Archive for the ‘multiculturalism’ Category
I have mixed feelings about the Jewish holiday of Passover. I absolutely love the seders, but I hate the other six days without bread. You can insert the standard jokes about matzoh causing constipation here, as the goyim don’t seem to be aware of this. I’m also bothered by the capitalist cooptation of the holiday, and of kashrut in general. Jewish dietary laws have become a means to jack up prices. Even more egregious, on Passover, products emerge like kosher for Passover cakes and cereal, which kind of defeat the purpose of the whole holiday and exemplify the notion of obeying the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
Still, every year, despite my reservations, and despite being a secular-minded atheist, I endure eight days of the bread of affliction. Why?
The reasons I tell people are the same reasons I practice any Jewish rituals in my own modified and modernized Reconstructionist Jewish way, from fasting on Yom Kippur to lighting Shabbos candles on Friday nights. It all boils down to three things:
1) Observing these rituals connects me with a sense of my own personal past. That is to say, it is something I grew up doing, and so I feel some obligation to continue practicing the rituals, and derive some joy from fulfilling that obligation and keeping up the tradition. And I’m a historian, so my personal history is important to me.
2) Observing these rituals connects me to the long arch and narrative of Jewish history. In some way, shape, or form, Jews all over the world have been performing these same or similar rituals for thousands of years. I derive pleasure from feeling connected to this historical chain. Again, I’m a historian, so this makes sense.
3) Jews all over the world still today perform these rituals. So by performing them myself, I feel connected to a global Jewish community, which fills me with warmth and pride.
In my mind, these reasons all operate within the framework of Mordecai Kaplan’s Reconstructionist Judaism, which posits that Judaism is an evolving religious civilization. Reconstructionism endorses full equality for women, gays and lesbians, converts, and Jews of patrilineal descent. Kaplan argued that Jewish law should get a vote but not a veto. His movement makes room for atheism, progressive Zionism and a great deal of diversity within its inclusive tent.
These reasons also have a lot to do with the dreaded “I” word, “identity,” the bete noir of many academics. But they also have a lot to do with the “C” word. No, not that one. I’m talking about “community,” which is held in a much more favourable light.
I guess I care a lot about my identity and my community, and more broadly about identity and community in general. And that of course seeps into my historical work, which is specifically about Horace Kallen and Alain Locke, but more generally about changing intellectual understandings of Jewish and African American identity and community.
And that’s why I post so much about intermarriage, and Zionism, Jewishness, and identity. Because I feel heavily invested in the struggle for Jewish continuity, even if I try to not let that distort my analyses as an academic historian. And so I tend to devalue ideologies like Marxism or extreme libertarianism, which deny significance and merit to cultural differences.
I try to be objective in my work, as I believe objectivity is often undervalued or downright ignored in today’s academic climate. Still, I admit that my biases do seep in. And if I do have one bias, I guess I should proclaim it loudly here, on this openly biased blog: I think ethnic particularlism is good. By ethnic I mean ethnic, religious, and cultural particularism.
Not always good though. When it becomes violent, chauvinistic nationalism that leads to murder and genocide, it is bad. I try to separate between the benign particularism that comes from lighting Shabbos candles and the pernicious particularism that emerges when right-wing Zionists tell Arabs they can’t live in certain neighbourhoods. And I think the two are probably and unfortunately connected in ways that should and do make me uncomfortable, even if I can’t quite explain those connections.
In his book, The End of Faith, militant atheist Sam Harris argues that religious “moderates” are almost as much to blame for the ills of faith as religious extremists, because they provide moral legitimacy to religion itself, the source of violent fundamentalism. I actually have some sympathy for this argument, and yet here I am, a passionate if moderate ethnic particularist, giving legitimacy to my more violent and extreme brethren.
But maybe it has to be this way.
Let me illustrate with a little anecdote from my college days. Back then, I moderated an Arab-Jewish student dialogue on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In some ways it was your typical Arab-Jewish student dialogue, featuring a smattering of left-wing Jews and wealthy, often Christian Arabs getting together to bash Israel. There were of course numerous important exceptions to that, which made it a rewarding if frustrating experience. One of those exceptions was, on the surface, one of those left-wing Jews, and I mean really left-wing: lived in the Dudley Co-op, active in radical student movements, strongly opposed to American hawkish foreign policy, very concerned with social justice and very critical of the Israeli government. And yet, during one dialogue session, she followed the more vociferous anti-Israel sentiment to its logical conclusion, and proclaimed she didn’t like it.
If peace in the Middle East means there would be no Jews, then I would rather there be war, forever.
I can’t say that I disagree. Because my sense of Jewish identity and Jewish community is one of the many things that provide meaning in my life. And I think these forms of communal identification and affiliation make the world interesting.
Over at the U.S. Intellectual History Blog, Andrew Hartman has a thoughtful post on the Arizona anti-ethnic studies law. What I especially like about the piece is the way that Hartman wrestles with the concept of “ethnic solidarity.” On the one hand, he fears that the concept can promote as much harm as it does good. He points out that conservative campaigns (such as the one successfully launched by the Texas Board of Education) to present a sanitized version of the nation’s past essentially amount to “an egregious form of ethnic, religious, and political solidarity that has no place in the schools.” On the other hand, however, he argues that whatever “ethnic solidarity” Chicano Studies may promote, it would be unfair to equate the programs’ view of history to those on the right. To make his case, he provides a brief historical account of the intellectual origins of Chicano Studies, in which he emphasizes the movement’s anti-racism and internationalist orientation (concerns that the School Board in Texas and Arizona State Legislature seem to lack).
I would also emphasize that the Chicano Studies movement aimed to promote ethnic pride by providing a more accurate portrayal of United States history: one in which Mexicans and Mexican-Americans played an important part of the story. Some of this history, of course, would be characterized by conquest and exploitation.
Much of today’s right, by contrast, seems intent on sweeping such unpleasantness under the rug. Consider the Tennessee Tea Party’s recent statement (which Hartman also quotes) that “no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.” The group’s spokesperson, a Fayette County Attorney, later elaborated that the point was designed to combat: “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”
Textbooks wars, as Joseph Moreau shows in his book Schoolbook Nation, have long played a role in American life. They predate the 1960s by at least a century. Still, it would be hard to beat the Tennessee Tea Party in its recent exercise in historical “revisionism.”
Over at the excellent U.S. Intellectual History Blog, Andrew Hartman has written a provocative post on the relationship between neo-liberalism and the “spirit of the 1960s.” Citing a number of recent theorists including Wendy Brown, Slavoj Žižek, and Walter Benn Michaels, Hartman argues that activists in the 1960s, with their demands for “public tolerance of things that were once intolerable, such as racial and sexual difference,” helped pave the way for “unfettered capitalism with a smiley face.”
Through the cunning of history, Hartman argues, capital has learned to thrive off of movements that “many thought was formed as resistance to capitalism, or at least, as resistance to the symptoms of capitalism: imperialism, racism, sexism, etc.” From this perspective, it appears that one of the most significant–but historically neglected–legacies of the 1960s was the way it provided establishment institutions multicultural ploys to feign progressivism while reproducing inequality.
While I think there’s something to be said for this view, especially the way that corporations and universities undertook the bare minimum of action to address the many grievances launched against them, it also risks downplaying the period’s genuine radicalism. As historian Jeremy Varon has observed, by the late 1960s activists tended to understand inequality as a total “system” perpetuated by the nation’s leading institutions: universities, corporations, and government each played a role in protecting the interests of patriarchy, racism, empire, and global capital.
In this era, groups such as the Black Panthers, the New York Radical Women, and even Students for a Democratic Society (and its various offshoots) demanded much more than diversity programs and corporate restructuring. This explains why the United States government saw the period’s activists, particularly the Panthers, as a major threat, and did everything in its power to destroy them (often breaking the law in the process).
On his larger point, I think Hartman’s correct to highlight capitalism’s newfound love affair with a United Colors of Benetton style of “multiculturalism” in the post-1960s period. These corporate reforms came on the cheap and did nothing to address the intertwined tyrannies highlighted by the late New Left: economic inequity, male privilege, black ghettoization, and American militarism. Today, corporations and universities–key institutional reproducers of social inequality–make use of the language of diversity to present themselves as the protectors of egalitarianism and social mobility. The fact that they get away with doing so—I think—says much more about the power of the American establishment than it does with the goals of 1960s radicals like Martin Luther King Jr., Tom Hayden, or Shulamith Firestone.
While American institutions might have found ways to co-opt much of the period’s dissent, this should not detract from the real gains that the era’s activists have won, even when up against some of the most well-entrenched and well-funded opponents imaginable. In the face of massive hostility, sixties radicals played a major role in electing the first generation of black political officials since Reconstruction, transformed rape and abortion laws to give women more control over their own bodies, witnessed the rise of the gay liberation movement, and helped launch modern environmentalism. While never as successful as their conservative critics claimed, the era’s radicals also transformed the teaching of American history–making the stories of the poor, of people of color, and of women, for example, central to the discipline’s mission. If the period’s activists failed to stem the rising tide of economic inequality in this country, I think that says a lot less about them than it does with the power of their opponents.
Which brings me to the Tea Party. Hartman concludes his post by asking whether he is “crazy” for sympathizing with Benn Michaels’ view that the Tea Party represents America’s only significant resistance to neo-liberalism (even if its members don’t realize it) because of its opposition to illegal immigration. Our own Wiz has already addressed many of Benn Michaels’ principal arguments here.
As for me, I don’t think that Hartman’s crazy, but I do think that describing a movement largely composed of affluent and well-educated white people, who attack undocumented workers (one of neo-liberalism’s chief victims) and call for the elimination of an already pitiable welfare state somehow “anti-capitalist” wishful thinking at best. (Whether or not the Tea Party has some legitimate grievances is another point entirely.)
What does all this all mean for today? As Wiz noted in his critique of Benn Michaels,“one of the main effects of neoliberalism has been to create a global working class that is increasingly female and people of color. So any movement which seeks to empower this new working class has to take issues of gender, race, and sex seriously.” Creating alliances among opponents of neo-liberalism, while recognizing difference, it seems to me, remains crucial to any movement that aims to achieve social justice. This, perhaps, requires honoring the best of what the “spirit of the 1960s”–at least its radical side–has to offer.
Depressed by current events, I’ve turned to Matisyahu for comfort. The former Matthew Paul Miller, a secular Jew turned baal tsehuvah (i.e. he has become an extremely religious Jew) is a hip hopping hasid strongly influenced by reggae music. He frequently rhymes about Jewish themes, which I enjoy, even if his religiosity can make me, an atheist/agnostic Reconstructionist Jew, somewhat uncomfortable. My favourite song of his, however , speaks to the secular and religious. It’s called “Jerusalem,” and I’d like to nominate it for our “Stand Up and Sing” political song contest.
The chorus, “Jerusalem if I forget you, fire not gonna come from my tongue, Jerusalem if I forget you, let ye right hand forget what it’s supposed to do,” is a Biblical reference, from Psalms 137:5-6. The actual passage reads: “If I forget you O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither; let my tongue stick to my palate if I cease to think of you, if I do not keep Jerusalem in memory even at my happiest hour.” This is classic (if not classical) Judaism: even when you’re happy, even when you’re celebrating, like at a wedding, for example, you should still remind yourself of tragedy, so break a glass to commemorate the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The first verse of Psalm 137 is the famous, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, sat and wept, as we thought of Zion,” made famous by the reggae band The Melodians as “Rivers of Babylon” in the soundtrack for 1972 Jamaican movie The Harder They Come. The Rastafarian/Jewish-Zionist connection rears its head again. Supposedly, the prophet Jeremiah penned Psalm 137 by those very rivers of Babylon sometime after 586 BCE, where he lamented his people’s exile aka The Babylonian Captivity, praying for a return to his homeland, Ancient Israel, and its capitol, Jerusalem.
Of course, one needn’t read this passage so literally. In fact, Matisyahu himself doesn’t. In the song’s first verse, he sings:
3,000 years with no place to be
And they want me to give up my milk and honey
Don’t you see, it’s not about the land or the sea
Not the country but the dwelling of his majesty
I guess Matisyahu is including the Jewish people’s sojourn in Egypt, but he’s referring to 3000 years of life in the Diaspora (Jewish life outside of Israel/Zion). Or is he? For it seems that the “milk and honey” he’s being forced to give up is not something physical, “not the country,” but in fact “the dwelling of his majesty.” This is not referring to the King of Israel, but probably to God himself/herself/itself. But that’s only if you read the song religiously. If you read it as a proud secular Jew and ethnic particularist, like I do, you can still read it in a depoliticized fashion: this is not Zionism (the haredi, or ultra-Orthodox Jew have a complicated relationship with modern Zionism anyhow). Instead the “dwelling of his majesty” could mean the spirit of Judaism, or Jewish identity, if your heart and mind. I think that’s how Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, founder of Reconstructionist Judaism (the denomination to which I belong, as did the pre-hassidic Matthew Miller), would probably read it.
The next verse is more expressly political, or at least historical.
Rebuild the temple and the crown of glory
Years gone by, about sixty
Burn in the oven in this century
And the gas tried to choke, but it couldn’t choke me
I will not lie down, I will not fall asleep
They come overseas, yes they’re trying to be free
Erase the demons out of our memory
Change your name and your identity
Afraid of the truth and our dark history
Why is everybody always chasing we
Cut off the roots of your family tree
Don’t you know that’s not the way to be
The first line here may refer to the foundation of the modern state of Israel. Yet the next verses are clearly about the Holocaust, and about Jewish assimilation after the tragedy. The last lines, “cut off the roots of your family tree, don’t you know that’s not the way to be,” is quite clearly a paean to Jewish cultural retention, yet it too need not be read religiously. It can just as easily refer to Jewish culture as Jewish religion. In fact, it need not be read Jewishly, but might simply be interpreted as a paean to ethnic particularism. The key idea: it’s schmucky to abandon wholesale the culture from which you sprang. Obviously reality is more complicated than that, but the words get me going each time.
Matisyahu’s message is clearly more religious than political. And yet, he is also trying to bring people together through music. And that’s not just instilling pride in Jews left and right, secular and religious. He’s also performed with Muslim beatboxer Kenny Muhammad. And in a version of one of his most recent hits, the catchy if somewhat naive and generic antiwar song, “One Day,” he performs with Akon. Yes, that Akon: the Senegalese-American Muslim and another of my favourite recording artists. It’s not peace in the Middle East, but it’s something.
A recent Maclean’s magazine article reported that some white Canadians students worried about the growing Asian and Asian-Canadian presence of university campuses. Originally titled, “‘Too Asian’?” (now retitled “The Enrollment Controversy”), the piece noted:
When Alexandra and her friend Rachel, both graduates of Toronto’s Havergal College, an all-girls private school, were deciding which university to go to, they didn’t even bother considering the University of Toronto. “The only people from our school who went to U of T were Asian,” explains Alexandra, a second-year student who looks like a girl from an Aritzia billboard. “All the white kids,” she says, “go to Queen’s, Western and McGill.” …
Alexandra… explains her little brother wants to study hard, but is also looking for a good time—which rules out U of T, a school with an academic reputation that can be a bit of a killjoy.
Or, as Alexandra puts it—she asked that her real name not be used in this article, and broached the topic of race at universities hesitantly—a “reputation of being Asian.” ….
…an “Asian” school has come to mean one that is so academically focused that some students feel they can no longer compete or have fun. Indeed, Rachel, Alexandra and her brother belong to a growing cohort of student that’s eschewing some big-name schools over perceptions that they’re “too Asian.”….
…“Too Asian” is not about racism, say students like Alexandra: many white students simply believe that competing with Asians—both Asian Canadians and international students—requires a sacrifice of time and freedom they’re not willing to make. They complain that they can’t compete for spots in the best schools and can’t party as much as they’d like (too bad for them, most will say). Asian kids, meanwhile, say they are resented for taking the spots of white kids. “At graduation a Canadian—i.e. ‘white’—mother told me that I’m the reason her son didn’t get a space in university and that all the immigrants in the country are taking up university spots,” says Frankie Mao, a 22-year-old arts student at the University of British Columbia. “I knew it was wrong, being generalized in this category,” says Mao, “but f–k, I worked hard for it.”
The article has generated a good deal of controversy, along with spirited defence from Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail and fierce criticism from Jeet Heer in The National Post (as well as Heer’s response to Wente in The Walrus). There is no question that the original article, by Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Kohler, made some sloppy arguments. As Heer correctly observes, it over-generalizes based on only a few schools and few departments, it lumps Asian foreign students with Asian-Canadians, counts east Asians but not south Asians, dismisses the plight of non-Asian foreign students, ignores working class white students (and any notion of class really) and stereotypes many groups unfairly.
And yet, Heer’s criticism of the article “obfuscates” (to use his word) as much as Wente’s defense of it does. He misses two crucial aspects of the story: 1) the potential pitfalls of Canada’s purely numbers-oriented university admissions system and 2) the very interesting–from an objective, academic perspective–statistical over-representation of students of Asian background in elite Canadian and American universities.
The Maclean’s article, along with Wente’s defense, runs off a number of statistics: 38% of Vancouver’s University of British Columbia students self-identify as white, compared to 43% as Korean, Chinese, or Japanese, in a city in which only 21.5% of the population falls into one of these three groups. In California, Asians make up 40% of the student body in public universities, despite only forming 13% of the state population. In the United States more broadly, Asians are 5% of the population but between 10 to 40% at elite colleges. They make up especially large portions at science oriented schools like Caltech and MIT.
I don’t have access to the data on-hand, but I have no reason to dispute these numbers. Rather than run away from them, however, I think we (referring to those people, regardless of race or ethnicity, interested in higher education) should try to ask questions: what do these numbers mean? How can we explain them? And to what extent, if any, should our investigation affect education policy?
The authors of the Maclean’s article insist, “that Asian students work harder is a fact born out by hard data.” I’m not sure how “hard” the data are, but I suspect that there is a great deal of truth to this assertion. But this “fact” plays out differently in different contexts. Certain Asian groups are statistically more over-represented in public American universities, Canadian universities, and science-oriented universities (CalTech, MIT) than they are in top American private schools, like the Ivies, Stanford, Duke, and elite liberal arts colleges. Why is this the case?
I’ll try to answer this question with a personal anecdote. When I applied to college, I applied to only one Canadian school, McGill. I wanted to apply for a scholarship there. In order to do so, I needed an “R” score of 33. I was never quite clear on what the “R” score was, except that it was some figure tabulated using my grades in CEGEP (a two-year non-remedial form of junior college that Quebec students attend before beginning their undergraduate career) as well as some grades from the end of my high school career. When I was applying to college, my “R” score stood at 32.9. I thought, surely, at only a fraction of a point under the requirement, some exception could be made. I called the admissions office. My father, who is a professor at McGill, called the admissions office. There would be no exceptions. I tried to tell them that I participated in extra-curricular activities. That my grades had steadily improved, and would continue to improve in my final semester at CEGEP (they did). None of this mattered. Scholarships to Canadian universities, like admissions, are a numbers game. If you don’t make the cut-off, you’re out. My R score was good enough to get in to McGill (which I did) but not good enough to even apply for a scholarship.
This was in stark contrast to my experience applying to American colleges. I applied to all the Ivy League colleges (except Dartmouth, which my parents deemed too goyish). Every one of them read my entire application. Canadian university applications often require only a transcript. American schools want much more. Beyond transcripts and standardized test scores, elite American schools typically require an application essay (sometimes multiple essays), a CV and letters of recommendation. They also accepted poetry, artwork, musical recordings, and other evidence of extra-curricular talent. I submitted the 100 page non-fiction self-published book on baseball that I wrote at age 13 (my wife submitted her award-winning photography portfolio). I got in to Harvard, and off I went.
In setting up this contrast, the strengths and weaknesses of each approach appear quite clearly to me now. On the one hand, there’s something wonderful about the more purely “meritocratic” Canadian system. School is about academics: those with the highest grades should get in. While the Canadian system favours the wealthy, who benefit from tutors, better schools, more access to books and other class-based advantages, the American system is even more class-biased. Entire industries serve to help richer students best the SAT, write the perfect application essay and sufficiently pad their resumes. Canadian schools also lack the resources to use the more “holistic” approach that American schools do for each and every one of their applicants. Instinctively, I sympathize with the Canadian admissions system, even if I had my own (albeit very minor and ultimately inconsequential) difficulties with it.
There are benefits to the American holistic approach, though. I clearly didn’t suffer because my scholarship application was not considered. But it’s certainly conceivable that some Canadian students do suffer: students from under-privileged backgrounds who have to work jobs which cut into their studying time, or have to help raise brothers and sisters because their single parent is at work. These are the kinds of circumstances that are often communicated in application essays, which Canadian universities, because they don’t require them, never see. Indeed, even if poorer students are too ashamed to mention these things in essays, American schools demand to know the incomes of their applicants’ families, what schools their parents went to, and yes, their race and ethnicity. All these factors are carefully considered in weighing applications. Some students are advantaged by being “legacies,” i.e. their parents went to Harvard, or because they are recruited athletes (by far the most advantaged) and so they get in as well. But others are “advantaged” because they grew up on welfare, or one of their parents died when they were in elementary school, or any other reason that might compensate for a less-than-perfect academic record.
I’m frankly not sure which system is better. But implicit in the absurd and offensive question “Too Asian?” are more reasonable questions as to whether there are other admissions processes which might be more “fair,” at least in terms of admitting people of lower socio-economic status.
In comparing the article to anti-Jewish quotas at Ivy League schools before WW2, Heer misses the irony. Today, quotas in American colleges, which exist more informally than they did back then, serve to INCREASE the presence of disadvantaged minorities, namely Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. At least that is the theory. In the famous 1978 US Supreme Court Case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke which enshrined the principle of Affirmative Action into American law, quotas were rejected, but race was allowed to be considered as a factor in university admissions in order to promote the court-sanctioned goal of diversity.
And so we get to the crux of the matter. Are Asians “disadvantaged” and do they promote or stifle “diversity”?”
Of course this is a matter of opinion. The important opinion here is those of admissions committees at selective American schools. Without all the data, I can only speculate as to their criteria. My suspicion is that Asian immigrants might be treated as somewhat disadvantaged, and thus given some preference, while the evidence seems to show that native born Asian-Americans are penalized because there are so many strong applicants that fit that ethnic profile. I don’t know if the different immigration policies in each country lead to large differences in the make-up of the Asian communities therein. Canada tends to favor educated, middle-class immigrants, so it’s possible that Asian-Canadians already have a leg-up, though I’ve heard similar theories about Asian Americans.
Again, it’s important to remember not to lump all Asians together: Chinese and Korean and south-Asian students perform better, on average, than Filipinos and Pacific Islanders. I don’t know the data for Cambodians, Thai, Vietnamese, and other groups. But the point is that even among Asian groups, and within those groups, large differences exist.
Also, while students of colour (in Canada, called “visible minorities”) face racial discrimination, many of these students at elite universities come from relatively privileged backgrounds. So determining who if anyone deserves preferential treatment in admissions requires looking at race and class. Some even argue that class-based preferences make more sense, to make sure that the iconic white “coal miner’s daughter” is not passed over in favour of a wealthy suburban African American or Latino applicant.
The take-away here is: the issue is complicated. Canadian universities’ relatively simple “meritocratic” approach avoids these difficulties. This is another huge point in its favour.
At Harvard, they used to say that they could fill their class with people who got 1600 on their SATs, or people who went to Stuyvesant High School in NYC, but that wouldn’t create the diverse student body they’re looking for. This leads to questions as to what the university’s mission is all about: is it to educate in the classroom and prepare students for careers that require some form of expertise, or is it to expose them to different cultures, to build future leaders and active participants in the local, national and international community? As an aspiring academic, I’m sympathetic to the former goal, though I also understand the desire for the latter. My impression is that in Europe, higher education seems to be about the schooling, not about “campus life.” In the United States, it’s the opposite: a rite of passage on the way to adulthood. Canada might be somewhere in the middle. And maybe that’s the right place to be.
Last, there’s the issue of explanation. Why do some Asian and Asian-American and Asian-Canadian groups perform so well in school? There are probably lots of good historical, cultural and socioeconomic explanations. But the point is that we should work to answer these questions, rather than run away from them. Let me refer to the 2004 essay by historian David Hollinger, which argues that “the failure to pursue this question implicitly fuels largely un-expressed speculations that Jews are, after all, superior.” Hollinger is right. And if you switch Jews for Asians then you have the Maclean’s story. So lets ask the question, and try to answer it.
Postscript: Since I began writing this post, Maclean’s has responded to the controversy surrounding the initial article with an emphatic defence of “merit.” It reiterates the claim that Canadian universities are “pure meritocracies.” The editors “find the trend toward race-based admission policies in some American schools deplorable.” They write:
Our article notes that Canadian universities select students regardless of race or creed. That, in our view, is the best and only acceptable approach: merit should be the sole criteria for entrance to higher education in Canada, and universities should always give preference to our best and brightest regardless of cultural background.
Again, this is true and isn’t: Canadian schools may not not discriminate based on race or creed, but they still do favour the middle and upper classes, who apply with distinct advantages. Still, I think the Canadian university admissions system is probably more fair than the American version. Last, I think the Maclean’s editors are right: Asian and Asian-Canadian academic success, like all academic success, should be celebrated. That way, humour like that of the Family Guy clip above becomes funny rather than offensive.
Since we’ve been considering the hipster here at PhD Octopus, I thought it might be fitting to analyze the interesting case of Brooklyn-based rap group, Das Racist, recently profiled in the New Yorker. On a superficial level, the group seems to exhibit a number of hipster-like qualities: they sport kitschy thrift store clothing like Mickey Mouse wife beaters and Bill Cosby sweaters. They make music videos based on 8-bit video games from the 1980s such as Tetris and Double Dragon. They seem to eat, breath, and sleep a brand of passive-aggressive, self-effacing irony associated with hipsterdom, and they reside in what is likely the hipster capital of the United States, Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
Using the hipster label to describe Das Racist, however, says next to nothing about the group’s actual music. In the course of this past year, the trio has released its first two albums Shut Up, Dude and Sit Down Man, which are both smart, funny, and politically-inflected. They rap about everything from the Simpsons, to Anthony Bourdain, to “reading Frankfurt School treatises that turn the average man into fetuses.” They also rap about smoking on doobies.
For all their casual pop-cultural references and jokes about smoking weed and drinking (and while Luce might nominate me for one of Andrew Sullivan’s Poseur Alert for saying so), Das Racist also manage to infuse their work with a self-consciously post-colonialist aesthetic pulled from the pages of Edward Said, Gaya Spivak, and Arundati Roy. (Authors the group’s two lead writers, Himanshu Suri and Victor Vazquez probably read while living in a Students of Color for Social Justice themed dorm at Wesleyan in the early oughts.) On their track “Ek Shaneesh,” they not only reference the above writers, but take their “subaltern” experiences as dope-smoking second generation East-Indian and Cuban-Italian Americans and place it at the center of the national story: “I am a pick-up truck, I am America”:
While Das Racist’s obvious humor helps ensure that their politics never come off as preaching, it also makes their intentions easy to miss. The group initially gained attention with their viral video “Combination Taco-Bell and Pizza Hut.” Originally cut as an afterthought, the song developed into something of a frat boy anthem. It’s doubtful that many of its listeners considered Suri’s later reflections that when one visits a combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, “The space is transformed by a corporate language from one single physical space to a number of illusory spaces. These spaces serve to expand the illusion of choice. The space has been recontextualized. It’s comparable to covering walls with mirrors to make a room appear bigger.” Whatever it’s ultimate significance, more likely than not, many young men in college dorms sang along to the song once or twice and thought it was hilarious.
Regardless of whether their politics get through clearly, the group can rap. Their style ranges from a stream of consciousness craziness to some of the more standard hip-hop one-upmanship. On their track “Rapping 2 u,” Suri rhymes that, “Matter fact, all my boys in bands and shit/rappers mad, cause they got Costanza dicks/you know, like the show Seinfeld/Michael Richards make my fucking mind melt!” One of the great things about the group is that even with their rhyming proficiency, they also feel comfortable mocking hip-hop conventions, such as the common tendency for rappers to record vocals using fake patois.
All this to say that labeling a group like Das Racist “hipster rap” often shows a critical laziness at best, and smug superiority at worst. Just cause someone looks like a hipster, doesn’t mean you have to hate.
Like Tupac Shakur, the late Tony Judt keeps pumping out hits even after his death. His latest, an op-ed in the New York Times about his love of New York City, is absolutely brilliant. The thesis isn’t particularly novel – basically, that New York is in America but not of it, or, in his words, “a city more at home than in its home country” – but the prose is so spectacular that the recycled thesis can be overlooked.
Tony Judt’s New York is beautiful. It is also thoroughly his. He marvels at “Joseph the Tailor,” a Russian Jew, and his barbers, “Giuseppe, Franco, and Salvatore, all from Sicily.” This New York could have existed 100 years ago, were it not for the “Israelis on the next block” selling falafel, or the “Arab at the corner” with his “sizzling lamb” (actually he might have found the latter 100 years ago too).
One thing absent from Tony Judt’s New York is any semblance of African-American life. This is a New York in which the Harlem Renaissance never happened. Or at least, where it was forgotten, or ignored, despite the profound effects it had on New York and indeed on American culture.
Spanish Harlem is also invisible. Tony Judt’s New York has no Puerto Rican Day Parade to colour its streets. My wife and I live in Washington Heights now, in the bubble that is the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, within a community that is 85% Dominican. The Dominican Republic has been the largest source of immigration for New York in the last decade. These residents too, like multitudes of Latinos that populate the five boroughs, are missing.
Even “Jewish New York,” which Judt labels “past its peak,” has simply found different mountains to climb. Fifteen blocks north and a few blocks east of our apartment sits Yeshiva University, the center of Modern Orthodox Judaism in America, which is alive and well. The Hasidic Jews of Crown Heights, Borough Park, Midwood and Williamsburg are fruitful and multiplying, and occasionally peddling a politics so noxious even Carl Paladino could find a home there.
Judt’s Jewish New York, of Woody Allen and Irving Howe (the Jewish New York with which I identify) may be dwindling, but other Jewish New Yorks are thriving.
I recognize my comment is annoying, like the grad student at the back of the room who raises his hand only to lazily ask: “What about race? What about class? What about gender?”
And indeed, I could register this complaint on behalf of every community in the city. Why didn’t Judt talk about New York as a Gay Mecca? Or the birthplace of Hip Hop? Why no mention of the multiple Chinatowns? The Caribbean, Korean and Kurdish immigrants that flavour the city? And where are the women?
But the point, and it’s a trite one, is that New York is many things to many people. Tony Judt found in New York what he was looking for: a taste of old Europe, a cosmopolitan sensibility, an intellectual life interspersed with the common touch. It was also a launching pad for countless artists, a hidden world of pleasure and peril for the men of Gay New York, workers and wives in a City of Women. “Its lights will inspire you,” proclaims Alicia Keys’ in Jay-Z’s “Empire State of Mind,” as millions of New Yorkers, inside and outside the municipal limits, all around the world, sing along to the chorus in this anthem for the new millennium. The city is Tony Judt’s, but it’s also theirs, and mine, and yours.
No, that’s absurd. But Walter Benn Michaels thinks so.
I recently came upon this interview with Michaels, in which he calls the Tea Party “a real reaction against neoliberalism that is not simply a reaction against neoliberalism from the old racist Right.” You see, neoliberalism requires immigration, Michaels believes, and the Tea Party is opposed to immigration. Thus, the Tea Party is anti-neoliberalism. This is… so fucking crazy I almost didn’t know what to say.
Michaels, for the last couple of years, has been the preeminent critic of multiculturalism from the left. In The Trouble with Diversity, he argued that the type of multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, and identity politics that have dominated the liberal imagination in general, and the university system in particular, are the products of an unconscious affiliation with neoliberal ideology. He identifies what he calls a “left neoliberalism” comprised of anti-racists, anti-sexists, and others, who, he thinks, enshrine an individualistic mentality of personal fulfillment which is perfectly consistent with consumerist neoliberalism. A central aspect of the post-Fordist economy, Michaels argued, was a shift whereby the economy became depoliticized, and instead cultural issues (gender, sex, race, etc…) took its place. Universities, for instance, began obsessing over having a culturally diverse student body and curriculum, while ignoring the lack of poor students and embracing a neoclassical economic orthodoxy.
Michaels certainly isn’t the only one to make arguments like this. Lizabeth Cohen, in her excellent study, A Consumers’ Republic, argues that much of the identity politics we associate with the 60s era was predated by the move to niche marketing in the 40s and 50s. David Harvey has also made similar arguments about “post-modern” identity movements which are reflective of a neoliberal “mental conception of the world.” In terms of academia, William Sewell argued, in his wonderful essay “ The Political Unconscious of Social and Cultural History” that the “cultural turn” made by historians in the 70s and 80s was consistent with the end of Fordism and rise of the post-modern economy of branding, information, and advertisement.
I’m can be a bit sympathetic to these arguments. There is certainly a type of bloodless cosmopolitanism found among our ruling class, with their Thomas Freidman and their subscriptions to The Economist, that seems to justify such a reading. Your average international businessman really does need to be culturally aware, tolerant to other people and religions, and accepting of different races and sexual orientations if he is going to properly exploit them. Goldman Sachs cares about extracting surplus value from you, not what you do in the bedroom or whether you have tattoos. Even more, there is, as Thomas Frank has argued, a sort of neoliberal self—individualist, in a constant state of cultural rebellion, dividing into ever-smaller niches of solidarity—which goes hand in hand with both identity politics and, even more, with late-capitalist consumerism.
But only to a point. As a critique of pseudo-radical university culture I think Michaels argument is uncomfortably accurate. But as a critique of the Left writ large it has some pretty big holes in it. First of all, it ignores the fact that one of the main effects of neoliberalism has been to create a global working class that is increasingly female and people of color. So any movement which seeks to empower this new working class has to take issues of gender, race, and sex seriously.
More to the point it misses the actual coalitions that exist in the real world. Yesterday I was at the One Nation march, made up of all the progressive groups: Unions, civil rights groups, gay rights groups, etc… According to Michaels’ logic such a coalition should be unthinkable. Why would the major labor unions ally themselves with the forces of neoliberalism? But in fact, such a coalition comes naturally to anyone who has ever spent a minute doing progressive politics. Every labor union I’ve ever worked for makes a serious effort to recruit organizers who are women, people of color, and from other marginalized group. Why? Both because they believe in it, but also because these are the very people they are trying to organize.
The biggest hole in Michaels argument, then, is that while his theory has an inward logic it simply does not describe the actual recent history of the Left. He cannot explain why the dreaded identity activists have always had such a clear elective affinity to the economic left. Why did the organized gay rights movement come out of the Communist Party? Why did the CP and socialist party agitate on Civil Rights long before the Democratic Party did? In 1963, A Philip Randolph, the black labor leader, said the following: “Look for the enemies of Medicare, for high minimum wages, of social security, of federal aid to education, and there you will find the enemy of the Negro.” Can anyone say the same is not still true?
Which brings us to immigration, where this whole thing started. Michaels is obsessed with how liberal immigration policy is neoliberal. In one of the more ridiculous sections of this interview Michaels calls the Tea Party the only anti-neoliberal political force out there, because of its anti-immigrant fervor. “The truth is, it’s hard to find any political movement that’s really against neoliberalism today, the closest I can come is the Tea Party.” The reason: the Tea Party is against illegal immigration and “Because who’s for illegal immigration? As far as I know only one set of people is for illegal immigration, I mean you may be [as a Marxist], but as far as I know the only people who are openly for illegal immigration are neoliberal economists.” In other words, Illegal Immigration=neoliberalism; Tea Party= Anti-Illegal Immigration; therefore Tea Party= Anti-neoliberal”
This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, Michaels is flat out wrong that no one on the left supports illegal immigrants. The whole “no one is illegal” campaign is about political support for illegal immigrants. Second, he is wrong that “illegal immigration is the kind of ne plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires.” Neoliberalism requires mobility of capital, but benefits tremendously from the fact that labor does not have the same freedom. Throughout the world—from Dubai to Europe to Arizona—capital is thrilled that there are workers who cannot legally become citizens of the state where they work. The result is a working class that is exposed to a level of surveillance, police harassment, and political repression unlike anything since the nineteenth century.
Which is exactly why the economic left in this country supports immigrant rights movements. We can’t have a strong and politically powerful working class as long as much of it is deemed to be “illegal,” stripped of the rights of citizenship and threatened with deportation if they speak up or try to form a union. Since at least the 1990s, the major labor unions have been vocal advocates for a more humane immigration policy, and Hispanic organizations were prominent members of the One Nation march, side by side with the AFL-CIO.
Michaels whole argument, it seems to me, is based on a set of absurd reductive logic. There are forms of anti-racism that are useful to corporations! Therefore anti-racism is always pro-corporate! Neoliberalism doesn’t like national borders! Therefore all forms of support for immigration is neoliberal! Etc…
If there are people who are sincerely anti-racist (not just the absurd “color-blindness” of the modern right), sincerely pro-gay rights, sincerely pro-women, pro-immigrant, etc… but are also neoliberal in their economics, it seems to me we have a cause for half a celebration. We won one argument! Now we have to fight on the economic front, push them further towards an economically egalitarian vision, not throw away the commitment to these other forms of equality.
While studying in New York University’s Bobst Library, I came across this frightening sticker on one of the desks on the sixth floor.
Horrified, I decided to explore the link. I received further shock when I visited the author’s website. Here’s some full disclosure: John Press, a former high school teacher was a fellow NYU graduate student, studying for his doctorate in history of education. Apparently he got his doctorate, having written a “culturist dissertation.” We’ve taken two classes together, a 20th Century US History Literature of the Field colloquium, and a seminar on American Jews and Race. I occasionally saw him around campus. Our interactions were pleasant if a bit awkward, though I had no idea about his “culturist” movement. My most distinct memory of John from the Lit of the Field course was his defense of Japanese internment. I don’t think anybody from the class will ever forget it.
John claims he’s not a racist. That may be true. But his “culturism” is equally bigoted, ill-informed and misguided. His blog is downright scary. Of course, he’s the one that comes off as scared: of Muslims, Mexicans, and immigrants more generally. Through it all, he uses “history,” presumably some of which he learned at NYU, to advance his claims. I don’t feel the need to combat this ignorance here, though I will say this: what scares me the most is that John just received his PhD from the same academic institution I attend. Though his arguments are easily crushed, the PhD grants them some form of legitimacy, and/or calls my own future academic credentials into question.
I’m a big believer in academic freedom, and the university tolerating a multitude of views. If John Press’ doctoral work stands the test of academic scrutiny, he deserves his PhD. But he sullies that PhD, and all of NYU, with the bigoted “culturist” movement he is trying to spread, especially if he uses NYU to add some purported intellectual heft to his unsubstantiated ideas. John was clearly very influenced by Frances Kellor, the subject of his dissertation. In his book, he celebrates Kellor as a “culturalist,” along with Francis Scott Key, Noah Webster, and Martin Luther King Jr. Somehow, I don’t think MLK would have bought into John’s culturalist garbage. So once again, we have the misuse of history for political purposes. And the value of my NYU degree takes another hit.
According to the New York Post, there was a “Holy War” yesterday in the Financial District over the misnamed “Ground Zero Mosque.” I actually was there, and have some thoughts about the dueling protests, which have been receiving coverage all over the country, and spawned a video that has already gone viral.
First of all, the protests (both of them) were insanely small. We’re talking about 250 on our side (the non-bigot side) and maybe 500 on the other (the pro-bigot). That’s about roughly 0.0000131% and 0.0000263%, respectively, of the New York metropolitan area. So the narrative that this issue is enflaming New Yorkers is a bit exaggerated.
Second, while the bigots did outnumber us, I’d say the turnout was surprisingly big for the pro-tolerance group. Given that opposition to the community center is being driven by the entire institutional might of the conservative movement (talk radio, Fox News, the Republican Party, etc…), while, as far as I could tell, it was only the sectarian Left who mobilized anyone to come out and defend religious freedom, I’d say our numbers were decent. I’m not always a fan of the various splinter left groups (Judean People’s Front, Popular Front of Judea, etc…) but, to their credit, they were far better represented there than, oh, the Democratic Party. Once again, the non-liberal Left are better liberals than actual liberals.
Third, next time you hear some conservative complain about Muslims burning American Flags in the Mideast take a good look at this picture I took. Guess what happens when Muslims are proud to be American? When they embrace American flags? Well they get screamed at and insulted and told they’re terrorists by conservatives in Revolutionary war uniforms. As Jello Biafra might say, “tell me, who’s the real Patriot?”
I didn’t see that much violence, though there were some old bigots trying to start a fight with the hippies. And occasionally this fat white guy walked past us and screamed “racist” at our crowd. Given that his side was whiter than a Jimmy Buffett concert, I’m not sure what exactly he meant (actually, I do know what he meant: “white people are the real victims here.” As they always are…)
Glenn Greenwald had a good article today about this whole controversy, arguing that it is not a “distraction,” as some wish to call it. He writes, “The Park51 conflict is driven by, and reflective of, a pervasive animosity toward a religious minority — one that has serious implications for how we conduct ourselves both domestically and internationally.”
I think Glenn is right here. This controversy may be manufactured, more spectacle than reality. And it absolutely is. But imagery matters and now that its been manufactured, and the angry racists are on the loose, decent people have the responsibility to stand up to them. “Have you no sense of decency?” “No Pasaran”. That sort of stuff.
Anyways… it got me thinking about the excellent piece Luce had (before she joined us here) on the thorny question of multiculturalism and the Left. Luce criticizes the flatness of the common complaint that multiculturalist politics have gone too far and that we should return to the solid ground of economic justice. There is a group of (largely) white male lefties, some of whom I deeply respect (like David Harvey or Thomas Frank) who act as if the only true domain for the left to fight on is economics, everything else is a distraction. Luce pretty much said everything I had to say on the topic.
But I wanted to expand on something Luce wrote when she criticized those who act “as if these very categories of race, sexuality, and gender hadn’t been manufactured at some (sometimes not so distant) point by that majority itself.”
Situations like this Park 51 controversy, I think, illustrate this point perfectly. It’s not as if the Left is the one out there politicizing categories of race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Perhaps it was different in the 60s, but today it is the reactionary Right who are increasingly choosing to fight its battles on those grounds. I think its fair to say that, after recent history, many of us on the Left would be more than happy to focus on defeating the banks, getting better health care, more equitable access to education, etc… But if the Right is going to go around mobilizing people with naked appeals to racial and religious resentment– with more than a dash of misogyny and homophobia thrown in– than its our responsibility to defend those groups, even if it means a politics of “special interests.” This is both because it is the right thing to do and because we’re well aware that once you start accepting that Talk Radio has a veto over one minority’s freedom of religion, things don’t end well for the rest of us. Like, for instance, people start going around calling Mike Bloomberg and Scott Stringer “Judenrats” or harassing black guys just because they happen to work near your protest.