We're currently hosting a book event on it at the Valve, and you're more than welcome to read around and participate, if you're interested. We're currently at the "establishing what he said" stage, but the debate's still been brisk, as you might expect.
Race, class and gender are inextricably connected. I agree with you, Cocacy, that I need to read the book but I do wonder if Michaels’ underlying premise is flawed if he sees race trumping issues of class: “You can’t separate the two, It’s impossible to do, just like the salt in the stew.” Lizz Wright from 'Salt'
Discussions of race that don’t include class and gender are flawed, incomplete and inaccurate in my opinion so perhaps I do agree with Michaels' premise in a way but race can’t trump class or gender because they are all connected unless you choose not to look at those connections. What interests me also is this issue of access: do for example, poor black women, middle class Latinas or black gay male teens (and their advocated and allies) have access or means to get their own stories and intellectual discourse out there? And is there a willing audience to hear that message if it does get out? Many folks don’t like looking at issues of the class unless it’s the so called “middle” or “upper” class because there is such a stigma on being poor in our culture. And of course, will issues of class sell? Is there a market for it? Is it sexy? Clearly focusing on race is.
In any regard, I hope his book moves thinking on the topic of race, class and gender in some illuminating direction.
hey, cocacy! just popping in, was trying to find your blog from before; just tracked you back from BlackProfs. hopefully back for a more susbtantial comment later; this is a subject that interests me a lot. and i see you picked up the "trumps" meme (or maybe it was already going around?) from that stupid blogthrash some months ago ("gender trumps race, DOES TOO DOES TOO")
but, well, i'd need to actually read the book, but just from the description: why already is it being posited as a one must take priority over the other? why does it seem like no one talks abut intersecting oppressions? is it a U.S. thing? maybe that's what's really the problem; what people call "identity politics" (in the pejoritive way) means "there are no or minimal connections between our special problems and those of anyone else; we are in retreat mode."
so there's no, you no, overarching philosophical (or something) frame, at least not as such as i bet most progressives/libs/lefties/radicals, even pretty engaged ones, could really articulate as such. old-school socialists and Marxists and related probably do; but it's like, okay, if not that, then what? liberal democracy? well O.K., but we probably all could use a refresher on what that actually -means,- for starters, befor we even decide if this is The Form, still. something new? is anyone even thinking along these lines?
know what i mean?
i mean, like, "anarcho-syndicalism," but i can't even PRONOUNCE the bloody thing, so...
Hi Cocacy, Checking in with what's on your mind. Class can be a hindrance or a conduit to finding opportunities in this country such as education and jobs. The historical record generally proves that being white is a conduit and being a minority is a hindrance to education and jobs. We can separate class and race, but more often than not race and class issues exist simultaneously. I do not see the purpose in defining class as "trumping" race as a hindrance, unless it's just a way of saying, "Race alone doesn't necessarily become a hindrance to jobs and education." Well, that's good news, but certainly doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist. But I don't like that the book seems to use "or" logic, rather than "and" logic. As in, "Racial disrimination isn't an obstacle to success, class is." Race OR class, rather than race AND class. I haven't read the book, but I'm not sure why our society needs one that seems to say, "Race is an issue, but class is a bigger issue so let's undermine race issues." It reminds me of how defensive successful people get about affirmative action, as in, "I didn't need it so why should she?"
Wow! What a great blog (that I have somehow missed before and where the hell have I been?).
I agree, Pink. The what-appears-to-be almost desperate need to make the discussion OR rather than AND suggests that if we can just subsume race (which was, after all, developed for the express purpose of economic exploitation in the first place) under class, race will disappear in its irrelevance. What a crock! And what a handy addition to the neo-racist bag of tricks that continues to seek ways to keep the socially-constructed, political notion of "race" alive and well. But as long as an African-American doctor can be taken to jail in handcuffs so tight his future as a surgeon is destroyed--just for driving while Black--(a true story), "race" will have its own special impact (as in: a Black doctor is still a *Black* doctor...)
Additionally, what this thread has caused me to wonder is: rather than there being just two layers to consider, are there possibly three? That is, race (number one), class (number two, though not in a hierarchical order--why are apples and oranges being compared just because they're both fruit, when they're from different trees?), and--here comes the kicker (number three)--the interaction between the two.
Poor people of any skintone experience life very differently in a range of ways from people higher up in the food chain. But "race" guarantees that people of color and most particularly African-Americans are disproportionately likely to be poor--just because they're born with a given skintone. This would mean that many African-Americans are actually dealing with three layes of whammy. They're going to suffer because they're Black. They're going to suffer because they're poor. And they're going to suffer from the ways their "race" locks them into poverty. And don't even think about adding gender to the list!
Commenting by HaloScan
