“Although there are often forces in the community which can counteract the negative influences, by far the most powerful being a strong, loving, “decent”…family committed to middle-class values, the despair is pervasive enough to have spawned an oppositional culture, that of “the streets,” whose norms are often consciously opposed to those of mainstream society.” — Elijah Anderson, “The Code of the Streets,” The Atlantic (May 1994)
—
I hate reading about “welfare queens.” I hate reading about black men with more bullets in their bodies than years in their lives. I hate reading about pregnant 14-year olds—I hate reading about what we (all the way over here) think of the “ghetto” (all the way over there). Commentary on the “ghetto” is so often laced with political or moral agendas that are dangerously reductive and all but preclude the possibility of meaningful exploration and analysis. And what is worse, there exists a multidimensional (moral, cultural, geographical) distance that paralyzes us as observers or actors. Unless the consequences of this distance are recognized, we will continue to limit the validity of our observations, and our depictions will be muddled in faulty translation.
Really, Dr. Anderson? You did not find that dichotomy– “decent” vs. “the streets”– problematic? He repeatedly emphasizes that the “residents themselves” use this term– as if he can preemptively shield himself from an imminent swarm of denunciations. As if readers would not recognize the problem of extrapolating use of the term “decent” to the Black poor at large.
So many “studies” of the ghetto immediately locate it as separate and different. I suppose it is impossible to view an entity as heterogeneous when we judge from afar, or toe the boundary to take a quick ethnographic “peek” to substantiate our claims. We arm ourselves with statistics and our handy-dandy notions of morality to judge ‘their’ behavior—but this is where science and morality fail. Drug addicts, murderers, and Bloods are not numbers and statistics. And analyses that seek to compare and reconcile two entities at odds (one good, one evil) often do so prematurely.
To the first point, “the ghetto” that people often speak of is simply a homogenizing appellation (like “the Orient”), and our quantitative analyses are often useful but reductive. To truly understand something, we cannot just observe the structural conditions in which its inhabitants are immersed, analyze statistics taken from random samples to represent the mean disposition of the aggregate, and then impose our understanding of how “society” or an “economy” functions as a bottom line to which their “marginal” universe must adapt and adjust. To the second point, people’s intent on “fixing” something of which they have no extended firsthand knowledge seems silly. So often, analysts fail to acknowledge their distance from their subjects—or perhaps, they simply fail to recognize that this distance must be traversed! Thus, the implicit claims to authenticity in many ethnographic studies are rendered invalid.
Another problem is the tendency to “study” the ghetto with the intention of comparing it to how “normal” American society works, thus reinscribing its location as marginal. What if a Venn diagram representation of the “mainstream” and the “marginal” prevailed?
Click link to continue reading entry: (more…)
“Why should I, as a progressive, vote for Obama?” I recently asked an Obama supporter desperately trying to compel me to change my party affiliation from Independent to Democrat. Of course, I had no intention of switching. I have heard all the arguments before and have yet to be persuaded.
“I serve as a blank screen…on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” -Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope
“Well, Obama is the only candidate who has opposed the war in Iraq from the outset,” the Obamamaniac began.
True indeed! Though isn’t it convenient that he was also the only candidate who was not in the Congress in 2002 to vote on the war. This is, of course, beside the point. What the Obama man was trying to say was that his candidate is the true “anti-war” candidate. It has a certain Orwellian quality that in this country someone who has voted for every single war spending bill, has stated repeatedly that he would consider using nuclear force on Pakistan, has stated that he would crack down on Iran, has refused to commit to any plan to remove troops from Iraq by 2013, and has stated that he is in favor of increasing the size of the military by 100,000 troops can position himself as the anti-war candidate. Obama, like his party, is thoroughly committed to maintaining U.S. domination of Middle Eastern resources and politics. He may be against the way the war has been executed, but one must be a skilled in the art of intellectual contortion to believe he is at all “anti-war.” Meanwhile, more than 4,000 U.S. troops and likely over 1 million Iraqis have been killed over 5 years of this unjust occupation. The anti-war movement can’t repeat its mistake from 2004 and throw its support behind another pro-war candidate.
“Okay, but he supports universal healthcare,” said the campaigner, slightly flustered.
“Oh really? So he supports single payer healthcare?” I replied.
No. In fact, Obama voted against the single payer health care bill HR676. Obama is not interested in challenging the healthcare and pharmaceutical corporations who make healthcare so unattainable for the more than 50 million without it and the service so poor for working and middle class people who have it. While he has said he wants to make healthcare more affordable, his plan for reform operates on the corporations’ terms. This is understandable as he tries to position himself as friendly to the corporate agenda and attempts to attract their support.
“Fine, but he is a better candidate than Hillary or McCain.” I could hear the first signs of desperation in his voice.
Alright, sure. My dog is a better candidate than McCain. As for Clinton, from what each candidate has revealed about their respective platforms, it’s hard to distinguish Obama’s positions from the largely party-line centrism advanced by Clinton. However I think Ralph Nader’s formulation says it best: “The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that at the end of the day you still have evil.”
“I just think it would be an historic change to finally have a black president. It’s a sign that there is hope for the future.”
Click link to continue reading entry: (more…)
