conversations.from: human
conversations.value: a description for a book titled Blaming the Victim about GansAn, Library, Journal with the genre: New, Used & Rental Textbooks, Social Sciences
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: An impassioned, often brilliant expose of middle-class ideology.Herbert GansAn illusion-shatterer of the first orderif you are concerned, you must read this book. It will stop you in your tracks. Library Journal
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: the first five paragraphs for this book
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Blaming the Victim
  The basic paradoxical quality of the community control idea is that, within it, there are two potentially contradictory elements of the exceptionalistic-universalistic dimension—broad inclusion in the decision-making process is clearly universalistic; on the other hand, dealing with societal problems at a local level is just as clearly exceptionalistic. Therefore, although, obviously, participation at the community level is the only logical mechanism by which decision-making can be made inclusive in any real sense, just as obviously this kind of community control has to be systematically related to the level at which the problem exists—in many instances, this is the national level, and in almost all cases, it is at least at the regional or state level. Oversimplified proposals for neighborhood school boards and similar proposals, then—without prior assurance of an equitable flow of technological, financial and other resources—are unlikely to move us very far toward equality. It would be the simplest thing in the world, for example, to cut loose the schools in a predominantly Black neighborhood, turn them over to local citizen control and, at one stroke, eliminate the possibility either of desegregation or of the input of needed resources.
  There is a further danger here. We then get the "neighborhood protection" phenomenon and ideas about preserving some kind of imaginary "ethnic purity."
  To fasten on the idea of one's neighborhood as special, different, superior, is no great advance over thinking of oneself as special, different and superior.
  Another criticism of this chapter was that I was more generous with ends than means. How do we get from here to there?
  First of all, let me say that if I knew for sure, I wouldn't keep it a secret. But at this time, it seems to me the evidence points toward at least a general strategic principle: collective action for collective (and equal) benefits.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Add another sentence about stressing.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Blaming the Victim
  The basic paradoxical quality of the community control idea is that, within it, there are two potentially contradictory elements of the exceptionalistic-universalistic dimension—broad inclusion in the decision-making process is clearly universalistic; on the other hand, dealing with societal problems at a local level is just as clearly exceptionalistic. Therefore, although, obviously, participation at the community level is the only logical mechanism by which decision-making can be made inclusive in any real sense, just as obviously this kind of community control has to be systematically related to the level at which the problem exists—in many instances, this is the national level, and in almost all cases, it is at least at the regional or state level. Oversimplified proposals for neighborhood school boards and similar proposals, then—without prior assurance of an equitable flow of technological, financial and other resources—are unlikely to move us very far toward equality. It would be the simplest thing in the world, for example, to cut loose the schools in a predominantly Black neighborhood, turn them over to local citizen control and, at one stroke, eliminate the possibility either of desegregation or of the input of needed resources. 
  There is a further danger here. The idea of community control can become regressively localistic and defensive in its emphasis, particularly if it encourages the stressing of differences between different sections of the community. We then get the "neighborhood protection" phenomenon and ideas about preserving some kind of imaginary "ethnic purity. "
  To fasten on the idea of one's neighborhood as special, different, superior, is no great advance over thinking of oneself as special, different and superior. 
  Another criticism of this chapter was that I was more generous with ends than means. How do we get from here to there?
  First of all, let me say that if I knew for sure, I wouldn't keep it a secret. But at this time, it seems to me the evidence points toward at least a general strategic principle: collective action for collective (and equal) benefits.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: another paragraph
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Two periods in our recent history produced some change in the pattern of inequality—the 1930's. to a substantial extent; and the late 1960's, to a small but significant extent. The major event of the 1930's was the tremendous growth of the labor movement, particularly the industrial unions. Similarly, as I have tried to document, the late 1960's was a period of extensive organizing and collective action on many fronts. It is hard to avoid the hypothesis, if not the conclusion, that collective action for collective benefits is the most potent weapon in the struggle for equality.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: the last four paragraphs. Start with the sentence 'Of one thing I now feel quite certain: the old liberal idea of "equality of opportunity" is not egalitarian in intent'.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Of one thing I now feel quite certain: the old liberal idea of "equality of opportunity" is not egalitarian in intent. At best, it would produce a kind of equality that might be termed "fair" in some sense, in that it would remove artificial barriers that impede the advancement of individuals who are superior in some set of internal characteristics. But inequality is inequality, and I can't imagine what difference it might make to learn which particular set of rules governed the game that left you in the bottom of the heap.
  Compared to these factors, the Michigan study shows, individual effort has virtually no effect on economic progress, except in a few rare cases. The overwhelming majority of Americans have common interests that can be served only by common action. Most of us rise and fall together—hardly anyone actually goes from rags to riches.
  Enterprises such as Massachusetts Fair Share and ACORN (begun in Arkansas, now spreading to other nearby states) have been focusing on the organization of consumers from a broad spectrum of income groups around specific economic issues—utility prices, drug prices, local tax practices, etc.—which, if successful, lead to collective rather than individual benefits. The advantages of this kind of broad-spectrum organizing around economic injustices that affect the majority of people—and these include many important political issues such as our regressive tax structures, minimum wages, health costs, and prices of energy, food, and housing—are twofold. First, this kind of action seems to be the only kind that has any hope of succeeding. But perhaps even more important, the experience of being a part of a collective effort of this nature has the effect of counteracting the ideological brainwashing that is all around us. Members of a large, seemingly heterogeneous group who act together—to win welfare rights, to win voting rights, to win recognition of a union, and, one hopes soon, to win lower utility and fuel prices, rent control, a more graduated and progressive tax structure, etc.—must necessarily see themselves as more similar to other members than different from them; as members of a group more than as individuals; as working against forces outside themselves rather than, as they have been constantly told, against imaginary internal defects that make them unworthy of a decent life. Ideology derives from experience, from actions and perceptions. Actions and experience, in turn can change ideology, which can then motivate greater and more effective action.
  That's as much of a prescription as I have now. We must act—together—to win—for each other—our fair share.