Wotjek wrote:
>
>At 08:41 PM 5/30/98 -0500, Yoshie wrote:
>>Katha wrote:
>>>I think the book did a great
>>>deal to legitimize white people's not-quite-articulate suspicion that
>>>black people are just dumber than whites.
>>
>>Though I agree with Katha that Charles Murray, etc. did a great job
>>legitimating white common sense,I think that many--if not all--white
people
>>had and have been quite articulate about their conviction that they
are
>>smarter than blacks + Latinos, with or without help from the dismal
'IQ'
>>debate. Whenever they've voiced their opposition to affirmative
action,
>>they have been very vocal about how they resent 'unqualified' blacks +
>>Latinos taking places of 'more qualified' whites.
>
>
>True, but knowledge, above all is a social institution. Therefore,
there
>is a big difference between disgruntled white men talking in the locker
>rooms about 'unqialified Blacks", and the notion of "unqualified
Blacks"
>receiving an institutional stamp of approval from an offcially
recognised
>producer of knowledge.
This seems to contradict your contention in an earlier post that "Yoshie and Charles attach too much value to the contents of this neo-racist pseudo-science" which is "evident crap and can be easily refuted on methodological grounds. Thus, its value to the ruling clas must lie in something else than the content that can so easily be refuted". I agree that it is evident crap, but your argument in this current post seems to say that a lot of the "knowledge" with an "institutional stamp of approval from an officially recognised producer of knowledge" is also evident crap, but that the "stamp of approval" makes it more influential than lockerroom talk. Do you see the contradiction I am raising ?
>
>Science is about 25% empirial content and about 75% institution,
complete
>with turf boundaries, rituals of exemption from scrutiny, ex-cathedra
>proclamations, and reproduction of authority (for social sciences that
>ratio migh be even higher for the institutional content). Hence, the
>"verification" of a statement is only 25% empirical test, and 75% or
more a
>ritual of inclusion into the body of "legitimate knowledge" - i.e. one
>produced by certified knowledge producers.
>
>From that view point, it suffcies that a certified knowledge producer
>proclaims someting as 'knowledge' for that something to become
'knowledge"
>- no matter how crappy the evidence that support it is. That
proclamation
>gives a scientific sanction to the locker room talk.
So even if the content of neo-racist pseudo-biology is crap, you see it as having a significant bolstering effect on "vulgar racism". Yoshie and I (although she can speak for herself) did not emphasize the "content" of racist biology, in the sense of valid biology. Rather we emphasized its role in neo-liberal revanchism.
>
>The argument "this is what public wants/thinks" often reiterated by
media
>execs, is nothing more than a strategy of shunning responsibility.
>Market-schmarket, like religion, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
They
>quiote deliberately set the agenda by legitimizing certain views, but
then
>they do not want to be held accountable for their own actions.
>
>When the revolution finally comes, knowledge/culture producers should
be
>the first to be put against the wall :). They are the ones who
instigate
>others to action.
Gee, I feel relieved. Does this mean that lawyers are now out from under Shakespeare's revolutionary death sentence - "First thing we do is kill all of the lawyers" -?
Not to be picky but the other saying is that "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." Not that religion isn't a refuge too.
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com