September 26, 2014 - 16:58
In thinking about our discussion on Thurs., and how slippery it can be to talk about these complex issues of identity and access - in relation to history and always, I think, in the context of our very contemporary experiences of these matters – I offer a few further thoughts, and invite yours:
In class on Thurs., in relation to unpacking the statement that “green follows white,” I noted that Minow talks about access to “social networks” or “social capital” as a potential benefit of integration for African-American and Hispanic students (her terms), and one that has largely not been actualized – one of the “failures” of Brown v. Board of Ed. I want to add a point here: Although the idea of social capital is often used to talk about the ways that dominant groups design and access the knowledge and networks that reproduce power, we can also understand social capital more broadly: In this sense, all groups can be understood to have “social capital,” that is, valuable knowledge and networks that improve people’s lives.
I want to keep this larger understanding as an important frame for our discussions, so that we consider this view of social capital as we think and talk about what various groups bring to the table. This can be slippery, as we need to recognize both real issues of power and inequity and the equally real ways that diverse people make knowledge, meaning, and change in their/our lives. This is perhaps indicated in Minow’s argument about the loss of the “dream of integration”: While “African-American and Hispanic students living in areas of concentrated poverty…lose access to other social networks. …students of all backgrounds lose the benefits offered by the integrationist project.” (p. 28)