Splitting Difference
The Future of Democratic Equality:
Rebuilding Social Solidarity in a Fragmented America
by Joseph M. Schwartz
Routledge, 2008, 240 pp $32.95
There’s a particularly affecting scene in Milk, the recently released biopic about 1970s San Francisco queer liberation activist Harvey Milk, in which Sean Penn stands in front of a roomful of very heterosexual looking Teamsters and begins his address with the self-effacing yet audacious line “I’m Harvey Milk, and I’m here to recruit you.”
Milk began many speeches with this line, and while on one level it was just an ironic joke meant to poke fun at the notion that gay men are constantly trying to get straights to play for the other team, on another level he was being deadly serious. Harvey Milk was most definitely trying to recruit those Teamsters into something: a broad-based coalition for progressive social change that reached across multiple fault lines of difference and identity in order to build a better life for everybody, not just the queers in the Castro district of San Francisco. This politics of solidarity that Milk embodied during his tragically brief public career (he was assassinated in 1978) brought real benefits to real people. Milk’s cooperation with the local Teamsters union in a 1974 boycott of the Coors brewing company not only resulted in a working-class victory against a virulently anti-union employer, but also opened up the Teamsters local to openly gay drivers. And when the Christian Right in California tried to pass a homophobic ballot initiative in 1978 that would have banned queers from working in the state’s public schools, the state’s labor movement was instrumental in helping to defeat it.
But times have changed. The defeat of the New Deal coalition in the late 1970s and early 1980s splintered the left, creating a proliferation of political projects that more often than not had tenuous connections to the type of social welfare liberalism that held together the American left for decades. Among the most visible of these “new social movements” were the efforts of people of color, women, queers, and other historically oppressed groups to combat their subordinate positions and demand representation in the mainstream of American society. Such identity politics has been enormously successful on its own terms. While there are still many struggles against identity-based oppression to be won, the United States is a far less racist, sexist and homophobic society than it was even a couple of decades ago, and multiculturalism is a key component of standard educational curricula and corporate human resources policy. You also may have heard that our country recently elected its first African-American president. The recent passage of the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban in California notwithstanding, old-style racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of identity oppression based on individual attitudes has been definitively discredited. Oppression simply doesn’t work that way anymore, for the most part.
However, these welcome victories have occurred against a backdrop of massive and growing social inequality the likes of which we have not seen since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. Since Milk’s time, the gap between the rich and the rest of us has widened dramatically. The federal minimum wage is worth 19% less now (in real dollars) than in 1979. Union membership rates have plummeted to about 12% of the American workforce (only about 7.5% in the private sector), down from labor’s high-water mark in the 1950s when around 30% of all workers were in unions. Three decades ago, corporate executives made 30 to 40 times more than the average worker. Today, they “earn” about 344 times the pay of most of their employees. Income shares for the top 20% of American households have skyrocketed while those for the lower and middle portions of the distribution have barely kept pace with inflation. Unless radical measures are undertaken, the contemporary economic crisis will likely exacerbate such disturbing trends.
Surprisingly, such issues of structural social inequality and class power have gone largely unaddressed in the groves of academe and the pages of political theory journals (to say nothing of the wider society or the political system), as theorists under the influence of postmodernism and post-structuralism have mostly turned their focus to investigating issues of identity and diversity. As anyone who has been through the American higher educational system in the past two decades can attest, there’s an almost obsessive focus in academia (both in the classroom and in campus life) on issues of identity and diversity but nary is a word spoken about socioeconomic inequality. It is this curious turn in political theory that Joseph Schwartz critiques and transcends in his excellent and wonderfully dialectical new book, The Future of Democratic Equality: Rebuilding Social Solidarity in a Fragmented America (full disclosure: Schwartz is a member of the National Political Committee of Democratic Socialists of America).
As Schwartz argues, since the 1970s prominent social and political theorists have been absorbed in a rather esoteric argument about the philosophical underpinnings of the conception of citizenship advanced by traditional social welfare liberalism, whose foremost theorist was the late John Rawls. Taking their cues from continental philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, postmodern critics of Rawls such as Judith Butler and Iris Marion Young denounced his perspective as “falsely universal” in that marginalized other conceptions of the self and the identities of historically oppressed social groups. Schwartz recognizes the salutary contribution made by these critics in bringing the autonomous concerns of people of color, women, queers and others into political theory, but points out that the Rawlsian conception of the “rational chooser,” the paradigmatic citizen of the liberal welfare state, has been definitively displaced by the ideology of the free market. What results is a curious philosophical argument that seems out of step with the most salient realities of contemporary social and political conditions.
If assertions of difference are to be truly emancipatory, Schwartz argues, “a democratic pluralist polity that affirms the value of ‘difference’ can only be achieved if the ethos of solidarity – a sense that the fate of each citizen affects the destiny of all – is revived as a public philosophy underpinning majoritarian support for social rights.” Absent such a commitment to building a politics of solidarity, assertions of difference (or the “performativity” of identity in the postmodern argot) will simply play out on a terrain of vast inequality and do nothing to combat the oppression that people experience through the operation of structural forces such as the labor and housing markets. As Schwartz pointedly observes, “one can’t ‘perform’ one’s way out of an under-funded inner-city school or out of being a laid-of auto worker with dim prospects of finding a new job with comparable wages and benefits.” But the defeat of the left as a mass social force has led many social and political theorists to retreat into advocacy of small-scale, localized and individualistic responses to oppression and inequality. Building a mass-based social movement to transform the structures of the capitalist political economy is just not on their agenda. Indeed, some are actively hostile to such a project, contributing to a sense of demoralization and helplessness on the left that must be overcome if we are to achieve our goals.
The dichotomy between universalistic conceptions of citizenship and solidarity and the needs of marginalized groups thrown up by post-structuralist theorists is ultimately false, Schwartz demonstrates. State power (something that these critics have been highly critical of), must be mobilized to ameliorate the structural inequalities that negatively affect the life outcomes of all citizens, especially those who are part of historically subaltern groups. The polity can and should recognize and affirm difference and diversity, but “the members of such communities cannot experience equal life opportunities unless they have equal access to societal resources.” Until a broad-based, majoritarian coalition builds power to radically transform the deep structures of social and economic equality in the United States most citizens will have their life opportunities severely restricted, even if all of us attended diversity training, cultivated an appreciation of various ethnic cuisines, or “subverted” gender oppression by engaging in “transgressive” individual behavior.
One should not, however, group Schwartz’ critique with those offered by critics such as Thomas Frank, William Julius Wilson and Walter Benn Michaels, who pose a politics of traditional, supposedly color-blind economic populism in opposition to a politics of difference. Such writers do an excellent job of pointing out the limitations of identity politics and skewering our country’s obsession with identity (Michaels offers an especially coruscating analysis of the diversity industry in his recently published book The Trouble With Diversity), but as Schwartz notes, the old New Deal coalition was in many respects racially exclusionary and made efforts to address the autonomous oppression of historically marginalized groups through policies such as affirmative action necessary. And because so much popular opposition to progressive taxation and social investment has been grounded in racial hostility toward the supposedly “undeserving” (that is, black and brown) poor, “the road to a revitalized social democracy cannot avoid a forthright anti-racist politics.”
Since the sources of much of the structural inequality critiqued by Schwartz are embedded in a globalized political economy, he devotes a significant portion of his book toward an analysis of the relationship between the global economy and domestic politics. While the two chapters on globalization in the middle of the book take away from the narrative flow of his analysis of post-structuralist political theory, his intervention in this arena is illuminating and highly relevant for democratic socialists and other radical democratic activists. While apologists for neoliberal globalization such as Thomas Friedman argue that international competitive pressures make it impossible to maintain high levels of social welfare provision at the national level, and advocates of a loose and decentralized global justice movement eschew the contest for state power, Schwartz argues convincingly for the continued centrality of national politics. Individual states still have a significant capacity to regulate economic life within their borders, as the much more egalitarian social market economies of continental Europe and Scandinavia demonstrate. Further, international economic bodies are ultimately composed of and run by representatives of nation-states that are subject to pressure from domestic social movements. In making this argument, Schwartz offers a useful corrective to the more anarchistic elements of the global justice movement as well as the often self-interested, depoliticized and short-sighted elites of the NGO world. He also makes a persuasive case to U.S. based activists that because of our strategic position within the most powerful state in the global political economy, our best way of helping the people of the world is concentrating our efforts on propelling our own society in a more humane and egalitarian direction. The project of building a global social democracy begins at home.
The prospects of building a politics of democratic equality and solidarity look much healthier than they did even a short time ago. The presidential campaign and election victory of Barack Obama, in spite of the fact that he remains a neoliberal centrist, has unleashed massive expectations for progressive change among youth, people of color and most everyone else interested in building a decent and just society. While the current economic crisis has brought hardship and joblessness to millions of Americans, it has also discredited neoliberal ideology and created an opening for leftists to argue for alternative approaches to the economy. And while the growing racial and ethnic diversity that will make the U.S. a “majority minority” nation by 2050 has the potential to fragment our society even further, it also carries the potential to break down the ideology of whiteness that acts as a bulwark against progressive social change. Schwartz briefly touches on the growing size and importance of the Latino population that will comprise roughly 30 percent of the population by the middle of the century, but neglects to mention that many of the immigrants from Central and South America come from countries with a substantial leftist heritage and have likely been exposed to leftist ideology and participation in militant, mass social movements in some fashion. As the occupation of a shut-down door and window factory last Friday in Chicago by its mostly immigrant Latino union workforce demonstrates, the combined effect of the economic crisis and a growing Latino presence in the labor movement may offer us the opportunity to build a layer of radical activists dedicating to building the kind of politics Schwartz argues for in his book. It also demonstrates the absolute necessity for white radicals to address the autonomous concerns of the Latino community, especially around the issues of immigration reform.
It’s time for us on the left to make the most of the enormous opportunity history has just given us. But if we are to take advantage, we need to emulate the example of Harvey Milk by building strong relationships that transcend difference, contribute to the construction of a new rainbow coalition for radical social change, and put an end to particularistic navel-gazing. Schwartz’s book provides democratic radicals with the intellectual tools we will need to make it happen.
Great review Chris. I read the book as well and enjoy it very much. One important component of the work was addressing, of course, “democratic equality.” When does it become undemocratic to give historically oppressed groups certain autonomous rights in a polity (i.e. a caucus having the right to suspend a collective)? Conversely, how undemocratic is it to have no attention in organizations to quotas (i.e. YDS’s Coordinating Committee must be 50% women, but it currently has no such minimum for people of color)? These are questions that are important when thinking about the true equality of individuals (and groups) in a democratic polity. Find a the right balance is not only the job of theorists, but those active in the movement.
Food for thought. Hope to provide more on this later.
Much thanks to Chris M. for an excellent review of my book, The Future of Democratic Equality (as the book just appeared in late Sept., Chris has the honor of writing the first published review of the book…) The review offers a particularly astute read of the relevance of my theoretical argument to contemporary political practice. And he’s right that there is not a completely smooth transition between the first half that criticizes the absence of attentiveness to structural inequality in contemporary ‘left’ political theory and the second half’s attempt to prove that “globalization” does not render the democratic egalitarian political project impossible. But what a pleasant surprise to read such an intelligent review…and one not written by a professional academic, but a rank-and-file intellectual activist (an academic would have rendered the review even more impenetrable than the theory-half of my book).
A caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) warning: the second half is accessible to all folks on this list; the first half is a bit tricky if you’ve never taken an upper-level undergrad course in feminist or critical race or lefty political theory…also, it’s pricey at $32 retail…there will soon be a link on the DSA web-site for discounted copies…I think you can get a 20 per cent discount on the Routledge site and on some of the smaller book vendors on the web.I’ll have some at the YDS winter conference and will sell them for $20, which is $4 below my author’s discount…i.e., I’m willing to subsidize young activists who read (somewhat a lost art on the US left, but not in YDS..) But given how the need to commodify one’s labor touches all (even socialists) living in a capitalist society, I must admit I hope some of you find the book relevant enuf to buy it!
Solidarity and gracias, Joe S.
PS Chris is spot-on about that Latino immigrants often come to the US with a more sophisticated exposure to radical unions and left political parties than has the average rank-and-file native born US citizen (of all classes). I’ve made that point in some of my journalistic writings, but should have included it in the book. While the repressive nature of undocumented status — and totally insecure residency — severely constrains the choices of many Latino working class immigrants, it is incredible how many undocumented workers do fight their oppression in an overt (and highly risky) and militant manner.
Thanks for the kind words Joe, much appreciated. I am in the midst of reading David Bacon’s new book called Illegal People, which focuses on the connection between “globalization” and the migration of workers from poor to rich countries, and the impact of such developments on politics here in the U.S. While I have a couple of quibbles with certain parts of the book, he does a very good job of highlighting case studies of cross-cultural/ethnic cooperation on the basis of class solidarity (especially between blacks and Latinos), as well as the impact of the Latin American left-wing social movement traditions that many recent immigrants from south of the border have been part of. These developments show that the type of democratic solidarity Joe calls for in his book is indeed possible and effective. I would encourage folks to pick up that book as soon as they can (better yet, do so at your local public library. We could all use the circulation statistics in this horrendous budget climate!).
A tantalizing review of a book that has made it onto my to-read list. This review, coupled with the constant hate that meets my own politics, however, has made me reconsider the power of naming, something traditionally very powerful in identity politics, particularly for African-Americans. The power to name is important to all marginalized groups, and through decades of politics that are neoliberal at best, democratic socialism has become more a slur than a political ideology. Moving forward into the 21st century, how can we, the left, redefine ourselves to give ourselves power and to break away from wrongful perceptions fueled by right wing propaganda? How do we transform words to meet definitions? As the gap between rich and poor drastically increases, more and more people agree with a leftist worldview, but if you bring up the terms “socialism” or “leftist,” all the ideas are blocked and cold war, free market induced paranoia takes over. It’s not the ideas that frighten them, it’s the name they’ve been trained to fear and loathe since birth. “It will destroy our way of life,” they say. And if we can spread the knowledge and statistics, if we can eliminate the fear, then perhaps we can move forward, and we’ll be able to ask in the public discourse, “Is our way of life really acceptable?” The answer, collectively, is, of course, no. As demonstrated above, the anger and discontentment is there, the solidarity is growing, and globally, we must move forward.
Looking forward to reading the book.