1. Marx and Lebron
While I was reading the section on historically evolved power, much of what Lebron was arguing seemed to echo the sentiments of Marx. Lebron argued that, in "group-based social hierarchies," the dominant group "articulate[s] a justifactory narrative and subsequently institutionalize[s] it as the shared common narrative. Initially [the dominant group] are ascendant because they seem to possess or at least are willing to exercise the valuable skills that place them in a position of leadership (they are functionally valuable)" (56-57). Similarly, Marx argued that the purpose of political ideologies were to create a narrative or rationale for justifying the elite or dominant class. Further, often the real reason for elite status was arbitrary and/or a result of what the means of production valued (whatever is 'functionally valuable'). Do Lebron and Marx's arguments overlap? That is, is Lebron illustrating Marx's criticism of ideology in our own time as it relates to race?
2. Assimilation and Identity
In the section on socially embedded power, I found the Black Identities example particularly interesting and disturbing. The example, of comparing the attitudes and beliefs of first- and second-generation West Indian immigrants, reminded me of Book 4 in the satirical work, Gulliver's Travels. In Book 4, the main character, Gulliver, finds himself on an island where the dominant, rational creatures are talking horses called houyhnhnms and the primitive, subjugated creatures are called yahoos. The yahoos are essentially humans, in the state of nature, roaming the island like wild animals; the houyhnhnms, on the other hand, have created a society based on reason and dominate the yahoos like we do to horses. Gulliver, being a civilized human from Europe, finds kinship with both the houyhnhnms and the human like yahoos. Along Gulliver's journey, he struggles to choose whether to identify with the houyhnhnms (being civilized and capable of reason) or with the yahoos (for he was indeed the same species) and thereby saw himself "through multiple lenses" as Lebron would say of the children of West Indian immigrants. Gulliver, not wanting to be associated with the primitive and lesser valued Yahoos, exerts the vast majority of his energy assimilating into the culture of the houyhnhnms, attempting to distinguish himself with fancy clothes, language, and reason. Ultimately, Gulliver becomes estranged to the yahoos and assimilates into the culture of the houyhnhnms. While Gulliver's Travels is fantastical and hyperbolic, the themes of identity mirror an interesting dynamic behind Lebron's argument. It is an interesting dynamic that, to break free of the disadvantageous power of corrupted normative values individuals must distinguish and alienate themselves from a disenfranchised identity. It reminds me of a similar discussion we had with 'passing' when we read Cheryl Harris' argument for whiteness as property. This dynamic has the ability to strengthen and solidify social norms - rather than 'successful' members of a disenfranchised class identifying with their class and thereby strengthening its normative value, they often estrange themselves and assimilate into the dominant class, just like Gulliver. Can Lebron's democratic perfectionism really mitigate these profoundly negative effects on the concept of self? While Education is a good step towards breeding understanding (hopefully at an early age), how can reasonable propaganda and boondock institutions breed a positive concept of self? Are these methods susceptible to perception problems? That is, is it possible - to any degree - that the government taking active steps to promote racial justice could, as a result of perception, create backlash? How can these programs be implemented so as to avoid undermining the very ends they are trying to achieve? Some hold the view (regardless of its veracity) that affirmative action creates the perception that minorities who are hired or are accepted into certain programs only were able to because of their minority status. If this view is widespread, it actually perpetuates the normative devaluation of minorities. How can we avoid this sort of problem?
Jacksón—
ReplyDeleteI had the same thought while reading the “narrative” section of Lebron’s chapter 2. After thinking more about his use of narrative, I agree that this tactic was implemented to initially subjugate certain classes of individuals based on functionally irrelevant factors such as race and gender. However, I am concerned about current narratives and how they relate to current subordinate social relationships. Our country was founded on two competing narratives—one that upheld equality for all and the other that reinforced “white”(cis-gendered, heterosexual, Protestant man) as valued more than “black” (or any combination of trans-gendered, homosexual, non-Protestant woman) by promoting “functionally valued” qualities as socially desirable. The latter narrative dominated institution making until the Civil War era, when the extreme inconsistencies between the two narratives became apparent. At this point, the “functionally valuable” narrative evolved to what Lebron argues is the social devaluation of blacks. Ever since then, I see history and the evolution of institutions in the United States as trying to simultaneously uphold and dismantle each narrative under different circumstances. My question then is how do individuals and institutions decide which narrative to embrace, and under what circumstances? If those that hold positions of power in institutions set social norms, why would there be any competing narratives to begin with? In Marx’s world, wouldn’t the dominating class desire to strengthen and uphold the “functionally valuable” narrative in order to maintain their positions of power? I believe that Marx would consider our current situation peculiar due to the fact that while one ideology current rationalizes and perpetuates inequality based on socially and morally irrelevant factors, the other dominating ideology seems to stand in direct opposition to the former ideology and even suggests the ideal for which we should strive. Furthermore, I believe Lebron sees his tactic of shame as one of the ways of shifting the dominant narrative to “equality for all” while concurrently disassembling the “functionally valued” narrative.
Also, an (unrelated) word on shame. At Naomi Tutu’s Ath talk, she spoke about remorse and shame as a catalyst for change. Ms. Tutu held very similar thoughts to me regarding the efficacy of shame, claiming it was a “double-edged sword”. Ms. Tutu’s worries, which I agree with, are that either a) individuals would not feel shame for the misalignment between their moral principles and their moral actions or that B) even if they did feel shame, for a split second, they would consider this feeling further motivation for the perpetuation of systemic racial inequality. I want to reiterate a point that I brought up in tutorial that Lebron’s use of the shame as a change catalyst is idealistic (or as Professor Hurley mentioned, maybe just too optimistic), and does not necessarily help in Lebron’s efforts to fix our nation’s bad character.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIsabella, I think that the worries that you brought up in tutorial regarding the inefficacy of shame are very real, and need to be thought through. Even if you can show people that there is a compelling moral reason (through a mechanism such as shame) for them to change, it is still difficult to motivate them to do the work of actually changing. Not all of them will be willing to do that work. Not all of them will change. I think that Lebron would certainly agree with that.
ReplyDeleteBut, if Lebron (and Professor Hurley) are being too optimistic about the power of shame, then I think that you are being too pessimistic. One question that I have after reading your comment is: how can one feel ashamed by one’s falling away from one’s morals, and have this feeling serve as “further motivation for the perpetuation of systemic racial inequality”/further motivation to deviate from their morals?
As I mentioned in tutorial, I think that Lebron’s call to feel shame because “we often know better, but fail to do better” (51) is a challenge that he issues to us all to change to bring our actions back in line with our intentions, ideals, and morals. And, sure, Isabella, not everyone will accept this challenge, but does that mean that it isn’t worth issuing?
Jacksón,
ReplyDeleteYour mention of the fact that affirmative action might “create the perception that minorities who are hired or are accepted into certain programs only were able to because of their minority status” immediately led me to think of Lebron’s discussion of stereotype threat that he gets into near the end of chapter 2.
In conducting studies with Stanford students, Steele and Aronson found that even when they just mentioned a “diagnostic condition” (68) or “[gave students] the option of stating their race in a questionnaire” (69), “significant racial differences in performance to the disadvantage of black students were found” (68).
If students belonging to minority groups – especially at elite institutions such as Stanford – have to contend with the pervasive perception that they are less deserving of their places at said elite institutions because they got a boost from affirmative action, then stereotype threat (which, judging by the studies Lebron brings up, already seems to be a real problem) will only be more easily triggered.
Until you posed your question, I hadn’t properly thought about the way that the government’s efforts to promote racial justice – through programs such as affirmative action – could facilitate shifts in perception that could magnify the influence of stereotype threat, and thus create the kind of “backlash” that you mention as a potential problem.