[lbo-talk] diverity, City-style

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Wed Oct 28 11:09:50 PDT 2009


On Oct 28, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Andy wrote:


> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That
>> is, if capital is supple enough to co-opt any politics, why do
>> antiracists earn such harsh denunciations -- even, in Michaels's
>> case,
>> hatred -- when their failures are in the end no different from other
>> political movements'? They failed, so what? Every movement does.
>
> I'm getting the impression that as a general rule, finding yourself
> writing something along the lines of "X hates Y" when X isn't yourself
> means it's time to hit save and go for a walk.

Adolph Reed:

<http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Antiracism.html>

All too often, “racism” is the subject of sentences that imply intentional activity or is characterized as an autonomous “force.” In this kind of formulation, “racism,” a conceptual abstraction, is imagined as a material entity. Abstractions can be useful, but they shouldn’t be given independent life.

I can appreciate such formulations as transient political rhetoric; hyperbolic claims made in order to draw attention and galvanize opinion against some particular injustice. But as the basis for social interpretation, and particularly interpretation directed toward strategic political action, they are useless. Their principal function is to feel good and tastily righteous in the mouths of those who propound them. People do things that reproduce patterns of racialized inequality, sometimes with self-consciously bigoted motives, sometimes not. Properly speaking, however, “racism” itself doesn’t do anything more than the Easter Bunny does.

Yes, racism exists, as a conceptual condensation of practices and ideas that reproduce, or seek to reproduce, hierarchy along lines defined by race. Apostles of antiracism frequently can’t hear this sort of statement, because in their exceedingly simplistic version of the nexus of race and injustice there can be only the Manichean dichotomy of those who admit racism’s existence and those who deny it. There can be only Todd Gitlin (the sociologist and former SDS leader who has become, both fairly and as caricature, the symbol of a “class- first” line) and their own heroic, truth-telling selves, and whoever is not the latter must be the former. Thus the logic of straining to assign guilt by association substitutes for argument.

My position is—and I can’t count the number of times I’ve said this bluntly, yet to no avail, in response to those in blissful thrall of the comforting Manicheanism—that of course racism persists, in all the disparate, often unrelated kinds of social relations and “attitudes” that are characteristically lumped together under that rubric, but from the standpoint of trying to figure out how to combat even what most of us would agree is racial inequality and injustice, that acknowledgement and $2.25 will get me a ride on the subway. It doesn’t lend itself to any particular action except more taxonomic argument about what counts as racism.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list