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?
In the fall, the SGRP posted a symposium on Noëlle McAfee's essay, "Two Feminisms." The commentators were Amy R. Allen, Nancy Bauer, Scott L. Pratt and Linda M. G. Zerilli. Noëlle has written a reply to her commentators and it is now posted and available. You can find it by going to the SGRP website and following the link on top to "Symposia" and scrolling down to Fall 2007. (Our apologies to Noëlle for taking so long to edit and post her reply!)
**Please note: The links to the Pratt and Zerilli essays were broken, but have been fixed. 3/21/08
We encourage discussion of this symposium on the blog. What are your thoughts?
Nathan Placencia, a grad student at UC-Riverside teaching this year at DePauw, was at the Dayton Colloquium last weekend. I really enjoyed getting to know him and his work. He sent me a question he'd like our blog community to consider (below). I hope people will be inspired to help him out! --SH.
"While working on my dissertation I've been trying to map out the domains of inquiry in which contemporary philosophers of race operate. So far I've come up with at least three very rough divisions:
(1) theorizing about the social scientific use of race;
(2) theorizing about the political use of race; and
(3) theorizing about the popular, folk, or ordinary use of race.
For (1) the primary goal of one's theoretical work is to come up with a viable conception of race that can be used by social scientists to build better theories as well as to improve empirical work. Or one argues that there is no viable conception of race and, therefore, social scientists should stop using it. For (2) the primary goal is to expose conceptions of race that have been used to oppress populations and to construct new conceptions of race that either empower oppressed populations or in someway fight against their oppression. For (3) the primary goal is to capture the "folk" meaning of "race talk" and/or to describe how ordinary practices of racial categorizing operate. Usually what follows this investigation is a discussion of whether or not "race talk" and its corresponding practices ought to be eliminated, significantly revised, or conserved.
I would like to find out if practitioners in the field think that this in apt way to divide up contemporary theoretical work on race. And, if so, how would they classify their own work along these lines."
Readers may want to check out the excellent new blog Racism Review. I was particularly struck by this very nice post by Adia Harvey on the way that many people seem to think the only racists are those who self-identify as racists.
Is being racist now simply subject to the individual’s choice? Are you only racist if you self-identify as such? At what point do your actions define who you are? If stereotyping racial minorities, passively or actively supporting institutions or policies that uphold inequality, and engaging in behaviors that endorse or perpetuate the basest, most negative images of minorities doesn’t make you a racist, what does? Or to paraphrase comedian Chris Rock, what do you have to do to be a racist? Shoot Medgar Evers? I can’t think of too many other areas where self-definition overrides action in the same ways that it does when we think about who is and isn’t racist. For instance, if I register to vote as a Republican, donate money to John McCain, agree with his policies, and vote for him in the primary and general election, would anyone believe me if I then insisted that I was a Democrat?
Recent Comments