>>> Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> 07/15/99 12:05PM >>>
At 11:10 AM 7/15/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
>I agree with Rakesh's criticism of the thesis described on this thread. We
don't need a biological explanation nor even a rejection of the concept of
culture to analyze this circumstance. We only need a theory of cultural
development that understands cultures of poverty in capitalism as made and
created by the bougeois state and other hegmonic institutions. The
Appalachian traditions and customs that might tend toward poverty did not
derive on their own outside of the class struggle in American history, any
more than similar traditions in the Black communities around the country.
The key is that we not attribute the tendency toward poverty to causes
within the Appalachian or African American working class, but to the
conscious policies, practices and CULTURE OF WEALTH, that is the class
conscious traditions and customs of the U.S. ruling class and its
predominant control of the state, the educational and training system,
media ( from the church and newspapers of old to the tel!
-- snip --
While you are right about the systemic causes of certain cultural beliefs, I think the distinction between inside/outside group sources of those beliefs are more confusing than explaining. As I said in my reply to a similar argument voiced by Angela, this is a wya of moralizing or putting blame - not wn explanation of historical processes. And that explantion must account for the fact that most members of the working class are willing cooperators of their own exploitation.
(((((((((((
Charles: Not that I am against moralizing, but that is usually a way of contrasting with a historical materialist explanation, and what I give is a historical materialist explanation. Historical materalists recognize that ruling class rule is always dependent upon the ruling class being more class conscious than the masses it rules. You seem to miss that my explanation is classically materialist (i.e. Marxist) and not moralist. Its coicidence with morality does not eradicate it historical materialism.
I have no problem with your implied proposal of uncovering and broadcasting the paradox and tricks by which the bourgeoisie get the working class to willingly cooperate in its own exploitation. However, we already know a big one: the acceptance of racism and jingoist nationalism by large sectors of the the working class. Then there is the acceptance of the culture of individualism and self-reliance in coping with capitalism. Also, I suggested that one aspect is the control of the media and the educating institutions by the wealth. The working class is taught anti-working class ideology or "culture". It is also prevented from being aware that it is the working class. Class consciousness does not come to the working class spontaneously, as Lenin explained in _What Is To Be Done_. The working class has no sufficiently conscious sector or sufficient means to establish and maintain educating and enculturing institutions that are working class conscioius, anti-racist, anti- male s! upremacist, anti-individualist. In the U.S. , the Communist Party was politically annihilated by the bourgeoisie because it was a center for developing and nurturing such working class institutions and culture of revolution. The culture of wealth could not compete fairly with such institutions of the culture of revolution. So , demonstrating the sham of its culture of democracy, it destroyed U.S.socialist institutions through crimes against the U.S. Constitution, free speech and political organization..
((((((((((
Michael Burawoy (_Manufacturing Consent_) makes that point by his emprical studies of working class culture in the Chicago area - and shows how "folk culture" is used to defuse dissent and induce compliance to factory regime.
Ignoring the fact that such "folk culture" (add to it, patriotis, racial prejudice, sexism etc. that are a part of that culture) is a cultural shibboleth that defines the working class - and many workers will be more willing to defend their "right" to discriminate agains women and minorities than to take ana action against their bosses - is actually doing a disservice to any progressive social change,
((((((((((((((
Charles: We agree here. I mentioned some of the anti-intellectual, anti-consciousness raising folk school culture in the U.S. The folk culture is only semi-autonomous. Without continous and critical boosts from the ruling class and its agents ( as well as vicious destruction of self-interested proletarian culture) anti- self- interested folk culture would not persist. As implied, this culture of poverty has to be continously manufactured especially from outside the ranks of the poor, by the wealthy.
I guess your comment ends above. Do you agree with the below ?
CB
((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((
>evision today), and other culture instilling institutions for many decades.
>
>Thus, the answer to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach point is that in the main
the educators in capitalism are educated, trained and controlled by the
capitalists and their culture of wealth; and those educators must turn out
a certain percentage of poor people, for capitalism must have a MASS
reserve army of unemployed and poor. And some people must learn to be that
way, thus they are enculturated in empoverishment.
>
>Traditions or cultures of anti-intellectualism and know-nothingism arise
early in American history. There was a literal Knownothings political party
in the early 1800's. There is a tradition of social ostracism of
academically "smart" students by average students within schools that is
within this culture.
>
> In school grades are on a curve. The curve does not reflect the natural
range of academic potentials in the population but rather that there are
only an elite minority of slots for higher education. Somebody has to fail
because there are a limited number of slots in the culture of wealth.
(After all part of the definition of being wealthy is having more money
than most people AND HAVING POWER OVER MOST PEOPLE. There is no wealth
without poverty by definition.) Anyway, there is tracking in the schools,
such that many students are targetted for an empoverished and empoverishing
education early on.
>
>This culture of poverty has a dialectical twin: the culture of wealth.
With capitalist property relations, this culture of wealth must enforce a
culture of poverty on many masses of people for the culture of wealth to
continue.
>
>The culture of poverty theory is an empoverished philosophy without its
complement the theory of the culture of wealth.
>
> In other words, we need a historical materialist conception of the
culture of poverty in its struggle with the culture of wealth.
>
>
>Charles Brown
>
>>>> Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> 07/14/99 06:33PM >>>
>Wojtek,
>
>I was not opposing culture of poverty theories, the many and contradictory
>variants of which span from Oscar Lewis's to Michael Buroway's
>contributions. Following Richard Lerner and Richard Lewontin, I was
>opposing the cultural determinism implicit in Harrison's Appalachia
>analysis--that is, the doctrine that our cultural heritage passed down by
>a process of unconscious acculturation is practically inescapable. This
>doctrine differs only in trivial mechanical detail from biological
>determinism, the doctrine that we cannot escape our genes. I wanted to
>suggest what this work had in common with the Bell Curve.
>
>In short, what Harrison does not sufficiently recognize is that human
>culture is not autonomous but is in constant process of *historical
>development* by the action of individuals who are, in turn, formed by
>culture.
>
>What I suggesting here is then better understood in terms of Adorno's
>critique of Spengler's fatalist conception of culture than in terms of the
>culture of poverty debates.
>
>> But even more importantly, if you reject the view of
>>culture as an inhibitor of progress - then all you are left with is
>>sociobiology (or so-so-biology) in explaining social economic inequalities.
>
>It is not a question of rejecting culture but critiquing its autonomisation
>such that it paradoxically becomes nothing but a variant of vulgar
>materialist doctrine, critiqued by Marx thusly:
>
>"The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstance and
>upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other
>circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men that change
>circumstances and that the educator himself needs educating."
>
>yours, rakesh
>
>
>
>