Is “Classalicious” in our future?
by Jen Chau
). I had a recent conversation with a friend where we were talking about this — and how it’s an unspoken thing, that you can’t necessarily tell who is who, that the distinctions of social class are much more invisible. And that’s another reason why race is so easy for us to talk about. It’s seemingly more obvious to us. Or so people think. 
Slate gives a scathing review of Walter Benn Michaels’ new book, The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality
Here are some examples of Michaels’ rhetorical excess. Cultural differences, including those involving race, are “lovable,” whereas class differences “are not so obviously appealing.” Affirmative action is therefore “a kind of collective bribe rich people pay themselves for ignoring economic inequality.” It is absurd to focus so much on affirmative action because “there are no people of different races.” It makes more sense to talk about concrete things, such as paying African-Americans reparations for slavery, than it does to engage in symbolic politics in which nothing really is at stake: “No issue of social justice hangs on appreciating hair color diversity; no issue of social justice hangs on appreciating racial or cultural diversity.”
Michaels, as these examples illustrates, belongs to the “shock and awe” school of political argument. First, you say something wildly implausible in the hopes that its dramatic counterintuitiveness will make it seem brilliant. Yet in the United States in which I live, race is an obvious fact of life, conversations about it remain awkward and uncomfortable, and both supporters and opponents of affirmative action are sincere in their convictions. It is true that saying such things would make for a very unoriginal book. But at least it would be an accurate one.
Boo-yah.
All that said, I do agree that we need to discuss class a much more than we are. But unless someone otherwise convinces me, I don’t think we can necessarily forget about race in that conversation about class. Race and class are inextricably linked (at this time).
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
dcase wrote:
I find it interesting that the discussions on the race/class dichotomy tend to view them as substitutes, albeit somewhat imperfect. In fact, they are complements. For example, racial tensions were exploited in trying to undermine unions and the labor movement made reached its peak when they loosened their racial restrictions. Now, many policies of redistribution (e.g., public good provision in cities, welfare, food stamps) are demonized with the specter of some racial minority living on the dole.
Hence, the (legit) arguments proposed by “color-blind” advocates who want to use class and inequality as a substitute for race fail to recognize how race has been used to undermine support for inequality reduction. You can’t address one without addressing the other.
Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 7:40 am ¶
weigooksaram wrote:
I agree that we can’t talk about one without the other, but I don’t think class is invisible. There are thousands of tiny cues that give away social class: how you dress, your accent, table manners, even what type of food you eat. There was a book called “Limbo” that addressed the fact that even if you get a good education and well-paying job, you can’t necessarily move up the class ladder.
Also, I think classism is more socially acceptable than racism. Of course people still say racist things all the time, but they get really angry when you call them on it. But if you call someone classist they just sort of shrug. “So what?” I think all the recent Britney Spears gossip has a lot to do with class. The subtext is, “She has a lot of money, but she is still ‘white trash.’”
Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 10:25 am ¶
HighJive wrote:
People seem just as reluctant to address class as race. Though you’d think class would be the easier to discuss, as it doesn’t necessarily come with the baggage of remaining politically-correct.
The problems related to Hurricane Katrina were class-based; however, our society seems to prefer keeping things race-based. Maybe it’s easier to blame a racial group versus addressing the economic conditions our society ultimately produces.
The global AIDS problems are mostly class-based; but again, it’s easier to pin it on racial or cultural groups.
A few class-based comments and studies come to mind.
Someone once remarked, “The Digital Divide is really the Poverty Divide.” This is very true, in my opinion.
A book titled, “Black Picket Fences” presented the differences between the Black middle class and the White middle class (which a lot of folks mistakenly believe are equal). One critical point that led to glaring differences had to do with each group’s physical proximity to poor areas. In most cases, Black middle class neighborhoods were closer to poor neighborhoods than White middle class counterparts. The nearness to low-income communities will affect a middle class environment in a host of negative ways.
William Julius Wilson wrote “The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.” Hard to find a better book on class and race.
Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 10:08 pm ¶