against michaels

in response to WALTER BENN MICHAELS' "AGAINST DIVERSITY" in the New Left Review #54
____________________

it is no surprise that the political performances of the democratic primaries pander to an empty politic. anyone who would assert that clinton or obama's rise to fame on their upwards of $150 million election expenditures constituted some sort of victory for social justice would be sadly misguided.

in this article michaels uses the current american election, and some under-analyzed figures, to paint a picture of poverty in america as having little to do with race or gender. moreover, he polemically suggests that any introduction of race or gender into debates over inequality in america suggests a clear sign of a) false consciousness or b) unwavering support of neo-liberalism. i think this is the worst kind of social analytic work and one that perpetuates an over simplistic understanding of history and materiality.

in his article michaels neglects to mention what the demographic of that bottom fifth of wage earners looks like. not surprisingly, statistics show that women of colour largely make up the lowest income earners in the united states. in 1953 the median income for male workers (overall) in the US was $20,000 while for women (overall) it was less than $7, 000. in 2005 the median income of female hispanic workers has just now equaled that of males in 1953, sitting in the lowest economic income bracket at $20, 000 annually. black women are next sitting at about $25, 000 in 2005. michaels also leaves out any historical context regarding the history of capitalism in america - rooted in the imperial expansion projects of spain and britain which forcefully annexed indigenous land, further expanded through the trans-atlantic slave trade and the installation of slavery, the continued depedency of the economy on the backs of undocumented and illegal workers, many who are from mexico, as well as the prison industrial complex which contributes to the national economy by forcibly confining 1 in 9 black men aged 20 to 34 - which has lead to very different experiences of capitalism (historically and in a contemporary context) for racialized people (albeit, not all racialized people).

sure poor people are getting fucked but who are these poor people that michaels is so desperate to lump together in order to start the revolution? how have they been fucked in different ways and why? his politics of solidarity align so forcefully with class that he neglects to address the complex and intersectional ways that gender and race are at once at play with class in the composition of the underclass majority. even if we concede to agree with michaels that capitalism is the root of inequality, his denial of any serious theoretical engagement concerning the complex ways in which it has affected subjects differently based on their respective gendered, racialized, classed, sexed or corporeal identities is testament to a privileged perception of oppression that does not have to include these factors. for people who experience the historical materiality of colonial-capitalism that masks enduring legacies of white supremacy, these considerations are integral to any radical reimagining of the world.

____

check out "black wealth/white wealth" by oliver and shapiro for their take on the "racialization of state policy," the economic detour," and the "seditmentation of racial inequality" in america.