| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
In case you haven't seen it, you should visit the Philosophers' Carnival. A special treat in this Carnival is that Ron's post on "Philosophy and the Carceral Society," (with discussion) received special mention: "if you read no other posts noted in this Carnival, then do read this one." Bravo, Ron et al!
As many of you know, Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze died in December 2007. (A brief obituary is available here.) The SGRP is publishing a special memorial issue with commentaries on his posthumously published book, On Reason. The first commentary, by John Pittman, has been published on the SGRP Symposia page: http://web.mit.edu/sgrp. More to come. Enjoy!
The nation’s prison population has hit a new peak and the international business of private prisons is growing. Moreover, there is a convergence of this disturbing trend with the detention practices the U.S. government uses as part of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in its recent crack down against undocumented immigrants in the United States. The parallels go beyond the growth of each of these sorts of prisons. Some activists assert that the torture that has been revealed in Iraq and Afghanistan are used against U.S. prisoners. Likewise, just as enemy combatants disappear in our secret detention centers, so do undocumented immigrants in I.C.E. facilities.
This problem is ominous and philosophers, particularly those who work on the issues of gender and race, should be paying attention. Clearly, some of us are. There has been some discussion about prisons (beyond liberal theories of punishment) for some time and by significant philosophers. The two that come immediately to mind are, of course, Angela Davis and Michel Foucault. I recently came across an article by Eduardo Mendieta that draws on their work (see the link below for the article), and it got me to think about the relationship of philosophy to what some theorists call the “carceral society.” Particularly striking to me is the word “abolition,” which of course refers to the prison abolition movement which refers back to the antebellum movement to abolish slavery in the United States. Are contemporary philosophers, especially philosophers of race and gender, missing the boat on this one? Are we failing to see and address one of the biggest political and racial issues of our era? What is behind this lack of attention?
While there are political philosophers and philosophers of race working on the issue of prisons, it is not a subject at the center of the debate. For example, in the most influential recent analytic accounts of racism, prisons are hardly mentioned. Racial profiling and other such issues are mentioned, but prisons, surprisingly, are not! I suspect that philosophers, myself included, have seen prisons as symptoms, as outcomes of institutional racism and distributive justice at other levels of society. Thus, while educational and residential segregation are regularly addressed, prisons as a subject are neglected.
After reading Mendieta, I worry these standard approaches misses the full spectrum of how prisons function within nations and the political, really geopolitical significance of prisons. Drawing on Angela Davis, Mendieta lists 10 ways that prisons are racialized and serve to racialize population, and I think his list deserves some thought. For example, his claims that prisons, among other things, are “political machines that disenfranchise racialized others leading to their civic death,” and are “branding devices that lead to the accumulation of negative symbolic capital” are deeply intriguing and help us think about prisons beyond the idea that the are merely static symptoms of social injustice. According to Davis and Mendieta, prisons, in their own way, are resources in the perpetuation and production of social injustice.
Eduardo Mendieta, “The Prison Contract and Surplus Punishment: On Angela Y. Davis’s Abolitionsim,” http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/rrsundstrom/Mendieta_Prisons.pdf
New York Times, “Prison Nation,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/opinion/10mon1.html?scp=4&sq=prison%20population&st=nyt
There's a new blog coming out of Philosophy at the U of Alberta, What Sorts of People. It's associated with a large-scale research project with more of less the same name that pulls together about 60 researchers--a number of them philosophers of science, bioethicists, folks working on disability, the history of eugenics, enhancement technologies--mostly from Canada and the US, but also with a wider reach. Check it out!
Folks who work on oppression often distinguish oppression attributable to individuals from oppression attributable to institutions. Thus, there's a lot of discussion about institutional racism or sexism, say, as well as discussion of systemic or structural racism or sexism. Here's a quick question: anyone have any thoughts on the nature of the relation between the institutional, the systemic, and the structural? Are these terms just being used as synonyms, at least in the relevant literature? I have a vague feeling that it is possible to have non-systemic and non-structural institutions, but (since the relevant systems and structures are all social systems and structures, I presume), I'm not sure that there are any non-institutional (social) structures or (social) systems. Any thoughts?
(Cross-posting from Pea Soup. Hat tip: Robert Johnson's comments there prompted some revisions here.)
There's been a lot of discussion in the feminist blogosphere about when and if racism is a feminist issue. The starting point was feminist bloggers writing about the fact that the police who killed Sean Bell, an unarmed black man, were acquitted. Other feminist bloggers complained that not all racism is a feminist issue, and that there are no feminist issues in the case of Sean Bell. I think the ever-insightful A Woman's Ecdysis has excellent things to say on the subject:
The question is not what makes the issue feminist, but has a feminist perspective been applied to the issue? Many perceive the Iraq war not to be a feminist issue. I don't give two shits if it's a "feminist issue," I care if feminists have applied their analytical skills, intelligence, resources, and insight to the Iraq war. The once "not feminist" issue of the war, weapons of mass destruction, torture, and sovereignty transform after a feminist's examination - seeing the affect of war on womyn and families, womyn fighting in the war, the gendered language of warring countries, rape used as a tactic of war - when we apply a feminist lens, it then BECOMES a feminist issue. How in the hell does it matter at first glance if it's a feminist issue? If it affects one womyn, anywhere, it can be examined. Who in the world has the right to dictate what is or is not a feminist issue? It might not be to YOU personally, but get off my carpet, it may be a feminist issue after I'm through with it. It's not about taking a "general" issue and twisting it all around to "make it a feminist issue." Our progression should not be measured or dictated by what issues we deem acceptable, but by how insightful and truthful our responses are in accordance to ALL womyn's experience and gender concerns. It's not about the issue, it's about the assessment of kyriarchal forces working in the situation and then dismantling it from a feminist perspective.
The Winter 2008 Symposium on Gender, Race and Philosophy is now available. Find it here:
http://web.mit.edu/sgrp (select "Symposia" tab).
Its focus is Kelly Oliver's book, The Colonization of Psychic Space: A Psychoanalytic Social Theory of Oppression (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 2004). There are commentaries by Shannon Winnubst and Stacey Keltner, with a reply by Kelly Oliver. Enjoy! Comments are welcome in response to this post, or in a new post.
The WOC PhD blog has suggested a blog meme for persons of color who teach Women's and Gender Studies: http://profbw.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/
If you are a person of color who teaches Women, Gender, or Women and Gender Studies please write a blog post about why you teach in that inter/discipline. Please also address how or why you stick with it when issues of racism, homophobia or heterosexism, classism, or other issues arise. You can give as many reasons as you want and be as elaborate or succinct as you want. Tag at least 5 people and make sure that they know they have been tagged so we reach as many people as possible. You may participate even if you are just considering teaching in the interdiscipline or if your classes are cross-listed. (White allies, you are welcome to participate too, as long as you center the issue of how you support women of color as a central question in your answer.)
Please link back here so we can read your posts. If you don’t have a blog but want to participate, put your answers in the comments section and don’t worry about length.
"In Blogspeak, a meme is an idea that is shared and passed from blog to blog, like a question posted in one blog and answered in many other blogs." (from "The Memes List")
Feel free to post or comment here, or comment on the WOC PhD blog, or on your own!
Here is the announcement and call for papers for the 5th annual California Roundtable on Philosophy and Race. Note that the deadline for submissions is April 30, 2008.
The 5th Annual California Roundtable on Philosophy and Race
University of California, Berkeley
October 3-4, 2008
Keynote Speaker: Maria Lugones, Binghamton University
The California Roundtable on Philosophy and Race announces a call for papers for its fifth annual roundtable, to be held October 3-4, 2008 at UC Berkeley. This roundtable brings together philosophers of race, and those working in related fields in a small and congenial setting to share their work and to help further this sub-discipline. Papers are invited on any philosophical issue regarding race, ethnicity, or racism, and including those that take up race in the context of another topic, such as feminism, political philosophy, ethics, justice, culture, identity, biology, phenomenology, existentialism, psychoanalysis, metaphysics, or epistemology.
Submissions are especially encouraged from junior scholars and philosophers of color. We seek to foster a productive and intellectually stimulating environment for those working in philosophy and race. The Roundtable also aspires to bring together junior and senior scholars to develop and enhance constructive mentoring relationships.
Registration is free but please register by email by April 30, 2008. Papers should be no more than 30 minutes in length. Please submit full paper or detailed abstract (2-3 pages), as MS word .doc or .pdf document to fsheth@berkeley.edu by April 30, 2008.
CFP for posting: Download CRPRcfp08.pdf
In his momentous speech on Tuesday, Barack Obama invoked a psychoanalytic term to describe the task facing the country: "working through."
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through -- a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.
In psychoanalysis "working through" is what one does to deal with loss or trauma. If one doesn't work through the trauma, one is bound to remain stuck in it, stuck in a repetition compulsion that comes without conscious bidding and causes further damage. This psychoanalytic lesson is so widely accepted that a presidential candidate can invoke it without anyone raising an eyebrow.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
...Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America -- to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
Obama was calling on people to stop ignoring the problem of race, to stop simplifying and amplifying stereotypes. His speech was a signal that he was changing course and would start paying more attention, instead of saying that his presidential race is not about race. The bizarre thing is that a country still traumatized by race can't seem to unite behind someone of color unless "the race thing" is not front and center. But working through the trauma requires making it a focal point in some way or another.
Just paying attention isn't enough. To the extent that the trauma is below the surface of consciousness, some work needs to be done to bring it to the surface -- in a constructive and not destructive way. The psychoanalytic way was through the "talking cure."
Can we find or create a metaphorical couch big enough or safe enough for the country to work through this issue?
Recent Comments