In class on Thursday, I tried to make the point that, especially in grassroots organizing, one should not be too hasty to criticize the individualistic - indeed, neoliberal - position adopted by those directly affected by an issue at hand.
For example, there are quite a few programs which try to teach young men of color how to avoid interactions with the carceral system, many of these programs being led by folks who themselves have had extensive involvement therein. As per Crenshaw’s critique, these programs both ignore the experiences women of color have with the carceral system, as well as fallaciously individualize the problem of mass incarceration. However, my point was that it is often an enactment of great privilege for one to be able to circumvent thinking about things on an individual level, given someone (like myself) has never directly or indirectly been affected by the carceral system in a substantive way. It is very easy for me to detach myself from an individualistic critique when such a perspective is all but vacant from my experiential knowledge.
My point is not at all to encourage neoliberalism, or even necessarily to discourage a critique thereof. Rather, I simply want to highlight the privilege inherent in being able to think about the carceral system solely in abstraction, in theory.
Moreover, I think this also identifies a vicious circle, a self-fulfilling prophecy of neoliberal thinking that may occur in highly marginalized and oppressed communities. When oppression and domination is not a topic reserved for Feminist Philosophy, but rather is a quality of everydayness, when one sees friends and family member being sucked through the school-to-prison-pipeline, being harassed and beaten by police, being forced into dangerous informal economic means, there is very likely an accompanying sense of hopelessness. A sense that one is not in control of these tidal forces, that they are far too hegemonic and insidious to be affected. Thus, it would not be inconceivable that if one nevertheless retained a modicum of hope, one would direct this energy towards effecting change in one’s immediate sphere. The idea that one could dismantle oppression on an individual level is alluring, no doubt. I am not saying it is “right,” but rather it is understandable, moreover rational (given such environmental conditions).
Again, I am not trying to purport or advance neoliberal thinking, but rather I am suggesting that without an empathetic disposition regarding why already-marginalized communities would adopt neoliberal (and thus further marginalizing) thinking, one will never be able to build trust, and thus effectively organize, in these communities.
Schaeffer,
ReplyDeleteI, too, was struggling with completely rejecting the neoliberal approach after our reading of Crenshaw's critique. While she presents great points, I do think it is important to acknowledge, as you did, that people who experience various forms of oppression in their everyday lives may be drawn to programs like those directed at at-risk youth because they offer tangible, albeit imperfect, ways to navigate these oppressive systems. It's important not to lose sight of the fact that not everyone has the privilege to advocate for systemic change when many are simply trying to make it through the day-to-day.
Schaeffer,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the points you're making in your post. We often find a disconnect between theory and practice because theory often neglects the individual situations of people such as the ones you mention. I think about this a lot when I think about the politics of respectability. While it's wrong to say that black folks should pull up their pants and not speak in AAVE (as it's allowing white people to dehumanize black people if they're not following these rules of respectability), it's also wrong to say that black folks shouldn't advocate for this respectability when it may be a survival tactic in a racist society.