Their forced attempts to rid institutionalized racism serves to exacerbate dominant control over education
Subotnik, J.D. (Juris Doctor) @ Columbia University School of Law, 98
(Dan, “What’s Wrong with Critical Race Theory?: Reopening the Case for Middle Class Values” Touro Law, 1/1/1998, pg 713-15, bit.ly/18wTRCk)//SGarg
If Berkeley High is not the model for advancing the psychological and educational well-being of our students-all our students-what is? Part of the answer is surely that schools must find a gentler way of promoting inclusion. That such a middle path exists should be incontrovertible. Another way is suggested by Art Yee's immigrant uncle.152 Art, an Asian-American at Berkeley High who seems destined for academic success, is attending a family feast with his (unnamed) uncle. 153 The uncle is pointing to the fat choy. "Actually it's seaweed.., but this is a good omen ... [s]o everybody [eat] fat choy; that means make lots, lots of money.' 154 Pointing to the dried fish, he explains that it means long life.155 Art Yee's uncle then turns philosophical as the issue shifts to whether the high school should create an Asian-American studies program. 156 I don't think high school.., should specially set aside a department [to] study just... Asians. We would rather have the kids learn more ... general knowledge, like, basic mathematics, basic English, how [to] compose a good English ... paragraph. A culture is [to] pass from generation to generation. [B]asically, culture is directly [best] related in a small family unit instead of. . . in school.157 If whites have attempted to assert control over the schools, they have, according to Williams, been no less eager to control immigration.158 She laments that the rich are gaining entrance to the United States while "the Statue of Liberty's great motto [is being] retired just when the homeless, huddled masses of the world are mostly brown and black... ."159 The observation requires a range of responses. First, the rich only receive an immigration preference when they invest a substantial sum in an American business and create jobs for those same huddled masses that Williams seeks to protect.160 Second, while the door to white immigration was open for most of our history, access to America has been substantially restricted for the last seventy years.161 Third, if the brown and black masses are the least likely to assimilate-indeed are the most likely to insist that the emphasis be on how mass culture can accommodate outsiders rather than on how they can best assimilate into mass society16 2 -what policy should Williams expect? By definition a national culture is a majority culture. And so the question arises, does a majority have a right to protect the national culture? The answer seems apparent. 1 63 Last, and most important, the fact of the matter is that all the handwringing notwithstanding, in each of the last ten years the number of immigrants into this country has exceeded the number in each of the previous seventy and a large number of these have been brown and black (and, for that matter, yellow).164 Many of them have achieved a measure of social and economic success that is stunning. They have done so precisely because, given the opportunity to assimilate, they have willingly distanced themselves from their old cultures to some extent to devote their energies to the new one. 165 How can one say they are wrong? These considerations seem to apply to blacks in America as well. According to Jennifer Hochschild, a professor of political science at Princeton, 20 percent of employed blacks worked as managers in 1990, up from 5 percent in 1950.166 Identical numbers describe the increase in black employment rates in clerical and sales positions. 167 Thus, Hochschild concludes, up to 40 percent of black workers can now be counted as middle class. 168 This extraordinary transformation cannot have taken place without some assimilation. Does the black middle class consider its birthright sold, as Williams implies? 169 Would members of this class happily send their teenagers to Berkeley High for a different kind of education than they had? Williams offers no data. No one would dispute that far greater social and economic gains would have been registered in the absence of the still widespread racism that wears down black body and spirit. And surely no reasonable person will deny that this problem still requires the wholehearted attention of the nation. But what follows from this? Does the authentic lifestyle require that blacks withdraw from mass culture like the Amish or the Hasidim?
The aff critique of ideology is used by the bourgeoisie to further hegemonic capitalism – the alt fails
Tumino 1[Stephen, Prof English at Pitt, ““What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More than Ever”, Red Critique, p. online, http://redcritique.org/spring2001/printversions/whatisorthodoxmarxismprint.htm SGarg]
Zizek provides another example of the flexodox parody of Marxism today. Capitalismin Orthodox Marxismis explained as an historical mode of productionbased on the privatization of the means of subsistence in the hands of a few, i.e., the systemic exploitation of labor by capital.Capitalism is the world-historic regime of unpaid surplus-labor. In Zizek's writings, capitalism is not based on exploitation in production (surplus-labor), but on struggles over consumption ("surplus-enjoyment"). The OrthodoxMarxist concepts that lay bare the exploitative production relations in order to change themarethusreplaced with a "psycho-marxist" pastiche of consumption in his writings, a revisionist move that has proven immensely successful in the bourgeois cultural criticism. Zizek, however, has taken to representing this displacement of labor (production) with desire (consumption) as "strictly correlative" to the concept of "revolutionary praxis" found in the texts of Orthodox Marxism (e.g., "Repeating Lenin"). Revolutionary practice is always informed by class consciousness and transformative cultural critique has always aimed at producing class consciousness by laying bare the false consciousness that ruling ideology institutes in the everyday.Transformative cultural critique, in other words, is always a linking of consciousness to production practices from which a knowledge of social totality emerges. Zizek, however, long agoabandoned Orthodox Marxist ideology critique as an epistemologically naïve theory of "ideology" because it could not account for the persistence of "desire" beyond critique(the "enlightened false-consciousness" of The Sublime Object of Ideology, Mapping Ideology,. . . ). His more recent "return to the centrality of the Marxist critique" is, as a result, a purely tropic voluntarism of the kind he endlessly celebrates in his diffusionist readings of culture as desire-al moments when social norms are violated and personal emotions spontaneously experienced as absolutely compulsory (as "drive"). His concept ofrevolutionary Marxist praxis consists of re-describing it as an "excessive" lifestyle choice(analogous to pedophilia and other culturally marginalized practices, The Ticklish Subject 381-8). On this reading, Marxism is the only metaphorical displacement of "desire" into "surplus-pleasure" that makes imperative the "direct socialization of the productive process" (Ticklish Subject 350) and that thus causes the subjects committed to it to experience a Symbolic death at the hands of the neoliberal culture industry. It isthis "affirmative" reversal of the right-wing anti-Marxist narrative that makes Zizek's writings so highly praised in the bourgeois "high-theory" market—where it is read as "subtle" and an example of "deep thinking" because it confirms a transcendental position considered above politics by making all politics ideological. If everything is ideology thenthere can be no fundamental social change only formal repetition and reversal of values (Nietzsche). Zizek's pastiche of psycho-marxism thus consists in presenting what is only theoretically possible for the capitalist—those few who have already met, in excess, their material needs through the exploitation of the labor of the other and who can therefore afford to elaborate fantasies of desire—as a universal form of agency freely available to everyone.Psycho-marxism does what bourgeois ideology has always done—maintain the bourgeois hegemony over social production by commodifying, through an aesthetic relay, the contradictions of the wages system. What bourgeois ideology does above all is deny that the mode of social production has an historic agency of its own independent of the subject. Zizek's "return" to "orthodox" Marxism erases its materialist theory of desire—that "our wants and their satisfaction have their origin in society" (Marx, Wage-Labour and Capital, 33) anddo not stand in "excess" of it. In fact, he says exactly the opposite and turns the need for Orthodox Marxist theory now into a phantom desire of individuals: he makes "class struggle" an effect of a "totalitarian" desire to polarize the social between "us" and "them" (using the "friend/enemy" binary found in the writings of the Nazi Carl Schmitt, Ticklish Subject 226).