Notes on: David Gillborn (2010) The White
Working Class, Racism and Respectability: Victims,
Degenerates and Interest-Convergence, British
Journal of Educational Studies, 58(1):
3-25, DOI: 10.1080/00071000903516361
NB my page numbers refer to an off-print -- add 3
Dave Harris
[This is an expanded account of his complaints
found in his reply
to Sewell about how the press see WWC kids
with FSM as vicitims of educational inequality
andcampaigns for racial equality. Some good
examples here from press and radio.He also
discusses adisourse of degeneracy, rebuking WWC as
an underclass though, the old 'rough vs
respectable' stuff.Both were needed, he says
during the great financial crisis of 2008 to
rescue liberal capitalism. So far, it is really
about articulation in the Cultura Studies
gramscian tradition,and how contradictory bits of
ideology are brought together in a hegemonic
discourse -- but Gillborn wants to define it all
in terms of CRT, the normality of White supremacy
and racism, and interest convergence. I just don't think it works --
the WWC are supposed to find comfort in thinking
at least they aren't Black, but they run serious
risks of being 'rough' and feeling the contempt of
the WMC despite their denials? Bodily hexis is
alway available and scores of other
microaggressions. Do they really think there is a
unified White interest when they see their
neighbours insulted like that? Have they never
experienced liminality and serious sy,bolic
violence themselves, on the slightest pretext?]
This is about the intersection between race and
class but through 'popular and political discourse
during late 2008 (the timing is highly
significant)' [so it is really about
articulation]. The essential values of
neoliberalism had to be reasserted via a 'victim
discourse' which saw White people as particular
victims, and a 'discourse of degeneracy' where an
'immoral and barbaric underclass' threatened
social order. He wants to apply interest
convergence from CRT as a way of mobilising White
interests to provide WWC as a buffer zone to
secure White supremacy. He means poor Whites.
The very definition of working class is one of the
key issues at stake, WWC is a 'shifting signifier'
(1). It might mean 'an undifferentiated mass of
non-elite people', but sometimes there is a
distinction between working class and poor or
underclass. White supremacy particularly benefits
by saying the WWC is innocent victims of unfair
racial competition and as threats to social and
economic order and we can use interest convergence
to see the 'very real material and symbolic
violence that WWC people experience' and see how
poor Whites sustain White supremacy.
CRT began in US law schools and is now an
important part of UK antiracist scholarship but it
has been attacked by both left and right, most
vociferously by 'self-proclaimed Marxist writers'
who have caricatured it as homogenising all White
people as privileged. This is untrue but CRT does
'view all White identified people as implicated in
relations of racial domination', even though they
do not behave in identical ways or draw similar
benefits, 'but they do all benefit to some degree
[!], whether they like it or not'. CRT is
developing and has internal dialogues and debates
but one key issue is intersectionality, drawing
upon Collins with the idea of a matrix of
domination and various other feminist writers.
However it requires 'serious critical work and
detail on the complexities and how they
intersect'. This leads them to discursive
constructions [which implies that the ruling class
does the intersecting?].
Discussing White supremacy always raises the issue
of poor White people. CRT does not mean by White
supremacy crude and obvious race hatred, but
rather a 'regime of assumptions and practices that
constantly privilege the interests of White
people... are so deeply rooted that they appear
normal… Saturate the everyday mundane actions and
policies that shape the world in the interests of
White people' (2) [circular]. This is as central
to CRT as capitalism is to Marxism, and patriarchy
to feminism, but many 'in my experience most'
White people find it impossible... To comprehend',
even radicals. they point to the existence of poor
White people.
But to CRT scholars, this implies that we cannot
generalise to a group just because some members of
the group are not privileged, and this in turn
means that we should understand privilege at the
level of individuals, and that '"poor and non-poor
Whites share a close bond"' [citing Allen 2009]
(3) [I don't understand the last bit --in the
USA?]. However both MC and WC Whites benefit from
a shared White identity, indeed 'the existence of
poor Whites is not only consistent with White
supremacy, it is actually an essential part of the
processes that sustain it' and we can see this by
looking at the discursive construction of the
British WWC especially at this specific point in
time.
Allen continues by saying we have to disrupt and
unsettle discourses of Whiteness [so does somebody
called Leonardo]. We can do this via the interest
convergence principle of CRT — 'advances in race
equality only come about when White elites see the
changes as in their own interests' [citing Bell
1980]. This is not a rational and balanced
negotiation, but a matter of protest and
mobilisation so that taking action against racism
'becomes the lesser of two evils' in this process
'lower class White interests are likely to be the
first to be sacrificed' as class interests of
elite Whites become dominant. [Delgado also
emphasises this apparently, to the extent that he
sees racial remedies as evidence of class
interests among Whites]. Non-elite Whites become
'a kind of buffer or safety zone' (4). [Surely
meaning that WWC are sacrified in the name of
racial tolerance, made to live in immigrant areas
and suffer poorly resourced social services while
WMC live in nice ghettoes?] The same goes for
working class interests generally. We can see this
in the financial crisis of 2008.
There was a global capitalist crisis which
dominated news coverage, but there was also the
theme of White anger as education statistics
showed that poor and/or WC White boys were among
the lowest achieving groups in public
examinations. [He quotes headlines from the
Express, Mail and Telegraph — and Times]. The same
press also attacked poor Whites as a 'threatening
and degenerate presence'. The WWC as 'victims of a
minoritised racial Other is by no means a new
idea' however.
'Regardless of the facts' if the WWC believe
themselves to be disadvantaged [if the WMC believe
the WWC believe themselves to be disadvantaged--
and see ghettoisation above] , then there is a
threat of unrest and this requires action against
minoritized groups, and this developed after the
first rise in migration in the 1950s. It was clear
that the violence started by Whites but migrants
were seen as the cause of the problems and this
led to harsh immigration controls directed at
Black and South Asian groups. Mrs Thatcher
similarly identified a threat to White interests
and referred to swamping, but there is a long
history of this dating back to Elizabeth I. This
shows 'its enormous popular appeal'. It has been
used to control minorities, including people
already in the population, to aggressively
assimilate them or disperse them, to pursue
multicultural policies, or to renew English
language teaching, and most recently, to see WWC
children as 'victims of ethnic diversity'.
The focus has been on experiences and achievements
of boys, often seen as a single homogeneous group,
and since the mid-2000's, a particular focus has
been WWC boys and their poor results. This does 'a
great deal of ideological work' (6). One press
story asserted that additional funding is
available to help ethnic minority children,
although they have to bid for this dedicated
funding so there is no automatic privilege. There
is a suggestion that the policy could fuel support
for right wing groups and this again is a familiar
argument, invoking the threat of racist violence.
There is some distortion of official statistics
which show that 'most groups in property achieve
relatively poor results regardless of ethnic
background' [and he cites some earlier work on
differences between White students on FSM and more
affluent Whites showing the gap is three times
bigger than between different ethnic groups]. Yet
the race gap tends to be highlighted. There is no
warning of an impending class war, no call for
action against private schools or the gifted and
talented scheme.
There is even the suggestion that failing White
boys is the 'fault of minoritised students and/or
their advocates' [he has to talk up BBC News here
as 'the most trusted news provider' (7) before
condemning its story claiming that WWC boys were
the lowest achieving group and quoting it blaming
the race relations industry, claiming in support
'"some of our listeners' and some experts, and
downplaying a spokesperson giving a counter view]
White people as race victims has been found in the
USA as well, and here a commitment to social
justice has been recast as a competitive threat to
White people, social justice campaigns become a
'sectional (racialised, even racist) activity'
(8). The possibility that all ethnic groups might
excel is erased [it is seen as a zero-sum game]
and decentring White children was leading to
racial violence symbolic and physical.
Statistics are poorly covered and are not shown as
relating 'to the most disadvantaged fraction of
the working class'. All the stories actually
related to FSM kids, but this is not the same as
working class kids — 13% of all pupils were in
receipt of FSM yet 57% of UK adults describe
themselves as working class [this is
disingenuous]. The focus on FSM statistics has
become pronounced in recent years even by the
Education Department. This disguises the actual
achievements of White students who do not receive
FSM, and they are 'more likely to attain five
higher grade passes than their counterparts of the
same gender in several minoritised groups
including those of Black Caribbean, mixed
(White/Black Caribbean), Pakistani, Black African
and Bangladeshi heritage'. This effects students
of both genders, so that the largest inequalities
are found among Black Caribbean non-FSM's. Yet the
discourse now focuses on WWC with FSM, and there
are calls for initiatives aimed specially at them.
Whiteness also draws from other discourses. The
White poor have actually existed on the boundaries
of Whiteness — Allen has the phrase '"White but
not quite"' (10) [USA again?]. Class has always
been important even though the definitions have
changed, and there are class differentials in
terms of matters such as health, susceptibility to
crime. It is also discursive and historically
specific, and includes '"elements of fantasy and
projection" (Skeggs)'. We can see how they serve
middle-class people, for example the distinction
between respectable and undeserving working class
people, connected to the regulation of women's
bodies and the cult of domesticity.
In 2008 two prominent court cases dominated news
and concerned welfare dependency and criminal
behaviour. A woman from the North of England faked
the kidnapping of her daughter in the hope of
generating money. They sedated the kid. The mother
was 'welfare -dependent, immoral and abusive',
according to the press and 'a symbol of a presumed
"underclass" threatening the very fabric of
economic and social order' (11). Another case
concerns the murder of a baby after prolonged
abuse, with evidence of mismanagement by child
protection services, interpreted as further
evidence 'of the threat posed by a growing immoral
and cruel underclass'. These are the 'familiar
historic tropes of attacks on the social dangers
posed by working class people. Sexual promiscuity,
laziness and criminality'. The police, media and
politicians 'scrambled to proclaim their disgust',
and argued that these two cases were 'merely the
tip of an iceberg of depravity' [and police
appearances on TV and in the press are cited in
evidence].
A moral panic ensued about the growing underclass
and their 'personal lack of responsibility and
effort'' and this was connected to educational
failure. The answer was to discipline the working
class by reducing social assistance and reforming
tax laws. And people like Melanie Phillips
attacked feminism for encouraging single parents.
The old tropes of respectable versus undeserving
were mobilised again. Efforts were made not to
blame all working class people but just deviant
ones '(unambitious, unmarried, unemployed)' (14)
who lived on estates have no pride, no morals,
knew their rights but not their responsibilities,
and so on. Sometimes there are even 'national and
racial 'inflections, including immigrants and
benefit dependents as burdens. Politicians joined
in to attack those on state benefits [with quotes
from politicians including Cameron, who wanted to
revive community, ]and even the Labour Party
advocating social benefit reforms.
This shows that the old disciplinary discourses
still persist only with a new flexibility,
frequent caveats acknowledging respectable
sections of the working class, which were
themselves vague and shifting, and capable of
being applied widely [indeed]
There is a parallel with the way in which African
natives of empire were compared in terms of
'"physique, stature, posture, facial mannerisms,
intelligence, habits, attitudes and disposition"'
(Nayack) (16) [so actually calling them White as
well is '"a modern phenomenon"']. [Quite so
--bodily hexis is still important]
Overall, WWC is a more fluid and complex matter
than is usually recognised. CRT offers important
insights into it [although it is normally cultural
studies type discourse analysis]. There were two
contradictory discourses, as victims and as
threats, and their effects were 'powerful and flow
in a unified direction'. They celebrate WMC
normality who become the 'normal, moral core of
society'; they are anti-minority, especially
featuring slippage between the 13% FSM and the
majority means you can reject race equality
policies and focus on general White group; it's
anti-immigration; his patriarchy; neoliberal
worldviews reasserted with the virtues of working
hard and being ambitious, individualising
failings.
Interest convergences useful in helping explain
the operation of these discourses. They seem to
split the White group and yet ultimately they
secure White supremacy. WMC benefits are clear.
The WWC benefits are more mixed but still remain
clear — they may face a tougher time qualifying
for benefits, but 'they know that their interests
will be secure against those of minoritised groups
because the solidarity that WMC ensures that the
spectre of racial violence (both symbolic and
real) will be mobilised if, for example their
educational or employment prospects dip below
those of key (especially Black) minoritised
groups' (17) [but they already are below some
fractions of those]. They can also 'always console
themselves that they are part of the respectable
class fraction' [but the WMC constantly dumps them
in the degenerate section?].
The minoritised racial groups, educational policy
becomes 'even more aggressively White focused',
social welfare cuts have a disproportionately
negative impact. Degenerate discourses arraigned
White working class, but policy impacts probably
hit minority groups the hardest. Overall CRT helps
provide an important lens. WWC are beneficiaries
of Whiteness especially in victim discourses but
they are also more liminal because they can be
demonised when necessary and useful, acting as a
buffer, safety zone that protects the White middle
classes, White but not quite [pretty tenuous links
to White supremacy then]
|
|