Re: [xmca] Allan Luke on Race and Language as Capital

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Thu Dec 04 2008 - 17:04:29 PST


I hope you'll excuse me if I have misunderstood you. I am
never sure with this posthumanist stuff how much is said in
irony, but I will just presume it is said in all
seriousness, and you will forgive me if my comments are

I think the problem with the category of human is not with
the "human", but with the category, viz., the
non-dialectical use of categories which, in my view, marks
poststructuralism and posthumanism.

If the same method by which the concept of "human" is
deconstructed and denounced as an instrument of domination
were to be applied to *any* thought, the result would be the
same, and human life would regress to something less than
human, if you'll pardon the expression.


Jay Lemke wrote:
> Going back over some recent posts, I found I'd missed this one from Steve.
> I think we all feel inspired by the impulse towards altruism in Luke and
> on xmca, including anti-racism, and generally efforts to get past the
> pervasive ideologies of our places and times that seem to make some
> kinds of people count for more than others, or justify denying them
> opportunities and even life.
> But I also read sci-fi and watch Trek and a lot of the popular culture
> media that present this issue of what it means to be human ... or
> unfortunately, I think, its ideological version: who counts as human.
> And the choices offered to us seem too often to be only (a) some more
> than others, (b) some do and some don't, or (c) all do equally.
> All of these presuppose that it makes sense to have a category of human
> in the first place, and/or for it to be possible to say what the
> criteria are for membership. Once we accept that, then it is always
> possible for someone to propose, or insist, on their criteria ... even
> if those criteria are as liberally broad and inclusive as possible.
> It is the very possibility of defining the category that I think is
> dangerous, and does not really make sense.
> And is not equivalent to the traditional humanist meaning of "what is it
> to be human?". Because this humanist question is, I think, more or less
> Romantic in its intent (even if we can say Socrates/Plato began with a
> version of it). It is to ask us to value and inquire into the oddity,
> the perversity, the painful and joyful madness of being "truly human".
> Which does not mean by category, or by degree, but in terms of a
> phenomenology of experience. It is asking what it feels like to be human.
> Racism, and scientific or moral homo sapiens universalism, belong
> instead to the categorial ways of looking at human-ness. Simplistic,
> reductionist, inevitably normalizing, and always potentially oppressive.
> There is no human race. There is no white or black race. There is no
> male or female gender. There is no straight or gay orientation. There
> are no Americans or Chinese. There are no Christians or Muslims. There
> is no English Language or Spanish Language. There is no working class or
> ruling class. These are all dangerous fictions.
> There is human diversity, and diversity of belief, and physiology, and
> ways of speaking and desiring. Definable at best by thousands of
> gradable features that can and do combine in almost all possible ways,
> except insofar as the Category Police try to force some combinations to
> dominate over all others. And some features to matter more than others.
> Racism, sexism, homophobia, cultural, linguistic, or religious
> intolerance are all forms of our cowardice in the face of the complexity
> of real human diversity. And so, I think, also is liberal humanist
> universalism.
> JAY.
> Steve Gabosch wrote:
>> MIke, your comments about "essentialized racism" got me thinking about
>> what is racism, and what is meant by "human race."
>> I like to listen to audiobooks while driving and exercising, and
>> happen to be currently listening to an old "hard" sci fi classic from
>> 1940, Slan, by AE van Vogt. I loved that book as a teenager. A new
>> "race" of super-smart human telepaths emerges out of the gene pool,
>> and centuries-long wars, prejudices and misunderstandings ensue. At
>> the root of this book is that age-old question, asked so often on Star
>> Trek and in much of the science fiction genre: what does it mean to be
>> human?
>> In terms of "racism," that same age-old question is turned inside out
>> and put divisively: who truly "belongs" to the human race, and who
>> doesn't? Who are the full, legitimate citizens, who are the marginal?
>> Racism in this sense is asking who has the right to be considered
>> fully human, who doesn't; who has the right to impose such
>> discriminations, and who the obligation to submit to them. The
>> answers I believe in are rooted in humanism: everyone is fully human,
>> no one is not; no one has the right to impose otherwise, and no one
>> should have to submit to that. And the revolutionary in me believes
>> no one **should** submit to that.
>> A phrase like "human race" seems natural enough at first glance, but
>> it contains within it the implication that there are other,
>> not-so-human kinds of races, whatever they might be. In doing so, it
>> offers a choice. On one hand, there is racism - discriminating
>> membership status in terms of a "human" race. Ultimately, it implies,
>> if not openly advocates, eradicating what is not fully human. On the
>> other hand, there is humanism, the belief in unconditional human
>> solidarity. It does not merely imply, but openly states its intention
>> to eradicate racism.
>> From the humanist perspective, as I see it, it is not just that there
>> is only "one" human race. There is no "race" at all. There is one
>> and only one "humanity" - be it telepathic, non-telepathic, racist,
>> humanist, and otherwise.
>> This is my way of putting it, anyway. Others have perhaps better ways
>> of expressing such sentiments. I very much see a thorough-going
>> humanist, anti-racist spirit in Allan Luke's paper, and throughout the
>> xmca and iscar-etc. world, always a cause of inspiration for me.
>> - Steve
>> On Nov 9, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
>>> Thanks for your summary and comments, Steve. I have been finding Allan's
>>> article difficult to grasp as a whole, perhaps because I am
>>> insufficiently
>>> schooled i Bourdieu and his relationship to other contemporary
>>> thinkers and
>>> Marx. If we could get a joint reading of "Forms of Capital" perhaps
>>> it would
>>> help. The use of many hypenated ""-capital that are in the discussions I
>>> participate in often confuse me as to their (often implicit) causal
>>> claims.
>>> Two, perhaps, useful small comments.
>>> One, I strongly recognized Allan's comment that the use of colour is
>>> "not
>>> the exclusive domain of any particular dominant class or colour of male
>>> patriarch, followed by listing of various forms of domination that
>>> occur,
>>> among other ways,
>>> ""not just white upon black and brown, but yellow upon white, black upon
>>> black."
>>> In the Liberia of the 1970's, and I suspect now, color was not the
>>> characteristic upon which racism was organized. I was classified
>>> along with
>>> President Tubman using the same term, an amalgam of "civilized, rich,
>>> powerful, to be feared, etc."
>>> and people from Monrovia spoke of the people among whom I worked as
>>> aborigines. I have seen similar phenomena in Japan vis a vis Koreans and
>>> from Allan's broad experience, he must have seen every possible
>>> combination
>>> of distinction used as a form of essentialized racism.
>>> Second, re school practices that offer solutions. Little to argue
>>> with there
>>> other than the manifest inability to get such an ensemble of practices
>>> instituted. I can add on practice, however, at an explicitly anti-racist
>>> school my kids attended. It
>>> was manifested in a producation of the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy
>>> gets blown
>>> out of Kansas a white girl and appears again in Oz as a black girl,
>>> but her
>>> identity has manifestly/symbolically not changed: an explicit,
>>> institutionalize rejection of skin color as a phenotypic marker of a
>>> distinction that makes a difference.
>>> Apropos of the enormous challenges remaining after the election and
>>> Michael's comments earlier today, a story in the NY Times today about
>>> the
>>> southern state of Alabama explains that many democrats could not bring
>>> themselves to vote for Obama, although rejecting Bush, as a result of
>>> which
>>> a pretty nasty law forbidding adoption of children by non-married
>>> couples
>>> passed. A great deal has remained the same (ditto here in California),
>>> including the very important illusion that assembly line workers at Ford
>>> are, and are supposed to be, part of the middle class.
>>> I hope others will help enlighten me and others concerning the important
>>> issues
>>> raised by Allan and your commentary. If you could get folks to follow
>>> you
>>> and lead a discussion of forms of capital, that would be great.
>>> mike
>>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Steve Gabosch <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I've been reading over and thinking about Allan Luke's paper, Race and
>>>> Language as Capital in School: A Sociological Template for Language
>>>> Education Reform, which is posted on the lchc site here:
>>>> I heard Allan speak at an AERA conference a few years ago. He gave an
>>>> impressive talk and was well-received. Wikipedia has a little
>>>> article on
>>>> him here:
>>>> Luke's paper discusses how to view, critique and synthesize a
>>>> variety of
>>>> existing strategies to end racial and linguistic discrimination in the
>>>> school systems, using Bourdieu's concepts of habitus, capital, and
>>>> field.
>>>> First, a little on the theory behind the paper. My take on Luke's
>>>> analytical framework goes in two directions.
>>>> On one hand, I like aspects of the way Luke uses the concepts of
>>>> habitus
>>>> and capital to describe issues of racial and linguistic
>>>> discrimination, and
>>>> strategies to overcome it in the school setting. He uses these
>>>> concepts in
>>>> ways that reveal **descriptive** and **analytical* power when
>>>> looking at
>>>> the the individual and intersubjective levels of racism and linguistic
>>>> repression, and they prove useful to him when he generalizes about
>>>> different
>>>> strategies to overcome discrimination, oppression and cultural
>>>> repression in
>>>> the classroom.
>>>> On the other hand, I see problems with the concepts of habitus and
>>>> capital
>>>> to the extent they are used as more than just metaphors and are
>>>> mistaken for
>>>> having sociological **explanatory** power. I suppose this is a kind
>>>> of "the
>>>> emperor has no clothes" kind of perspective on my part, but I'll
>>>> take the
>>>> risk and be blunt: Bourdieu's theory of social and cultural capital
>>>> strikes
>>>> me as little more than offering new terms and metaphors to describe
>>>> things,
>>>> but not explain them. In other words, while his theory about
>>>> "capital" adds
>>>> some new ideas on how to do the "what does it look like" side of
>>>> analysis
>>>> and description, it adds little or nothing on the "why does this or
>>>> that
>>>> happen" side.
>>>> Perhaps Luke's paper and his use of the concept of cultural and social
>>>> capital could spark a discussion of Bourdieu's article "Forms of
>>>> Capital"
>>>> sometime. I have some thoughts on something I think I see Bourdieu
>>>> doing.
>>>> I see him **compressing** together different levels of reality, such
>>>> as the
>>>> socio-economic, the socio-cultural, and cultural-psychological, thereby
>>>> losing a handle on the generative/emergent cause and effect
>>>> relationship
>>>> between these different integrative levels. These levels operate under
>>>> different developmental dynamics and time frames - while at the very
>>>> same
>>>> time, they interpenetrate and inter-transform one another. Both of
>>>> these
>>>> aspects are vital for theorizing, describing, analyzing and
>>>> intervening in
>>>> any aspect of social reality.
>>>> What I see Bourdieu as doing has similarities to, but is different
>>>> from,
>>>> reductionism. I call it "compressionism." In some ways, according
>>>> to a
>>>> view I am developing, compressionism is the opposite of
>>>> reductionism. Both
>>>> reductionism and compressionism can offer interesting insights and
>>>> metaphors
>>>> in the short term, but both can also quickly become one-sided and
>>>> obfuscatory if used mechanically and exclusively. These two
>>>> approaches tend
>>>> to overstate one aspect or the other of the complex relationship
>>>> between
>>>> integrative levels. The solution must be to see and understand both
>>>> aspects, and all sides of the thing being investigated.
>>>> Compressionism and
>>>> reductionism (and lots of methodological -isms - structuralism,
>>>> functionalism, relativism, etc.) can be used as helpful tools for
>>>> thinking
>>>> and asking questions - but are not so helpful, in my opinion, when
>>>> used as
>>>> methods to draw conclusions with.
>>>> Bourdieu's "Forms of Capital" can be found at:
>>>> Now to some commentary on the content of the paper.
>>>> Luke's articulate and potent discussion of discrimination and
>>>> oppression
>>>> regarding racism and linguistic repression creates the impression
>>>> that an
>>>> explanation is being advanced. But on closer examination, I don't
>>>> see an
>>>> explanation in this paper. Just a description. And a solid,
>>>> outspoken one,
>>>> may I add, which I appreciate. This is perfectly okay - science is
>>>> about
>>>> both explanation and description.
>>>> Luke applies his descriptive framework to various strategies that
>>>> are being
>>>> tried in various schools to overcome aspects of discrimination. He
>>>> analyzes
>>>> each approach in terms of habitus, which I found interesting.
>>>> Increased
>>>> descriptive power leads to sharper analysis, which leads to better
>>>> questions, which leads to deeper explanations, so this is a good road.
>>>> Generally speaking, the concepts of habitus and what could be
>>>> metaphorically called "personal capital" seem to help fill a need in
>>>> our
>>>> language to point to and describe, in precise terms, an individual's
>>>> accumulated and practiced cultural and historical connections. I am
>>>> thinking that once we get clearer on the explanatory limitations of
>>>> these
>>>> concepts, we can better harness their descriptive strengths. Luke
>>>> offers
>>>> examples of how to effectively use these descriptive strengths in
>>>> his paper.
>>>> I'll finish up my little commentary on Luke's paper by quoting snippets
>>>> from his summary of suggested solutions. Luke is offering some
>>>> interesting
>>>> ideas for synthesizing a variety of approaches into something he
>>>> calls a
>>>> "whole-school" approach. Many ideas I have heard on xmca, at AERA
>>>> conferences, etc. are contained in this summary.
>>>> a) ... recognise and evaluate the cultural capital that students
>>>> bring to
>>>> school.
>>>> b) Change the lingua franca of the school field: depending upon
>>>> community
>>>> and student aspirations, it would provide a balanced program of
>>>> English as a
>>>> Second Language and/or bilingual program ...
>>>> c) Change the regulative rules of interaction in the school field: ...
>>>> complement and reflect student cultural and community practices of
>>>> exchange
>>>> and gifting, paralinguistics and gesture and turn-taking.
>>>> d) Revise the curriculum ...
>>>> e) ... engage students with a broad analysis of how social fields
>>>> discriminate, their rules of exchange, and who they historically have
>>>> included and excluded.
>>>> f) Remake teacher habitus ...
>>>> - Steve
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list

Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 
Skype andy.blunden
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
xmca mailing list
Received on Thu Dec 4 17:05:31 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 13:39:38 PST