Research that matters

The overarching framework and discussion of the liberal or “late liberal” made me think a lot about our current political situation, with Black voters largely winning Joe Biden his white house seat while he now has done little to nothing to address voter suppression (although there’s debate about this of course because, politics). But he used Black voters to make it to the white house and then upon getting there, backed off one of the issues impacting the Black community most. It left me out of hope for the future of “progressive” politics really making change in Black lives without some kind of revolution. It also made me think, what would abolition look like in the United States?

The idea that, for Shange, social justice is “living happily ever after with the antiracist, distributive state,” while abolition is a “messy breakup” with the state is a really interesting metaphor to draw. It reminds me of the equality vs. equity vs. justice framework. There’s that cartoon that depicts the three people of different heights trying to see over a fence, with equality giving each person the same size stool, equity giving everyone stools according to their height, and justice has a chain-link fence, so that everyone can see from the outset. This framework does not even imagine what it would be like have “abolition,” because it can’t conceive of life in the absence of the state. Within this metaphor and using Shange’s idea about abolition, I wonder if “abolition” would be these three people not even watching the game at all. Maybe they’re sitting in a circle and talking, not paying any attention to the game going on behind them.

This quote, “Black people descended from slaves held in the US have almost the inverse predicament: we have won the prize of legal emancipation without access to meaningful sovereignty” also rings true for Indigenous groups in the United States (8). I’m wondering: how do we (we being any anyone studying this) balance relating lessons drawn from other oppressed ethnic and racial groups without erasing Blackness?

Shange’s description of a Spanish class with a teacher who knows all of the techniques and strategies to create a classroom environment that is anti anti-Black is something that stuck out to me from the readings this week. I would say that as we have moved on from the summer of 2020 and more people have become aware of ways that they can be actively antiracist (or have chosen to forget this time in our history), there have been a lot more progressive people that continually try to follow all the “rules” that exist to being an ally to attempt to make a difference. But, what Shange does well in the readings this week is looking at the impact that these progressive ideas and theories about how to better the Black community have on actual people. In my own experience, I can say that growing up some of the most unexpected and hurtful experiences of inequality that I faced came from people who were liberal and thought that they were inoculated from prejudice because of the many books that they’d read on racism or their political ideologies. As our society continues to grow and learn from its history, I think that more discussions about how progressive identities can still perpetuate harm and have negative impacts on communities of color will be had as they become more normalized, which will require us all to be more introspective with how our identities influence our lives.

Another thing that Shange discusses in this reading is the difference between “Our Lives Matter” and “Black Lives Matter” and how to a certain extent the use of our instead of specifically referring to Black lives diminishes the importance of Black lives within our society as well. This reminded me of several conversations I had with my friends about Asian American violence around the same time and how several social media posts I read said that people should be as vocal about Stopping Asian Hate as they were about Black Lives Matter. These social media posts always had incredibly divided comment sections where Black people and Asian people would go back and forth about whose issues were more important at this time. Hearing this, and reading Shange’s description of students saying that their generation was next, made me think about what POC solidarity looks like and if it even exists (3)? I’m still not entirely sure if POC solidarity does exist, but I do believe that at the end of the day it is definitely not the fault of one group of POC if it doesn’t exist. Because of how ingrained racial hierarchies have been to our society, we are conditioned to want to fight for whatever privileges we have even if it means putting other groups down sometimes. This isn’t the fault of individuals, but rather the result of a society that has constantly pitted groups of color against each other to keep a minority group of people in power. If we are too busy fighting each other to work together to stop the system, the system will only continue. I hope that in the future we can eventually get there, but I’m just not sure how much progress we’d have to make or if it is even possible.

I found the Bernard reading to be very interesting in terms of methods. The activities of listing things in a category and picking one option out of three do not seem to mean much but researchers have been able to use these activities to show ways people understand things. For example, I saw moose as the obvious odd one out without consideration of sharks being out of the category for not being a mammal. From a participant’s perspective, I could see how little conscious thought the activity took to be able to generate data that can be usefully interpreted.

For the Shange reading, I thought Roberson was a good site for a study, as its outwards projection of progressivism and commitment to diversity is contrasted with antiblackness and presence of the school-to-prison pipeline. Shange called this contradiction carceral progressivism and pointed out a broad issue of anti-blackness in what is meant to be progressive causes. With Roberson in particular it was shown how the efforts made to increase college eligibility were progressive but did not make up for more deeply ingrained inequity. A takeaway I got from this was that the education system is willing to make changes in education structure such as eliminating Ds to cheaply generate progressive appearing statistics but are not willing to lower police presence and arrests in schools or provide reparative measures to make college more financially accessible for black students who are eligible. This focus on easier and cheaper progressive goals as opposed to addressing root issues is at the heart of carceral progressivism and is clearly demonstrated by Shange.

I’m most interested in Shange’s thoughts on neoliberalism and carceral progressivism, I believe they can be complemented well by French marxist philosopher Guy Debord’s concept of recuperation. Shange discusses how liberal logics inform the aims of progressivism to uphold democracy and justice (4). However, as we can see in the case of police brutality, it fails to actualize social justice, especially in the form of abolition, a path to true liberation from our settler colonial past and its consequences. The concept of recuperation highlights how progressivism falls short by putting a greater emphasis on the tendency of capitalism to “spectacularize” and commodify radical frameworks and the various manifestations of modern activism. Robeson’s use of “Our Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter” is in line with this recuperation as it cultivates a socially acceptable facade that doesn’t necessarily evoke a genuine understanding of the movement although it was well intentioned. This is consistent too with other institutions as well as corporations promoting “woke” or PC attitudes that are ultimately vapid. Apart from all of this, how can we make legitimate progress without an abolitionist approach?

I really enjoyed reading Shang’s work, but what stuck out most to me was the structure she used to write about her experience in the Spanish classroom in chapter 3. Like other ethnographies we have read so far, she gave a detailed firsthand account of her experience. However, what I felt set her apart was the fact that she intertwined lessons and historical context within these accounts. There was less separation between her observations and arguments, making both all the more salient. Additionally, the more casual nature of this writing made it much easier to follow and digest. The way that she narrates the students’ voices really brings them to life and gives a better picture of the environment in which she was working.

I also found the conversation surrounding education and incarceration very interesting. The following quote specifically really made me reflect on everything I know about education and race: “The first strike against Black children does not happen at the moment of arrest, but rather enrollment into an educational system designed to depoliticize Black rage and criminalize Black joy.” I think education is often romanticized as the key opportunity to break out of poverty and provide a chance for upward mobility. However, higher education is not for everyone, and I think that should be normalized. Sometimes it is more beneficial to enter a trade profession rather than go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

The main question that comes to mind for me after reading this work is: how does Shang’s identity as an educator at the school inform her research? Is she biased because she is so close to the environment, or does this provide a greater level of understanding?

The two readings were very informative in a way that I did not know how evident the school-to-prison pipeline is. I went to an all-black high school where we did not have the same opportunities as our counterparts in other schools. We did not have the same advancement placement classes while we only had a few at my high school but others would have plenty. Also, we had a heavy school security presence in my school. That has always been a problem that Sofia talks about in her writing. Also, there is a way that school can be very beneficial in which it encourages the student to further their education so that they can live a very productive life when they graduate. The question I am proposing why is do we not give the same resources to the individuals that are a minority. everyone should have an equal chance and be treated fairly because that is what everyone wants for their child. How come we see a prevalent percentage of school prison pipeline in black schools or schools of color. How can we stop the school-to-prison pipeline?

I found Shang’s discussion of the tangle of complexities between education and incarceration very interesting and illuminating. I agree with Robeson in opposing the pipeline framework or “direct trajectory” (102) between the two, and was very engaged with Shang’s elaboration on the difficulties of defining their relationship. I thought that using Robeson as a field site, and specifically Sofia’s classroom, to show current carceral progressivism and other practices working to disrupt the impact of pervasive educational inequity worked well to discuss both how Robeson acts as a reform strategy and how important it is for educators to actively engage with antiracist pedagogy. The many ways Shang’s experiences and own feelings are interwoven in their analysis made me wonder about the different ways anthropologists engage with their fieldwork in their analyses. I enjoyed reading the quotes included from the people Shang observed and by including their reactions to their observations I felt that there were even more voices in discussion with the content. I wonder what the differences might have been if Shang observed a different classroom or even other areas of Robeson (cafeteria, advisory, etc.) 

I really enjoyed this week’s reading, especially the DL reading. I thought that the introduction/chapter one was extremely thought provoking and I also enjoyed the observations and interviews that were a part of chapter three. Shange begins the book with a discussion of the phrase “our lives matter.” I noted some of my favorite quotes from this chapter that I thought were especially powerful and truly made me think. Shange states that when people say “our lives matter,” “Blackness is eclipsed by the more equivocal people of color” (2). When I first began reading, I was honestly confused if she was referring to this phrase with a negative connotation or not. Shange also states that “the performance of racial analogy is both cathartic and politically strategic” (3). This was confusing to me at first because I was not sure if she believed the phrase should or should not be used. One of my favorite quotes from this chapter is when Shange says, “By examining a series of successful progressive reforms, and what they cost Black communities, I critique “winning” as the dominant logic of social justice work. I ask, “Who loses when ‘we’ win?” not so much to expand the “we” of winning to an ever more inclusive list of deserving subjects, but to ask what becomes impossible when we engage in contest as the primary mode of Black politics—this is the differential between revolution and abolition” (4). I believe this concept is extremely powerful and relevant. There is an important distinction between revolution and abolition as the former entails one group struggling and defeating another group, which will never be the correct way to reform society (in all aspects and situations) because there will always be “losers” and repercussions and never-ending power struggles, and we witness this pattern repeating throughout history. Shange makes a connection to Haiti–Haiti is the first decolonial country and was able to free themselves from the constrains of colonialism, essentially through more revolutionary ways. Haiti was able to defeat both slavery and empire at the same time, but as a result they have been punished ever since. While revolution means that there is technically a “winner” and a “loser” with Haiti being a winner, Shange describes how nothing is ever so black and white–there are many gray areas. The winners and losers of revolutions are both forced to handle the consequences and repercussions of their victory and defeat and no one actually leaves the situation as a true winner. I truly enjoyed reading this chapter and believe that the ideas Shange discusses are very important, interesting, relevant, and powerful. 

I also enjoyed reading chapter three where Shange almost creates a narrative of her research and observations of Sofia Torres’ beginning Spanish class. While we have read other detailed ethnographies, Shange’s writing style quickly drew me in and the colloquial style of her writing  spoke to me as a reader. She did a wonderful job of explaining her characters/observants in a way that allowed the reader to better understand the context and connect with these individuals. Chapter three also serves as a great example of an effectively written ethnography (at least in my opinion) that we can use to make our own future research more enticing and significant. When I begin my research, I will definitely keep Shange’s work in mind and attempt to create more of a narrative that allows the reader to connect with the observants and more effectively expresses the ethnography.

One of the things I found most interesting about Shange’s writing was the style in which she wrote – By using colloquial language, I think it is easier for the audience to understand her intended message. In the last discussion, we talked about how Thomas spoke in terms that were almost too theoretical, thus excluding certain demographics (as in, non-academics), from engaging with her material. Although her point was to encourage others to make active reparations in historically motivated violence and racism, I believe her work to be rather difficult for many to understand. On the other hand, Shange’s language style is much more engaging. Her narrative approach to the work also creates an easier platform to start discussions. I personally enjoyed how she so openly included her own experiences and opinions into this writing.

I genuinely enjoyed reading this work, as I am passionate about education, and particularly racism in educational institutions, as it was something that was very apparent in my high school. Shange emphasizes that the Robeson school pushed for racial equality, yet in doing so, ironically excluded black students in the process. She speaks on the importance of teachers’ roles in educating their students about racial equality, both in the classroom and in larger spheres and contexts. However, she still acknowledges that there can be flaws to their approaches. Thus, I believe (and have always believed) that there should be measures put in place to educate teachers about how to approach students of color. Teachers, especially those in minority-heavy areas, should attend training sessions where they are taught how to be more inclusive in their teaching methods and subjects.

Last year, I wrote a paper on the different ways teachers can learn to be more inclusive towards Asian students, particularly those that had just immigrated to America. For instance, many Asian students new to the U.S. have trouble adjusting to the collaborative and more open-minded approach to classroom learning as opposed to the strict and one-sided education of typical Asian schools. Thus, teachers in America should work to accommodate to their students’ learning challenges and help them become better adjusted to working in a new educational environment.

In speaking to how teachers’ implementation of racial inclusivity can sometimes end in failed results, I remember one time, in a public speaking class, my professor asked the students to do an impromptu speech on a topic of our choice. When no one volunteered, the professor singled me out and asked me if I would like to do an impromptu speech on my experiences as an Asian American. Although I understand his inclusive intentions, all this did was bring unnecessary attention to my race, and the entire class went silent as I stumbled to find a response, as we were all uncomfortable by his request. Examples like these again remind me that there are greater active measures that can take place within educational institutions to educate not the students, but teachers and staff in pursuing racial equality and social change in the classroom. So my question is: What exactly are the specific ways educational institutions can begin to be more actively inclusive of black students?

Throughout Chapters 1 and 3, Shange dives into the central idea of a Progressive Dystopia, and aims to analyze how widespread sentiments of anti-Blackness affect progressivism on an educational level. To do this, Shange makes use of the Robeson Justice Academy as an example of a “small, resistant, and yet imminently civil society” (pg 4), and draws upon her experiences there along with the broader Robeson community to examine the ongoing persistence of anti-Blackness policies. Mainly throughout chapter 1, Shange considers how coalition building and discrimination against Black individuals are interconnected with public education. She also continually speaks to the idea of the state, and how it has worked to perpetuate the exclusion of Black individuals both in the educational realm and also on a community-wide level— which she explains through the broader city of San Francisco. 

Throughout the text, two particular terms seem to stand out: progressive dystopia and carceral progressivism. To illustrate the topic of progressive dystopia, Shange describes the overall trend of anti-Blackness through the Robeson community. She speaks to the push for social justice and activism of the Robeson School, but also demonstrates how they have their own practices meant to exclude Black students— once again demonstrating how on multiple levels of the state sentiments of anti-Blackness are still ongoing. Additionally, throughout the reading Shange utilizes a landscape of progressive dystopia and dystopian imagery to highlight her message to end the anti-Black state. 

The second theme Shange refers to as carceral progressivism, in which she highlights the irony of certain social reform efforts. Essentially, Shange’s theory of carceral progressivism draws attention to the numerous manners in which efforts to reform and achieve social justice can actually perpetuate anti-Black racism. Shange utilizes the term carceral to encompass the larger trends of the abuse of power on a public and private institutional level. This is exemplified in her discussion of carcerality as it pertained to the Robeson Justice Academy, and how despite their increased enactments of “anti-carceral” policies have nonetheless reenacted “the logics of Black punition and disposability” (pg 15).

Questions I’d ask from this reading would probably tend to me more applicable to our life— How can we see Shange’s idea of carceral progressivism illustrated in communities outside of Robeson? What are other examples of how the state has worked to perpetuate anti-Blackness under the guise of liberal progressivism?

Dr. Shange’s focus on the theme of carceral progressivism in the school system was provocative and very timely. Dr. Shange defines carceral progressivism as the paradoxical dynamic in which social reform practices, particularly those that target inequities in communities of color, can perpetuate antiblack racism even as they seek to eliminate it (14). In chapter three, Shange focuses on the progressive side of carceral progressivism. Despite the informing content in this chapter, I will align how some of Bernard’s Structured Interviewing was utilized in the chapter whether naturally or intentionally.

First, the selection of names for the Spanish class reminded me of a loose version of free listing. Although the students were not asked what are some names in Spanish that represent you, the selection of the name for themselves spoke to how the students see themselves based on their own desires (as seen by Ardilla’s selection of chipmunk) or by how they understand others to see themselves (as seen in selecting Abuelia). The naming even showed how the students handled negative stereotypes via humor (as seen in chino, dormilon, or sweet treat). In Bernard, free listing can signify saliency especially in the students’ relevancy and importance in their local communities in their own eyes.

Second, the discussion of which language came first represented an informal ranking. Although there are plenty of historical contexts that the youth were missing, the youth’s discussion denoted two revealings: one that ordering of which language came mattered to the youth as evident by Luna’s posing the question which came first Spanish or English. The discussion afterward including the inclusion of “Africa” displayed the students’ view of the importance and social hierarchy of these languages. When Abuelita used the term “African,” she was really inserting an opinion of her viewpoint of the social status of languages and also displaying how not including African languages in the discussion was just as telling of the others’ viewpoint of the language.

Lastly, the discussion of who should use the N-word represented a triad test. The core question basically asked which word belongs together in the use or inappropriate use of the n-word. In reference to white people in the “list of words,” a clear unanimous consensus was that this group of individuals did not belong in the category of who should use the word. More debate, surrounded those who were non-black people of color and introduced a variety of factors for consideration such as upbringing or ethnic identities. Despite there being no clear consensus, this is a great example of the triad test and how the students’ social compass factored into their decision on the word.

This reading carries a lot of similarities to our previous ethnographic readings (choosing a specific situation/ incidence to zoom in and then apply several theoretical lenses to analyze it). The text also resembles the Tsing and Exceptional Violence readings by frequently employing metaphors to both illustrate ideas and frame them within theoretical grounds (E.g. Frontier in Exceptional Violence, Roadblock in this reading). However, one major difference, as the prior blog post has correctly noticed, is that the language used was much more informal, less dense, and easier to grasp for the mass audience. While admittedly, this language use does not radiate the complexities usually extolled among scholars, I do think it helps to make the texts more accessible to those who might be able to make influential decisions to the issue at hand such as policy-makers, school administrators, and teachers.

I really like how the author goes deep into describing and explaining Sofia’s antiracist pedagogy (E.g. letting the children choosing names for themselves, choosing to teach about Black psychologists), thereby unfolding the often neglected political aspect of teaching and revealing the potential role of teachers as activist. Moreover, the author locates Sofia’s classrooms within the broader context of innovative policies at Robeson and restrictive systems of California. Through her analysis, she demonstrates how education, at both the classroom and school levels, can act to initiate social change, reversing “the flow from the school-to- prison pipeline toward the school-to- graduation- to-postsecondary- education pipeline.” (Wald & Losen, 2003). In doing so, the author does not blindly tout Sofia and Robeson as perfect models. Rather, she reveals the imperfections  of these well-intended teacher and school in fulfilling their mission such as Sofia’s inability to form relationships with certain students and Robeson’s flawed organization of language classrooms. The chapter, thus, paints a more realistic picture of the challenging path to mend institutional wrongs and empower students.

One key focus of chapter 3 seems to be the analysis of Abuelita’s question “Why can’t we learn African?.” However, I personally find this part less convincing. The author takes the words of a young girl and frames it within different broad theoretical and historical contexts, which, to be, is a rather far stretch. While the analysis itself is engaging, I wonder whether it would be better to adopt more local frames-perhaps examine the words within the context of that particular moment or conduct interviews with the girl’s parents to understand their family’s stories.

Reading Shange’s chapter was especially fascinating not only for the focus of her research but for the way in which she wrote. She incorporates words that would be classified as informal (or not approved by high school English teachers in any formal papers) like “gotta” and even curses in one of her footnotes (page 46). I think her use of “shit” in the footnote serves to express her anger and overwhelming sadness in a way that perhaps not other blatant and “to the point” speech could. As I learn more about ethnographic research and as we continue to read ethnographies, I am amazed at how much of the personal experience and opinions of the ethnographer are included in the research, and this ethnography is especially striking; it almost feels like an academic diary of sorts as Shange catalogs both her experience teaching at Robeson and how the school is today (as again especially evidenced in her choice of language in her footnotes).

  Reading further along, I was surprised by one comment that Shange made in particular.  On page 62, Shange shares what Sofia told her outside of her classroom door in what seemed to be an informal “catch-up” where she uses the word “vent.” This made me think back to our discussions on Tuesday regarding the situation of the friend in the coffee shop. While these two phrases she quoted were not particularly revealing, Shange states a few sentences later that they later had a formal interview together. So, was Sofia aware that these comments she made in passing after class were going to be included in the research just as what she said in class and in the interview? It seemed to be the perfect example of this ‘coffee shop’ dilemma, but I suppose the only true way to know if it was a “breach” of Sofia’s trust would be to ask her. I think this is another one of those situations where ethnography ethics are unclear.

  Additionally, something that surprised me was Shange’s dismissal of the students’ selection of pseudonyms. She explains why she ultimately did not use these names by saying: “Chosen pseudonyms were either too obvious (John wanted Johnnie), too fan- tastic (Keenan wanted Escobar), or playfully racially recoded in ways that exceeded my ability to reconcile them (Chauniqua wanted Becky)…they were all too real for my sense of ethnographic fiction” (49). I was honestly disappointed that she did not allocate more space in her chapter to discuss these ideas and explore the importance/meaning of the students’ chosen pseudonyms. In truth, I think this could be an entire project in of itself, but I felt that while she disapproved of the names chosen by the students for good reasons, I think there was more that could have been observed and looked into here that she decided to overlook. 

(Additionally, there is so much more to discuss in this chapter in terms of the experience in the classroom, and I look forward to our in-person discussion on Tuesday!)

One of the things that stuck out the most to me from this reading was the process that Jacks Hill underwent from being a relatively safe and peaceful area of Jamaica to then becoming one where violence was common. Most notably, the different ways the narratives surrounding Jacks Hill changed overtime was something that I found incredibly interesting. Thomas describes most people’s perceptions of Jacks Hill in great detail and explains how the first isolated incidents came as a shock to the community because they were not in line with the prior narratives that had surrounded the area. However, these perceptions changed as the violence motivated by differences in political opinions and economic status increased, and soon people began to feel much less safe in Jacks Hill. From there, the narratives transformed as Thomas described national newspapers writing about this transition as being almost inevitable.

This led me to wonder about similar areas and cities in the United States that might have undergone similar transformations within the news media and how this has impacted them in the long term. Is gang violence in the South Side of Chicago viewed as normal and unsurprising to both outsiders and residents? Do Thomas’ thoughts on Jacks Hill hold up when studying Compton? I’m curious to see how we can use Thomas’ description of the reasons why violence occurs within the context of our own communities and think that this could be incredibly interesting.

I think this reading really highlighted the concept of scale that we discussed in class last week. Thomas seems to be tackling many layers including but not limited to: violence, culture, community, and political structure. It seems as if the ability to touch on such a wide variety of topics is unique to ethnographies in comparison to other types of research. The following quote from the introduction best encapsulated all of Thomas’ ideas for me: “Exceptional Violence therefore attempts to think through the repertoires and cyclical histories that expand to incorporate and accommodate the new while always giving us the sense that we have somehow seen this before.” This begs the question: when does scale become too large? Since we are writing a 10-12 page ethnography, how much can we really say without being too vague?

Another aspect of these opening chapters that stuck out to me was the amount of background research and past literature Thomas references. This is very different from the Tsing reading which seemed to revolve much more around personal experiences rather than drawing upon historical evidence. Exceptional Violence may rely more heavily on past literature because timing is key in interpreting the results. Looking at these communities pre and post WWII will undoubtedly tell two completely different stories. Using a lense of comparison provides a stronger basis for understanding. Are there certain subjects that lend themselves more to historical research? How do we know?