Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:47:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: leslie anne lopez <llopez-AT-unm.edu>
Subject: Re: Class unconsciousness




F. L wrote:
> This confuses affluence (relative or absolute) with dominance. It may be
> a reason for guilt or shame, it is not the same as membership in the
> ruling class.
> 
I was pointing out that the ruling class is not a simple equivalence with
academic work.

> 
> All of which goes to Marx's original argument that the middle class
> would be squeezed out by the ruling class. You seem rather muddled
> (perhaps by the fact that class is intersected and overlapped by other
> di- or tri- or multichotomous categories such as 'gender' [whatever that
> is], 'race' [whatever that is] and soccer club membership). Class is the
> social expression of an economic structure, and corresponds to the fact
> that real social, economic, and political power belongs to those who
> own, as opposed to those who work.

No kidding.  I guess I'm suggesting that political economy, including the
means of ideological production, has changed somewhat since the mid-1800s. 


> Of course, the call for inclusive frameworks which take into account
> inequity and domination is not  a new one. It is, in fact, the argument
> of classic Italian fascism which sought to end class struggle through
> the creation of 'corporations'.

I'm looking for more sophisticated ways to describe inequity and
domination, in order to change them (go find your own Feuerbach, I ain't
it).  My understanding of fascist corporatism is that it accepts, indeed,
embraces inequity as "natural."  What about my post led you to think I was
promoting that?

 > > Work and employment
are not equivalents, btw. And the really poor > aren't underemployed
> (engaged in jobs which are not sufficient to reproduce individual labour
> power), they're out of work altogether and survive by beggary or petty
> crime.

You've been reading too much news produced by the ruling class.

> 
> This is, ultimately a word game, and has nothing at all to do with
> reality. People will use inclusive language ('strategic multiplicity')
> if they are trying to gain broad support for a particular group or
> cause, and exclusive language ('strategic essentialism') if they are
> trying to build solidarity within the group. Who benefits? Those who
> gain or retain power; those who can influence power holders.
> 
Sounds like reality to me. 
> 
> 
> Might we have some examples which illustrate these assertions?  What
> proportion of leaders of 'nationalist identity-based movements are
> 'hybrid'? Are there nationalist movements anywhere not based on
> identity?

People who rise to a position in which they can represent a lot of
oppressed people while speaking in a language that addresses power
structures directly are often cultural intermediaries in one or more ways. 
The point is, even when purity of identity is asserted as a fact and a
goal, it's often illusory. 

> > > > If the strategy is to gather the largest possible group containing
> > representatives from the most diverse sectors/identities/groups
> > possible, in order to demonstrate "majority will" around an issue or set
> > of issues towards decolonization, you run the risk of losing claims to
> > difference, to alternative traditions, and to administrative control.
> 
> Why does this matter? Why should this strategy be preferred to others? 
> > 
> > Grassroots movements in Latin America are increasingly choosing to risk
> > the latter, and I guess it won't come as a surprise when I say I consider
> > myself part of that trend.
> 
> You do? What movements? What interests do they have? What reasons would
> they have for creating particular coalitions?

I guess you missed my last post. 


 > > All categories are inherently
arbitrary.  What are the risks?  > > Who benefits? Academics who can add
'postcoloniality' to the subject > they are studying in some cases, and
leave it out in others. Literary > scholars who can talk about subjects
they really know nothing about and > cover that ignorance in with a veneer
of technical > jargon, or who think that by creating a new concept, such
as > 'postcoloniality', they can make statements about objective or >
intersubjective public, lived reality which will have more authority >
than mere criticism of a literary text could.  > 

Whatever.  I'm studying social movements in Latin America under the rubric
of cultural anthropology.  For a couple of interesting books on cultural
politics and the politics of culture, try Escobar and Alvarez's two latest
editions.  For an investigation of coalition politics and integrationist
indigenous movements in Latin America, try the two latest editions of the
Journal of Latin American Anthropology (Hale's "strategic multiplicity" is
quoted there).

> Sorry to dump this on
you, Ms Lopez, but I am a political scientist > interested in
decolonisation as a historic process which has produced > particular
political conjunctures in the present, and I had hoped that > reading this
list would provide, at least, useful and stimulating > ideas.  What I've
found has been mostly argument about meanings. As a > guide to study and
research this isn't particularly helpful, as a guide > to action ('the
task, however, is to change it') it is worse than > useless.  > > Fragano
Ledgister > > > > -- > > 

Oh please, feel free to dump on me.  You reinforce my sense that people
live, die and froth at the mouth over meanings.  Some mortals actually
impact millions of others that way and manage to change reality.  However,
as they say in Mexico, "a pendejo is one thing, but God protect us from a
pendejo with initiative."

Carry on!

Ms. L. Lopez



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---