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.