From: LeoCasey at aol.com Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:27:16 EST
Damn, Kelley. Everytime I climb into your virtual car on the promise of a simple little lift from here to there [not even the grander prospect of a peaceful ride in the country], I find myself in a vehicle careening this way and that way all over the road, bouncing off buses and missing head-on collisions with tracker trailers by 1/2 inch. No matter how much I resolve to keep a quiet and calm voice when I climb into the car, I always seem to find myself, before very long, howling at the top of my lungs, "You are heading for a fuckin' cliff. Let me outa here if you want to kill yourself." So you will have to forgive me if I find myself without the slightest desire to climb into bed, or onto any other functional platform, with you and your 'fuck me' pumps. Invitation declined. I'll keep my two feet on the ground around you, thank you very much.
Let's start with the easy stuff.
You say: << art didn't say no one could discuss it. >>
Art said, among many other things in this same vein: << you people have gotten so used to having your asses kissed with genteel bourgeois discourse that you can't seem to handle the passion of someone who is not willing to allow anyone to run around blaspheming the Black liberation struggle, of which reparations is a major part. >>
Now maybe you want to do some creative Clintonian parsing here, explaining to us how we can 'discuss' reparations, we just can't 'criticize' it as a political strategy, since criticism is tantamount to "blaspheming the Black liberation struggle." Otherwise I think you will have to concede that your reading is, well, not exactly based on the text. [I just love Art's Torah/Old Testament imagery here, and can't wait for the two tablets of stone with _all_ of the commandments about what we should and should not be discussing... whoops, criticizing: "I am the Lord, the authentic voice of the Black liberation movement, and you shall have no false voices of the Black liberation movement before me."] Of course, if you want to go the Clintonian route, be my guest, but don't be surprised if your credibility takes a little beating.
On the issue of "wages for housework."
Let us grant, for purposes of the argument, the somewhat extraordinary claim you make that Socialist Feminism [I am not so keen on your Socialist Fucking Feminism appellation, for what I would think are pretty obvious reasons, so I will stick to Socialist Feminism] owes its origins to the "Wages for Housework" campaign. We could discuss, of course, the fact that "wages for housework" was universally understood to be a 'radical feminist' campaign, and a rather small and marginal part of that current at that, and that Socialist Feminists made very strong criticisms, both theoretical and practical, of it throughout the 1970s. My own memory, as someone who has involved in the Socialist Feminist movement through my work in NAM during the 70s, as well as the written historical record, suggests that this is a fundamentally wrong-headed view, but it is not the main issue here.
Let us also put to the side the fact that the Socialist Feminist movement itself is no longer a live, viable political movement, and that as long as 15 years ago, _Socialist Review_ -- which has been a major center of socialist feminist thinking -- dedicated an entire issue to analyses, by leading figures in that movement such as Barbara Ehrenreich, of what had led to its dissolution. We can ignore the reality that there was not one autonomous socialist feminist organization still in existence by the early 1980s, and that the corps of rather gifted organizers that had been at the heart of the movement had moved on to other projects: some to clerical organizing, building unions such as 925 [which eventually became an SEIU district] and the Coalition of Labor Union Women; some to mainstream liberal feminist organizations [such as NOW and NARAL]; and some to lesbian and gay rights organizing. Let us also leave to the side the issue that only scholars in the academy, and not very many of them at that, focus on the body of theory known as socialist feminism [as opposed to organizing and thinking on issues where gender and class intersect, which is very much alive and growing and where the alumnae of the socialist feminist movement can be found], because, again, it is not really the fundamental issue here.
The fundamental issue, IMHO, is that some folks, including yours truly, think
the most important insight of that old wizened post-Hegelian revolves around
the idea that "the point is not to understand the world, but to change it."
>From this perspective, the first question that must be put to every political
strategy is this: what are the prospects that it will successfully bring at
least some power to the exploited and dominated, making it possible for them
to obtain a measure of justice and fairness, a better quality life then they
currently have? Simply put: what is the political efficacy of the strategy?
This is the issue which, Kelley, for all of the 452 red herrings you have
introduced into this thread, you always manage to avoid addressing. What was
the political efficacy, pray tell, of the "wages for housework" campaign?
What is the political efficacy of a broad reparations campaign? But if we
accept that we are political actors, and if we define our responsibillity as
political actors in terms of changing the world for the better, it is the
most fundamental question. Who cares if a particular political strategy
yielded good or interesting scholarship, should that have actually taken
place; what is important is that good scholarship might actually contribute
to a better political strategy, one with some prospects for changing the
world.
Now maybe Kelley, like Art on reparations, you don't particularly care about the 'political efficacy' test. Maybe it is more important, for you, that a political strategy contribute to some body of feminist scholarship, just as it appears more important for "revolutionary nationalists" that reparations contribute to a narrative of African nationhood in America. Fine and dandy; since you choose not to be concerned with political efficacy, those of us who are concerned with it can just ignore you on the subject. We will go about the business of figuring out the best, most efficacious place to put our limited political energies without the benefit of discussion with you. Just don't go around, announcing ex cathedra that others must not engage in the blasphemy of criticizing the political efficacy of a strategy that suits some other purpose you have.
On this question of having to 'educate' others, I am tempted to simply return again to the Theses on Feuerbach, and ask, "who will educate the educator?" But that is not all which is at issue here: the fact of the matter is that no one has asked anyone to educate them about anything. Some of us think that this is a forum where we might all learn from each other, but in a reciprocal and mutual fashion, and not because some one or more of us is appointed official authority on some body of political practice and knowledge. The problem, as I see it, is that there are those, like McGee on matters anti-racist and Kelley on matters anti-sexist, who have decided that they, and maybe a few select others, are the instructors, and the rest of the us, the high school class. They get rather pissed off when proper deference is not shown to their position of pedagogical authority and superior knowledge, when people think out loud for themselves, and in heretical fashion no less, on questions which fall into their exclusive domain.
There is some considerable irony, I think, in Kelley's raising the issue of "speaking for," since the assumption of pedagogical authority before us rests on the implicit claim that because Art is an African-American man, or because Kelley is a woman, they speak with the authority of their community, especially when they take upon themselves to label as 'ignorant' and 'don't know what the fuck you are talking about' views with which they don't agree. Nonsense. No one elected any of us to represent anyone else here; WE SPEAK, EACH AND EVERYONE OF US, ONLY FOR OURSELVES.
A brief personal note. The fact that I have a long history of activism in a number of different movements, not only in the trade union, democratic socialist and progressive education movement but also in the gay and lesbian movement; the fact that I have spent a great deal of time studying and learning about questions of gender and sexuality, and that I have even published a few times on the subject, such as in a collection on _Class and the Feminist Imagination_, are a few little things that not very many people on this list know about me. There is more that would probably jar some virtual assumptions, like the fact that I parent three young African-American girls I love dearly, and feel an extraordinarily personal investment in their future and thus, in battling racism. I don't make a practice of announcing those things, because I do not see their relevance to what we do here -- I do not believe that they should confer any authority upon the views I express on LBO-Talk. My views are informed and valuable to the extent that I educate myself, in practical work and in scholarly learning. When someone expresses a view about matters sexual, or about trade unions, or about education, with which I disagree, I express my own perspective, and expect that insofar as my life experience and work has fashioned my view for the better, the results will appear in the argument I make. If Art wants to argue for reparations, and Kelley wants to argue for "wages for housework," go for it. Just don't expect that what you have to say will be judged on any basis other than the power of its argument.
Kelley One:
> well crap. i didn't have my fuckme pumps and pearls on when i glanced at
> and replied to this earlier. let me slip 'em on and go for a ride with ya
> leo!
>
> art didn't say no one could discuss it. art was looking for and
> disappointed with the fact that the discussion was retreading things tha
> black reparations activists have already discussed at length. and you can
> bet yer left nut, leo, that i'd call any man who sat around talking about
> how misguided the wages for work movement was since an entire body of
> scholarship -- namely SOCIALIST FUCKING FEMINISM--emerged, in part, out of
> the limitations of that movement. ferchrisakes. and i'd be just as
> fucking pissed as art. maybe not -- most men on this list make no
> pretenses to actually having read feminist theory or thinking that feminism
> even matters. but a lot of folks around this joint think that anti racism
> matters. it would sure piss me off if doug or charles or carrol spoke of
> feminism in the above manner -- since they DO try to keep up with feminist
> theory and regularly try to make space for it on this list.
>
> there.
>
> i just didn't want to miss my chance to type fuckme pumps for ya.
> butt, seriously, i didn't appraise the merits of art's post in terms of
> what he said about reparations. instead, i got annoyed with ONE
> response. had he not responded, tho, i would have STILL posted gloria
> yamato's work here and i still would have pointed out this issue about just
> whose responsibility it is to educate.
>
Kelley 2:
> may well be wrong in my interpretation, but so be it. i don't mean to
> speak for art, he's quite capable. i see it as a larger issue -- the
> problem of speaking *for* (to/with/at/etc) what happened here is similar
> to what happened months ago over the mary daly hoohah (and what happened
> once when doug asked catherine to tell us about Australian politics).
> *women* on this list were asked to explain feminism to men -- after mary
> daly had been attacked, for her shoddy writing, but none of the attackers
> were capable of explaining in more than a rudimentary way, what aly was
> writing about or what her position was. (not a hard task since there are a
> slew of websites that will explain her to you. tX). frances bolton replied
> and told him to, basically, fuck off.
>
> why? because there is a discussion among feminists--mostly feminist of
> color--who've argued that it's not OUR job to educate you. educate
> yourself. now, brett and eric asked me why i took that position. i don't
> always. but i did voice it b/c i was pissed off at a bunch of people
> sitting around pontificating about feminism without any real knowledge of
> what the issues were. why should i waste my time? why go through the
> heartache?
>
> it's not Art's JOB to educate you. why should he waste his godamned
> time. it gets damn tiring after awhile. it saps the life out of you, if
> you let it. and if you are listening to white feminists, feminists of
> color and race theorists and so forth, you'll hear them writing about this
> issue -- how to emotionally survive.
>
> and i guess i sympathize be/c sometimes i wonder why i waste my time. the
> last time i called someone on the carpet for a crass remark, that person
> tried to tell me i didn't have a sense of humor. and no one on this list
> bothered to point out what he'd said -- nor even to have noticed that it
> was the third time that a woman was mentioned in one of hist post by
> reference to what she lookd like. (except chip (thanks chip!).)
>
> why do I or yoshie or other women on this list get the treat of educating
> people about feminism and "our issues"? what makes us the designated
> hitters -- and why do *I* have to listen to some punk tell me i don't have
> a sense of humor. why do women who speak up have to get treated to claims
> that we are angry? that all we talk about are "sex" issues as if that's
> somehow a topic that is not appropriate on this list?
>
> now, put yourself in art's place. i did. i bet you can too. not
> perfectly -- but humanly.
>
> it gets damn tiring after awhile. it sucks the life out of you if you care
> - -- and how can one help but care about something you've lived your entire
> life with?
>
> and now you're smearing his name. well i've been on lists with art for
> years too -- i lurk elsewhere -- and i can't say that i agree. so knock it
> off with the smearing. tX.
>
> also, to joe, my sweet-- i love you -- the problem with the use of Adolph
> Reed is that it was a form of appropriation. that is, it was an attempt to
> legitimate the discussion by saying, "well, gee, this black guy said this
> and it back ups what i say, so therefore...."
>
> that ain't okay. i don't think Michael meant it that way, but I think that
> a more appropriate way to have interjected Reed into this discussion would
> have been, actually, to have spoken at length about it, addressing
> questions such as, "were does adolph reed stand in relation to other black
> radicals' positions?"
>
> there's a difference. it's an important one. it demonstrates an
> attentiveness to the issues and a cognizance of the problems with using a
> black voice to bolster your position.
>
> yoshie was trying to call me on this earlier -- in a sense. except i
> hadn't really appropriated a black voice to legitimate what i'd said.
> charles suggested i go hang out with people locally - and i said, i
> could do that but people locally to me are black -- by which i meant that
> black people by and large aren't rejecting the claim that florida events
> were racists. (and i foregrounded complaints by saying, but that doesn't
> mean i'm engaging in essentialism by noting that of course not ALL blacks
> would agree per se. and, moreover, it was simply an indication of my own
> feeling of being worn down by trying to explain something that even my
> students of color sometimes find hard to understand or, rather, they revert
> to the trope of individualism too often. but hey, it's introductory level
> and what can i expect.)
>
> a highly theoretical discussion of this:
>
> Linda Alcoff, "The Problem of Speaking for Others." Cultural Critique (Wint
> 1991-92): 5-32
>
> She also has an article in Hypatia on "What Should White Peole Do?"
>
> i'll shut up now since i feel that i'm defending Art when he can do that
> himself. but, again, it's the larger issue: the problem of speaking *for*
> others that has been sidestepped. there's nothing wrong with talking about
> these issues. but you really have to do it by way of demonstrating some
> intimate knowledge with the debate and not write as if you're creating the
> wheel. we're NOT.
>
> and while i'm often sensitive to framing the issues so that the wider
> society will "get it" and get on board the train, sometimes it's just too
> much to expect of a body. where does it get anybody? where does it get
> us?
Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass --