neo-liberalaism creates more fragmentations rather than equality. multi-culturalist left couldn't create an unitaty spirit against neo-liberal capitalism.
--- On Fri, 4/9/09, Luisa Steur <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Luisa Steur <[email protected]> > Subject: > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 4 September, 2009, 6:34 PM > Below a brilliantly straight-forward > piece by Walter Benn Michaels in the London Review of Books > on danger of diversity trumping the fight against capitalist > exploitation... > "You ask them for more equality, what they give > you is more diversity". > Luisa > > > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n16/print/mich02_.html > > > What Matters > Walter Benn Michaels Who Cares about the White > Working Class? edited by Kjartan Páll > SveinssonIn > the US, there is (or was) an organisation called Love Makes > a Family. > It was founded in 1999 to support the right of gay couples > to adopt > children and it played a central role in supporting civil > unions. A few > months ago, its director, Ann Stanback, announced that, > having > ‘achieved its goals’, Love Makes a Family would be > ceasing operations > at the end of this year, and that she would be stepping > down to spend > more time with her wife, Charlotte. Our ‘core purpose’, > she said, has > been ‘accomplished’.It’s possible of course > that this > declaration of mission accomplished will prove to be as > ill-advised as > some others have been in the last decade. Gay marriage is > legal in > Connecticut, where Love Makes a Family is based, but it’s > certainly not > legal everywhere in the US. No one, however, would deny > that the fight > for gay rights has made extraordinary strides in the 40 > years since > Stonewall. And progress in combating homophobia has been > accompanied by > comparable progress in combating racism and sexism. > Although the > occasional claim that the election of President Obama has > ushered us > into a post-racial society is obviously wrong, it’s > fairly clear that > the country that’s just elected a black president (and > that produced so > many votes for the presidential candidacy of a woman) is a > lot less > racist and sexist than it used to be.But it would be > a mistake > to think that because the US is a less racist, sexist and > homophobic > society, it is a more equal society. In fact, in certain > crucial ways > it is more unequal than it was 40 years ago. No group > dedicated to > ending economic inequality would be thinking today about > declaring > victory and going home. In 1969, the top quintile of > American > wage-earners made 43 per cent of all the money earned in > the US; the > bottom quintile made 4.1 per cent. In 2007, the top > quintile made 49.7 > per cent; the bottom quintile 3.4. And while this > inequality is both > raced and gendered, it’s less so than you might think. > White people, > for example, make up about 70 per cent of the US > population, and 62 per > cent of those are in the bottom quintile. Progress in > fighting racism > hasn’t done them any good; it hasn’t even been designed > to do them any > good. More generally, even if we succeeded completely in > eliminating > the effects of racism and sexism, we would not thereby have > made any > progress towards economic equality. A society in which > white people > were proportionately represented in the bottom quintile > (and black > people proportionately represented in the top quintile) > would not be > more equal; it would be exactly as unequal. It would not be > more just; > it would be proportionately unjust.An obvious > question, then, is > how we are to understand the fact that we’ve made so much > progress in > some areas while going backwards in others. And an almost > equally > obvious answer is that the areas in which we’ve made > progress have been > those which are in fundamental accord with the deepest > values of > neoliberalism, and the one where we haven’t isn’t. We > can put the point > more directly by observing that increasing tolerance of > economic > inequality and increasing intolerance of racism, sexism and > homophobia > – of discrimination as such – are fundamental > characteristics of > neoliberalism. Hence the extraordinary advances in the > battle against > discrimination, and hence also its limits as a contribution > to any > left-wing politics. The increased inequalities of > neoliberalism were > not caused by racism and sexism and won’t be cured by – > they aren’t > even addressed by – anti-racism or anti-sexism.My > point is not > that anti-racism and anti-sexism are not good things. It is > rather that > they currently have nothing to do with left-wing politics, > and that, > insofar as they function as a substitute for it, can be a > bad thing. > American universities are exemplary here: they are less > racist and > sexist than they were 40 years ago and at the same time > more elitist. > The one serves as an alibi for the other: when you ask them > for more > equality, what they give you is more diversity. The > neoliberal heart > leaps up at the sound of glass ceilings shattering and at > the sight of > doctors, lawyers and professors of colour taking their > place in the > upper middle class. Whence the many corporations which > pursue diversity > almost as enthusiastically as they pursue profits, and > proclaim over > and over again not only that the two are compatible but > that they have > a causal connection – that diversity is good for > business. But a > diversified elite is not made any the less elite by its > diversity and, > as a response to the demand for equality, far from being > left-wing > politics, it is right-wing politics.The recent > furore over the > arrest for ‘disorderly conduct’ of Henry Louis Gates > helps make this > clear. Gates, as one of his Harvard colleagues said, is > ‘a famous, > wealthy and important black man’, a point Gates himself > tried to make > to the arresting officer – the way he put it was: ‘You > don’t know who > you’re messing with.’ But, despite the helpful hint, > the cop failed to > recognise an essential truth about neoliberal America: > it’s no longer > enough to kowtow to rich white people; now you have to > kowtow to rich > black people too. The problem, as a sympathetic writer in > the Guardian put it, is that ‘Gates’s race > snuffed out his class status,’ or as Gates said to the > New York Times, > ‘I can’t wear my Harvard gown everywhere.’ In the bad > old days this > situation almost never came up – cops could confidently > treat all black > people, indeed, all people of colour, the way they > traditionally > treated poor white people. But now that we’ve made some > real progress > towards integrating our elites, you need to step back and > take the time > to figure out ‘who you’re messing with’. You need to > make sure that > nobody’s class status is snuffed out by his > race.In the wake of > Gates’s arrest, among the hundreds of people protesting > the injustice > of racial profiling, a white cardiologist married to a > black man put > the point best when she lamented that even in the > ‘diverse area’ where > she lives (Hyde Park, Obama’s old neighbourhood) she’ll > hear people > nervously say, ‘Look at those black guys coming towards > us,’ to which > she replies: ‘Yes, but they’re wearing lacrosse shorts > and Calvin Klein > jeans. They’re probably the kids of the professor down > the street.’ > ‘You have to be able to discern differences between > people,’ she went > on to say. ‘It’s very frustrating.’ The differences > she means, of > course, are between rich kids and poor kids, and the > frustration she > feels is with people who don’t understand that class is > supposed to > trump race. But while it’s easy to sympathise with that > frustration – > rich black kids are infinitely less likely to mug you than > poor black > kids or, for that matter, poor white kids – it’s a lot > harder to see it > as the expression of a progressive > politics.Nevertheless, that > seems to be the way we do see it. The neoliberal ideal is a > world where > rich people of all races and sexes can happily enjoy their > wealth, and > where the injustices produced not by discrimination but by > exploitation > – there are fewer poor people (7 per cent) than black > people (9 per > cent) at Harvard, and Harvard’s not the worst – are > discreetly sent > around to the back door. Thus everyone’s outraged that a > black > professor living on prosperous Ware St (and renting a > summer vacation > ‘manse’ on Martha’s Vineyard that he ‘jokingly’ > calls ‘Tara’) can be > treated with disrespect; no one’s all that outraged by > the social > system that created the gap between Ware St or ‘Tara’ > and the places > where most Americans live. Everyone’s outraged by the > fact that Gates > can be treated so badly; nobody by the fact that he and the > rest of the > top 10 per cent of American wage-earners have been doing so > well. > Actually, it’s just the opposite. Liberals – especially > white liberals > – are thrilled by Gates’s success, since it testifies > to the legitimacy > of their own: racism didn’t make us all this money, we > earned it!Thus > the primacy of anti-discrimination not only performs the > economic > function of making markets more efficient, it also performs > the > therapeutic function of making those of us who have > benefited from > those markets sleep better at night. And, perhaps more > important, it > has, ‘for a long time’, as Wendy Bottero says in her > contribution to > the recent Runnymede Trust collection Who Cares about > the White Working Class?, > also performed the intellectual function of focusing social > analysis on > what she calls ‘questions of racial or sexual identity’ > and on > ‘cultural differences’ instead of on ‘the way in > which capitalist > economies create large numbers of low-wage, low-skill jobs > with poor > job security’. The message of Who Cares about > the White Working Class?, > however, is that class has re-emerged: ‘What we learn > here’, according > to the collection’s editor, Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, is > that ‘life > chances for today’s children are overwhelmingly linked to > parental > income, occupations and educational qualifications – in > other words, > class.’This assertion, unremarkable as it may > seem, represents a > substantial advance over multiculturalist anti-racism, > since the logic > of anti-racism requires only the correction of disparities > within > classes rather than between them. If about 1.5 per cent of > your > population is of Pakistani descent, then if 1.5 per cent of > every > income quintile is Pakistani, your job is done. The fact > that the top > quintile is four times better off than the bottom quintile > – the > advantage the children of rich Pakistanis would have over > the children > of poor ones – is not your problem. Which is why, in a > society like > Britain, whose GINI coefficient – the standard measure of > income > inequality – is the highest in the EU, the ambition to > eliminate racial > disparities rather than income inequality itself functions > as a form of > legitimation rather than as a critique. Which is also why, > when an > organisation like the Runnymede Trust, which has for years > been devoted > to promoting ‘a successful multi-ethnic Britain by > addressing issues of > racial equality and discrimination against minority > communities’, > starts addressing itself to class, it’s undergone a real > change. Racial > equality requires respect for racial difference; class > equality > requires the elimination of class difference.In the > event, however, what Who Cares about the White Working > Class? > actually provides is less an alternative to neoliberal > multiculturalism > than an extension and ingenious refinement of it. Those > writing in this > collection understand the ‘re-emergence of class’ not > as a function of > the increasing injustice of class (when Thatcher took > office, the GINI > score was 0.25; now it’s 0.36, the highest the UK has > ever recorded) > but as a function of the increasing injustice of > ‘classism’. What > outrages them, in other words, is not the fact of class > difference but > the ‘scorn’ and ‘contempt’ with which the lower > class is treated.You > get a perfect sense of how this works from Beverley > Skeggs’s analysis > of a story told by one of her working-class research > subjects about a > trip she and her friends took to Kendals in Manchester: > ‘You know, > where the really posh food is, and we were laughing about > all the > chocolates, and how many we could eat – if we could > afford them – and > this woman she just looked at us. If looks could > kill . . . > It was like it was her place, and we didn’t belong > there.’ The point > Skeggs makes is that ‘the gaze that embodies the symbolic > reading of > the women makes them feel “out of place”, thereby > generating a sense of > where their “place” should be,’ while her more > general point is that > ‘the middle class’ should be ‘held accountable for > the levels of > symbolic violence they enact in daily encounters’ with > the lower > classes.The focus of her outrage (indeed, insofar as > we can tell > from the story, the focus of the women’s own outrage) is > not the fact > that some people can afford the chocolates and others > can’t, but that > the ones who can are mean to the ones who can’t. And this > represents > something of an innovation in left politics. While everyone > has always > disapproved of adding insult to injury, it’s > traditionally been the > right that’s sought to treat the insult as if it were the > injury.It’s thus a relevant fact about Who > Cares about the White Working Class? > that Ferdinand Mount, who once advised Thatcher, is twice > cited and > praised here for condemning the middle class’s bad > behaviour in > displaying its open contempt for ‘working-class > cultures’. He > represents an improvement over those who seek to blame the > poor for > their poverty and who regard the culture of poverty rather > than the > structure of capitalism as the problem. That is the view of > what we > might call right-wing neoliberalism and, from the > standpoint of what we > might call left-wing neoliberalism, it’s nothing but the > expression of > class prejudice. What left neoliberals want is to offer > some ‘positive > affirmation for the working classes’. They want us to go > beyond race to > class, but to do so by treating class as if it were race > and to start > treating the white working class with the same respect we > would, say, > the Somalis – giving ‘positive value and meaning to > both > “workingclassness” and ethnic diversity’. Where right > neoliberals want > us to condemn the culture of the poor, left neoliberals > want us to > appreciate it.The great virtue of this debate is > that on both > sides inequality gets turned into a stigma. That is, once > you start > redefining the problem of class difference as the problem > of class > prejudice – once you complete the transformation of race, > gender and > class into racism, sexism and classism – you no longer > have to worry > about the redistribution of wealth. You can just fight over > whether > poor people should be treated with contempt or respect. And > while, in > human terms, respect seems the right way to go, politically > it’s just > as empty as contempt.This is pretty obvious when it > comes to > class. Kjartan Páll Sveinsson declares that ‘the white > working classes > are discriminated against on a range of different fronts, > including > their accent, their style, the food they eat, the clothes > they wear’ – > and it’s no doubt true. But the elimination of such > discrimination > would not alter the nature of the system that generates > ‘the large > numbers of low-wage, low-skill jobs with poor job > security’ described > by Bottero. It would just alter the technologies used for > deciding who > had to take them. And it’s hard to see how even the most > widespread > social enthusiasm for tracksuits and gold chains could make > up for the > disadvantages produced by those jobs.Race, on the > other hand, > has been a more successful technology of mystification. In > the US, one > of the great uses of racism was (and is) to induce poor > white people to > feel a crucial and entirely specious fellowship with rich > white people; > one of the great uses of anti-racism is to make poor black > people feel > a crucial and equally specious fellowship with rich black > people. > Furthermore, in the form of the celebration of > ‘identity’ and ‘ethnic > diversity’, it seeks to create a bond between poor black > people and > rich white ones. So the African-American woman who cleans > my office is > supposed to feel not so bad about the fact that I make > almost ten times > as much money as she does because she can be confident that > I’m not > racist or sexist and that I respect her culture. And > she’s also > supposed to feel pride because the dean of our college, who > makes much > more than ten times what she does, is African-American, > like her. And > since the chancellor of our university, who makes more than > 15 times > what she does, is not only African-American but a woman too > (the fruits > of both anti-racism and anti-sexism!), she can feel doubly > good about > her. But, and I acknowledge that this is the thinnest of > anecdotal > evidence, I somehow doubt she does. If the downside of the > politics of > anti-discrimination is that it now functions to legitimate > the > increasing disparities not produced by racism or sexism, > the upside is > the degree to which it makes visible the fact that the > increase in > those disparities does indeed have nothing to do with > racism or sexism. > A social analyst as clear-eyed as a University of Illinois > cleaning > woman would start from there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out Yahoo! Buzz. http://in.buzz.yahoo.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
