The Three ‘Ism’s: Negotating Race, Sex and Class.

Outline.

 

Never doubt that race has severe material consequences argues David Roediger;

 

‘deeply embedded in both the economic and constitutional foundations of society’

– ibid (2002) 

 

The ‘Arrangement of Politics of People Relations’ under the system of White Supremacy (Racism) is specifically designed and intended to create and maintain destabilising interactions between White and Non-White people(s) and cultures. This power dynamic is distinctly present within all nine areas of activity which include; Economics (Wealth & Income), Education, Entertainment, Labor (Occupation), Law, Politics, Religion, Sex (Gender), and War. 

 

In its influence on the totality of people’s lives of experiences – in spite of vehement attempts to decolonise such (social) structures – it is no longer a tenable position to say that these three factors are not concomitant; manifesting themselves even more particularly in the duality of the experiences that minority cultures suffer throughout their lifetimes. Rooted within a long history of colonialism that binds all cultures into a single territory of conflict and reinforced by the pursuits of capitalist and imperialist forces, in this, we need to be more cognizant about the role of class – or classism – in the ongoing discussion. To consider classism is to explore the role of prejudice (or stereotyping) against individuals belonging to a particular social class; a bias which  plays a significant role in economic considerations of these groups, with specific gender-based distinctions also. In this respect, classism can similarly be broken down into three separate categories existing on a ‘personal’, ‘institutional’ (academic) and ‘cultural’ level.

 

Under this current framework – which devalues non-White and non-European cultures, questions of identity become problematic when considering the dynamics of interracial relationships within the prevailing culture; often maintaining biases, as well as distorted racial and sexual stereotypes perpetuated by the dominant non-inclusive system. With this in mind, the politicised reflections on couples who do not hail from the same culture can similarly come into question under the banner of identity politics and skewed peer relations. These nuances similarly perpetuate ingrained prejudice against women which – especially with the intersectionality of religion – remains largely a gendered, power-based relationship which remains active in today’s modern societies. Similarly, men must also navigate the many complex and unrealistic models of behaviours of (toxic) masculinity. Societal expectations engendering many disruptive manifestations that impact –  consciously or unconsciously – within relationships.  Thus, it is clear that such an imbalanced dynamic exists within all areas of this nuanced social strata. From this perspective then, the discussion of race-based distinctions takes on a durable ascriptive quality in the present. Whilst the race, gender and class debates have been centralised within public debate for more than a century, we often see a conscious separation made between each consideration, often pitting the forces against each other. On this topic, Hatt-Echeverria and Urrieta in Racialising Class (2003) noted the oppression of individuals from a certain class and race tend to intersect, creating a grey area of overlapping categorisations.

 

‘It excludes rather than oppresses. It is stealthy and gentle in appearance, but brutal and steadfast in its mission […as we reveal] its rancid [imperialist] core. The rot is clearly evident – it is like a cancerous cell which, left unchecked, can spread and become cumulatively destructive’

– Soni and Hay (2015)

 

Its many reverberations are being captured from …

 

”intelligentsia, [to] radicals and political activists, its refugees and exiles”

– Sivanandan, u.d.

 

Discussions surrounding race & class were highly responsive to some of the major events that shaped the 1970s; specifically the

 

‘widespread and rapid socio-political changes and liberation struggles, from the phenomenon of Black Power to the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the installation of popular governments in newly independent (decolonised) countries. In this vein, there is a strange contradiction that has arisen in the discussion of race; in what Bonilla-Silva (2008) describes as a new racial ideology commonly referred to as ‘colour-blind racism’.

 

She postulates that racial inequality in the present is the outcome of non-racial practices and subtle, institutional manoeuvres which are inclusive of class-based prejudices as a contributing factor. Hence, all things suffer at the hands of ongoing tension, division and exclusion – the carving out of designated zones that separate certain categories of individuals maintain the current state of race relations that appears to be on the verge of destruction. Akala on the subject very recently made the declaration that

 

‘people just have to own their class interests’

– Akala (2018)

 

In this vein, we must also consider the variance of the differences of gendered experiences in the discussion of the relationship between race and class, considering the socio-political mechanisms of exclusion and disenfranchisement in this context and the havoc it continues to wreak on the issue of identity politics.

 

 

‘The rule of law, you see, buckles, bends and sometimes crumbles under the weight of racism, sexism, and classism’

– Goldie Taylor (2014)

 

This Terms of Reference will engage in a discussion about race, sex (gender) and class as fundamentally overlapping elements within a singular system of social power rooted in colonialism –  how they manifested and are/can be framed in the everyday, as well as how they affect our personal, professional, private and social relations relationship within our lives – as a collection of experiences and identification in response to the systems of obligations and social dynamics in the discussion