Sambhav: Shelby and Problems with Agency

By

In Dark Ghettos, Tommie Shelby argues that Black people in inner-city communities have limited agency for upward mobility due to structural oppression and systemic injustices (or one could say limited control of their outcomes). He claims that “these problems (violence, street crime, concentrated poverty, etc.) are a consequence of injustice” (4) and “no reasonable person could think that the plight of the ghetto poor is their own fault.” (9) At the same time, he argues that individual and collective agency is warranted and to an extent necessary (58) in its use for political emancipation through dissent and resistance, since the system “unjustly disadvantages” (19) them. However, this emphasis on agency as an impetus for justice may overlook the systemic barriers that prevent individuals (and groups of individuals) from fully exercising their agency. In this blog post, I argue that Shelby’s arguments end up risking blaming Black people for their own suffering by assuming the extent of agency they possess - one of the very things he intensely argues against. I also argue that he falls in contradiction between his conception of agency in the context of individual outcomes, and in the case of political emancipation through forms of dissent.

Shelby acknowledges that structural conditions are a significant factor in shaping outcomes in inner-city communities. He recognizes that poverty, lack of access to education and healthcare, and systemic racism all contribute to limiting opportunities for upward mobility. However, he also believes that individual and collective agency are essential components of any effective response to structural oppression in an unjust system. He argues that “we should therefore do all we can to avoid complicity with oppressive structures, to refuse to cooperate with them” (58) and proposes that the background social arrangement is to be constantly monitored, and “can be scrutinized for fairness and treated as a potential target of reform or even revolution.” (21) This presents a contradiction: if Black people have limited agency for upward mobility, how can they be expected to exercise agency for political emancipation through dissent and resistance to a supposedly unjust social structure? 

Shelby argues that agency can be a source of empowerment for Black people, even in the face of structural oppression. He suggests that the culture of the ghetto, while limiting and constraining, can also be a source of agency for its residents. By embracing their own cultural practices and traditions, and by resisting the dominant culture of white supremacy, Black people can exercise agency and assert their own identities and values. This, in turn, can lead to political emancipation through individual and collective dissent. 

However, the emphasis on agency may be problematic. By placing so much responsibility on individuals for their own disadvantage, Shelby risks blaming them for their own poverty and marginalization. His account overlooks the systemic barriers that limit opportunities and life chances when in the process of revolt or reform. Furthermore, it underestimates the role of systemic injustice in preventing Black people from fully exercising their agency. 

Shelby questions whether “they (the oppressed group) choose mainstream norms over deviant cultural norms even when their ambitions have been unfairly thwarted?” (8), to which I ask- can they? For example, protest and dissent are often seen as legitimate means of exercising agency and promoting political emancipation. However, when Black people engage in protest or other forms of dissent, they may face violent repression and other forms of state-sanctioned violence. This limits their agency and undermines their ability to effect change. Similarly, when Black people engage in lawless activities, such as drug dealing or other forms of criminality, they are often punished more severely than their white counterparts, due to systemic racism in the criminal justice system. 

In conclusion, while agency is an essential component of any effective response to structural oppression, it is important to recognize the same systemic barriers that limit opportunities for upward mobility for the purposes of political emancipation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Global Racial Empire vs Materlialism (marxism)

By Anonymous
In reading Taiwo's Reconsidering Reparations  I was reminded quickly of reading about materialism in Marx's The German Ideology . Marx built a framework that viewed nearly every aspect of society, from basic family dynamics to tools to language to industry as a result of humans fulfilling their material needs. Taiwo cites author Charles Mills who argued for a framework of "global white supremacy" as a political system  that results from the fact that "the world has been foundationally shaped for the past five hundred years by the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy" (25). Taiwo goes on to say that his book agrees with this theory.  I do not object the the fact that global white supremacy has affected nearly the entire world. It has been a phenomenon that has shaped the global power structure, allowed those in power to gain wealth, and subjugated millions of people.  Though, I do think an important nuance could be clarified. I notice that subjugat...
Read more

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more