Notes from the eighth session (Adam Ferner)

This Wednesday, the group convened at lunch-time, in the IoE's PC Lab, to discuss:

• Frances Beale – "Double Jeopardy: To be Black and Female"
• Linda La Rue (introduction)
• Patricia Haden, Donna Middleton and Patricia Robinson – "A Historical and Critical Essay for Black Women"
• The Combahee River Collective – "A Black Feminist Statement"
• Cheryl Clarke – "Lesbianism: An Act of Resistance"

Laurencia Sáenz Benavides gave an overview of the readings and facilitated the discussion. We were lucky to be joined by members from the Netherlands and Bristol (around 16 people in total), and very lucky, again, to have Kristie Dotson joining us from the States.

Among other things, we spoke about how the different texts articulated and problematised hierarchies of oppression, and about the process and functions of myth-making, as it appears in e.g. 'A Historical and Critical Essay for Black Women'. In relation to myth-making, we split up into break-out groups to discuss how philosophical, intellectual labour can be performed in media other than texts (e.g. films, television, music).

We were also fortunate to be joined by Samia Malik, from the Women of Colour Index, who gave us an insight into the work that WOCI do – focussing on improving the visibility of women of colour artists – and how that bore on the discussions being had.

We were in a new room this week, and had a few technical and practical issues – but Zoom continues to work well (once it's up and running) – and we look forward to the next group, in a fortnight's time (which will be held exclusively on Zoom, because of UCU strike action).

If you would like to contribute your thoughts or comments – on the session, or the readings – please do so below, or email them over to applebaumreading@gmail.com.

Notes from the seventh session (Adam Ferner)

This Wednesday, we restarted our work group at the Institute of Education. Over the last few weeks, Zara Bain has been working with Kristie Dotson to devise a reading list to parallel the course that Kristie's running at Yale, on Black Feminist Philosophy. The readings for this session were primarily taken from Beverly Guy-Sheftall's anthology, Words of Fire:

• Sojourner Truth – Woman's Rights
• Frances Ellen Watkins Harper – Woman's Political Future
• Anna Julia Cooper – The Status of Woman in America
• Ida Wells-Barnett – Lynch Law in America
• Claudia Jones – An End to the Neglect of the Problems of the Negro Woman!
• Lorraine Hansberry – Simone de Beauvoir and The Second Sex: An American Commentary
• Kristie Dotson – Between Rocks and Hard Places: Introducing Black Feminist Professional Philosophy

Zara and Kristie ran the session, which was well attended (around 22 people). We were particularly lucky to have Kristie joining; many of us (certainly at the IoE) were unfamiliar with the literature and the general intellectual context – and it was incredible to have her input and insight, and generous of her to take the time to help us get our bearings. In relation to this, the point was also made that while the first session may serve as an orientation, there should be greater sharing of intellectual labour in the later ones.

This was also the first time we used 'Zoom.us' to live-stream the event (at Kristie and Zara's suggestion). Despite a couple of small, teething issues, it worked very well – and we were joined by a satellite group in Bristol, and a number of individual researchers from the States and the Netherlands, as well as elsewhere in the UK. The system allows for greater participation from online attendees – and also allows us to side-step many of the usual obstacles faced by reading groups and work groups restricted to specific spatial locations. It also has a 'break-out' room function, which we deployed during Wednesday's session to generate questions about Kristie's introductory remarks and the readings.

• What do you [Kristie] mean when you say everything is reduced to ontology and is there an underlying critique of analytic philosophy?
• How can we meaningfully engage with Black Feminist thought without appropriating it or flattening it?
• What is the relationship between Harper's work and current philosophy and thinking about the epistemology of ignorance being (potentially) redundant?
• Do existing tools for critical engagement – such as ideology critique – contain the resources to provide solutions to the problems black feminists are trying to solve?
• How do we balance the theoretical virtue of intellectual diversity with the potential political utility of intellectual unity?

If you would like to contribute your thoughts, or comments – on the session, or the readings – please do so below, or email them over to applebaumreading@gmail.com.

Webinaring with Zoom!

After a couple of (successful) trial sessions, we've now decided to switch from live-streaming via YouTube, to Zoom.us. YouTube worked relatively well last term but didn't really allow the people in the room to interact with virtual attendees. The only means of interaction was via the YouTube live-chat function.

Zoom.us offers a variety of ways for online participants to engage with the work-group – either via video, audio, or live-chat. It also has a 'break-out room' function, which will allow online attendees to discuss the readings in smaller groups.

Joining us via Zoom.us is relatively straightforward. You need to have a Zoom account – which you can sign up for free, here: https://zoom.us/. Before every session, I'll send out a unique sign-in number, which you can enter into your Zoom account (having clicked 'Join meeting') – and that should patch you through.

Because we're going to be using the free version of Zoom, our meetings can only be 40 mins – so we're going to set up 3 meetings to run consecutively. I'll email out a list of sign-in numbers.

If you have any issues setting it up, please get in touch (at applebaumreading@gmail.com) and I'll see what I can do to help!

Discussion session: Tommie Shelby – ‘Prison Abolition? The Uses and Abuses of Incarceration’ 23/1/2018 (UCL)

The draft of Professor Tommie Shelby’s paper – ‘Prison Abolition? The Uses and Abuses of Incarceration’ – was circulated in advance of the 2 hour meeting.* Professor Shelby gave a five-minute introduction to the paper – in which, in reference to the US prison system, he argues for prison reform rather than abolition (and therefore against the position that Angela Davis advocates). Jeffrey Howard, from the UCL Legal and Political Theory seminar group, chaired the session.

One theme that came up repeatedly was the level of idealisation in the paper. Davis’s position is very sensitive to the current social realities (Shelby's is as well, but in slightly different way) and Davis sees abolition as the only appropriate response to the myriad of injustices perpetrated within and by the US prison system. Shelby's project (here at least) seems to be more a matter of whether or not it's logically possible to have a just and moral prison system – which, he argues, it is – so abolition isn't justified (...though comments on this aspect of the discussion would be gratefully received – it may be an ungenerous rendering).

Another (related) issue, raised by James Wilson, focussed on Shelby’s stated interpretation of Davis’s abolition claim. Wilson suggested that Shelby’s engagement was, in a way too analytic, and perhaps too literal. Davis can be read, said Wilson, as making a rhetorical – strategic – move, with the aim of mobilising people – and prompting invigorated ethical reflection. Shelby’s response was that he believes Davis actually literally actively advocates abolition of prisons (which it seems that she does).

A third point which came up related to the tension – advertised but not fully analysed in the paper – between the prisoner's rights, and the policy of incarcerating individuals because they pose a threat to society. Committing a crime doesn't mean one gives up the rights to be treated justly – and the anticipatory, rather than retrospective incarceration of individuals (as in 'Minority Report'), is unjust treatment.

The event was well attended (90 or so people) – but given the structure of the session – and given that it wasn't (perhaps) sufficiently well sign-posted that Shelby would only be answering questions – a number of people left before the two hours were up. It's also worth noting that in previous colloquia, organised by the LPT group, priority seems to have been given first to BA, then MA, then PhD students (before being open to the floor) – but here, there was no such ordering, and some attendees may well have felt inhibited as a result.

Comments warmly welcomed!

*Let us know if you’d like a copy of the paper and we can send it over.

Moving forward

One thing that we've repeatedly discussed over the last few weeks is how to mobilise what we've learned (in the public sphere, not least) and how to continue this research. We've had a couple of suggestions (below). If you have any other thoughts, please add them to the comments chain.

- We should continue the reading group (Zara has suggested that we turn to look at the work of Charles Mills).

- One issue that came up during the conversation with Barbara Applebaum was how academic language presents an obstacle to public engagement. We've been discussing the possibility of creating short non-academic summaries (of chapters from the book, or related papers) and uploading them to a hosting hub. This could be a helpful resource to which different reading groups can contribute.

Notes from the sixth session (Adam Ferner)

This Monday (20th November) we met at the Institute of Education to discuss the book Being White, Being Good, with the author, Barbara Applebaum. She very kindly joined us via Google Hangouts (from Syracruse, where it was 7.30am) and spoke to us about her reasons for writing the book in the first place, the various reactions to it, and where her research is now. After her talk, she very kindly answered questions from the group – and it was (despite the slightly temperamental online connection) a fantastic opportunity for us to explore the questions and thoughts that have been prompted by reading BWBG.

Among the topics of discussion, we looked at: the extent to which the book itself is – through its primarily white references – an instance of white centrism; how her pedagogical theory plays out in a classroom context; whether it's important to look to non-eurocentric models of moral responsibility in order to discuss these issues; and the degree to which her involvement with these issues differed in philosophy (as a discipline) as opposed to education (as a discipline).

We had a good turn out in the room (12 people) and 6–7 people online. 

WEBCHAT

Next Monday (Nov 20th) lunch-time – 12.45–2pm – Professor Barbara Applebaum will talk to us online about her book Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, White Moral Responsibility, and Social Justice Pedagogy. For more information, please get in contact with Adam at applebaumreading@gmail.com

Notes from the fifth session (Adam Ferner)

This Monday (13th November) we met to discuss the final chapter of Applebaum’s Being White, Being Good. There was fair attendance in the room (12 people) and online (7–8 attendees). Lucy Capes introduced and facilitated the session and we discussed: the difference between normative and overt physical acts of violence; the extent to which Applebaum’s move away from ‘blame’ may serve to avoid confrontation in the classroom (and thus function as a possible site of white-centrism); how Applebaum’s thoughts might be mobilised outside the academy; Derrick Bell.

We were also pleased to announce that Barbara Applebaum has agreed to join us, via Google Hangouts, for an extra session next Monday, 20th (at 12.30, in room 834). We generated some questions and will send them to her in advance of the meeting. If you have any you would like to add to the list, please email them to Adam (at applebaumreading@gmail.com), or add them in the comments thread.

So far, we have:

- How have her views changed since the publication of the book?

- Is the book itself (written by a white author, heavily focussed on white philosophers) another instance of white-centrism?

- How can the theory-heavy academic work play out in non-academic education institutions (primary and secondary schools)?

- What’s her research now?

We also discussed the ways that we might mobilise/disseminate/further engage with what we've learned during the session. There have a been a few suggestions about continuing the reading group (and having the next season on Charles Mills). If you have any suggestions, again, please email them over or add them in the comments thread.

Notes from the fourth session (Adam Ferner)

Week four was facilitated by Judith Suissa, who gave us an insightful overview of chapter 6 ('Rearticulating White Moral Responsibility'). We had a good turn-out – a dozen or so people in the room, and 9 online (with a much more active online discussion than previously). We also generated a fair few questions:

Q1: Dean objects that Butler's 'ethics of nonviolence' may run the risk of leaving no space for condemnation (mentioned p. 172). Does it not?

Q2: Is there unhelpful slippage between 'being responsible' and 'taking responsibility' in this chapter?

Q3: Do norms differ from habits/practices?
(Prompted by p. 168: "... for those who fit comfortably within norms, norms do not appear to be norms but just 'what is'.")
(I think standardly norms, but not habits/practices would be understood to have an 'ought' to them, as setting some sort of standard)

(If norms = habits/practices and vice versa, then that suggests all habits (all repeated practices) would have normative force to them)

Q4: what's going on here with the relationship b/w unknowability, responsibility & ethics of vigilance? (Especially as, again, various literatures cotemporaneous with this text and subsequent to it which frame concepts or analysis around importance of e.g. 'loving ignorance', but absent here)

Q5: if I'm honest, is a little bit of an "Oh is that it?" response. Is this attempted combination of Young & Butler sufficient to get Applebaum the conception of responsibility she's after?

Q6: Is there a way in which responsibility converts into liability once some of the unconscious has become conscious!

Q7: What would an awareness of the intersectional aspects of subjectivity in the elevator example do to the analysis that follows?

Q8: Can Butler’s notions of the dangers of condemnation and her ethics of non-violence lead to actual action?

Q9: Why does the book focus on how adult white people enact racist norms, without focussing on how these norms are transmitted to white children (via rewards and punishments)? 

Q10: Why is it that the racism perpetrated by “good” whites is more lethal or more destructive than overt acts of violence? How do we understand this idea?

We will reconvene next week in room 834 for the final chapter, 'White Complicity Pedagogy'.

Notes from the third session (Adam Ferner)

Week three was facilitated by Zara Bain and Rachelle Bascara. Both gave excellent overviews and critical responses to the chapter under discussion (chapter 5, 'Moral Responsibility and Complicity in Philosophical Scholarship').

Their handouts are available here (Rachelle's) and here (Zara's).

We were down in numbers slightly, with 11 people in the room, and 6–7 people joining us online (including, I believe, the Utrecht cluster group). Next week, we will be looking at chapter 6, 'Rearticulating White Moral Responsibility' and will convene in the same room (Committee room 4) at the usual time.

Notes from the second session (Adam Ferner)

The second session of our group was facilitated by Laurencia Saenz and Jonathan Nassim, and we discussed chapters 3 ("The Subject of White Complicity") and chapter 4 ("The Epistemology of Complicity: The Discourse of Not Knowing and Refusing to Know") of Barbara Applebaum's book. There were 17 people in the room, and 6 people online (including the Utrecht research group). The conversation was productive and we raised and discussed the following questions:

1. To what degree does language shape the position of the subject (in terms of inclusion, exclusion...)

2. How do we help people to agree (rather than disagree) from within their different language games and discourse structures?

3. Is Applebaum herself reproducing a white curriculum? (Most of the authors she cites are white.)

4. How can scholars of colour and white scholars work together to address the discomfort associated with pedagogies of race?

5. What does "bearing witness" entail and how might it be practiced in the classroom?

6. What is the role of intention in criticism? Can there be criticism without intention?

7. How can one spot strategies of disengagement, especially when voiced under the heading of "debate"? How can one respond to them? (Practical)

On the technical side of things, we seem to have ironed out some of the audio difficulties (with a new microphone). We also tried using a webcam – which was largely successful (though poor quality). There was some discussion about the pros and cons of invisible online attendees being able to see members of the group in the room – and this was partially solved by restricting the scope of the image so that group members could sit outside the field of vision if they wished.

Extra session – November 20th

At the end of yesterday's meeting, we discussed the possibility of having an extra session. Judith has now managed to book room 834 for November 20th (same time – 12.30–2pm). Depending on her availability, Barbara Applebaum may join us via Skype.

Notes from the first session (Adam Ferner)

Yesterday was the first meeting of the Applebaum reading group. We had about 20 attendees in the room and 15 or so online, including a research cluster, organised by Chris Meyns, in Utrecht. Darren Chetty facilitated the discussion (brilliantly), with a break-out session, and we spoke about chapter 1 ('Introduction') and chapter 2 ('White Ignorance and Denials of Complicity: Linking "Benefitting From" to "Contributing To"').

The conversation was productive and key points were raised about the diversionary tactics deployed by white people in conversations about race (e.g. '...sure racism is a problem, but what about class?') and the role of a white academic writing for (?) middle-class, white academia. My own involvement in the conversation was minimal due to microphone problems and an inability to multi-task. On the plus side, the technical side of things seemed to go quite well, with good points being raised in the 'Live Chat', and discussed in the room. We aim to have a better microphone and a webcam for the next meeting.

If you attended the session and have any thoughts that you'd like to share, please email them to applebaumreading@gmail.com and I'll upload them to the blog. Likewise, if you didn't attend, but have thoughts about the first two chapters that you'd like to discuss, please send them over.

Looking forward to the next session!

Week One

Week one's session will be facilitated by Darren Chetty.

We will be reading chapters 1 and 2 of the book.

We'll start promptly at 12.30 (in room 834 in the IoE) and finishing at 2pm.

Looking forward to it!

Live Streaming

So after a fair amount of technological wrangling, we've finally fixed on a way to live-stream the reading group in such a way that people can chat (without impacting on the broadcasting power)!

Basically, the session is going to be live-streamed on an Unlisted channel on YouTube. Adam will send the link out to everyone who's registered as a virtual attendee. In order to chat you need to sign up and get a youtube channel. The details of how you can do this are available here:

http://helpdesk.junglescout.com/article/395-create-youtube-channel

The chat will be projected onto the screen in the room so members in the room can see what the virtual attendees are talking about. Virtual attendees will be able to listen to all of the comments in the room. There's a test session scheduled for Monday morning, so if you want to join me for that to trouble-shoot anything, that would be great.

Adam will be trying to moderate the discussion online, but he's new to this, so bear with him! And send him an email if the online chat isn't working, or you have any other technical difficulties (he'll be checking the applebaumreading@gmail.com account throughout).

Times and Dates

Thanks to Judith, we now have the room bookings! The sessions will take place as follows:

• October 16th 2017 – Institute of Education, room 834
• October 23rd 2017 – Institute of Education, Committee Room 4 (416)
• October 30th 2017 – Institute of Education, Committee Room 4 (416)
• November 6th 2017 – Institute of Education, Committee Room 4 (416)
• November 13th 2017 – Institute of Education, room 834

In the first session, we will be discussing Ch.1 (Introduction) and Ch.2 (White Ignorance and Denials of Complicity: Linking "Benefitting From" to "Contributing To"). If you have any difficulty getting hold of the text, please get in touch at applebaumreading@gmail.com 

Google Hangouts

We wanted to open the reading group up to people who may not be able to get to the Institute of Education in person. As such, the sessions are going to be live-streamed, as a webinar, on Google Hangouts (technological skills permitting). Virtual attendees will be able to login and comment – and members of the group in the IoE will be able to respond. Here's a video Adam made about the virtues of webinaring.

 

We've discussed the possible problems with streaming the event and given issues to do with 'leaky quotes', have decided not to record the sessions. We've also decided to keep attendance restricted to people who have registered. If you have any more thoughts about this, please comment!