Josh may be right here…or maybe not. On the one hand, solidarity is generally deemed acceptable in the US among white ethnic subgroups which do have a shared history (viz. Jews, Irish). The problem gets stickier, however, when we get into the area of shared Southern white culture. Southern whites, obviously, do have a shared historical and cultural experience, one arguably as rich and profound as the African-American one. No one actually takes up the sword against Confederate historical commemoration associations, or whatever; but such groups do tend to have an automatic question mark placed next to them, at least in liberal blue-state discourse. And when we take the issue a step further into the political realm, and look at Southern whites actually voting together or engaging in explicit political activity designed to promote their group interests (possibly at the expense of others), then accusations of racism and the name of Bull Connor will not be far behind.

I don’t think the phenomenon you’re referring to can properly be characterized as “black solidarity”; a better way to describe it might be “ghetto solidarity,” and yeah, it is harmful. Shelby goes out of his way to emphasize that true black solidarity can’t be grounded in black cultural norms precisely because they can be used as criteria for exclusion. Solidarity under his definition (if I understand it correctly) would necessarily include those norms that smack of anti-intellectualism, but it could not be limited to or defined by them.

Now, it is clear that the misidentification of black identity with one particular strain of black culture poses a number of problems, of which your example represents only one. And unless Shelby’s book (which I haven’t yet read) offers practical suggestions on how to reify his abstractions in black communities, it might not offer much in the way of ameliorating problems such as the equation of academic success with whiteness. My biggest problem with this sort of theorizing is that it is very ivory-tower (heh), in that it too frequently fails to find ways of connecting with a large majority of the people it concerns. But there’s nothing inherently wrong with Shelby’s conceptual design, and I have little doubt that should it ever find itself the dominant paradigm in black America, we’d all be better off.

Not that I’m holding my breath, of course.

Someone oughta dig up the proof that the average Swede is poorer than the average Alabaman too.

And this is my point. You may think it. Academia may believe it. But the masses don’t.

Steve

If the “it” is just black solidarity, then I’m not sure this is right. If “it” is ethnic or racial solidarity more broadly—which is the Marxist claim—then I’m sure it’s not right. Surely, at only a slight degree of simplifictaion, the American racial story has always been one of white racial solidarity trumping poor- or working- class solidarity.

I say this as someone for whom “working-class solidarity” doesn’t have any of the normatively magical quality that it has for many scholars who have studied this dynamic; they’re often looking to explain the presumptively-tragic lack of a social democractic party in the US. I don’t find that lack particularly sad—but have no doubt that white racial solidarity has been positively malevolent, and a powerful force in American political history and development.

More generally, I think Gellner’s right that ethnonationalistic solidarity has always been much, much stronger compared to class identity than Marxism led generations of social scientists to expect.

One problem is that, just as in (gasp! no not that!) zero-sum theory, the more you achieve one type of solidarity, the harder it is to achieve the other. Being too “radical” will drive away wealthy allies, and being too black oriented will drive away working class whites.

Groups of blacks and groups of whites were given intelligence related tests. When the test takers were informed they were taking a “test”, the blacks did significantly worse. When the test takers were informed they were in a “gaming competition”, the results were better for the blacks.

Could it be that one of the by by-products of black solidarity is to reinforce the prejudice against “acting white”. That cause kids to under-utilize what opportunities they have so that students must hide, downplay, or worse and most common, lower their intelligence or effort at school so they aren’t beat up or ostracized for acting outside their cultural norms?

umm… that’s precisely it. I don’t see your problem. Dual standards are wrong only when there is no dual set of circumstances on which to base the dual standard.

mcd—I’m not sure I get your point. Are you saying (a) that black solidarity is bad because it masks the real lines along which solidarity ought to be soldified (i.e., class-based rather than racial lines)? Or (b) that black solidarity is good because, even though class divisions are the really basic, important, deep ones, black solidarity might still help the black poor, given the (unfortunately) class-based structure of our society? Or something else?

Why have black solidarity? It doesn’t come naturally; it must be propagandized for. In order to counter-balance class solidarity, which typically trumps it (as Marxists have always argued). For the sake of poor blacks. Because poor blacks really need rich black allies, MUCH more than rich blacks need poor black allies.

I realize the purpose of the book and this review weren’t to address this concern, but the fact is this very concern is the primary weakness of the argument-not the finer problems that you and Shelby discuss.

Steve