Re: denny's

[Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxx>]

At 08:37 AM 8/29/99 +0000, katha wrote:
>Woytek,
>
>  So if racism doesn't exist, how do you explain the fact that blacks
>are disproportionately poor? are steered away from housing in all-white
>neighborhoods even if they can afford the payments?  Are treated
>insultingly by many white workers in places of public accomodation, like
>denny's? How come white people move away when blacks do move in? How
>come interracial couples are attacked on street-- and interracial sex is
>still a media taboo? How come white parents pull their kids out of
>public schools when the schools become integrated? How come the South is
>full of all-white "christian academies" that sprung up exactly when and
>where schols integration took place?


Katha:

As I said elsewhere, I make a clear distinction between real and imaginary
claims.  I never said that social inequalities do not exist in the us, but
i also believe that those inequalities may have very complex causes beneath
them.  Analytical separation and weighing of these underlying causes is
what constitutes the backbone of social sciences.

Although I would gladly examine and discuss the empirical evidence of the
effects of different social, cultural economic etc. factors on these
inequalities - this was not the subject of my posting on the subject.  What
I was cricized was claims of "racism" made with little empirical
justification but with plenty of emotive connotation and ideological
posturing.  In other words, the subject of my posting and critique was not
social inequelity but the production of knowledge.

As is wrote in response to andy, my concern is the growth of the spin and
psychothrapy industries - produced by our universities that manufacture
cultural products - among them cultural identities and the proper feelings
associated wirh them.  Paret of that identity creationsim process is
grivance manufacturing.  This grievances are based on authentic facts of
victimization - but what they manufacture is the vicarious feeling of that
victimization. So people who have never saw a concentration camp suddenly
feel "vicitmized" by the holocaust (not long ago the nation run an excelent
book review on holocaust creationism), people who never experienced slavery
of even jim crow laws now feel victimized and demand reparation, not to
mention the truly prepopsterus victimization claims voiced by white
suburbanites (the most idiotic one I heard was "vicitmization by mass
transit" - "the inner city criminals" take the rail to the burbs, rob the
unsuspecting victims, and then take the loot back, still using the rail).

Stated diffrently, I view grievance manufacturing as a uniquely middle
class and intellectual commodity producers phenomenon that needs to be
analyzed and deconstructed.  Not surprisingly, my deconstructiojn efforts
are met with the usual defence of myth producers - they point to the
underlying empirical reality on which their myth is built (for the
discussion on the structure of a myths see Roland Barthes, _Mythologies_).

Thus, if you doubt the preposterous property rights claims put forth by the
the rich, their spin doctors would ask you "so woulkd you want to give up
your house and car?" - thus linking the purported claim (property) to the
emprical reality you rexperience (having a houese), and thus "justifying
it."  If you start questioning the fake anguish of bored hollywood
producers, they will tell you how the "memory of the holocaust" (which they
never experience) affected their psyche, and if you start questioning that,
they will accuse of you of holocaust denial.  In the same vein, black
bourgeoisie or politicians talk about racism, even though they have never
experienced it personally, but if you question it, they will dump the
entire history of slavery in the us on you.


so as you see, katha, there are two quite distinctive elements here - the
empricial reality (actual injustice or suffering) and the vicarious use of
that empirical reality for cultural consumption.  The trick, well perfected
by the scribbling and the schmoozing classes for centuries, is to hide
behind- or hit you with- the emprical each time you attack the vicarious or
the virtual.  But let me underscore it once again - my quarel is with the
virtual, not the empirical.  IN other words, if there are real victims of
real injuries, let them redress their grievances if they can demonstrate
their case.  As for the rest who 'shares the experience' - just shut the
fuck up and drive. I am really sick and tired of middle class whining.

wojtek

PS.  Here is a relevant ethnic joke:

     Q: How many Americans are needed to change a light bulb?
     A: One thousand and one.  One to do the job, and a thousand to share
the experience.








    t's very simple - it is moving away from anecdotes that obscure more
than they can possibly explain and relying on solid empirical evidence
instead.  I am not denying the existence of deep social inequalities as
well as mutliple other social problems in the US - what turns me off is
what the spin doctors of various stripes are making out of them.  It is my
belief that most people who voice various grievances agains those social
problem did not experience those problems themselves or experience them
vicariously - by reading about them in books.  I think that in some cases,
they opportunistically use those vicarious experiences to peddle their own
intelelctual commodities (books, articles, lecures, speeches, etc.), and in
some other cases they view them as a threat to their collective identity -
and thus engage in some form of collective psychotherapy to heel their hurt
feelings.


Thus we have "racism creationism" to heal hurt black identity, "holocaust
creationism" to heal hurt jewsih identity, "reverse discrimination
creationism" to heel the hurt feeling of white underclass, "sexism
creationisn" to heel the hurt feelings of feminist identity, "christian
persecution creationis," and so on and so forth.  I can assure you that as
our fine instituitons of higher learning keep producing new symbol
manipulators, we will hear more and more about these and assorted evils
threating various identities.

To reiterate, I am not denying the existence of social inequalities that
need to be abolished.  My crtique is directed against symbol manipulators
and grievance manufacturers.  We need to distinguish real grievances from
manufactured ones on the pain of losing the remnants of credibility.  As
the spin and psychotherapy industries specializing in making mountains out
of molehills grow, that seems to be a sinsible proposition.








>  Do you think blacks choose this social position? Are genetically
>destined for it? Deserve it?
>   Economics just doesn't tell the whole story. Lots of blacks aren't
>poor, but they are still discriminated against. There are NYC private
>schools that are still basically all-white. They use their scholarship
>money (since these schools cost say 10-15,000 a year you can have a
>pretty good income but still need help with tuition) to help struggling
>white people, not blacks. ACORN sent black and white testers to  get
>applications to gifted and talented programs in Brooklyn and found that
>white parents were warmly received and given all the info they needed
>,and black parents got the run around. My daughter went to a G and T
>program in manhattan -- the "hotter" it got (more popular and
>celebrated) the fewer American blacks were accepted.  It went from
>majority black to maybe 20 percent black in about ten years. And this
>school was in a heavily black district. simple rule of thumb: the more
>white people want something, the fewer black people get it.
>    In a recent issue of Race and Poverty, there's was an article
>discussing different treatment of white and black women on welfare. Even
>under the new system,Caseworkers have some latitude.  Turns out, white
>women were vastly disproportionately the beneficiaries of this
>latitute.  for instance, they were more likely to be allowed to turn
>down a job because it required night hours. and they often got, and
>blacks never got, help with transportation.
>  You say racism is "just" a psychological phenomenon, not a structural
>one.  This is what a lot of white people think -- that racism is about
>not "liking" black people as individuals or considering them inferior.
>And partly it is. But it's a also about the way US society is
>structured  -- and white people famously do not wish to see this.
>
>  I guess another way to ask the question is, what kind of evidence
>would persuade you that racism is an important factor in American life?
>
>Katha
>