Was reading about how some Young Lords considered educators (teachers, professors) part of the petit-bourgeoisie (the little upper class who often does the bidding of elites). They argued that educators have been taught the performances of elites and are apt to oppress. BUT+
What was interesting about the argumentation was that educators (teachers, professors) are petite-bourgeoise while occupying a liminal class space. At once they have learned the performances and language of elites through their (our) education but aren’t necessarily rich.
There is an implication in the analysis that educators (teachers, professors) are then apt to betray ruling classes because their role as petit-bourgeoisie is merely fictitious. They are taught the performances/language of power without necessarily economic benefit.
We need to contextualize the argument some of these (NY) young lords made. They were Marxists. Many grew up in New York City and experienced the school strikes led by Black/Brown families. Some were themselves college educated in the 60s/70s when Black/Brown students rose up.
When these handful of Young Lords wrote about educators, then, they spoke from a specific context. I think the argument would shift slightly in our modern context where austerity has created an academic underclass of contingent labor. But there is still something to wrestle with.
We academics (especially those of us who are first gen/from minoritized communities) need to wrestle with the ways we have been taught the performances/language of the ruling classes via our education. Even if economically we occupy a different place, socially we are privileged.
I don’t read the analysis of these Young Lords as a hopeless critique. Indeed, in the case of New York especially, several Young Lords themselves went to college and got degrees. So I read this more as an invitation to interrogate our class position and stand with the people.
I think it’s easy to forget as academics how we have been taught the performances and language of the elites even if we seek to critique the elites and stand with those who challenge the elites. You don’t go through years of *disciplining* without it rubbing off on you.
The question becomes, if we academics/educators are socialized as petit-bourgeoisie through our formal education, will we choose to lean into the liminality of our class position and betray the elites?

That looks different depending the day, but requires self-reflection.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jorge J Rodríguez V

Jorge J Rodríguez V Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JJRodV

14 Jan
A tension rarely discussed in the academy is how 1) a PhD is inherently an elite pedigree associated with power and tied to a historically exclusionary system and 2) not all bodies with PhDs are assumed to have the same level of expertise.

Both those things can be true.
I think about this often as a first-gen Latinx who (Divine willing) will get my PhD soon. The further I’ve gone through the process to acquire this degree the more I’ve realized that for 700 years or however long this degree has existed, it hasn’t included people like me.
And the further I work to ascertain this degree the further away I get in some respects from the community that raised me. There is no denying that this pedigree socially places you in elite spaces and demarcates you among a small group of folks. It’s a position of privilege.
Read 10 tweets
13 Jan
Something I’m thinking through is that I’ve never identified as a leftist, even though politically that is where I most closely fall. But I think part of the reason I haven’t taken on the label is because I often see the term bogged down in ideological debate.
When I think of leftist movements I find most compelling throughout the 20th century, I see people coming together to engage communities on imagining a radically different world. In those movements, “leftism” has guiding principals of socialism, sure, but it’s more of a process.
In our present discourse, I see a lot of people without ties to community work identifying as “leftist.” Relatedly, I see “leftism” often used as an ideological bully stick to seek conformity around a series of ideals without accounting for the complexity of community.
Read 7 tweets
13 Jan
I read a lot on social movement, religion, and leftism and I’m struck at the whiteness of this literature. By whiteness I mean both that “religion” is understood in white Protestant terms (the “religious” has to fit into white Protestantism) and that it centers on white people.
I read these books thinking about Caribbean Santerxs building mutual aid, about Black/Latinx Muslims creating social service programs, about the Black Radical Tradition and Islam, about Puerto Rican Christians fighting for a socialist society, and I see.....none of this.
Instead what I see is that “Leftism” is related to white leftists (often white intellectual leftists tbh), religion is equated to Churches and Protestant adjacent understandings of faith, and to diversify there is the necessary sprinkle of MLK in 1968.
Read 8 tweets
11 Jan
I’m not pressed that Republicans are skeptical of media, many leftists ate as well. What throws me is that this then leads them to throw out facts all together *and* only believe Trump who, they don’t acknowledge, was propped up by media.

The logical acrobatics are astounding.
There are many *factual* reasons Republicans can question elections: the long proven history of voter suppression, the fact that registering to vote is not automatic, that corporations prop up certain candidates.

But none of these *factual* reasons factor into their skepticism.
So it makes it wildly challenging to speak with any Republicans who buy into these theories because they don’t even subscribe to a shared definition of what constitutes facts. How do we talk to that when we don’t even have a shared understanding of the “real.”
Read 4 tweets
8 Jan
Organizers speak noticeably differently about politics. They aren’t looking for consensus or strict ideological commitment. They are building power which entails having different folks believe that their freedom is tied up to someone else’s, and together they can be more free.
I don’t identify as an organizer, I haven’t earned that title. But I have been influenced by organizers and study social movements. And what I see throughout history is that movements crumble when ideological commitment becomes more important than commitment to one another.
Many Young Lords reflect on the ways the movement climaxed when cadre debated the best ways to change society all while deepening their commitment to one another. It fell when hard ideological adherence (likely due to FBI infiltration) emerged while the org overextended itself.
Read 8 tweets
8 Jan
Currently watching this @UptownCDems NYC Mayoral candidate forum. Really appreciate this forum and the ability for folks in the audience to ask questions.
Thank you @mayawiley for answering my question about schools, the current Mayor, and the pandemic.
You know, @ShaunDonovanNYC started a little shaky but I’m real hip to his ideas on housing, closing Rikers, and “15-minute neighborhoods.”
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!