A few scattered thoughts on what was discussed last class
An interesting idea that came up was challenging whiteness as a form of neutrality, and race as something made invisible to white people unless in the presence of those non-white. I think this is a big part of reactionary racism that activates in response to anti-racist action. It seems like this racism has ideas of neutrality on its side because it sees race as something disrupting a neutral status quo. It seems like white people have trouble taking race into account even if we see past this and try to be anti-racist, I think because whiteness as a default is so deeply taken for granted. The Angela Davis interview that Nasrin posted had a quote: “The very concept of humanity will always conceal an internal, clandestine racialization, forever foreclosing possibilities of racial equality.” I haven’t thought hard enough about these ideas and how to follow them through (it seems like they lead away from certain notions of objectivity and general categorization). I’ve been starting to think about neutrality a lot in the context of gender neutrality, where what is gender neural is more often used to signify masculinity, with femininity as a set of deviations from the norm.
I liked Angela Davis’s idea of revolutionary change being made slowly, almost imperceptibly, the current generation living in what was only imagined or outlined in the past. This feels real to me, there are so many elements of change in the atmosphere, whether around race, gender, capitalism, and a new kinds of social bodies, which weren’t created instantly or from any single source, growing in many directions at once.
Something that really struck me was Amelia Baggs’ line about people not recognizing Amelia’s ways of interacting/connecting with the world, instead only recognizing ways connecting oneself through narrow channels such as language. I really connected with the idea of authenticity/legitimacy/humanity needing to be proven through language and phrasing, the sometimes-damaging need for concrete definitions and progressions. It also made me think of one of the functions of social media, which is inherently a limited interaction with the world because of the machines one has to use and its rooting in habits, but which nonetheless centers itself as what is most real for its users.
An interesting idea that came up was challenging whiteness as a form of neutrality, and race as something made invisible to white people unless in the presence of those non-white. I think this is a big part of reactionary racism that activates in response to anti-racist action. It seems like this racism has ideas of neutrality on its side because it sees race as something disrupting a neutral status quo. It seems like white people have trouble taking race into account even if we see past this and try to be anti-racist, I think because whiteness as a default is so deeply taken for granted. The Angela Davis interview that Nasrin posted had a quote: “The very concept of humanity will always conceal an internal, clandestine racialization, forever foreclosing possibilities of racial equality.” I haven’t thought hard enough about these ideas and how to follow them through (it seems like they lead away from certain notions of objectivity and general categorization). I’ve been starting to think about neutrality a lot in the context of gender neutrality, where what is gender neural is more often used to signify masculinity, with femininity as a set of deviations from the norm.
I liked Angela Davis’s idea of revolutionary change being made slowly, almost imperceptibly, the current generation living in what was only imagined or outlined in the past. This feels real to me, there are so many elements of change in the atmosphere, whether around race, gender, capitalism, and a new kinds of social bodies, which weren’t created instantly or from any single source, growing in many directions at once.
Something that really struck me was Amelia Baggs’ line about people not recognizing Amelia’s ways of interacting/connecting with the world, instead only recognizing ways connecting oneself through narrow channels such as language. I really connected with the idea of authenticity/legitimacy/humanity needing to be proven through language and phrasing, the sometimes-damaging need for concrete definitions and progressions. It also made me think of one of the functions of social media, which is inherently a limited interaction with the world because of the machines one has to use and its rooting in habits, but which nonetheless centers itself as what is most real for its users.
I've been sitting with that thought of neutrality all afternoon and evening, Jax. Very important to consider how neutrality is in fact the status quo.
ReplyDelete