>I don't know but it seems to me that WBM and shag have effectively the
>same underlying argument but just come to different conclusions. Shag is
>arguing that because capitalism needs to claim equality while being based
>in inequality it constructs racism to divide us on some other basis
>besides class. From this she draws the conclusion that we must first get
>rid of racism in order to show the 'true' class based inequality of the
>system.
Shag responded:
>bzzzt. wrongo. hint: racialization is not the same as racism conventionally
>understood. that is why I talked about the racialization of poor _whites_.
Me- How does the use of the term racialization instead of racism change what I wrote? I was not using racism as a static form but a process. How would we get ride of racialization in capitalism as you argue for here:
>“the point of talking about racialization (what i'm more broadly referring
>to as oppression) is that capitalism needs a _process_ by which it
> legitimates inequality by locating the cause of inequity in individuals or
>in the properties of the groups to which those individuals are said to
>belong. (this is why Michaels' claim that race is only ever about biology
>(a view of race and racism as a product, a static entity that inheres in
>bodies) and dismissal of race as something that is socially constituted (a
>process - racialization) is deeply problematic to a leftist politics.”
Me- As an ongoing and fluid process racism or ratialization could and would alter the ways that it and capitalism (also a fluid and ongoing process, not a thing) interact. How then would an approach that seeks to first deal with racism or ratialization really ever overcome either problem, racism or capitalism? Couldn’t the ratialization process actually be occurring in a relationship to the efforts to overcome them? Also, couldn’t these efforts be a form of demarcation that could act as an ideology to legitimate class inequality.
Here is where you argue for overcoming ratialization first:
>”And this is why it's important to advance a system in which, yes, we do
>have equal represenation of races and genders and so forth. Because under
>such conditions it's going to be a lot easier for people to finally see
>that there's more going on. Once people realize that anyone can become rich
>(to use eWBM's lingo) can "become rich" and that people from all kinds of
>backgrounds do become "rich", and yet things are STILL fucked up, then they
>will start getting a clue about the _real_ causes of inequality.”
Me- How will the real causes of inequality ever be exposed when they are constantly in flux and changing? It still seems to me that you are positing the relationship between capitalism and ratialization as static and only occurring in one manner- ratialization to divide the working class and offer an ideological source of understanding for the lack of equity in a class society. Couldn’t it operate in the manner that human rights or individual constitutional rights in liberal democracies operates: as a source of individualization and as an ideology of struggle that serves to legitimize class inequality as arising out of a system of equality of opportunity?
At 11:53 AM 10/12/2009, brad bauerly wrote:
>WBM just inverts this basic, and quite old, argument by stating that the
>focus on race has become the actually source of the distraction from class.
>Shag wrote: axshully, the _source_ of the distraction would be what
michaels calls
>neoliberalism. the people who advance the diversity discourse michaels
>derides are just mindless dupes of a system which operates behind their
>backs. michaels, quite obviously, has magically escaped such a fate.
Me- I don’t know about mindless dupes, how about ideologically located in a class divided society? I am not sure how WBM would think about it (I have moved beyond him to think about the issues he raises in a more systematic way), I would have to say that as a fluid relationship ratialization and capitalism could obviously operate in a relationship where it could be _both_ a form of division within the working class and as an ideology of liberation (utopian project) within a class divided society.
>Shag wrote: also, how does it happen that you (generic you, not you brad
you) are
>wedded to a superstructuralist and functionalist theory, where people as
>agents largely evaporate into the mist, and yet at the same time find
>yourself believing that social change needs to happen by cajoling and
>finger-wagging people into being better behaved -- i.e., "get up in arms
>when it occurred to them that they are turning themselves into finishing
>schools for rich kids of the u.s."
>I know! I know! PIck me Mr. Kotter! I know the answer! It happens when your
>social theory has no concept of _internal_ social change!
Me- Not sure who has the theory that lacks internal change. I am trying to understand the ways that the relationship between ratialization and class has change due to human agency. I am trying to understand how the various movements for racial equality have been co-opted into becoming part of capitalist ideology and its reproduction, while still, quite obviously, operating in its classical form of ratialized division.
Brad