The alt-right claims it responsibly advocates for its positions while the Ku Klux Klan was “ad-hoc.” This allows them to accept the philosophy of white nationalism while rejecting comparisons with prior white nationalist organizations. I confront this by comparing the methodologies of alt-right trolls and the KKK. After studying each movement’s genesis in pranks done for amusement, I demonstrate that each uses threats to police behavior, encourages comradery around ethnic heritage, and manipulates politics to exclude voices from public deliberation. Differences between alt-right trolls and the KKK originate in the technologies they use, not out of a concern for responsible advocacy.
I begin with Deleuze's criticism of the Darwinian concept of difference as leading to the inaccurate assumption that difference occurs within individuals and species. Deleuze radicalises Darwin's theory by disrupting the ontological stability of species and extant individualities. I examine how Deleuze's project relates to punctuated equilibrium and the discovery of the amount of variation within the human genome, showing that these recent developments make Deleuze's critique less applicable by showing that Darwinian classification schemes should include a greater openness to difference. A complete alignment between evolutionary biology and Deleuze may be impossible given the limitations of evolutionary biology, but evolutionary biology can rethink the ontological permanence it gives to species and individuals.
Phenomenology has been used numerous times in discussions of race. Yet despite the value of the approach-and the well-known phenomenologies of race done by Frantz Fanon, Lewis Gordon, David Macey, Linda Martin Alcoff, and others-phenomenology has only rarely been used to dissect "whiteness." Much of the scholarly work on whiteness discusses it as an ideology, a product of social relations, or a set of institutionalized practices.1 Similarly, most of the work that examines race from a phenomenological perspective does not focus on the experience of whites, but instead discusses racial embodiment more broadly construed. Following the example of Sara Ahmed, I argue that it is illustrative to approach white experience from the perspective of phenomenology. 2My objective in doing this is not to validate the perspectives of whites who deny their own privilege, but to explain why whiteness is so difficult to "pin down" and how it came by its particularly "sticky" quality that makes it so hard to undermine. As I shall show, these facets of whiteness stem from the fact that whiteness-inasmuch as it is a perceivable phenomenon-has a flexible character because it is the product of a dialogical interaction between the subject and the world. Whiteness is not fixed, but can appear in many ways such that even being able to see it as harmful does not ensure one's willingness to do something about it. The question this poses for the study of whiteness is why so many whites, even after being given evidence that racism works through the society they are a part of, nevertheless refuse to see whiteness. The claim that whiteness operates invisibly does not fully explain this phenomenon, as nothing in that theory necessitates that whites react with aversion when their privilege is pointed out. That whiteness is difficult for whites to see does not mean they will resist seeing it when its presence is revealed. The lived aspect of the white experience of whiteness needs to be explained in more detail if we are to understand this phenomenon. Just as Linda Martin Alcoff resists the claim that "race is no more real than phlogiston or witchcraft," 3 we need to resist the conclusion that whiteness is experienced simply as something invisible.To explore the nature of whiteness, I will begin by reviewing the phenomenologies of race carried out by Sarah Ahmed and Linda Martin Alcoff. As I will show, while Ahmed and Alcoff make important observations about how race, and whiteness in particular, orients us within the world, they both focus on the subject's role in creating race, overlooking the active role of the world. I will
Humanities advocates focus on demonstrating the humanities’ value to encourage participation. This advocacy is largely done through institutional means, and rarely taken directly to the public. This article argues that by reframing the theory of Direct Action, humanities advocates can effectively engage the public. The article begins by exploring three different understandings of the humanities: that they develop good citizenship, that they develop understanding, and that they develop critical thought. The article then discusses what Direct Action is and how it works. The article concludes by describing how to reframe Direct Action to suit the needs of the humanities, including potential actions that will achieve those ends. Humanities Direct Action must be seen as a debate and will focus on increasing critical thinking.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.