<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>James Blaut's comment suggests that an overly
deconstructionist view of 'black' and 'white'
identities may be politically disabling (if not
downright offensive) for those who live the
consequences of racism, Stephen Lawrence as
one such case. This is a common problem with
our new fangled approaches to identity. I think
this is because strong feelings of anger aren't
very easily accomodated into theory - we seem
to need a target, preferably an embodied one.
However, if we don't follow the social
constructionist path we tend to end up with
politically disabling (if not downright offensive)
acccounts of other groups, in this case 'white
working class cultures', where x, y and z
combine to 'produce' racism. The 'white working
class racist' who embodies and gives voice to a
racist society becomes the target. Unfortunately
it really is too easy to say this is about 'black'
and 'white': identity is a process of becoming,
where the social, economic, cultural and political
conditions in which we become who we are, are
usually not of our own making. Once we stop
reminding ourselves of this, we're at a stand-off,
where refrains like 'They don't like us and we
don't care' start to make sense to a lot of people.
What would happen if we did start to like 'them'
a little bit more?
Chris Haylett
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|