Saturday, June 09, 2007
Worlds Apart
Peace and blessings,
The following topic I am about to discuss and the question I am going to pose to the readers stems from two influences. The first influence has to do with a graduate course I took about a year ago. It was an urban education course and we dealt a great deal with theories which sought to best explain the past and present educational disparities affecting children and their families. Most, if not all of these theories can be grouped in either one of two categories. On one end, there are "race-oriented" theories that generally argue that the main source of inequality within the U.S. is race, such that there is a dominant race and ideology which oppresses and trumps other races and ideologies. On the other end, there are "class-oriented" theories, which generally argue that to understand the extent of inequality in the U.S., we must understand the ways in which the U.S. is stratified based on class, and the effect of people's class levels on their(quality of)life chances. I'm not going to describe these theories in detail, but just wanted to provide a "snap - shot" to which to base the discussion. However, it is important to note that by categorizing these theories as race - and class - oriented I am not saying that they only focus on one or the other. Instead, these categorizations reflect the extent to which the theorists' in their respective camps felt that either race or class was more important in understanding injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Ok, enough of the academic mumbo-jumbo, lol. I know that few would disagree with the idea that both race and class are important with respects to understanding inequality in the U.S. Furthermore, I agree with the idea that issues of race and class are related, and that they are in combination with, not in isolation from each other (Collins, 1990). For example, assuming that the socioeconomic status of both individuals are identical, most would agree that a poor white person would still be in a more privelaged position in the U.S. than a poor black or brown person. Although this may be true and I believe that any problem entails a myriad of factors, I think that in some instances, some factors are more important in explaining inequality in a given context than others. From my personal experience and point of view, it seems that whereas as race issues appeared to be more salient during the times of slavery up to the civil rights era, it seems that class - related issues have become more important in explaining contemporary injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Despite witnessing and being a victim of racist beliefs and actions, my position on this issue stems from two related beliefs. First, it seems that at least within my experience, there is a difference (nowadays) between the effects of racism and the effects of classism. With regards to race, racist beliefs and actions have many effects on the individual or people to whom these beliefs and actions are directed. One can be affected symbolically (one interprets a racist comment about himself or herself to be "true"), psychologically (internalization of racist beliefs and actions), socially (some groups are privelaged over others), and/or materially (an applicant does not get hired because of his or her race). With regards to class differences, it appears that the implications of these differences are primarily social and material. In other words, in contemporary U.S. society it appears that one's life chances are more determined by the socioeconomic resources people, their parents, and/or ancestors have or had, than on their race. As mentioned earlier, this is not to say that race and socioeconomic resources are unrelated, because it is clear that there are serious race trends with regards to who belongs to the upper, middle, working, and lower classes. However, what I am saying is that one's economic resources, and the social networks one establishes as a result, have a significant bearing on the quality of instutions "made available" to him or her, and on their life chances.
Second, it is this emphasis on social and material effects that I think makes class issues an extremely signifcant factor in U.S. inequality due to the sharp distinctions often drawn between upper and lower classes. I feel that in general (because there are always exceptions), distinctions based on race in the U.S. were more sharp in the past than they are now. For instance, there has been much collaboration and unity amongst races in certain contexts, such as friendships, relationships, and organizations. In contrast, there does not appear to be (or at least I am not aware of) such collaboration and unity among people of certain economic classes. It seems much more likely for one to have friends and relationships with people of different races, than for upper class people to associate with, let alone establish meaningful relationships with working class or lower class people. Because upper class people's life chances are often so drastically different than those of the working and lower class, there are less opportunities for these groups' paths to cross in meaningful ways. People of different races but of the same class level are more likely to come together on common issues than people of the same race but from different class levels.
As these are only my thoughts from my own observations and experiences, I am interested in what others think. Based on your own experiences and observations, would you say that race or class is more important in explaining contemporary U.S. inequality? Or do you think that they are so intertwined that one cannot be viewed as a more important determinant of U.S. inequality than the other? Weigh in and speekonit..
Collins, P.H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. NY: Routledge
The following topic I am about to discuss and the question I am going to pose to the readers stems from two influences. The first influence has to do with a graduate course I took about a year ago. It was an urban education course and we dealt a great deal with theories which sought to best explain the past and present educational disparities affecting children and their families. Most, if not all of these theories can be grouped in either one of two categories. On one end, there are "race-oriented" theories that generally argue that the main source of inequality within the U.S. is race, such that there is a dominant race and ideology which oppresses and trumps other races and ideologies. On the other end, there are "class-oriented" theories, which generally argue that to understand the extent of inequality in the U.S., we must understand the ways in which the U.S. is stratified based on class, and the effect of people's class levels on their(quality of)life chances. I'm not going to describe these theories in detail, but just wanted to provide a "snap - shot" to which to base the discussion. However, it is important to note that by categorizing these theories as race - and class - oriented I am not saying that they only focus on one or the other. Instead, these categorizations reflect the extent to which the theorists' in their respective camps felt that either race or class was more important in understanding injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Ok, enough of the academic mumbo-jumbo, lol. I know that few would disagree with the idea that both race and class are important with respects to understanding inequality in the U.S. Furthermore, I agree with the idea that issues of race and class are related, and that they are in combination with, not in isolation from each other (Collins, 1990). For example, assuming that the socioeconomic status of both individuals are identical, most would agree that a poor white person would still be in a more privelaged position in the U.S. than a poor black or brown person. Although this may be true and I believe that any problem entails a myriad of factors, I think that in some instances, some factors are more important in explaining inequality in a given context than others. From my personal experience and point of view, it seems that whereas as race issues appeared to be more salient during the times of slavery up to the civil rights era, it seems that class - related issues have become more important in explaining contemporary injustice and inequality in the U.S.
Despite witnessing and being a victim of racist beliefs and actions, my position on this issue stems from two related beliefs. First, it seems that at least within my experience, there is a difference (nowadays) between the effects of racism and the effects of classism. With regards to race, racist beliefs and actions have many effects on the individual or people to whom these beliefs and actions are directed. One can be affected symbolically (one interprets a racist comment about himself or herself to be "true"), psychologically (internalization of racist beliefs and actions), socially (some groups are privelaged over others), and/or materially (an applicant does not get hired because of his or her race). With regards to class differences, it appears that the implications of these differences are primarily social and material. In other words, in contemporary U.S. society it appears that one's life chances are more determined by the socioeconomic resources people, their parents, and/or ancestors have or had, than on their race. As mentioned earlier, this is not to say that race and socioeconomic resources are unrelated, because it is clear that there are serious race trends with regards to who belongs to the upper, middle, working, and lower classes. However, what I am saying is that one's economic resources, and the social networks one establishes as a result, have a significant bearing on the quality of instutions "made available" to him or her, and on their life chances.
Second, it is this emphasis on social and material effects that I think makes class issues an extremely signifcant factor in U.S. inequality due to the sharp distinctions often drawn between upper and lower classes. I feel that in general (because there are always exceptions), distinctions based on race in the U.S. were more sharp in the past than they are now. For instance, there has been much collaboration and unity amongst races in certain contexts, such as friendships, relationships, and organizations. In contrast, there does not appear to be (or at least I am not aware of) such collaboration and unity among people of certain economic classes. It seems much more likely for one to have friends and relationships with people of different races, than for upper class people to associate with, let alone establish meaningful relationships with working class or lower class people. Because upper class people's life chances are often so drastically different than those of the working and lower class, there are less opportunities for these groups' paths to cross in meaningful ways. People of different races but of the same class level are more likely to come together on common issues than people of the same race but from different class levels.
As these are only my thoughts from my own observations and experiences, I am interested in what others think. Based on your own experiences and observations, would you say that race or class is more important in explaining contemporary U.S. inequality? Or do you think that they are so intertwined that one cannot be viewed as a more important determinant of U.S. inequality than the other? Weigh in and speekonit..
Collins, P.H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. NY: Routledge
Labels: academic, class, contexts, disparities, economic, inequality, injustice, life chances, material, race, relationships, social, U.S.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
What Does It Take? (Pt. 1)
Peace and blessings,
By now, I'm sure most of us have heard about the comments Imus made a few weeks ago. The fact that civil rights leaders came at Imus for his remarks and that he got fired was not surprising. What was surprising, in my opinion, was the fall-back that mainstream hip hop has experienced as a result. Note: I use the term "mainstream" to refer only to the more popular and accessible forms of hip-hop as portrayed on radio stations and music videos. Although I did not expect mainstream hip-hop to be criticized, I believe that this criticism is warranted. In the words of Sam Cooke, "it's been a long time coming." Inan interview with representatives form the hip-hop sites AllHipHop.com and SOHH.com,
the SOHH representative mentioned that the issue is about personal accountability on behalf of the record companies, artists, and everyone else. She also said, in response to the AllHipHop representative's claim that rappers put out offensive language because that's what consumers want (e.g. the supply and demand argument), that it is not that people want this music as much as they have grown accustomed to it.
If Imus would have made those comments a few years ago and mainstream hip-hop would have been under fire, I would have been in the camp of those like Russell Simmons and others who argue that people should point the finger at social inequities and not artists for the degrading lyrics within mainstream hip-hop. Although this position is a legitimate one, and in fact a true "solution" to the problem with artists' degrading lyrics does require that we correct social inequalities and opportunity structures, I no longer consider myself as solely a member of that camp. The more and more I listen to hip-hop and try to analyze their lyrics (both positive and negative), the more I realize that it is not just a social issue, but a moral issue. If society is entirely responsible for hip-hop artists' degrading lyrics, then the social and economic conditions through which these artists are (or were) apart of would shape ALL of their lyrics. However, this is is rarely the case. Most artists tend to show some awareness of the moral responsibility they have to uplift others, but this awareness is thwarted in two ways. One way is through the pursuit of money, such that an artists' album will have 90-95% of their album be about violence, materialism, and misogyny, and the other 5-10% be about something positve. While this may be influenced by social inequalities (e.g. using hip-hop as a way to get out of a severely impoversished condition), I don't think that it is the only factor. Another way that this awareness is thwarted is through distortion. Again, social inequalitities can play a signifcant role as growing up in severely harsh conditions can alter one's views on what is right and wrong. For instance, a person who did not grow up with their parents may feel that it is better to not trust anyone and only look out for oneself. Further, they may, through their music, encourage youth to do the same, and believe that by telling them to not trust others and thus to avoid serious, meaningful relationships, that they are "looking out" for the youth in a good way. Even in this case, I think that social inequalities are still only a part (although a significant part) of the problem.
In light of the recent discussions on the role of (mainstream) hip-hop in the denigration of women, and after watching
part 1,
part 2, and
part 3 of the Oprah show on this issue, I've gained a better understanding as to why I now belong in both the moral camp as well as the social camp. In my opinion, Russell Simmons, Kevin Liles, and even Common were quick to talk about the larger societal (social) issue, but danced around the issue of personal (moral) responsibility on behalf of the artists. No one will argue against the fact (at least I hope not) that the structural inequalitites that exists within our country and throughout the world play a significant role in the myriad of problems we face and will continue to face unless these inequalitites are addressed. However, I feel that while this is important, the greater issue WITH RESPECTS TO THE LYRICS THEMSELVES is what can artists do, and what are they willing to do, to put an end to these degrading lyrics. Talking about one's personal experience, and even the experiences of those in one's community is one thing. Portraying these experiences as absolute truths (e.g. "this is just how it is") to the point where the youth who are listening to this music are encouraged to seek out and glorify this experience is a different thing entirely. The solution to this problem does not lie in either the social or the moral realm, but in both. Society needs to change, but society can only change when the individuals within that society change. Society is made up of people, and because people change, then society can change as well. We determine what society should be, society does not determine who we are.
A prime example of this point can be found in the history of people from African descent. If our actions and behavior are solely a result of our social conditions, then we would still be in slavery. In fact, we would have been complicit with the slavery system, such that we would seek out such a system if we had a choice, seeing that was all we knew. However, history clearly shows us that as a people, WE WERE NEVER defined solely by our social conditions. From the Nat Turners to the Mariah Stewarts, to the Nelson Mandela's to the Martin Luther King's, we have always acted (directly or indirectly) on our moral convictions despite society telling us to do otherwise. One of the main reasons I think that those mentioned (as well as countless others) always worked to change the social conditions that sought to confine them is because they recognized that, despite their own experiences, they had a moral obligation to make things better for those who looked up to and/or came after them. It became less about themselves and more about the welfare of others who would later inhabit this world. In King's famous "I have a dream" speech and also throughout his ministry (activism), much attention is often given to his goals for unity among the citizens of that time. Less attention is given, however, to his emphasis on the welfare and life chances of the children who would come after him. These are just a few exerpts of his 1963 speech to illustrate this point:
"Now is thetime to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid
rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children."
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character."
In closing, I think that despite the complexity of the problem with and solution regarding the degrading lyrics in mainstream hip-hop, a step in the right direction requires a fundamnetal understanding: Just as those who have come before us have never been defined by their social conditions and have worked to improve the life chances of those who look up to and/or would come after them, we must also realize that societies change because people change, and that we have a personal (moral) responsibilty to work to change things for the better. Not just for us, but for those who may look up to and/or are coming up after us. Not only are hip-hop artists targeted in this understanding, but due to their influence on the youth and their visibility, they are in the optimal position to take a stand and eliminate degrading lyrics. We can point the finger at society all we want, but until we as individuals take resonsibility for what we say to people and how we treat them, we will constanly revisit this issue to little or no avail.
What do you think? To what extent are the artists responsible for what they say? Do you think that individuals must change before society changes, or vice versa? Weigh in and speekonit...
By now, I'm sure most of us have heard about the comments Imus made a few weeks ago. The fact that civil rights leaders came at Imus for his remarks and that he got fired was not surprising. What was surprising, in my opinion, was the fall-back that mainstream hip hop has experienced as a result. Note: I use the term "mainstream" to refer only to the more popular and accessible forms of hip-hop as portrayed on radio stations and music videos. Although I did not expect mainstream hip-hop to be criticized, I believe that this criticism is warranted. In the words of Sam Cooke, "it's been a long time coming." In
the SOHH representative mentioned that the issue is about personal accountability on behalf of the record companies, artists, and everyone else. She also said, in response to the AllHipHop representative's claim that rappers put out offensive language because that's what consumers want (e.g. the supply and demand argument), that it is not that people want this music as much as they have grown accustomed to it.
If Imus would have made those comments a few years ago and mainstream hip-hop would have been under fire, I would have been in the camp of those like Russell Simmons and others who argue that people should point the finger at social inequities and not artists for the degrading lyrics within mainstream hip-hop. Although this position is a legitimate one, and in fact a true "solution" to the problem with artists' degrading lyrics does require that we correct social inequalities and opportunity structures, I no longer consider myself as solely a member of that camp. The more and more I listen to hip-hop and try to analyze their lyrics (both positive and negative), the more I realize that it is not just a social issue, but a moral issue. If society is entirely responsible for hip-hop artists' degrading lyrics, then the social and economic conditions through which these artists are (or were) apart of would shape ALL of their lyrics. However, this is is rarely the case. Most artists tend to show some awareness of the moral responsibility they have to uplift others, but this awareness is thwarted in two ways. One way is through the pursuit of money, such that an artists' album will have 90-95% of their album be about violence, materialism, and misogyny, and the other 5-10% be about something positve. While this may be influenced by social inequalities (e.g. using hip-hop as a way to get out of a severely impoversished condition), I don't think that it is the only factor. Another way that this awareness is thwarted is through distortion. Again, social inequalitities can play a signifcant role as growing up in severely harsh conditions can alter one's views on what is right and wrong. For instance, a person who did not grow up with their parents may feel that it is better to not trust anyone and only look out for oneself. Further, they may, through their music, encourage youth to do the same, and believe that by telling them to not trust others and thus to avoid serious, meaningful relationships, that they are "looking out" for the youth in a good way. Even in this case, I think that social inequalities are still only a part (although a significant part) of the problem.
In light of the recent discussions on the role of (mainstream) hip-hop in the denigration of women, and after watching
A prime example of this point can be found in the history of people from African descent. If our actions and behavior are solely a result of our social conditions, then we would still be in slavery. In fact, we would have been complicit with the slavery system, such that we would seek out such a system if we had a choice, seeing that was all we knew. However, history clearly shows us that as a people, WE WERE NEVER defined solely by our social conditions. From the Nat Turners to the Mariah Stewarts, to the Nelson Mandela's to the Martin Luther King's, we have always acted (directly or indirectly) on our moral convictions despite society telling us to do otherwise. One of the main reasons I think that those mentioned (as well as countless others) always worked to change the social conditions that sought to confine them is because they recognized that, despite their own experiences, they had a moral obligation to make things better for those who looked up to and/or came after them. It became less about themselves and more about the welfare of others who would later inhabit this world. In King's famous "I have a dream" speech and also throughout his ministry (activism), much attention is often given to his goals for unity among the citizens of that time. Less attention is given, however, to his emphasis on the welfare and life chances of the children who would come after him. These are just a few exerpts of his 1963 speech to illustrate this point:
"Now is thetime to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid
rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children."
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down
together at the table of brotherhood."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character."
In closing, I think that despite the complexity of the problem with and solution regarding the degrading lyrics in mainstream hip-hop, a step in the right direction requires a fundamnetal understanding: Just as those who have come before us have never been defined by their social conditions and have worked to improve the life chances of those who look up to and/or would come after them, we must also realize that societies change because people change, and that we have a personal (moral) responsibilty to work to change things for the better. Not just for us, but for those who may look up to and/or are coming up after us. Not only are hip-hop artists targeted in this understanding, but due to their influence on the youth and their visibility, they are in the optimal position to take a stand and eliminate degrading lyrics. We can point the finger at society all we want, but until we as individuals take resonsibility for what we say to people and how we treat them, we will constanly revisit this issue to little or no avail.
What do you think? To what extent are the artists responsible for what they say? Do you think that individuals must change before society changes, or vice versa? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: artist, children, controversy, degrading lyrics, Don Imus, hip-hop, inequality, Mariah Stewart, MLK, Nat Turner, Nelson Mandela, social, society, videos, youth
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
