Talk:SOCI370/Wilson

In the summary, it conveniently paraphrases that "Wilson argues only highly educated and sophisticated workers are in constant demand, whereas the recent addition of unskilled and uneducated individuals to the workforce, no matter their race, are declining in demand."

However, this is worth considering in our contemporary Western society. While there is certainly something to be said for Wilson having written in his own socio-historical context, and not our own, I find it hard to believe that unskilled and uneducated individuals are declining in demand relative to the labour force. It is true that highly sophisticated and educated workers are in demand – manifested nowadays in the higher wage and prestige of skilled/knowledge-based positions like lawyers and doctors; however, I would argue that unskilled labour is largely valuable. It is very much true that given the earth's expanding population, unskilled labour is literally a dime a dozen, but in regards to commodities, what first-world society deems as 'sweatshop' labour is a considerable driving force in many products; so much so that it led to controversies and boycotts against companies like Nike or Joe Fresh, which were alleged to use the aforementioned style of labour. Although I can see why Wilson stated that demand is decreasing (regardless of race), I find it hard to completely disregard the effect of mass labour of demand relative to the labour market especially when it is so cost-effective as it stands now.

I agree that the demand for unskilled labour is still alive today but I think we see that in developed countries that Wilson talks of, we can see a decline in the demand and opportunity in countries like Canada and the USA. For example, since unskilled labour jobs have moved away from Detroit or Southern Ontario in the auto industry and moved to other less developed countries, there is a lesser demand for unskilled labour in those areas. Thus, in a more service and knowledge-based economy in developed countries, there is definitely a demand for higher educated individuals. Globally, I can see unskilled labour still alive and well but locally (our locally), it has decreased due to the mobility of these types of jobs elsewhere and the movement into a service economy in developed countries.

That's a really good point! I also think it's interesting in the same regard that our industries (such as fisheries, mining, and lumber), which were originally Canada's staple resource and physical-based unskilled labour fields, have in the past decades become increasingly more technical, and so as we developed as a nation even our more base-level fundamental labour has changed as well, again demonstrating what you explained as a decline in demand for unskilled labour.

Indeed, essentially unskilled labour is very hard to "make disappear" (until/unless it is automated), but as far as the workplace profile of Canada, unskilled jobs have moved out of the country with the rise of globalisation, and Canada has since taken on a more "tertiary sector" (service sector) role in the global economy.

Yes, globalization is a good example! Wilson also argues that globalization is one of the reasons of decreased demand of the unskilled workers. However out of curiosity; don't Macdonalization require unskilled workers? Maybe capitalism (Macdonalization in this case) also creates demand for unskilled, less educated workers?

I think that it is important to note how African Americans within the United States face two different injustices through intersectionality and interlocking systems of oppression that prevents many from moving beyond unskilled labor positions. Regarding the concept of intersectionality, African Americans within the United States will endure negative social experiences because of their intersecting sex, gender and biology that creates their identity. For example, a heterosexual Caucasian male will have a much better advantage socially as opposed to a homosexual African American male. On the other hand, interlocking systems of oppression works similarly but effects the population more economically rather than socially. Interlocking systems of oppression is the various hegemonic systems (such as segregation laws or cultural displacement) that interlock and produce certain effects. I agree with Wilson, that in order to change this, there needs to be fundamental changes in the global economy as well as economic reforms. In order to do this, I believe power structures need to be addressed from outside the margins, by those not already benefiting from the structure(s).

I agree, the systems of oppression that African Americans and other minority groups are facing are complicated and often difficult to identify and address by someone who is benefiting from the system, whether they realize they are or not. However, I appreciated Wilson's comment at the end of his paper that African American communities will also benefit from recognizing the systems of oppression that they share with other Caucasian Americans, as this will increase the likelihood that they can work alongside each other for economic reform. Essentially reminding us that while recognizing differences is extremely important in attempts to achieve social change, recognizing similarities can have profound effects as well.

I think that's a good point and couldn't agree with more that the power structure needs to be addressed from outside of those who are exploited, unprivileged and disadvantaged from the current system. Then only the systemic problem that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer can be interpreted from different angles and be more likely to be solved. Otherwise, the rich would try to keep the system in this way, while the poor still get exploited without even noticing and the circulation of taking more out of the poor to feed the rich goes on.

It's interesting how I just happened to read this the night before stumbling across a Jacobin article (entitled "The Trouble with Anti-anti-racism) by Paul Heideman and Jonah Birch discussing this topic more broadly, as they summarize it: "Movements targeting racial disparities aren’t distracting attention from class inequality — they’re part of a broader radicalization against American capitalism." What I found most interesting was the discussion in the comments (of those much more informed of the historical implication of F.D.R.'s "new deal" (i.e. what it even encompassed), and topics like the civil rights movement, Nixon's election to power, etc. After having read discussions of said topics, and after having read Wilson's essay, it seems to me that while understanding broader economic trends and how they disproportionately affect marginalized communities is crucial, and something that may not receive enough discussion, that in terms of enacting change, it depends in part on the specific goal and message that particular anti-racist movements seek to spread (i.e. how specific or targeted their message is, what issues it tackles, whether it does discuss racism as a mode of creating division among the proletariat, etc.) and the broader context in which the anti-racist movements are taking place (i.e. is there already discussion about inequality in the public sphere? is there the potential to make these larger conceptual connections on their own?).

What's interesting is the difference between the articles in terms of when they were written. Wilson's analysis comes in 1999 (which to be honest I don't know much about), but the Jacobin article was written in 2016. in ~17 years, much has changed in terms communication and the spread of ideas, most notably for this argument, it's ease: the current social justice movement comprises many different facets, with certain people focussing on feminism, queer rights, anti-racism, economic equality, etc. and many (perhaps even most) taking an intersectional look at different layers of oppression. Indeed, Wilson is effectively arguing for a intersectional focus on race and class of poor Black people, while today (indeed, heavily depending on what you follow in your newsfeed, but subject to being "bound to" at least "come across" more nuanced/challenging social justice dialogue), many people take this intersectional approach as almost a "given", and thus any discussion focussing on race will inevitably tied to other forms of oppression in the minds of many facebook newsfeed-scrollers, as many of said newsfeed-scrollers take it upon themselves (from what I've seen) to educate those who have not been exposed to such modes of thinking.

In short, in 2016, you're certainly allowed to, and bound to, come to your own conclusions, but if you have an interest in a particular area of social justice, you're not unlikely to come across discussions about other aspects of social justice, and you may be arguably more likely to make connections (in being sometimes bombarded with social justice articles, if I'm not a unique case) than in, say, 1999.

The question you pose in the end is very similar to the reflection that Wilson's piece sparked within me as well. On the one hand, the race-neutral approach he proposes entails the danger of hiding or masquing the history of racialized oppression that African Americans have undergone and that still affects them economically, as Wilson's data itself seems to be hinting at. However, it is interesting to read Wilson's argument through an intersectionalist lens, as it has also been done in other posts. Such reading turns into a further tool to counter Wilson's argument, at least nominally: seeing the intersections behind the social location and the position of unprivilege of African Americans does not cancel racialization and make their discrimination "race-neutral", but emphasizes the connections between the frameworks lying behind that discrimination or unprivilege. I think that what captured my attention the most in trying to answer "how can you speak about the poverty of all communities through a lens of racial neutrality, when one has specifically been targeted by slavery and systemic oppression?" while thinking about intersectionality and having Wilson's argument in mind, is that what the latter actually seems to compel us to do in order to answer is to take a fully Marxist approach, which, I have to say, I quite second in this case. Indeed, even "slavery and systemic oppression" which target a specific community would be defined as an example of structural exploitation of workers by the capitalist class, which in this case is embodied by white masters (or maybe by white privilege itself) versus African American workers. Now, the acknowledgement of material inequality as basis for oppression and position of unprivilege, if taken alone and as a totalizing force, would lead us to necessarily agree with Wilson and see the structural oppression of all workers as the root cause of all oppressions. Nevertheless, I still believe it is fundamental today, in the light of critical theory and especially its developements in terms of decoloniality theory, to merge that awareness which equates the struggles of workers across the global board without forgetting further layers of internalized inequality that have been growing throughout history. Now, then, the question that I feel urged by is: will there ever possibly be a communal class consciousness of workers, and thus a revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class, if it is true that we cannot equate (and thus unite) "the poverty of all communities" and that of those that have "specifically been targeted by slavery and systemic oppression"?