[lbo-talk] Noam Chomsky is losing it

[// ravi]

On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Miles Jackson wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 7:14 AM, // ravi wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's the "prejudice" problem. Having identified it, what do you do about it?
>> 
>> It is only because we have identified it that we can do something about it, no? What do we do? Any of a number of things, I would guess: ongoing measurement of statistical disparity, training of police and other arms of the law, changes to law and jurisprudence that attempt to correct the results, make people aware of hidden bias, perhaps even statistical weighting of sentences, so on.
> 
> If the problem is defined as "prejudice", people are inexorably drawn toward strategies and interventions designed to transform the Prejudiced Mind rather than the social structures that reproduce patterns of racial inequality.  Look at it this way: if we eliminated all of the prejudiced thinking in our society, 40% of African American children would still be in poverty, because that's a product of social structure.
> 

This is a good response (it actually and directly addresses my questions, and helps me think through both sides). While those on the other side of this argument might dismiss the notion of prejudice altogether (I think the term “silly moralising” has cropped up), I would agree that the problem is not *just* prejudice. Enough mention has been made of structural causes of racism, so I won’t rehash them, other than to point out that in those cases as well, the concept “racism” is not worthless. Returning to the notion of prejudice and transforming prejudiced minds, here is what MLK wrote in 1958:

=== quote ===

“We can and must win the mind of the prejudiced person. Force doesn’t change minds. Anger reinforces fears. And that is why it is so terribly urgent to work out the techniques of changing people’s minds, of allaying their fears about integration.

“CORE puts before people’s eyes a new way of acting. You say and you show that feelings about segregation are silly…"

=== end quote ===

I would say that “social structures” in turn are products of people’s minds, inter alia.

	—ravi

P.S: Given my constant laments about mind-reading, it behoves me to point out that I indulge in much reference to people’s minds above. I do think there’s a difference: in the case above (MLK) the reference to the contents of people’s minds is exactly to make the connection between that content and the outcomes/effects on other people and achieve the desired result (remove discrimination). In contrast, list arguments that veer off into why someone has a position they have, run counter to the goal of the debate (to arrive at a consistent and meaningful thesis).