Re: denny's

[kelley <kcwalker@xxxxxxx>]

andy, we aren't saying anything altogether that different.  i am, in fact,
raising the very kinds of issue raised by socialist feminist analyses of
structural oppression and black feminist analyses of what i'm calling
racialization which demands that we focus on the ways in which whites
define what comes to be taken-for-granted as good and normal and not
harmful to anyone.  these are, in fact, arguments raised against bourg lib
social science and these approaches ask us to, for ex, examine the
institutional imperatives of the market economy:  it privileges those with
networks and so it systematically benefits white men [see work of
granovetter and his followers] and yet people think they're simply hiring
the best employee.   i'm not against asking about how racist stereotypes
and bigotry are systemically embedded.  but much of what has been examined
here is and can be linked to 'bad' beliefs.  i want to consider the
operations of *racialization* which asks us to put the focus on the
taken-for-granted assumptions we have.  this follows the work of black
feminists who have white women to move over and examine how privilege
operates rather than asking people of color how racism feels or focusing on
how racism affects people of color.  those aren't bad things to do; i'm
simply saying we need to go another step and it is hardly an abstraction
because such analyses have, as i've maintained, important consequences for
political practice.

to reiterate what seems to have been ignored:  i brought up the example of
the cultural imperialism of standard english and precisely why challenges
to it have been so difficult--because white academics don't see how it
harms people of color.  and if they do, then they argue it's simply for
their own good to learn standard english.  rather than questioning the
so-called superiority of standard english, they reinscribe its hegemony.
they believe that standard english is best, if not only because it's so
entrenched,  and that other forms of written and oral communication are, if
not inferior, then simply too troublesome to make room for.   these are
institutional imperatives that are systematically racist tho they have no
connection, on the surface, to any 'bad' thinking or racist stereotypes.

the only point i'm making is that this is a different mode of racialization
that needs to be addressed differently.  it demand that crtique and
political practices address them, in addition to focusing on the issues
already raised here. if iris young and pat hill collins are bourgeois
social theorists, then i'll be happy to be called such.  i'm quite honored.

kelley