In his effort to provide historical context for the economic and social calamity in New Orleans following Katrina, Christopher Morris also provided some pretty solid reasoning for engaging in critical class analysis. Morris explained that the physical origins of natural disasters such as Katrina are generally beyond human control. Catastrophic "acts of God" like hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes are not simply random events that occur without explanation but are the products of geologic and atmospheric conditions that humans are starting to understand and, in some instances, being able to predict. This understanding of such phenomena, which has saved countless lives, is the product of careful and thorough scientific study, observation, and experimentation. It stands to reason that applying similar scrutiny and rigorous investigation to the origins or social class and inequality might yield a similar depth of understanding that would improve lives...if not save them.
Class analysis and the study of the origins of social and economic inequality in the United States is only a worthwhile venture if it leads to substantive change in the way we do things. With this in mind, class analysis provides a rationale for policy reform that requires sympathetic ears among those in the position to make and execute laws in this country. Unfortunately, US legislators perceive themselves as the "losers" in reform agenda that results in the more equitable distribution of social capital and political power. Understanding "power" as a defining element of "class" is key a useful class analysis and probably critical to exposing the power framework that allows the "rich to get richer and keeps the poor....well, poor. Historical context is essential to this process.
The Lavelle and Feagin article does a solid job of presenting the historical evolution of the relationship between race and class in Louisiana and its impact on the federal and local response to Katrina. They argue convincingly that separating race and class really makes no sense when the situation is viewed in proper historical context. In Louisiana, as is the case with much of the US, the current class structure would not exist without a long history of oppression of racial minorities by politically and economically powerful whites. Understanding the history of how "whiteness" became a valued commodity in the United States and how it is used to gain and protect accumulations of social and cultural capital is key to contemporary class analysis. Hurricane Katrina forced Americans to engage in a critical class analysis (albeit briefly and without much enthusiasm) but was really just an symptom of a larger disease that was just too disruptive to ignore. Lavelle and Feagin argue that persistent racism is the root cause of the class inequities that were forced into the spotlight during the weeks, months and years following Katrina. Their assertion that racial discrimination facilitated by the disproportionate political and economic power of white elites created the institutional structures that fix class makes a lot of sense. Understandably, white elites have a great deal to gain by denying the racist foundations of class inequality. Minimizing the role of race in the critical class analysis obscures the root cause of inequity thereby providing white economic elites with a kind of "plausible deniability" when pressed with accusations of racism. The authors reference a comment by Barbara Bush that many of the evacuated poor were living better in shelters than they had before the storm. Lavelle and Feagin argue that this comment was indicative of white elites being "out of touch" with poor/minority populations- and I agree entirely. What I think is subtly implied by the former First Lady is that these Black folks should be appreciative of the accommodations that the state and federal government have provided for them. By removing race from the discourse on class, folks like the Bush family can deny culpability by connecting class inequity with its "real" root causes of poor education and bad personal life decisions.
This line of reasoning is comforting to whites of nearly every economic position. The technique and rhetoric are nearly always the same. One begins by professing his "colorblindness" and in a show of solidarity quotes King's "I Have a Dream" speech. After this proclamation it is now possible to ignore the fact that the class distinctions that exist between "us" and "them" are created by a system of oppression built by folks who were keenly aware of "color" and used it to carve a well protected niche in American society for themselves. "Colorblindness" is an interesting element of a discussion on class in American society. It is an essential tool in a "post-racial" America that allows for us to distance ourselves from the transgressions of our ancestors. The racialized slavery that Lavelle and Feagin identified as a root cause of the social inequities in 21st century Louisiana could not have persisted as long as it did in the United States without the presence of a broadly accepted systemic racism. In 2011 America, Jim Crow has ceded power to a more sophisticated and less visible "colorblind" entity who is subtly carrying on his work.
In any discussion of the movement of race out of a contemporary class analysis, it is important to note that the "colorblind" do not claim to be unable to distinguish between "races" but purport to possess a moral rectitude that allows them to judge individual on the "content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. Denying that one has benefited from any unearned gains associated with skin color is another prerequisite for enrollment in the caste of the colorblind. This allows for the practice of what Curtis Chan referred to as "modern racism" without the moral compromises that were required of previous generations of racists. Chan's critique of the assignment of "model minority" status to Asian Americans really illuminated many of the problems inherent in a class analysis that discounts race. By anointing Asian Americans with "model minority" status, a "colorblind" America has offered evidence that the American Dream is still alive and attainable if you simply do the "white thing". Chan affixes much of the blame for the perpetuation of the myth of the "model minority" on the modern media. This makes sense. With Asians serving as a shield against accusations that the American Dream is nearly exclusively attainable by whites, the white dominated media projects images of Asian "whizz kids" juxtaposed with the academic and economic failings of other minority groups. In doing so the achieve the ultimate end of creating hoards of consumers subscribing to the notion that African Americans and Hispanics are just too lazy and irresponsible to do the "white thing".
I always try to take positions that are a moderate as they possibly can be given the concrete information that is available. I am not one for skewering the white devil at every opportunity but I often find it hard not to... Realistic and fruitful discussions about class in America are impossible to have without considering the issue of race. White folks such as myself are sometimes going to suffer some collateral damage in the fray but it is essential to approach problems honestly if we are to move toward any meaningful policy reform related to class in this country. I buy Derrick Bell's theory that powerful whites will only support reform agendas if there is a clear/tangible benefit for them. With this in mind, we need to package reform efforts in such a way that the mutual benefits are so clearly obvious that opposition to such agendas could be perceived as nothing other than bigotry.
Later in the afternoon, the discussion of the job market was largely tabled and hidden below a headlining piece decrying the design flaws in one of our new tools of "defense". If you look to the red arrow you will find a blip about unemployment numbers. My hunch is that they perceived their "fair and balanced" approach to this topic might not be inflammatory enough for the typical Fox viewer or that the analytical approach they took exhibited a degree of journalistic sophistication that would be foreign to their readers and thus be ignored or misunderstood.
