| | |
|
WhiteSupremacyAndIndividualPsychology 3 - 12 Apr 2012 - Main.AlexKonik
|
| | In today's lecture, we discussed the distinction between white supremacy and racism.
In doing so, we made the distinction between institutionalized perception of white supremacy and individual psychology of racism.
The professor also noted that these two are not completely separate but they are intricately connected. | | | What are your thoughts on this view? | |
>
> | I think that the more the state does vis-a-vis the citizen as its citizen, the more law there is, the more power it exerts in shaping an individual's beliefs. I think this works well with Black's thesis as well. Law is negatively correlated to other social control and positively correlated to inequality, society-wide. So when a vacancy is left by mom and church and Sunday School teacher in telling you what to believe, the law is a good place to look and the state is happy assume the role of teacher. As for inequality, surely a society of immense wealth stratification is better policed by quelling riots through acceptance of role than billy clubs and tear gas. So there is more state when social instituions that shape belief leave, and more state-supporting belief is needed with greater stratification. | | | | |
>
> | So maybe it should be no surprise that the law acting on more black people than white people (to a very noticeable degree considering populations) shapes belief about how white people and black people behave. State redistribution schemes solidify notions that there are earning, producing "job creators" and social leeches who's role is to rely on coerced charity. The more law there is, the more it is seen and believed to reflect truths.
Now, looking at Black's definition of law, someone might say that wealth redistribution schemes are more like the post office or a firehouse than treatment of a citizen as such. I doubt the argument will stand careful consideration, so I'll address it only if raised.
-- AlexKonik - 12 Apr 2012
| | | -- MinKyungLee - 10 Apr 2012
I wonder if one way to reconcile the idea of law as a weak form of social control and its ability to shape culture might be to conceive of law not as a force of social control but as a force of social change. Law itself isn't an effective social control, but it can help shape our culture and personal beliefs, which are effective forms of social control. Now, once the cultural and individual psychologies are set, you don't need the law to exert it's social control. But, if you're a good lawyer who can bend the law to his or her will, you can use it to change culture and therefore use it to change the effective forms of social control. Anyhow, it's basically the same thing that you said in your last paragraph, but I did some "legal magic" on the terms to make it fit with the idea of law as a weak form of social control. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |