>my read of Jennifer's post suggested to me that she seemed to psychologize
>the behavior. certainly not classist in an outrageous way, but a bit
>classist I'd say.
I'm never sure what classist means. I suppose, though no one has ever given me a definition, that it's an attempt to place it within the string of 'racism, sexism... [hence:] classism'. and, I don't actually think it's at all similar. racism and sexism are both about attaching bodies to forms of social organisation, oppression, a hierarchy invested in physicality, etc. class can operate theoretically without this kind of physical, naturalist investment, even though historically and concretely, it relies on sexism and racism to do the work of making the connections b/n class locations and bodies seem natural. I'm not sure, in short, that the need to recognise racism and sexism alongside class should prompt a pluralist schema, where each are seen in terms of identity. I'd be grateful for other takes on this.
I'd written:
>>I don't know if you've seen the film. it's one of those films that, in
>>posing as doco-realist anthropology, is clearly capable of seducing an
>>audience into thinking they're watching the exposure of the secret life of
>>the underclass.
Kelley rightly responded:
>eeeeuuuu people have been flipping out over the use of this term
>underclass. have been flipping out over it for years, but a recent spate
>of wars has errupted.
I was being sarcy, but should have put scare quotes around the phrase 'secret life of the underclass' because sarcasm never travels well in email. I saw this film hemmed in between people who really thought they were watching a national geographic doco.
not a term I like: underclass. 'lumpen' is better, but 'lumpenised' probably emphasises process better still. much like my preference for 'racialised' over 'race'. then again, 'poor' seems to cover it pretty well.
I'm not up on the latest wars over this. what are the debates?
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au