>On Oct 6, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Joanna wrote:
>
>>Of course "diversity" and "multiculturalism" is good for capitalism:
>>it introduces more choices; it grows the market. But it will never,
>>never, never be anything more than symbolic.
>
>So you kind of agree with Michaels, but he's an asshole anyway?
>
>Doug
"the trick is to think of inequality as a consequence of our social system and thus to turn the project of getting people...to stop being racists, sexist, classist homophobes." p. 20
"the trick is to think of inequality as a consequence of our social system and thus to turn the project of getting people (ourselves and, especially, others) to stop being racists, sexist, classist homophobes." p. 20
do you see the difference between those two quotes?
Now, I've said something similar about 101 times. The problem with most of the feminists I encountered in bloglandia was precisely this: racism is all in our heads and the way to end it was getting people to stop being that way. The focus is all individual level racism. They don't recognize social structural phenom.
The parenthetical comment is where Michaels' leaks, where he reveals his real problem. And it's where he reaches out and makes common cause --- a rhetorical, "I feel ya" aimed at anyone who has ever felt the sting of being accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. and has been outraged by the charge.
Why did he need to point out anything about how their politics is to focus "especially" on rooting racism, etc. out of "others"? Does he have evidence of this? Does he demonstrate that these folks have a special emphasis on rooting racism, etc. out of others. No, he just throws it out there.
In the lead up to that comment, Michaels decides to insult people like David Harvey and Laura Agustin, both of whom have argued against the portrayal of the poor as "victims":
"And, not content with pretending that our real problems is cultural difference rather than economic difference, we have also started to treat economic difference as if it were cultural difference. So now we're urged to be more respectful of poor people and to stop thinking of them as victims, since to treat them as victims is condescending -- it denies them their "agency." (p 19)
The entire school of British Cultural Studies -- flushed down the toilet with that comment. None of this exists for Michaels. He erases it in a scare quote, questioning the very legitimacy of pursuing investigations of the agency people exercise, even among the poorest. Instead, Michaels urges us to think of them as victims.
No one who investigates the agency of, say, immigrant prostitutes in Europe -- Agustin -- is interested in or concered about the condescention. Agustin is specifically concerned with the policy implications of pursuing that ideological framework. Similarly, David Harvey, whom I've written about here already, quoting him at length:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2005/2005-April/008118.html
Ima happy to go on and on with this, because the book is rife with such commentary. It undermines his surface claims about applauding struggles against racism, sexism, heterosexism.
If he actually cares, he'll take these criticisms of his rhetoric to heart. He could make a much more persuasive argument than he does, were he to do so.
I'm sorry you don't care to actually examine the guy's text more carefully. But it's perfectly possible to be friends with people and criticize them. You used to do that. You'e done it often on this list. It's why I admire you. What makes Michaels off limits?
shag