Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
Mon Aug 10, 2015, 01:11 PM Aug 2015

most people, black or white or other, do not live in academia

It may make perfect sense for a sociology academic journal article to refer to "white supremacism" as a term that essentially means the same thing as "institutional racism" or "system racial discrimination" or even the more widely understood concept of "racism."

Stepping outside that world, referring to "white supremacism" means Klan members, chanting frat boys from Oklahoma, the Confederate Flag, Dylan Root, and various terrorist groups within the United States.

That a term is used in academic/activist circles one way does not trump or invalidate the more widely understood meaning.

It is incumbent on the communicator to use words as they are understood by the audience. This does not mean that one has to agree with the audience, or pander to the audience by validating their belief system. It does mean that one has to transmit one's signal so that it can be received.

To put it another way:

if you explain to a white person that white people generally enjoy benefits and freedoms that are denied to black people, or that black people have to put up with all kinds of oppression that white people don't have to deal with, more likely than not the white person will get that.

If you call a white person a "white supremacist" because they happen to be white, the reaction will be "fuck you" and a complete dismissal of you and anything you have to say.

So, one has to determine whether the point is to communicate or just to flame away.

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
most people, black or white or other, do not live in academia (Original Post) geek tragedy Aug 2015 OP
Yup. Igel Aug 2015 #1

Igel

(35,356 posts)
1. Yup.
Mon Aug 10, 2015, 01:52 PM
Aug 2015

Speakers have to take into account their audience. Claiming a privilege not to do so is insane.

Sometimes that's difficult: I teach 160 kids a year. My audience comes from a dozen countries and speak everything from Thai and Vietnamese to Igbo and Spanish or Urdu; they range from homeless kids in group shelters who show up in the morning needing every bandage I had because they're beaten up just before school to spoiled kids whose parents give them a new BMW on their 16th birthday (wrapped with a bow and delivered to the school parking lot during class).

At the same time, the audience has to take into account the speaker. If an engineer is invited in to lecture my class, I don't expect him to accommodate even most of the students. I should have tried to prepare them for his terminology, but when he says something that sounds off the kids should be aware enough to say, "Ah, that word can't meant what I think it means."

And this is never more true than when your audience is 160 kids from a dozen countries....


There's this idea in academia that public space and discourse is negotiated, and not negotiated sets of symbols for the purposes of comprehension but negotiated power. If you fully accommodate your audience, you have ceded power to them and bound yourself to their discourse and their framework. If you fully accommodate the speaker, then you've basically castrated yourself. The entire field is on a power-trip. It's a hold-over from the '50s and '60s and is sometimes found in other fields, but really in the social sciences and those bits of humanities that have social advocacy at their core.

Negotiating over the public commons is good or bad, depending on the "rightness" (not that they say this) of the speaker or the audience. If an ethnic-studies professor is lecturing a group of Confederate-flag waving loons, he's not going to cede squat to his inferiors. If a group of BLM activists are listening to somebody they disagree with, "respect" means accommodating them. This is how it should be, because the currency of the realm is power: not truth, not communication, not compromise or mutual understanding.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»most people, black or whi...