WisCon Day 2b: Fighting the Man

[bcholmes]

After lunch, I went to the second panel that I was on:

System Failure

A lot of conversation about racism, sexism, classism and other -isms centres on representation, as if greater representation might automatically wear down the -isms. Another perspective is that -isms are necessary inputs to the system in which we operate, and that the system demands their perpetuation. Perhaps it's because capitalism needs access to cheap labour, or the people in power need a Stanford Prison-like conflict to maintain control. Let's discuss how the system operates, and what role various identities play on that system.

M: Ian K. Hagemann, moondanderdrake, Jessica Kaiser

I proposed this panel, and I was pretty pleased with the way it turned out. When I got to do my intro, I talked about a moment from a few years ago. I was attending a socialism conference, and I was listening to Jeff Mackler, the National Secretary of a socialist group in the U.S. He was describing a debate between himself and the heads of some non-socialist parties, and eventually he used this particular argument. He said: "We all agree on what the great evils of our time are: racism, sexism, classism, homophobia. The only difference between us is that we socialists don't believe that those things come from nowhere."

Now, for years I'd heard the charge that socialists and labour organizers reduce everything to the class struggle, but I found Mackler's words kinda compelling. (I'll acknowledge that I have sometimes encountered the tendency in pinko circles to assume that work combating, say, racism is a distraction from the real root cause issues -- a belief that I don't share.)

And, I confess, that that way of viewing things is increasingly influencing my perspective on the world. In the panel, we didn't really talk about the Stanford Prison idea. The model that most of the panel focused on was the idea that capitalism is to blame for many of these -isms.

I think that this passage, from Kadi's book, Thinking Class is typical of the way that certain ideas are necessary for capitalism to continue to perpetuate itself:

For the capitalist system to continue ruthlessly grinding on (or for the capitalist system to "succeed," as you would say) those of us bred for stupid and/or dangerous work must believe we're not as smart as the people who boss us around. It's critical. Capitalism needs simple explanations about why poor people with lousy jobs take orders from men in suits. Lack of brains fits the bill. (So does the lie that rich people work harder. I'll tackle that in another essay.) Any noticeable class divisions stem from differences in intellectual capacity. Connected to this is the touting of "American ingenuity" as the doorway to upward mobility. It's as untrue as the existence of a whole class of stupid people, but if enough people believe it -- even partially believe it -- this idea will reinforce and strengthen capitalism. After all, if we believe brains lead to success, we'll blame ourselves for not getting ahead. Personal failure, not systemic oppression, explains why we're going nowhere so very fast.

The panel covered a number of topics. We talked about how people are always encouraged to see failings in the context of individualism -- there's seldom any awareness that concepts like, for example, Imposter Syndrome are systemic phenomenon.

Two audience points stuck me as interesting. One person broached the idea of the Enlightenment, and asked whether or not the rise of individual rights went hand-in-hand with the kind of individualist thinking that we were blaming capitalism for.

My response to that was to talk about the Haitian Revolution. In Haiti activist circles, we tend to talk about the three great revolutions that were inspired by Enlightenment ideas. Each of them were inspired by the notion of individual rights. One of those three revolutions was clearly a threat to capitalist interests, because it threatened to cut off access to a cheap labour force. As a result, both the U.S. and France (and, really, the rest of the Western world) refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Haitian revolution. (Of the revolutionary French government, Jefferson stated, "We certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle whereon our own government is founded, that every nation had a right to govern itself internally under what forms it please, and to change those forms at its own will." About Haiti, Jefferson was not so magnanimous.)

As the slave rebellion progressed, Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner himself, said, "If this combustion can be introduced among us under any veil whatever, we have to fear it." Jefferson, writing to the French minister in America, Louis André Pinchon, about revolt leader Toussaint L'Ouverture [sic], hinted menacingly that "nothing would be easier than to furnish your army and fleet with everything, and reduce Toussaint to starvation." George Washington later added that it was "lamentable to see such a spirit of revolution among the blacks" of Saint Domingue.

— Randall Robinson, An Unbroken Agony: Haiti, From Revolution to the Kidnapping of a President

The Haitian Revolution, and the constitution that came after it, was a tremendously visionary document. It provided 100% emancipation, without exception. It offered freedom to every person -- whether free or slave -- who came to Haiti's shores seeking a home. But the U.S. hated the example that Haiti set, and feared that slave revolution might come to the States. The U.S. didn't recognize Haiti as a country until the 1860s.

I think that it's clear that individual rights are mostly only tolerated to the extent that they don't interfere with business. Carrie, from the audience, went on to provide more historical context about how the Enlightment was really only interested in improving the lot of existing landowners. They didn't really intend for this idea to expand to include everybody.

Another question that was raised about early writings of capitalist economics -- the questioner talked about how capitalism can be imagined as a form of cooperation. My response to that is that if it's really cooperation, it's strange that not everyone benefits equally from it.

To illustrate my point, I talked about something that came up in lunch with some of my co-workers a while ago. My colleague was lamenting the idea that so many unions have attitudes that stymie productivity gain. As we discussed at that lunch, the attitude of, say, the Wobblies and many other unions is that productivity belongs to the worker, not to the owner. If a worker figures out a way of doing eight hours worth of work in six hours, then maybe they get to read a book or something for the remaining two hours. My colleague summed up that such an attitude was an impediment to productivity improvement, and that such an impediment might imperil the survival of the company. My sense was that everyone around the table was deeply anxious about how problematic this view of productivity was. For my part, I find it interesting that the mantra of capitalism -- the company's need to survive is paramount -- had been completely internalized by them and yet the notion that not everyone benefits equally from the company's improvement and survival needed to be explicitly pointed out.

(I additionally think it's worth noting that these conversations often come up in the context of companies such as auto manufacturers. The auto industry, like many manufacturing industries, deliberately chose to create an environment that treated its workers like replaceable cogs in a manufacturing machine. Since that was the choice they made, I think they have to take the whole package. I don't think they get to say, "we want to essentially de-humanize our workers, except when it benefits the owners of the company." If you want more cooperation with your workers, form cooperatives.)

After that panel, I wandered off to see "The Future of Food". For whatever reason, I just wasn't feeling that panel, so I slipped off, instead, to see:

White to White

Isn't it time for white folks to start talking to other white folks about racism? Don't PoC have enough to do? This discussion group will focus on how white people can talk to other white people about racism, how to call them on it, and how to explain things -- without always having to resort to People of Color to sort it out.

M: Ann Crimmins, Alan Bostick, E. Cabell Hankinson Gathman, Julie Hayes, Piglet

It was a reasonable panel, but perhaps a bit more 101 than I assumed. Mostly, I think my perception of 101-ness was based in having missed some of the panelist conversation, and mostly hearing the questions. A lot of the questions came from people I perceived as relative WisCon newcomers. Which isn't a bad thing, mind you. I'm skeptical about assuming that I'm beyond 101 when it comes to race issues.

There was one talking point that I really enjoyed: the moderator asked the panelists how they respond to people who say that racism is a thing of the past. Cabell responded with, "Well, I have all these studies..." She then went on to talk about some of the findings of those studies, which were really interesting.

My last panel before dinner was a complete oddity for me:

The Colonization of (Middle-class American?) Children

The culture of rhymes, rituals, games, songs, and secrets that had been passed on for generations from older kids to younger was interrupted for many in the end of the 20th century. Parents seemed to substitute TV and chaperoned play dates and a circumscribed physical world. But you can't keep good kids down. Have current children found ways to invent a culture for themselves? Does any one (who is prepared to tak) know what's in it?

M: Suzanne Alles Blom, Naomi Kritzer, Madeline Robins, Katje Sabin, Ibi Aanu Zoboi

As a person who's more than a bit terrified of children, this was an odd panel to choose. Truth is, I wanted to meet Ibi, whose bio said that she wrote short fiction inspired by Haitian culture and spirituality. I was hoping to find out if she had a blog or journal that I could follow to learn about her writing projects. Unfortunately, no. Later I asked sparkymonster if that constituted stalking; sparky assured me that it did. kalmn also informed me that she had been stalking me, but doing so in the least effective way she could imagine. (1000km away!)

I had dinner with If, Erin and Sarah. It was a good dinner. There was some great, animated conversation about white collar unions. If asked some really interesting questions, but I'm blanking on what those were right now. I feel like I got to hear more of Erin's opinions this year than, say, last year which was cool.

After dinner, I caught about two hours of the Tiptree auction. I was bidding on a Gaiman-signed thingie, but after the bid got up to $400, sanity took hold. I lost the auction item, and nothing else really tempted me. By 9, I was pretty beat, and went up to my room to rest a bit before my 10:30 panel.

More to come...