At 08:21 AM 10/4/2009, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Man, this is further proof that Frank Luntz was really onto something
>with his aphorism: "It's not what you say, it's what they hear."
>
>Michaels doesn't say this. He's explicitly says that progress against
>racism, sexism, and homophobia are good things. His argument is that
>these victories shouldn't confuse us into thinking that the U.S. is a
>more just and egalitarian society as a result. Over the last 40 or so
>years, this has become a far more unequal and exploitative society.
>Neoliberalism has been able to use "diversity" as a defense against
>charges of inequality and exploitation - most recently with the guy in
>the Oval Office. Corporate America is now 100% behind diversity.
>Compare support for affirmative action (nearly universal among big
>capital) vs. increases in the minimum wage or positive changes to
>labor law (universally opposed). There is no way in which capital
>cannot live with the elimination of all discrimination based on sex,
>race, or preference - in fact, large sectors of capital are more than
>fine with it. Which, of course, doesn't make it a bad thing. But which
>does require us to think more carefully about it.
>
>It's sorta like liberalism. Michael Lind says that a left without a
>labor movement is one based on philanthropy and charity. He could have
>added that it's one that's proud of diversity - but not all that
>uncomfortable with exploitation.
I didn't think the book was horrible. I just thought it was a weird book directed at leftists who have been making the same criticisms for years now. Who was the audience? He kept writing as if there was some wide swath of leftists who don't get this.
I think he was talking to non-leftists in the universities, who he is admonishing to understand that class is not merely an "identity" -- its mode of oppression doesn't at all operate the way race, gender, disability, etc. do -- But these people never have and never will care about class from a leftist perspective.
They will care about it as a "cultural identity". Michaels uses an example of how the result of thinking of class like a racial identity is that you have consciousness-raising workshops where people learn to respect the cultural differences of class. *rolls eyes*
Now, I *do* think there's something to be said about the cultural markers through which we solidify and justify class exploitation via social institutions that enforce oppression. But the approach of multi-culturalism here is to dissociate an analysis of status and strata from an analysis of the forces of class exploitation that undergird it.
This is how Angela M put it: "Multiculturalism is a theory and policy of social order, of the restoration or institution of that order (and its boundaries) grounded in the recognition and management of differences-in-unity."
more: http://cleandraws.com/2008/01/23/multiculturalisms-failure/