Pviledge (Me)me

So after skimming scores of these things this week, I’m left wondering: How is it that so many people can simultaneously disdain the poor and working class while also pretending to live in solidarity with “real” people who had to work for everything that they have? To argue that while they simultaneously enjoyed a great deal of material privilege growing up, they are not “privileged” people because their parents worked hard for what they had?

How, in this age of multi-media and instantaneous communication, have so many people grown up oblivious to the circumstances of other people’s lives?

And in the end, how do we explain all of this defensiveness among those who clearly have attained the Great American Dream?

Why has this struck such a collective nerve?

Jane Van Galen, Education and Class, January 4, 2008

A few days ago, I lamented the absence of more diverse voices among the gigabites of text generated by the Privilege Meme.

I stand humbly corrected by the The Paper Chase and My Private Casbah bloggers, who enrich the discourse with complex dimensions of gender, race, rurality, and geography.

Jane Van Galen, Education and Class, January 9, 2008

I am always a little hesitant to discuss things like this– memes, in all honesty, often just look like short term fads to me. Still, I think Van Galen’s posts are worth reading, and the links are worth following as well. Her first post is a somewhat anguished summary of the initial conversation (via comments) on the Social Class and Quakers blog. Her second post offers a small reprieve from the bleakness.

The original idea is a simple list of things that illustrate a certain kind of material privilege, such as books in the home, mom or dad with a college degree, a relative who’s a professional, and so on. Much of the talk on the SCQ blog seems to reflect the great American myth of the self-made man, now updated to include women, I guess. Everyone wants to claim that because they or their family worked hard, they were not well off, etc.

Oddly, I think this list makes my family seems much less privileged than we were! My father had a college degree, but not my mom. We had only a few books in the home, but none of my relatives were educated professionals. We had original art on the wall because my Uncle Elbert painted when he was young. In fact, there are very few other items on the list I could claim.

I think I feel privileged now and look back on my childhood as relatively affluent for several reasons. In some senses my father, despite working as an accountant, never became middle class culturally, in the negative sense. We were never really involved in the consumer rat race of the 60s in this sense. So, for example, when he gave me his 1964 Dodge Dart I thought it was the coolest thing in the world. I thought the kids with the new cars had it all wrong.

I also think that when I look back now I have a wider set of reference points. I lived in the Philippines, so I have a good idea of what poverty is like. I lived in a neighborhood with good roads; I got all of my vaccines when I needed them to go to school; I had my own room. (That was mostly because of gender: my three sisters had to share.) I also know a lot more about the kind of poverty my father faced as the son of tenant farmer in Mississippi in the 1920s and 30s.

I also know the poverty of my mother’s family, living in Louisiana. This too, gets complicated, though. We were immersed, as kids, by Cajun culture, which is all about being very smart about not having much at all. We ate all of the foods that the rich folks disdained, as the cliché goes; well, until the 1970s or so when our culture got commercialized. We all lived in one giant extended family, again, at least until we older. Our real privilege was a pride in who we were, utterly separate from what we owned.

Congestion and Change

“If you were to design the ultimate system, you would have mass transit be free and charge an enormous amount for cars.”

So said Mayor Michael Bloomberg last April, right about the time he unveiled his plan to charge motorists a fee to drive into Manhattan’s central business district. Eight months later, as the mayor’s original proposal mutates for better or worse, the MTA is hours away from raising transit fares. Neither idea has exactly caught fire with the public, and the fare hikes could actually end up a foil for congestion pricing — a plan originally intended as a sustained financial boost for the transit system.

And then there’s Theodore “Ted” Kheel. The environmentalist, philanthropist, and renowned labor attorney has lobbied for free transit in New York for over 40 years. Last February he commissioned a $100,000 study that, as it turns out, could put the city’s money where the mayor’s mouth is. A summary of findings released late last week shows that if the city were to impose a $16 congestion fee ($32 for trucks) below 60th Street in Manhattan, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, along with higher curbside parking fees and a taxi surcharge, the MTA could remove its turnstiles and fareboxes forever.

Brad Aaron, Streetsblog, December 18, 2007

With all the talk of change– surely a bad sign for anyone who wants change– I thought it might be interesting to think out loud about a particular change and what it might mean for the people who are asked to undergo it. In this case the change involves transportation in New York City and a proposed strategy to reduce congestion while making public transportation free.

The benefits seem pretty obvious. Anyone who takes public transportation into the city to work, or who uses public transportation to get around the city, will save money. The projected reductions in pollution and traffic and savings– even in health care– seem remarkable. If traffic is reduced, for example, studies predict that more people will ride bikes and walk. How could you be against this sort of change?

There are lots of ways that this will make life harder, at least at first, for lots of people from cab drivers to delivery services. I think that is mostly a matter of transition, though. Then there are the relatively well off commuters who drive into the city. They will either have to pay for the privileges or ride the subways and commuter trains with everyone else. That hardly seems like a terrible burden to bear.

I think the real problem here is philosophical or even sociological– pardon my Marx– and that the resistance to this form of change has to do with some very bourgeois and limited ideas about ‘personal freedom.’ It’s often suggested that in order to deal with climate change we will have to accept a less affluent life. Yet the New York plan suggests that our choice can be seen as two different forms of affluence, one less damaging. That’s what we need.

Workplace Democracy

Liberal ideology insists that a society in which conscious solidarity is the dominating attitude/approach is impossible, because humans are primarily and perpetually motivated by individual material incentives. But the revolutionary process that Venezuela embarked upon in 1999, known as the “Bolivarian Revolution,” is challenging the core liberal tenet that narrow self-interest is the immutable human condition.

In common with notions of participatory democracy and democratic socialism, the Bolivarian process asserts that solidarity and collective action are possible because individuals’ preferences (i.e., needs and desires) are socially and historically constructed through their practices. Rather than being invariably egoistic, humans can come to value social solidarity if institutions are designed to facilitate and not to penalize cooperation.

Workplace Democracy and Collective Consciousness: An Empirical Study of Venezuelan Cooperatives, Camila Piñeiro Harnecker

It’s relatively rare, I think, to find a piece of good old fashioned scientific socialism research, especially a piece that is both accessible and relevant. That’s exactly what Harnecker has produced and like much out of Venezuela recently, it’s a welcome surprise. There’s a lot to think about in the essay, not the least of which is her concise formulation of what might be called the ontological root of capitalism, the Social Darwinian notion of a so-called selfish human nature.

What I like most about the piece is the way it frames this question as an open ended process of creation ratter than a metaphysically closed discovery. The question, in other words, is not whether or not human nature is this or that; the question is whether or not human beings can begin to live in a more directly democratic, cooperative way. If “individual preferences,” in other words, “are socially and historically constructed,” then “humans can come to value social solidarity if institutions are designed to facilitate… cooperation.”

Harnecker also provides a historical portrait of workplace democracy in Venezuela as well as a set of criteria that could be used anywhere to measure any institutions’ progress towards the goal of participatory democracy. Among the most important criteria are “extent,” “mode,” and “scope.” Harnecker also focuses on what we might call transparency and on the extent to which a cooperative has ameliorated problems associated with the traditional divisions of labor.

Her descriptions of the problems these institutions face are relevant well beyond Venezuela. “The emergence of a sense of community among the workers’ collective is undercut,” Harnecker writes, “by internal conflicts largely stemming from members’ inexperience in social relations and administrative tasks.” That sounds like most unions (or universities for that matter) that I have known.

Interestingly, Harnecker links these sorts of problems to size: “But I found that these clashes are only significant in cooperatives with a large membership, where participatory practice is also considerably limited.” It’s a very traditional anarchist idea and perhaps one rooted a kind of social common sense: the larger the organization the more difficult it is for participants to have an effective voice.