« Questions, Questions | Main | Why Torture? »
September 18, 2006
The Trouble With Prosperity Christianity
The September American Prospect features a terrific excerpt from Walter Benn Michaels new book The Trouble With Diversity which I've been meaning to talk about, but really haven't achieved sufficient clarity in my own thoughts to address. Michaels argues that:
So now we’re urged to be more respectful of poor people and to stop thinking of them as victims, since to treat them as victims is condescending -- it denies them their “agency.” And if we can stop thinking of the poor as people who have too little money and start thinking of them instead as people who have too little respect, then it’s our attitude toward the poor, not their poverty, that becomes the problem to be solved, and we can focus our efforts of reform not on getting rid of classes but on getting rid of what we like to call classism. The trick, in other words, is to stop thinking of poverty as a disadvantage, and once you stop thinking of it as a disadvantage then, of course, you no longer need to worry about getting rid of it.
In other words, the multicultural ethos has overwhelmed class consciousness, and in the same way good liberals want to appreciate, say, black culture, and (some of them) fear criticizing such elements as hip-hop, they're similarly unwilling to forthrightly say that the condition of being poor is bad and the government should reorient itself towards eradicating it, as they worry doing so will signal condescension or judgment of working class culture.
I've got some points of agreement with this -- particularly a digression he makes onto Kanye West's famous and much-lauded comment that "George Bush doesn't care about black people," when it really seemed that he didn't care about poor people -- and some problems with it. But I was fascinated to run into this Time article on the new get-rich-quick strains of Christianity, which includes poll results showing that 45 percent think poverty can be a blessing from God (49 percent disagree) and 48 percent think we should follow Jesus's example in "not being rich" (44 percent disagree). I'm a little skeptical of the wording in the questions (particularly the "can" be a gift from God -- lots of things "can" be something but aren't), but their results are nevertheless suggestive of the sort of mindset Michaels is condemning.
September 18, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Okay, I had a long comment all planned out here, but let's do the short version. I'll be much more willing to take Michaels seriously if he can show us an actual example of a prominent liberal unwilling to support the eradication of poverty on the grounds that it would be "condescending" to the poor. More than one example would obviously be ideal, but we can start with one. Maybe there's something in the book?
Posted by: Brad Plumer | Sep 18, 2006 10:28:51 AM
That paragraph is one of the dumber things I've read in a long time.
I echo Brad in asking for a citation of one person, one obscure adjunct English professor, who argues that because of the identity politics of poverty, we should not fight structural economic injustice.
particularly a digression he makes onto Kanye West's famous and much-lauded comment that "George Bush doesn't care about black people," when it really seemed that he didn't care about poor people
This is wrong, too. The whole point is that we don't separate black from poor in America. There are poor whites and rich blacks, but the image of the American poor is the urban black youth.
I think the attempt to separate identity politics and class politics is doomed to failure. While race and class may be analytically distinguishable categories, they are immediately interconnected in America, and we have to deal with that reality.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 18, 2006 10:36:18 AM
I'll happily agree that Michaels needs to offer some examples -- when I signal my own trepidation about his thesis, it's the implication of causality that concerns me. I think he's got a perfectly provocative point about the relative prioritizing of diversity concerns vs. class concerns (think of the impact of Webb's "macaca" comment vs. his long-time plutocratic voting record), but my guess is his thesis is way overstated. That said, i need to read the book for a better idea.
On the other hand, I think he's completely right about the Kanye comment. As he argues, the left would much prefer that Bush is simply a racist -- we're all against that, and it's easy to condemn him for the sin. What's more likely, and less condemned, is that he operates out of an ideology that sees poverty as an acceptable condition resulting from personal choices that the government and society has no obligation to end. That, to me, was the real problem of Katrina, not supposed racism on the part of Bush.
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 18, 2006 10:41:30 AM
I'm very confused. THIS is the problem with "prosperity christianity"?
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 18, 2006 10:42:54 AM
As he argues, the left would much prefer that Bush is simply a racist
I don't see this at all. Most likely Kanye wouldn't even "prefer" this. If we were to say that the left sees Bush as simply a racist because his policies are hurtful to the poor and minorities are disproportionately represented among the ranks of the poor, then I can agree with that.
In any argument about the merits of a particular thing or idea, we must remember to separate the merits of it from the abuse of it. I can see that in the hands of conservatives, what they call "political correctness" could be twisted to support their own distorted views of the world. They do it with everything else. But our job then becomes defending ideas of respect, dignity and diversity from those who would pervert them, not finding something else to believe in.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 18, 2006 10:47:58 AM
What's more likely, and less condemned, is that he operates out of an ideology that sees poverty as an acceptable condition resulting from personal choices that the government and society has no obligation to end. That, to me, was the real problem of Katrina, not supposed racism on the part of Bush.
I mean, sure, Bush isn't a racist in the David Duke sense.
But I think this understanding of racial politics really misses the point. Part of the reason that people can so easily see poverty as an acceptable condition is precisely the identity politics of poverty - that it is the racial other who lives in destitution.
The idea that the reaction to Katrina was "actually" about poverty really troubles me - it was about the intersection of race and poverty, and the way we deal with the two always simultaneously in America.
Black people live in poverty at a rate far higher than whites. There are structural problems in America that are not merely economic, just as there are horrible structural economic problems, and they need to be understand as part of an overlapping set of injustices, not as wholly different things.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 18, 2006 10:51:08 AM
Also, the use of Kanye West as a symbol of identity politics over class politics is facile. He has dealt with themes of class throughout his work.
"All Falls Down" captures the intersection of class and race in a set of rhymes better than just about anything I've read on the theory of race.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 18, 2006 10:53:07 AM
Michaels seems to be playing a game where he's using the same arguments in both an intra-academic battle against Theory and in a larger battle against "diversity."
He seems to be playing hte most plausible anti-Theory card, which is that the movement away from classical Marxism to identity in the Judith Butler sense has caused a diminution in the attention paid to basic economic injustice. That seems right, but I don't see how we get to go back to classic Marxism as if the black, feminist and queer critiques weren't actually on target.
Similarly, I think Michael Tomasky is wrong that we don't just get to go back to "the common good" - that whole idea of American unity was predicated on white identity. There's a reason the liberal concensus fell apart at the same time as hte civil rights and feminist movements arose - they were opposed in their identity politics.
The tendency of some people in the academy and outside to lose track of economic injustice in favor of "pure" identity politics is of course a bad thing. But there is no "pure" economic justice position removed from identity, and we don't get to pretend that there is.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 18, 2006 11:05:12 AM
DivGuy raises an excellent point.
The problem of class is dealt with all the time. If you choose to ignore those works, and just focus on references to the problem of race, then you are a cause of the focus on racism, not part of the cure.
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 18, 2006 11:09:34 AM
While bush has more faults than not, overt racism doesn't really seem to be one of them. Like the poor drowning because of Katrina - he likely didn't care about the colour of their skin, just the content of their pocketbooks.
I often wonder when reading bullshit like this whether the writers actually know any of these "liberals" they speak of.
Posted by: DuWayne | Sep 18, 2006 11:54:24 AM
"That seems right, but I don't see how we get to go back to classic Marxism as if the black, feminist and queer critiques weren't actually on target."
Neo-syndicalism?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 18, 2006 12:12:15 PM
I find your argument weak. The fact is, as many have said here, to separate out race from class in America is to deny both the historical and present way in which class exists in this country. Are there poor whites? Sure, but how does that impact the debate when poor whites are told that they are better than poor blacks. As Chris Rock says, "I am a millionaire, and yet, I know not one of you in this audience who is white would trade places with me." The idea that you can simply pull out those sections that you want to talk about without dealing with the complexity of the whole is absurd. This isn't the UK and it's not Europe where class trumps all (although even there ethinic differences do matter). This is a AMerica. Race is used not by the left as a proxy for class- it's the way the system is structured. Anyone who has ever went on an interview as black person knows this.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 18, 2006 12:15:41 PM
I'll be much more willing to take Michaels seriously if he can show us an actual example of a prominent liberal unwilling to support the eradication of poverty on the grounds that it would be "condescending" to the poor.
Perhaps not the poor itself, but those conditions and situations that are known to contribute to poverty are certainly excluded from criticism by liberals such as children out of wedlock, lack of education, cultrural barriers such as the young black hip-hop attitude toward education, "diversity" to the exclusion of the individual in the business world, etc.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 18, 2006 2:03:19 PM
I'm in shock. I'm agreeing with Fred - again.
Posted by: opit | Sep 18, 2006 2:23:18 PM
First you get people blaming people for being poor because they behave in ways that help perpetuate poverty. Second, you get a reaction to that as blaming the victim, and trying to confuse people about the "root causes" of poverty.
If it gets stalled there, you get this exclusion ... and I do think that the more people in poverty are seen as "them", the more likely the argument is to get stalled there.
The constructive approach is to hunt out what actions are most effective in providing routes out of poverty, and to put policies in place that open up those routes and supports those who pursue those opportunities.
Those accustomed to blaming the poor for their poverty will react against a constructive approach by saying that a helping hand is not necessary, and those accustomed to creating the poor as passive victims will react against a constructive approach as trying to somehow blame the victim on the sly.
But hopefully those two positions will turn out to be one-dimensional carboard cutouts largely created by political fights that diverted the argument into a cul-de-sac. The challenge is to reach out to people who were attracted by the opposing positions who are able to admit that, on the one hand, they themselves did not get where they are entirely on their own and, on the other hand, the more active the poor are in the fight against poverty, the more leverage we will get from government "assistance".
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 18, 2006 3:17:01 PM
The whole point is that we don't separate black from poor in America.
When Americans talk about class, it's usually as an attempt to avoid talking about race. (For example, the post-Katrina talk.) But the same applies in reverse, as demonstrated by Fred Jones: it's all too easy to talk about bling and unmarried black mothers, because it taps into nice easy lazy stereotypes of rutting negroes that are belied by any part of the US with a poor population that's predominantly white.
The two are bound together, and the one becomes a useful substitute for the other. There's an ounce of bravery in grasping both at once.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 18, 2006 3:41:01 PM
I mean, sure, Bush isn't a racist in the David Duke sense.
Quite so. He's one in the Marie Antoinette sense. I'm sure he's constently baffled by the inability of African-Americans to get bailed out by their daddy's friends, and he's aided by people who perpetuate much more callous stereotypes.
As Chris Rock says, "I am a millionaire, and yet, I know not one of you in this audience who is white would trade places with me."
Rock is also in a position to make scathing, funny commentary on black culture in a way that, say, Fred Jones doesn't.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 18, 2006 3:52:52 PM
Bruce,
While you don't disagree with me, you are unwilling to use truth if there is any possibility of harming the reputatation of the poor.
And the truth is that single parenting, children born out of wedlock, hip-hop attitude toward education, and all of the other cultural issues named do, indeed, contribute to poverty. I guess the real question is, do you wish to pinpoint and help irradicate poverty by it's causes, or are you more interested in not hurting someone's feelings? For you, it seems to be the latter at the expense of the former.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 18, 2006 6:00:00 PM
Like Chris Rock said, how come any mass-broadcast on poverty becomes an excuse to talk about welfare queens in Cadillacs?
Because Reagan told a bullshit story and it stuck. And why did it stick? Because it tapped into a certain constituency's stereotypes. And those stereotypes start controlling the debate.
And 'hip-hop attitude'? Are you old-school or do you like the contemporary stuff, Walter? Jay-Z or Kanye?
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 18, 2006 9:47:29 PM
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 18, 2006 3:00:00 PM
Bruce,
While you don't disagree with me, you are unwilling to use truth if there is any possibility of harming the reputatation of the poor.
OK, stop right there. Since you clearly do not have a working definition of "constructive" on hand, and since it leaves you trapped in precisely the cul-de-sac that I mentioned, imagining that I am there in the cul-de-sac with you, I'll help you out.
My interest in using truth is in the process of eradicating poverty. Given a choice between pursuing the eradication of poverty and helping poor people feel as comfortable as possible in their poverty, I pick door number 1.
This means that I have set myself up in a third position in an argument where you write as if there are only two positions.
I do not reject the callous disregard and gross negligence of the Bush regime toward the problem of poverty because it is rude to poor people, I reject it because it helps make more of my fellow Americans poor.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 18, 2006 10:45:34 PM
I realize that debating Fred is the equivalent of beating my head against a wall, but here I go anyway ...
So, Fred, how would we address the sorts of issues you say are causes of poverty, because I agree that they are problems. I even agree they should be addressed. I have a feeling you wouldn't like my solutions.
The first issue you bring up is out-of-wedlock births. OK, that certainly is a factor in poverty for various reasons. We could debate those, but let's just assume causation for the sake of arugment. In that case, we should stress sex education from about sixth grade on. Not abstinence education alone, but education on what sex entails, why it is a big deal and the responsibilities it carries along with common sense methods of how to avoid pregnancy and venereal disease. One of my best friends worked as a social worker for a number of years and found stories of girls who were completely mystified that methods like chanting, "No baby, no baby" weren't effective. Republicans don't argue for education and birth control, however. They like to pretend that young people didn't figure out the whole sex thing until someone explained it in health class.
We completely agree about the lack of education, Fred. So, are you going to stand with me in insisting that states start to fund education on an equal basis rather than basing it on property taxes which, by and large, give a huge advantage to the children of families who can afford more expensive property? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we agree that education begins at home, and kids from wealthy families have an inherent advantage. I'm not sure our school systems need to further that advantage.
On the hip-hop movement, I agree to an extent, but it seems to have amazingly little effect among the white suburban teens. They might sing along with lyrics condeming education, but they're still headed to college because they have the money to do so. Poor kids embrace the attitude because it's all they can do. I'll bet if grants were availalbe, a lot of those kids would be signing up for college.
And the "diversity" to the exclusion of the individual just is propaganda. Look around most boardrooms in the U.S., and you still see white men. Things may be getting better, but "diversity" still deserves the quotes, indeed.
Posted by: Magenta | Sep 19, 2006 1:33:22 AM
What Magenta fails or is unwilling to acknowledge is that the womens' movement, while beneficial in some areas, does, indeed, contribute to single parenting and other causes of poverty.
Look around most boardrooms in the U.S., and you still see white men.
Look, Sunshine, about 80% or so of the population of the US is white. Why would you expect anything different?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 19, 2006 10:54:25 AM
So, Fred, you are including in white those who are self-identified as "white Hispanic" and rounding up to the closest 10%?
In the fictitious modern movie corporate board, there is the black guy, the Hispanic guy, and the white woman, and the rest are white guys. If you use the move corporate board tokenism, then "white, not Hispanic" would be 70%.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 19, 2006 1:35:35 PM
Boards are elected by shareholders. It is a democratic process and the votes are alloted by ownership.
Don't like the makeup? Talk to the owners. Maybe they'll elect a minority to make you feel better instead of someone they believe will benefit the shareholders.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 20, 2006 9:30:59 AM
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 20, 2006 6:30:59 AM
Boards are elected by shareholders. It is a democratic process and the votes are alloted by ownership.
I'll take it from the fact that you shifted your argument that you concede the original point.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 20, 2006 1:17:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
