> > yes, i'm frustrated because trying to talk about structural oppression is
> > like banging your head against the wall and i see the same problems on LBO
> > -- people are much more interested in locating racism solely in the
> > individual, etc. the whole B&K on identity thread was pretty clear
> > evidence of that, to me.
> >
> >
> > kelley
>****************
>
>Well it's hard to get the issues of methodological individualism out of
>the way
>without being accused of simply assuming what one needs to prove that is a
>huge
>part of the problem for the left, saii. Clearly if structural oppression along
>race/gender/class exists it is both effect and cause of the individual
>level as
>well.
an instrument-effect.
> Underdetermination rears it's ugly head with a vengeance as the dialectic
>of agency/structure and rationality/irrationality can resolve itself in a
>myriad
>of ways on the issue[s] of causality. The struggle is how to disarm the
>radical
>skepticism of our opponents when we use it as well when it suits our needs.
>
>Ian
i had a friend in grad school, R. she and i used to talk about our experiences as "outsiders" to white, upper middle class academia. she black, from well-to-do family, from historically black college; me from poor white background, went to nontrad state uni. R used to call it all racism, what she experienced. for example, the lack of cooperation among her colleagues, their extreme individualistic competitiveness, etc were, she said, about being white. but i wasn't so sure about that b/c i experienced the same, found their world alien as well. we both could turn to emerging literatures exploring what it was like to be black in white academia and to be working class in upper middle class academia. we both found that others said the same, experienced the same outsider on the inside, etc experience. so, was it "whiteness" or "classness" (some would have actually reduced it all to "maleness" identifying hyper-individualism and hyper-competitiveness a "male" characteristic) in academia that made for that sort of culture--a culture that labeled both of us outsiders, that marked our behavior as wrong and in need of correction, that meant that we saw things that seemed wrong to us and our backgrounds but were really normal for everyone else who had the cultural capital to negotiate grad school/academic culture?s
was it whiteness that led colleagues to wonder if a job candidate was worthy because she had started out at a community college?
i'm not making an equivalence, because there were ways in which our experiences weren't the same at all. but in some instances they were very similar and i'm having a hard time figuring out how you can call the institution of academia "white" and part of what should be destroyed when we destroy white, without also seeing how some of what is called white can be conceived of as the norms and characteristics associated with upper middle class and male.
when i've tried to teach people what i mean by structural racism i might use my and R's experiences like so:
their response is often, "But that's just academia." "Yes, That's Right!" I answer, "that's structural racism!" Then they sometimes say, "But doesn't that stink for everyone? How can it be racist if it doesn't have origins in an attempt to keep blacks out? doesn't this also keep women and poor people out? Don't these assumptions about social life harm people who aren't black?" "Yes, that's right!" "So, how is it racist?" "Because it has the effect of keeping blacks out, making them feel uncomfortable, making them drop out, get poorer grads." (sometimes i have extremely individualist students who say, "tough luck; they should buck up and get with the program and quit whining" (then i show stats on numbers in college, on attrition rates, on extremely low numbers in grad school, etc) "But it keeps others out, too, right?" they ask. "Yep, see, here are the numbers on women and poor, working class whites" "So, how is it racist?" "Well, it's not just racist, but also sexist and classist" "Why call it racist then?" (and if you were talking to them, they'd say, so why be in favor of getting rid of whiteness, when there are also problems with maleness and classness (for lack of better word there)
invariably someone pipes up:
"wait a minute, it's good to encourage competitiveness -- and what's wrong with individualism, anyway? are you a commie?"
:) ad nauseum.
i usually hand out Iris marion Youn'gs work on "the five faces of oppression."
kelley