Response to Michelle Alexander

The opportunity to see Michelle Alexander is one that I have hoped would present itself ever since reading her book last year. Her legal and analytical work specifically in regard to race, drug laws, and the prison system not only profoundly opened my eyes, it played an essential role in directing me to the study of legal philosophy. Despite that fact she was speaking a broader terms about a book I have already read, I still found it both insightful and invigorating. Partially because she is a phenomenal public speaker, but also because she didn't just recite the outline of her book, she shared relevant information as well as personal experiences from only the last year. The one that comes to mind is the letter she received from an inmate who had incarcerated for a minor drug offense, and who wound up in solitary confinement, with a 20 year sentence, and was almost driven to insanity because of a fight with a guard. This is one of many examples of a system that is fundamentally broken, prisons have no incentive  and make no effort to rehabilitate there inmates, in fact its in there best interest to keep them as long as possible and ensure that they end up back behind bars after their release.

My only point of contention in regards to what she said arose not during her presentation, but in the form of an answer she gave to a young woman during the Q&A.

The question was regarding prison reform, and paraphrased went something along the lines of... "Do you think that there needs to be a black man or woman at the forefront of prison reform for it to be successful?"

Her response was "yes" which she justified by making comparisons to the civil rights movement and how if it was a white man or woman leading the charge for reform the focus would be driven away from the racial issues and that ultimately they would not be addressed, or even worse, they would be pushed elsewhere. While I can see why she might feel this way given the colorblind rhetoric of government, I don't think it is necessarily true, and furthermore, the negative repercussions that she worries would manifest seem to me to be a slippery slope fallacy. I feel this way because prison reform is not only a racial issue, it is a structural one, and the prison system in its current state will take advantage of whatever race, gender, or group it can. Right now, it certainly cannot be disputed that the the low class African American male is unfairly targeted by police and prisons alike... but I am skeptical to the claim that these issues are motivated for the most part by racial bias. Rather, I think that structural inequality occurs because of its enormous financial incentives for the people that uphold and administer law. I am in no way asserting that racism doesn't exist or play its part, but I don't think it is what motivates the majority of the structural racial bias. It goes without saying that the racial history of America set the stage for the current issues at hand, specifically that the black race as a whole is struggling with the remnants of racism but most importantly with huge economic disparities. As we all know, financial issues coupled with lack of social advancement breeds crime. And since poor (many of them black) families have been systematically herded into low income housing in the cities, policing the negative repercussions of poverty has been for the most part centralized. This is important for two reasons, firstly because it gives the prisons and police a specific area to focus on (which is good for them because its efficient... the more arrests and convictions they make, the more tax dollars they get) and secondly because they can use the ghettos violent expansion to justify more policing and more prisons. Now, there is good reason to assume that this is a racial issue, because the statistics show that it is, but I think it is a racial issue not generated from hatred of the black skin color, but rather because it is good for business to ensure that the ghetto is never saved. The fact that the prison system is for profit, and the police are given funds in correlation with arrests and citations means that from a business standpoint, they will target whosoever is most likely to commit a crime. And because the ghettos are predominantly black, have little education funding, and are a hotspot for drug use and violence, means that they will get targeted the most, right down to the laws that are passed. This is because prisons and police have a considerable amount of lobbying power, and will pay huge amounts of money to get stricter drugs laws as well as harsher penalties for convicted felons, because it increases the chances that they will become a repeating felon. My point is not that this isn't a racial issue, it certainly has become one, but I don't think that race is a necessary prerequisite for this system to function. It seems to me that as long as the prison system and police force are for profit industries that have no incentive to strive for rehabilitation, they will continue to target whichever group or race which is statistically most likely to commit a crime, even if its low income white families. This is why I don't think that reform would "only" succeed if lead by a black man or woman, because it is a system that has the potential to unfairly target any type of person, and one that actively works to the detriment of society. It is the proverbial bandaid that is attempting to stem the flow of blood from a severed artery. Instead, we need to get rid of the for profit prison industry, reform our drug laws, focus on rehabilitation, and drastically increase education and social welfare funding for low income areas. This is something that can be done by a person of any race, because it is a problem that has the potential to effect any person of any race even if currently it is focused on one in particular. Until our culture and government no longer permit this system to function the way it does, it will continue to disenfranchise and target any group, race, community, organization, class etc, that can help these crooked businesses make a profit.

Thinking About Post Modern Racism

The majority of chapter 3 is dedicated to an analysis of Racism in the 21st century, to properly engage in this discussion however requires that Taylor first go to great lengths to outline the historically context for post modern racism. Having done so, he launches into a complex explanation for how and why racism takes form today, this we quickly realize is a convoluted synthesis of implicitly and explicitly biased structural systems that operate to the benefit of one race or the detriment of others. Since Post Modern Racism is so multi-facited and often painstaking concealed or distorted, it is often difficult to pinpoint its cause and effects. In light of this, Taylor alters his angle of pursuit, focusing instead on the evolution of racial policy in the decades following the civil rights movement. Although the fight against explicitly racist systems and institutions was won decades ago, the battle for equality is decades if not centuries from over. This is owed largely in part to the obvious implications of American history in regard to race relations, but of the other detrimental factors in play, there is one that hasn't emerged until very recently. This is oriented in what Taylor refers to as Post Modern Racialism, or, more simply, racial policy in the age of legal equality. Taylor himself outlines the negative implications of Post Modern Racialism very eloquently near the beginning of chapter 3... "Post-modern racialism doesn’t so much ask us to ignore race completely as to ignore what actually makes race matter. What we usually call “race” tracks a variety of patterns of advantage and disadvantage, but we’re supposed to ignore these connections and think of race only as an aesthetic and cultural phenomenon." Taylor, Paul C. (2013-04-17). Race: A Philosophical Introduction (Kindle Locations 2086-2089). Wiley. Kindle Edition. Essentially, what he indicates is that we have gone to such great lengths to develop a racial unbiased system of governance that it has become taboo to shape policy along racial lines in almost any way, despite the overwhelmingly apparent patterns of racial advantage and disadvantage. This unwillingness to address the lingering disparities between races has generated what Taylor calls a society of "anti-anti racists", people who acknowledge racial differences in culture and aesthetic but draw no such distinction in regard to the implications ones skin has on things like social mobility and finical well being. For much of my adolescent life I would say that I had fallen into a post modern way of thinking about race. I don't know if I would call it racism because I certainly didn't harbor any animosity towards any specific race, I think a better term for categorizing it would be ignorance. Growing up attending a small private school in the New Jersey suburbs didn't exactly grant me a clear perspective on just how much of an advantage I had as a well educated child of white middle class parents. And not that I had much of an interest in politics at the time, but I likely thought that the system was unbiased and for the most part, fair. My experiences in high school changed that however, for one I had the opportunity to befriend and even live with students from all reaches of the social and financial hierarchy. But it was the American born, pure blooded Dominican boy from the Bronx whose friendship led to social education few kids like myself will ever have. Franklin was the son of 34 year old widow, his mother gave birth at the age of twenty and her husband was shot and killed less than two years later in the midst of a high stakes drug deal that involved nearly $100K of cocaine. Despite this, Franklins mom raised him as best she could with the help the extended family and despite their location and financial situation managed to get him enrolled in charter schools as well as scholarship programs that specifically aided students of color from the inner city. At first I thought "how unfair, these kids get special programs and full scholarships just because they are black and latino." but then I visited Franklins home, and I realized that there was so much more to the picture then I had previously been aware of. His area of the Bronx is made up almost entirely Dominicans or African Americans living in low income housing, and every time I visited him I was well aware of the fact that I was the minority. On top of that, it was clear that few of his relatives or family friends had the resources for advancement. College was only a possibility with a full or nearly full scholarship and that involved good grades/test scores, something that the schools, parents, and entire culture of the area didn't seem to foster all to well. It began to become starkly clear to me that the entire education system (in regard to programs such as No Child Left Behind) was actively working against the students who needed it most, students from low income families who for the most part were non white. On top of that, I was brought face to face with an advantage of my own that I had never considered, which was just how much of a difference ones financial status and education level made in regard to both what I was able to achieve and what I valued. Later on in my high school career I would have the run in with the Law that I have spoken about in class before that would shine a light on the fact that the legal system operates on a similar degree of bias and the advantages my white skin gives me is truly significant. These experiences have transformed the way I see the world and have served as my motivation to pursue philosophy and will continue to shape the work I do moving forward. Ultimately, Its easy to be fooled by ones surroundings into the assumption that the system is an unbiased one, but you need not look all that far to see just how broken the scales of justice and opportunity truly are. Having left the cave in this regard, I can say with utter certainty that the advantages and disadvantages associated with race are still wildly prevalent, they have however been carefully camouflaged. Racial policies are notoriously controversial ones, but to avoid acknowledging and addressing these disparities is to actively contribute to a system that perpetuates them further.

Pattern Recognition

We have had two class periods worth of discussion thus far, and though they have for the most part been wildly disorganized, I do not believe they have been unproductive. More than anything, we are getting a feel for each other, and also for the types of discussions we will soon be having, discussions that I can safely assume very few of us (if any) have had to this degree especially in regard to content coverage and duration. I just want to say, to anyone reading this, I have never been so intrigued by a class, not just because I am fascinated by the content and my fellow peers, but because I can safely say I have no idea what to expect... what I do know however is that I am optimistic. My blog this week, as my title indicates, will be investigated the phenomenon of pattern recognition within human sociology and its association with racism. Though I admit I have yet to complete chapter two, thus far I have seen little discussion from the author in regard to this topic. He does however talk about and identify several causes for racism and the subsequent models that have been implemented in order to address them, for the sake of this blog post I want to focus on one in particular. "Some say it involves pre- or non-rational impulses, in the context of the workings of certain psychological and cognitive mechanisms. For them the solution, if there is one, might involve consciousness-raising or therapy, helping us to recognize the force of primal urges or subconscious drives and to integrate those forces into the overall economy of our psychosocial functioning." Taylor, Paul C. (2013-04-17). Race: A Philosophical Introduction (Kindle Locations 1040-1045). Wiley. Kindle Edition. This explanation for the cause of racism got me thinking about the way the mind works in regard to sorting and extracted information. There are many organisms whose brains have the capacity for pattern recognition, the benefits of this ability are fairly obvious, it allows for swift judgments to be made in regard to previous experiences rather than treating every situation as an entirely new one. Human beings in particular have a remarkable ability to transfer information from a wide variety of previous experiences and prior knowledge and apply it to problem, task, or situation at hand. What separates us from other animals in this regard however, is that our filter for the sorting of information is not solely the product or our personal experiences or innate tendencies, it is unique in that it can either be enhanced or tainted by the thoughts, words, and accounts of others. Our reaction in many cases is determined by a pattern that we recognize, not necessarily by what we know. Which makes me wonder, is deeming an impulse "irrational" fair? especially those orchestrated by patter recognition considering that we don't always have a say in how our impulses are formed. In many cases, especially those where we are in no immediate danger I would argue that yes, they are irrational. We may certainly be inclined to notice and be couscous when confronted by differences, however, impulsively sorting these differences into a negative category (even when presented with a risk free opportunity to explore and understand them) is a blatant disregard for rational agency and despite having nothing to lose from exploring the unknown in this case, you are willfully choosing ignorance and to do so is to fail to acquire further understanding of the world around you which is ultimately detrimental. An interesting grey area which might be interesting to discuss in class is whether or not an impulse can be irrational (even it is the product of misinformation, propaganda, or ignorance) when in the face of a seemingly dangerous situation. An example that came to mind, one that socially is often ascribed a racist connotation is the white man sitting in his car in a bad part of town, who, seeing the young black man wearing basketball shorts and a large white tee shirt walking by, impulsively locks his car door, fearing him to be a criminal. Or, the black teenager walking through the mostly white souther town, sees a white man of large build, dressed in a cutoff shirt and sporting a mullet, crosses the street to avoid crossing his path in fear that he is a KKK member or belligerent racist. Both of these judgments might be impulsive, they also certainly rely on stereotypes associated with not only race but geography and social class, stereotypes that are reinforced by media and personal experiences and naturing, but does that make them irrational? Is it fair to say that fear for ones well being is irrational? Or is defying your impulses the true sign of rationality? I don't know, I look forward to pursuing this issue further both in and outside of class.

Just an awesome video

The Language Of Race

I am not sure if this post is intended to address a specific question (if so I didn't get that memo) or if it should be talking about the reading as a whole. So, just to be safe, I have chosen to do neither of those things and instead will be philosophizing about a single sentence from this weeks reading, one that I found particularly profound and true.

From the text:
"My language is an expression of the conditions under which it's taken shape, and in this sort of case, of the conditions under which I've taken shape too."

This is one of those things that appears glaringly obvious after you read it, but also something that I imagine few people rarely think about in regards to themselves. That is probably the case because, like trying to imagine yourself as a member of the opposite sex, or with a different skin color, it is very difficult to imagine yourself with a different set of language tools, especially since you are using the language you are accustomed to in order to think about language as a whole, which taints the whole process.
            Something that we are much more accustomed to is analyzing the language of others, why? because everyones use of language is different from word choice, to vocal tone. When we analyze language, we are often subconsciously piecing together a perspective identity for the author or speaker, something that is done through pattern recognition, stereotyping, and imagination. We do this because we know what that the above quote is true in regard to others, even if we haven't actively thought about it. For example, when we read or hear something that moves us on an emotional level (even if it is rooted in fiction) we often get the sense that the author has experienced something similar and can therefor render a feeling with language. That being said, the reason only a handful or authors or artists stick out as truly great amongst the many millions of others has a lot to do with their attention to detail and powers of observation, granting them the ability to create vivid and riveting characters despite the fact that they have almost nothing in common.
          The coolest part about analyzing your own language though, is that you know your whole life story, so if you can successfully step outside yourself, you can trace almost everything about the way you communicate back to an experience or event you have had. Everything from your education, to your love life, to your race, all of these things and many others are unintentionally communicated every time you open your mouth, touch a pen to paper, or type up a blog post.