Cap Against Race Affs—UMich 2013

Download 0.96 Mb.
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size0.96 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   30

L: Multiculturalism/Diversity

Capital hides behind discourse of racial harmony to extend its reach

Mitchell 93 (Katharyne, Professor of Geography at the University of Washington, “MULTICULTURALISM, OR THE UNITED COLORS OF CAPITALISM?”, Antipode 25:4, 1993, JSTOR)//AS

In Political Power and Social Classes Poulantzas (1973217) describes how the dominant discourse of bourgeois ideology presents itself as innocent of power, often through the concealment of political interests behind the objective facade of science. In the production and promotion of multiculturalism in Canada, the particular configurations of power remain similarly concealed, but in this case, behind the facade of national identity and racial harmony. The struggle over ideological formation, such as the language and meaning of race and nation, resonates as an effort to shape a dominant discourse for specific ends; the internal complexity of the endeavor should not obfuscate the fact that it is a struggle with particular material goals and rewards. The manipulation of ”united colors” as an increasingly common form of hegemony building in late capitalism is arguable to the extent that the control of tensions surrounding rapid and increasingly international spatial integration must be secured for the ongoing expansion of capitalism. The manner in which these tensions are controlled, however, remains historically and spatially specific.

Diversity emphasis essentializes minorities and prevents solving true barriers of class

Leong 13 (Nancy, Assistant Professor of Civil Rights ,Constitutional Law, and Criminal Procedure at the University of Denver, “Racial Capitalism”, Harvard Law Review 126:8, June 2013, Infotrac)//AS

The emphasis on diversity -- both as a way of justifying race-conscious affirmative action programs and in society more broadly -- has been the subject of critique by commentators of all political persuasions. On the right, diversity is the subject of widespread ridicule and indignation. (86) Justice Thomas, concurring in part in Grutter v. Bollinger, slightingly referred to diversity as "more a fashionable catchphrase than ... a useful term," and to a school's interest in diversity as an "aesthetic" desire to "have a certain appearance, from the shape of the desks and tables in its classrooms to the color of the students sitting at them." (87) Popular pundit Ann Coulter claims: "Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. ... 'Diversity' is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought." (88) This disparagement of diversity represents a backlash against its pervasiveness. From the left, the diversity rationale also has been criticized since its inception. (89) Derrick Bell argues that the diversity rationale "enables courts and policymakers to avoid addressing directly the barriers of race and class that adversely affect so many applicants" and "serves to give undeserved legitimacy to the heavy reliance on grades and test scores that privilege well-todo, mainly white applicants." (90) From a more individualistic perspective, Richard Ford critiques the diversity rationale on the grounds that it essentializes minorities by ascribing certain characteristics to them and requiring racial minorities to "perform" stereotyped versions of their identities in order to justify their presence within institutions. (91) Like Bell, he argues that the focus on diversity detracts from more compelling rationales for affirmative action, such as corrective or distributive justice. (92)

L: Identity Politics/Historical Analogies

Capital coopts identity politics and uses it to fracture the opposition that could ultimately overcome all oppression—focus on race perpetuates this

Reed 79 (Adolph L., professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, “Black Particularity Reconsidered”, Telos 1979: 39, 3/20/79, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS

Over forty years ago Benjamin pointed out that "mass reproduction is aided especially by the reproduction of masses."lThis statement captures the central cultural dynamic of a "late" capitalism. The triumph of the commodity form over every sphere of social existence has been made possible by a profound homogenization of work, play, aspirations and self-definition among subject populations — a condition Marcuse has characterized as one-dimensionality.2 Ironically, while U.S. radicals in the late 1960s fantasized about a "new man" in the abstract, capital was in the process of concretely putting the finishing touches on its new individual.Beneath the current black-female-student-chicano-homosexual-old-young-handicapped, etc., etc., ad nauseum, "struggles" lies a simple truth: there is no coherent opposition to the present administrative apparatus. Certainly, repression contributed significantly to the extermination of opposition and there is a long record of systematic corporate and state terror, from the Palmer Raids to the FBI campaign against the Black Panthers. Likewise, cooptation of individuals and programs has blunted opposition to bourgeois hegemony throughout this century, and cooptative mechanisms have become inextricable parts of strategies of containment. However, repression and cooptation can never fully explain the failure of opposition, and an exclusive focus on such external factors diverts attention from possible sources of failure within the opposition, thus paving the way for the reproduction of the pattern of failure. The opposition must investigate its own complicity. During the 1960s theoretical reflexiveness was difficult because of the intensity of activism. When sharply drawn political issues demanded unambiguous responses, reflection on unintended consequences seemed treasonous. A decade later, coming to terms with what happened during that period is blocked by nostalgic glorification of fallen heroes and by a surrender which Gross describes as the "ironic frame-of-mind".3 Irony and nostalgia are two sides of the coin of resignation, the product of a cynical inwardness that makes retrospective critique seem tiresome or uncomfortable.4 At any rate, things have not moved in an emancipatory direction despite all claims that the protest of the 1960s has extended equalitarian democracy. In general, opportunities to determine one's destiny are no greater now than before and, more importantly, the critique of life-as-it-is disappeared as a practical activity; i.e., an ethical and political commitment to emancipation seems no longer legitimate, reasonable or valid. The amnestic principle, which imprisons the social past, also subverts any hope, which ends up seeking refuge in the predominant forms of alienation. This is also true in the black community. Black opposition has dissolved into celebration and wish fulfillment. Today's political criticism within the black community — both Marxist-Leninist and nationalist — lacks a base and is unlikely to attract substantial constituencies. This complete collapse of political opposition among blacks, however, is anomalous. From the 1956 Montgomery bus boycott to the 1972 African Liberation Day demonstration, there was almost constant political motion among blacks. Since the early 1970s there has been a thorough pacification; or these antagonisms have been so depoliticized that they can surface only in alienated forms. Moreover, few attempts have been made to explain the atrophy of opposition within the black community.5 Theoretical reflexiveness is as rare behind Dubois' veil as on the other sidelThis critical failing is especially regrettable because black radical protests and the system's adjustments to them have served as catalysts in universalizing one-dimensionality and in moving into a new era of monopoly capitalism. In this new era, which Piccone has called the age of "artificial negativity," traditional forms of opposition have been made obsolete by a new pattern of social management.6 Now, the social order legitimates itself by integrating potentially antagonistic forces into a logic of centralized administration. Once integrated, these forces regulate domination and prevent disruptive excess. Furthermore, when these internal regulatory mechanisms do not exist, the system must create them. To the extent that the black community has been pivotal in this new mode of administered domination, reconstruction of the trajectory of the 1960s' black activism can throw light on the current situation and the paradoxes it generates.

The project of black advancement pacifies those already economically elite and ignores the poor—your authors have been coopted

Reed 79 (Adolph L., professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, “Black Particularity Reconsidered”, Telos 1979: 39, 3/20/79, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS

By now the reasons for the demise of black opposition in the U.S. should be clear. The opposition's sources were formulated in terms of the predominant ideology and thereby formulated in terms of the predominant ideology and thereby readily integrated as an affirmation of the reality of the system as a whole. The movement "failed" because it "succeeded," and its success can be measured by its impact on the administration of the social system. The protest against racial discrimination in employment and education was answered by the middle 1970s by state-sponsored democratization of access to management and other "professional" occupations. Clear, quantifiable racial discrimination remained a pressing public issue only for those whose livelihood depended on finding continuous instances of racial discrimination. 41 Still, equalization of access should not be interpreted simply as a concession: it also rationalized recruitment of intermediate management personnel. In one sense the affirmative action effort can be viewed as a publicly subsidized state and corporate talent search. Similarly, the protest against external administration of black life was met by an expansion in the scope of the black political-administrative apparatus. Through federal funding requirements of community representation, reapportionment of electoral jurisdictions, support for voter "education" and growth of the social welfare bureaucracy, the black elite was provided with broadened occupational opportunities and with offical responsibility for administration of the black population. The rise of black officialdom in the latter 1970s signals the realization of the reconstructed elite's social program and the consolidation of its hegemony over black life. No longer do preachers, funeral directors and occasional politicos vie for the right to rationalize an externally generated agenda to the black community. Now, black officials and professional political activists represent, interact among, and legitimate themselves before an attentive public of black functionaries in public andprivate sectors of the social management apparatus.42 Even the ideological reproduction of the^ elite is assured: not only mass-market journalists, but black academicians as well (through black "scholarly" publications, research institutes and professional organizations) almost invariably sing the praises of the newly empowered elite.43

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   30

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page