The Color Line in the New Gilded Age

• In Event: Poster Session: Class and Inequality & Political Science Education
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Class and Inequality

Abstract

As the United States returns to its pre-colonial roots, as a nation of non-Europeans, some would predict an emboldening of democratic rights, and political inclusion. However, as has already been experienced since the 1980s, the opposite has been true, with a gutting of government programs and government protections for oppressed groups, as well as an economy suited for business interests. Nevertheless, there has been some opportunities as well for political advancement of people of color generally, especially when it comes to some representation at the government level, and some level of economic “success” for sections of communities of color. The future of increased diversity and high levels of economic precarity and growth is one that has obstacles and opportunities for social scientists, and those committed to preserving and expanding democracy to reconsider, obstacles and opportunities that are a mix of known and unknown.

Through a qualitative study of Jersey City, a city that’s already predominantly Asian and Latinx and African American as well as a city that’s reflected many of the same neoliberal policies at the national level for the past few decades, I’ll be examining some of the ways in which racial politics will be shifting among groups of color. Rooted in 60 in-depth interviews, mainly of people who’ve either lived and/or worked in Jersey City, I will be assessing the contours and factors one must consider when thinking through the potentiality for coalitions of color to emerge, and what issues such coalitions will face in the hopes of reviving a political and economic system that is truly egalitarian and liberatory for most Asians, Latinx and African Americans.

Ultimately, I will be arguing that an “aesthetics” of progress, of democracy, has emerged, with some sections of people of color somewhat benefiting. The future of U.S. politics shall continue to see some forms of political inclusion, at least at the governmental level. At the same time, despite some forms of inclusion and representation, major issues, such as housing and financial stability, shall persist in shaping the lives of many. Across groups, such issues will start to become a problem, or topic of concern, whether it’s Asian Americans worried over housing and safety, or it’s the same for Latinx and African American residents.

But such concerns, albeit shared for some, will not to be felt exactly at the same level of intensity among groups of color, based on class interests, as well as the different ways in which groups of color will be materially situated. For instance, African Americans shall feel the negative effects of neoliberal development at a much higher pressure than Asians, or in some cases, Latinx. African Americans too shall express these concerns and some measure of skepticism of working with other groups of color on such issues based on their experiences with Asians and Latinx populations already.

I will argue, based on some of the observations made about Jersey City and about existing trends across the U.S., that for those of us invested in expanding democracy, or building one in the first place, political theory around such topics have to push beyond liberal theories surrounding the topic. Although there is much to learn from thinkers like Rawls and Charles Mills, to have a better sense of what kind of politics one needs to develop momentum for coalitions of color invested in creating a truly liberatory society, we must incorporate Marxist thinkers and black and brown radical thinkers as well into such a discussion.

The future of U.S. politics and its potential for progressive coalitions among Asians, Latinx and African Americans to form require thinkers such as Claudia Jones, the late Communist Party USA theoretician of the 1930s and 1940s, who emphasized the priority of creating a socialist society and yet, chastised those who refused to recruit black women into the movement in a substantive way. For Jones, the working class is a diverse one with real material differences in terms of experience and short-term need. Such differences must be addressed, as in creating pressure on policymakers to incorporate domestic workers (predominantly a job done by black women in the Jim Crow south) into New Deal programs and protections. Again, Jones herself still believed in a universal class struggle, and yet, understood that for the movement to be strong enough, it needed to find ways to deal with peoples’ immediate issues as a way of also influencing them to join such a movement for workers’ rights and socialism.

Through Jones and others like her, we can develop ideas about preserving democracy, winning it, and sustaining the coalitions to do so across groups of color in ways that speak to the existing dynamics of a country whereby some forms of inclusion exist concurrently with extreme forms of exclusion, especially around issues that are more economic.

Author

• SUDIP BHATTACHARYA, Rutgers University