Bus to Detroit Reading: As a Weapon In the Hands of the Restless Poor

Sunset on the first of three buses to Detroit: 3 hours down, 15 hours to go

"Numerous forces—hunger, isolation, illness, landlords, police, abuse, neighbors, drugs, criminals, and racism, among many others—exert themselves on the poor at all times and enclose them, making up a “surround of force” from which, it seems, they cannot escape. I had come to understand that this was what kept the poor from being political and that the absence of politics in their lives was what kept them poor. I don’t mean “political” in the sense of voting in an election but in the way Thucydides used the word: to mean activity with other people at every level, from the family to the neighborhood to the broader community to the city-state."


This is a quote from an article sent to me by the ever-learning Sam Tarakajian in Harper's article "II. As a Weapon in the Hands of the Restless Poor." by Earl Shorris

I'm thinking about this definition of "political." Does the commonly understood bounds of the "political" mean that all emphasis is put on raising engagement with voting booths? could an expansion of our understanding of where the political takes place = an expansion of civic engagement? work with people where they are, in the many arenas in which life takes place, instead of this already-too-abstract-and-precious sport called electoral politics? 

I'm also finding it breathtaking how unflinchingly Shorris claims a direct link between poverty and political (all sorts of political) alienation. Don't know why, it's just hitting me hard to see it stated almost like a math equation. 

Also also, this casts a whole new light on the feminist project to reclaim the "personal" as "political."

Every space in which humans interact is a political space. Every moment we think or act we are inventing society, inventing political climates.  In lieu of this article, the lines are drawn ever more clearly: gender liberation IS class liberation. The sort of arguments that have kept women from playing economic ball are deeply linked to the behavior that keep all poor people poor. Discounting everyday life. Waiting and trusting and believing only in electoral politics. Denying the possibility of a politics that involves those not already privileged enough to have a seat on the ballot. 

Noooooooooow, as for other thoughts on this article... complicated. The article is mostly about an experimental class program where people in poverty took a rigorous course in philosophy, the idea being that learning about how to think, how to reflect, is the real first step out of poverty. Let's just say I have a problem with the curriculum. And the analysis. A curriculum based solely on and taught solely by wealthy white men? Yeah, that has defined culture for a long time, but only in the eyes of the elite. They missed out an a great opportunity to expand past this reverence of the same power structures that have confined societal thinking for so long. To connect with the roots of the people IN in the class, not continue demanding that everyone lay aside their histories and learn that value and knowledge is something that somebody else, somebody with money and skin privilege, gets to make up. 


Also, I think there was a major flaw in the conclusion of the experiment. There seems to be a lot of back-patting at the end - this many students are attending college, that many students are employed. But was that just due to the thinking ability these folks gained in philosophy class? Could it be the connections they formed to people in the system (most students ended up attending Bard, the college that partly sponsored the program)? Could it be that they were treated as scholars, as worthwhile, as more than society's burden? Could it be that what this class did was simply not treat them as poor and give them the same inside loopholes that folks already attending college prep schools automatically have? I think that the author needs to do a bit of a privilege analysis on the things beyond the textbook that happen for most kids who don't live in poverty. I think this experiment was still a total success, cause it does seem like the participants are doing well, but the factors of success need to be reconsidered.


 But I will let y'all read for yourself and maybe we can talk about it more on this here blog. The last sentence sent chills all through my body though, so try and make it to the end.