist leaders became "new Russians" (extremely rich owners of
privatized enterprises).
So, I guess your observation has not only its irony but something more that
we can learn from it -- some "generic law" of social change or something?
It appears that social change involving oppressed the more vocal and public
figures tend to be an opposition within ruling group because they possess
resources for this opposition (e.g., Sakharov was to some degree an
"untouchable dissident" in comparison with fate of other dissidents because
of his Soviet official past).
What do you think?
Eugene
-----------------------------------------------
Eugene Matusov
Willard Hall Educational Bldg., Room 206G
Department of Educational Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716-2920
Phone: (302) 831-1266
Fax: (302) 831-4445
e-mail: ematusov who-is-at udel.edu
http://www.ematusov.com
------------------------------------------------