Qs:
1. Historiographic method: ch. 2-4 (history of ideas/intellectual
history); ch. 7 – how do we characterize the historiography in chapter 7?
-
Ch 4 – Realist or constructivist view of
normative commitments?
-
P. 114 Curricular tracks based on test scores to
?
-
Move from testing to what?
-
What is the role of technology?
2. They speak of the particular intensity of discipling of
Black students and it affects drop-out rates (p. 121). Can/should we separate this
rate within the context of the prison industrial complex? What is the relation
between school drop-out rates/levels vis a vis levels of incarceration?
3. Relation between tracking and vocational vs. academic
distinction? (p. 115)
4. Color of mind – descriptive and prescriptive – sorting practices
of students as immaterial. Is the genealogy separate from an archeological
account? Measuring practices and dignitary (in)justice – What about Color of
Mind p/d thesis?
We started with the fourth question:
-
The authors start with the CoM thesis and call
it an ideology – ideas are big in their project
-
These passages on 112 + 127, if they want to
give ideas an explanatory role, then it does not fit to state that the rationale
behind the sorting does not fit.
-
Authors move to implicit bias on p. 117.
-
What do they think white supremacy is? A kind of
white superiority and bias but they lose the structural element
-
On one hand it seems like there’s an analysis of
the sorting process and how they violate the conception of dignity
o
If you have a normative claim why do you have an
explanatory component? Is it useful to have this explanation of how it happens?
o
A parasitic relationship / explanation of how it
has unfolded but there would still be something underly; the practices are
contingent not constitutive
-
The value of the analysis in terms of this
ideology can be a functional-historical explanation of how these normative
wrongs have been perpetuated. How good of an analysis is this?
-
It does not seem as if the history serves as a
genetic argument or diagnosis of the normative wrong (it does not seem as if
they are trying to do this)
-
Methodologically it makes sense to focus on
school and education in terms of racial disparity but if you have a structural
understanding of racism, you must also see this problem in a broader context as
well
o
If you consider Jim Crow and the iteration of it
today – it also makes sense as a post-Jim Crow set of practices set against systematic
goals/practices
o
They want to make a claim that there is
something specific about education and how this kind of inequality gets cashed
out; their analysis has a specificity to it – what perpetuates this kind of
injustice
-
Genealogy/archeology:
o
2-4 or 5 contains necessary components for
archeology; part of expectation by time reached ch. 7 is that elements of ch. 5
would play some sort of co-constitutive role or even if not that, that it not
be utterly disavowed
o
Color of mind ideology/beliefs & ideas
o
The worry of the authors just doing suggestions
instead of seeking implementation from a strong normative argument
§
A loosening of normativity
o
A methodological explanation of why they end up
where they are in ch. 7; if practices are not constitutive in a strong way, but
you want to right a wrong (but it does not hinge on the practices), the wrong
could be seen as in a different plane
-
Of what value of the book being nearly half
history of ideas for a project that ends up just pointing out wrongs? What is
the goal and what does it seek to meliorate?
-
2-5 (explication of ideology of CoM)
-
7-8 (analysis of injustice and practices of
school sorting/discipline)
-
9 (suggestions)
o
What is the relationship between ch. 7 and 9?
§
Explanatory of a historical mechanism?
§
Part of a normative assessment?
§
Is it evaluative?
§
What is the domain/scope? How do they maintain
domain-specificity?
o
CoM is a set of ideas/ideology so if that’s meant
to be evaluative (2-7) then it could make sense why they need to tell the story
of CoM as the reason why these practices are unjust (genetic argument – this is
not what the book does not do)
o
So, it is explanatory: historiographically how
do ideas explain practices? Are transformations of ideas sufficient for the transformation
of practices? What would the ideology look like without these practices? Can
you give an account independent of practices?
o
They can claim both that the practices are
necessary for the ideas and the ideas are sufficient for practices
§
Taking archeology to be a study of rationalities
or ideologies/ideas
-
Seems like they want archeology to be sufficient
to the genealogy
o
But then you wouldn’t need genealogy (?)
-
Explanation of how ideology is maintained (not
the ideology itself)
-
The ideology stops at a certain point – there is
no more mutation and it is just practices perpetuating and sustaining ossified
ideology
-
Methodological problem of how they conceive of
history/historical narration rather than saying that their genealogy or
archeology is wrong?
-
What work is 2-5 doing? If they’re merely pointing
out wrongs and offering suggestions, then it seems that at a minimal level,
they would only need to be concerned with outcomes?
o
Ch. 7 normative assessment
o
Ch. 9 normative prescription
-
Pragmatic feasibility constraint at their normative
prescription – want a shot at this doing something in the context of
historical/functional explanation of how this situation that is thus
normatively assessed came about
-
What are the possible objects of historical/archeological
analysis that could play a role here that would enable this whole picture to
hang together?
o
Ideology
o
Structures
o
Institutions
o
Dispostif
o
Political economy
o
Structure of the psyche
o
Racial contract (naturalized account)
§
These are the explanans they have to lie up with
the explanada (things explained must be lined up by the explainer)
o
There is a shift somewhere in the preceding
chapters (start with ideology and now its practices, but rationale doesn’t
matter)
-
Can these be more satisfactorily explained by
appealing to different categories (i.e., not ideology)?
-
Ideas do a good job at explaining other ideas
(?)
-
Ideologies as explaining beliefs (and mechanisms
(?))
-
What kind of methodological account can we give for
methods that are implicitly in play?
-
Tracking of the hyper-disciplinization of Black
students
No comments:
Post a Comment