Showing posts with label class-conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class-conflict. Show all posts

Thursday, January 8, 2009

A Coffee Chat On Class



Felice Yeskel — a co-founder of United for a Fair Economy and long-time educator and organizer on issues of class — is in town this week conducting a training on classism. We had a chance to get to know each other a bit this morning and then sat down for the Real Change interview.

When an hour-long interview gets edited down to 1,800 words or so for the paper, questions get cut to a few sentences and responses get reduced to pithy highlights. There's room for less than a fifth of what gets said. One really has enough after half an hour, but if you're having a good chat, why stop?

Felice was interested in a copy of the recording for a possible podcast from her website. I said sure. As a result, I think I've learned a few things.

First, if you're going to do a podcast, don't do the interview in a noisy coffee shop. The second thing is this: if one must record under these conditions, do not do so on a $30 micro-cassette recorder. While, I was able to filter out some of the background noise, this is not exactly a studio quality recording.

Still, if you're interested, have the hour, and don't mind wading through a little mud here and there or noticing how we occasionally get lost in our own thoughts, you're welcome to listen.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

A Few Quick Thoughts on Class

At my UW class on homelessness, I always ask the students whether they sometimes think of homeless people as being sort of a different species. Not quite human. And I raise my own hand. And then they all do too. Class in America, I think, is a lot like race in that people hold a lot of unexamined assumptions and oppressive notions on the subject. We don't talk about it, so wrong ideas thrive in the dark and pop out to surprise us when we least expect them.

It's in the water. We're better off admitting it. Race, in some ways, is easier, because there's at least a fairly well defined set of concepts and a terminology that's largely accepted. The taboos around discussing class are often better hidden. Anti-racist trainers, for example, are relatively easy to find. But clarity on class is much harder to come by.

I had the opportunity to interview Class Matters author Betsey Leondar-Wright once and asked her why this was. She answered that for most anti-racist trainers, doing work for corporations and government is their bread and butter, and that these clients rarely want to deal with class. And so, we lack an agreed upon language, and when, for example, homeless and middle-class people come together to work in common, the interactions can be freighted with weirdness.

When I first came across Leondar-Wright's Class Matters: Cross-class alliance building for middle-class activists, a wished I could have gone back in a time machine 15 years with this book in hand. Over the course of organizing three different homeless empowerment programs, I made just about every mistake I could. My problem wasn't in building rapport or being respectful. While I've made some strides in this area, I've always felt more at ease with poor people than with the middle-class. My problem was more about negating my own power and judgment in order to "empower" those I was organizing. This repeatedly led to bad things, but my learning curve was painfully slow.

I eventually figured out that power itself was value-neutral. It was what you did with it, or didn't, that really mattered.

Anyway, there's nothing about any of this that's easy, which is why we tend to think about working with homeless people in an either/or fashion. Either we support and empower homeless people who are taking the lead and acting on their own, or we do things for them. Working with homeless people across class, with all of us respectfully bringing our own assets and experiences to the table, is a much more complicated, interesting, and powerful way of doing things.

Labels don't interest me that much. I've sat through two-hour discussions of whether the term houseless is preferable to homeless, or whether we should say those without homes instead, and these are the discussions that people have when they have little hope of changing anything that matters.

I'm happy to respect anyone's sensitivities, but that kind of stuff makes me want to slit my wrists.

We've spent the last six months at Real Change working through Class Matters and discussing it at staff meetings. We've defined our terminology and talked about identity politics. We've discussed our class backgrounds and examined some of our assumptions. We've acted out little plays for each other about the ways in which working and middle-class culture collide, and the various ways that we might avoid acting like idiots. And in the end, we've barely scratched the surface of a very deep, loaded subject.

I think we have, though, learned some humility, and that a little respect goes a very long way. And we're learning to not think so much in terms of "we" and "them," but more in terms of "us." And that's a pretty good place from which to begin.

For those who are interested in this work, Betsey's book is an excellent place to begin. Another website that has some great resource links is Class Action. "We raise awareness, facilitate cross-class dialogue, support cross-class alliances, and work with others to promote economic justice." Click on the image at the top of this story for something brilliant from The Onion.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

This Kool-Aide Kind of Sucks

Yesterday, I was in San Francisco meeting with a bunch of veteran west coast homeless empowerment organizers who hope to challenge the weirdly myopic, DC-driven, chicken-shit, whoredom that passes for national-level policy discussion on homelessness. We call ourselves WRAP, and are carefully nurturing our delusions of grandeur.

The 800-pound gorilla that drives legislation and policy these days is the National Alliance to End Homelessness. They've been selling folks on the idea that homelessness can be ended in 10 years.

Homelessness, they say, is a much smaller problem than housing or poverty, and with the right mix of accountability, services, housing, and bureaucratic tinkering to realign with other systems, we can basically shut the shelters down. All without addressing inequality.

An end to homelessness without all that messy class conflict. How convenient for all of us.

All my friends seem to have arrived at a shared terminology for this theory. We call it, "drinking the Kool-Aide." As in, "You have to pretend to at least like Kool-Aide in this town to even be relevant."

I was talking to a policy geek friend a few weeks ago about her deep, unabiding hatred of all things NAEH, and I said, "You know, I'll bet the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness has been very, very good to them."

Their tax filings tell a surprising story. Up until 2003, when the NAEH budget reached a high of $1.7 million, they were a decent-sized DC policy org whose size hovered at around a million and a half.

But in 2004, when their relationship to the Bush Administration's Homelessness Czar Phil Mangano started to resemble conjoined twinship, something interesting happened. Their budget suddenly zoomed skyward to $6.9 million.

This should be an important lesson to all of us.

Things get a lot easier when your tongue is wedged up the ass of power. But, to push the metaphor, the harder you suck, the more it stinks.

Sunday, March 4, 2007

Timeless Reflections

My social life isn't what it used to be. The high point of today was a 4-year-old's birthday party that included an art project, balloon tossing, a game of hot-potato, one tough fucking pinata, pizza, and chocolate cupcakes with green frosting. Needless to say, it was a pretty good party. I've learned to stay amused under even the most challenging circumstances.

After kids, one's life enters the hyper-distracted zone, and your social circle narrows to those who share your fate. Adult conversation mostly occurs in the context of Children's Museum and Zoo dates. Pieces of meaningful ideas get wedged in between demands for cheese, potty breaks, and juice.

Today, amid the lumbering blue balloons and the loud little people who love them, three of us considered our world of diminished expectations and no time.

There was the woman who was staying home, trying to care for a family on an academic husband's income. There was me, house poor and spending as much as my mortgage again on daycare so that my wife and I could earn more than we ever thought we would and still have no money at all. And then, there was my other friend, back in school pursuing a second career, heroically trying to study while raising four kids.

If there's anyone out there having an easy time raising their family, they don't run in my circles.

We quickly agreed that the baby-boomers seemed to be doing just fine, and had pretty much ruined it for everyone. My more conspiratorially-minded friend said that leisure among the working class was at an all-time high during the civil rights movement, and the "powers that be" decided to ratchet things up on us all so that no one would have any time to organize.

I like this theory. I picture a bunch of fat bald guys sitting around an enormous mahogany table, drinking port and waving their cigars around for emphasis, opposing subsidized daycare, livable wages, job security, and anything else that would make life more reasonable for working people. And then I realize there's just enough truth in this to piss me off.