1. A thread on mainstream theories of incarceration - retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, restoration, incapacitation - which are gaslighting narratives that provide a smokescreen for racial capitalism:
2. Many critics say the American carceral system is based on retribution but I disagree. It's based on racial capitalism. All of the above principles - not just retribution - are in fact utilised to enforce a system of racial capitalism...
3. If you look at actual court cases, sometimes judges sentence someone to punish them; other times, they sentence someone "for their own good," because they "can't take care of themselves"...
4. These are two sides of the same coin: racialised others are seen as "uncivilised savages" who either deserve to be locked up or need to be "rehabilitated" by the state...
5. Of course, not everyone who is incarcerated is non-white, but the carceral system is based on this principle of white supremacy and still operates this way. (The same goes for the other sentencing principles, which are also subsumed under a racial capitalist agenda)...
6. Racial sentencing norms intersect with capitalism in that recruiting people into forced penal labour is a central pillar of the U.S. economy, which is why Angela Davis calls the American prison system a modern-day form of slavery...
7. Switching from "retributive justice" to "rehabilitation" won't do anything since all of these principles are simply used to rationalise American-style mass racial incarceration...
8. What WILL help is identifying the prison system as an apparatus of racial capitalism and trying to abolish it, along with its flimsy rationalisations. And here I'm basically just echoing Angela Davis...
9. The takeaway is that you can't talk about incarceration in America without talking about racial capitalism - that's a central tenet of prison discourse. Anything else is racial gaslighting.
1. I assigned Gattaca in my bioethics class & I don't regret it. One of the premises of the film is that everyone is miserable. The "invalids" are unhappy because they're oppressed, but the "valids" are also unhappy because they can never live up to the culture's eugenics ideal..
2. or even fulfil their supposed potential as "valids." Jude Law's character, a "valid," can't accept that he came in second in swimming competition in spite of his "superior genes." He becomes paralysed after trying to kill himself...
3. Uma Therman's character, another "valid," is unhappy because she has a cardiovascular disability in spite of being "enhanced" in vitro, and she's popping pills to deal with the stress. "Newgenics" has created a culture of fear, loneliness, and misery...
1. Is it wrong to let students use AI to generate essays instead of doing their own work? My colleague Gabriele Contessa wrote an excellent response to this question, which goes something like this:
2. (1) University students are adults and it's up to them whether to waste their time and money on a specious degree or actually learn something; (2) If AI can write better than most people, then maybe what students need to learn is how to use AI.
3. I want to add one more response to this question: (3) Academia was always a rigged game. The fact that we force students to use Standard English is a political choice that reinforces the elite status of the group that predominantly uses this vernacular - wealthy white people.
1. Thread on the ableist fetishization of so-called intelligence in academia. I just read yet another article that glorifies so-called intelligence, which is a social construct rooted in eugenics.
2. In an ableist culture (such as ours) in which so-called intelligence is so idolized that it’s a condition of citizenship & personhood, everyone will have anxieties about whether they’re ‘intelligent enough.’
3. Intelligence is a disciplinary apparatus that mobilizes people into a regime of compulsory (able-minded) intelligence, which conveniently justifies capitalism as a ‘meritocracy’ that both produces and rewards the most ‘intelligent’ (nondisabled) citizens.
Philosophy is a love of wisdom, which cannot be quantified by grading rubrics or systematized by learning outcomes. Why are philosophy professors addicted to academic metrics that commodify learning? (A thread on #ungrading).
@Jessifer says that "grades (and institutional rankings) are currency for a capitalist system that reduces teaching and learning to a mere transaction. Grading is a massive co-ordinated effort to take humans out of the educational process"...
@Jessifer also says that learning outcomes presuppose what is to be determined in the course of collaborative inquiry, & should be replaced by "emergent outcomes" that "are co-created by teachers and students and revised on the fly"...
Are lesbians women?
Monique Wittig (1992) says no. Jaboc Hale (1996) says sometimes.
Let’s break it down.
Wittig believes that lesbians are not women because to be a woman means to be in a binary relationship (paradigmatically, marriage) with a man:
“what makes a woman is a specific social relation to a man, a relation that we have previously called servitude, a relation which implies personal and physical obligation as well as economic obligation ("forced residence”)…, conjugal duties, unlimited production of children...