In Conversation: Karen E. Fields and Barbara J. Fields
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 бер 2013
- Sociologist Karen E. Fields and historian Barbara J. Fields discuss their new book Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life with political analyst Adolph Reed.
This event took place at the Brooklyn Museum Thursday, October 25, 2012
Audio is awful but these three are doing desperately needed work. Swimming against the current but bless them for sticking with it. If i were an elderly academic and had to listen to upstarts calling me a class reductionist all day, i'd probably throw in the towel.
I don't think this has been levied upon the Field sisters.
They are pretty levelheaded in their approach of showing the intersections of class and race, and I have seen as much in their talks at the SOCIALISM conference in Chicago.
Adolph Reed does engage in this often to the detriment of his argument.
Dr. Fields did bring up how class and race intertwine at the beginning of the talk.
8:08
@@jonathanneal1319 It's often leveled against them by intersectionalismists
I wish you could hear them better!!!!
Great discussion. I suggest turning down the volume to better hear the video.
"The problem with Dr. Wellsing's ontology is that it's, well, that it's false" the GOAT.
worst.audio.ever
Sad because there's so little video of the Fields out there. Anyone able to clean up those sharp s's and republish this?
Greg Fisher understands
Yes, this is the creme dela creme. They are on an entirely different level intellectually than other scholars that I have come across who are experts on this topic. The masters.
indeed . . .
The sound guy had one job…
Yeah.... it woulda been so easy. I mean...am I listening to a recording from a room mic picking up sound reinforcement INSIDE the space? Or am I getting a random room mic just because the on stage mics didn't work? uuuuughhhhhh.
Why isn't Adolph Reed included in the video title? It would have made things easier in searching for his pieces on -line.
Kind of makes me think of the question some people also ask about dogs, why certain dogs bark at black people? how come some dogs are racist? And of course the answer is they aren't racist because dogs have no conception or understanding of race or the importance of the hue of a person's skin color to other humans.
1) racism is a social pracice, it is a double standard based on ancestry. 2) racecraft is everywhere and involves everyone 3) racecraft intimately bound up with inequality
(referring to the question at the 1:23:30 mark) Clearly Dr. Welsing (may peace be upon her), understood that genetics (nature) does not drive human behavior (nurture), rather provides a platform to for us to understand how/why humans react (nurture) to genetic expressions (nature).
There is no biological determination for being "black, white, asian," etc.. All scientific attempts to prove the biological origins of race rely on finding statistical correlations between natural essences and physical attributes. Bigger earlobes, properties and condition of testicles, features of the brain, hair texture, DNA sequences, concentration of melanin in the skin, etc. cannot count as causalities, even if there were correlations within the group under investigation. That is because in order to prove a cohesion, one has to find not only a formal coherence of phenomena, but one with regards to contents. After all, high quantities of men with white beard and red coats around Christmas Eve do not prove that Santa Clause brings the presents. Racism is a specifically societal thing, and it's modern in origin; therefore it is just wrong to look for biological determinants or explanations. It also doesn't help to say nature "provides a platform".
This argument you've made is a common and modern extension of the gene debate, which says that there is a complex interplay of environmental and biological aspects. So, according to this theory, there is a genetic ‘disposition’ which then meets or strikes social ‘factors’. Following that line of thought, one does not have to and also cannot prove anything. The origins of social environments and individual dispositions are mutually referring to each other: What fails to find biological answers, needs to be explained environmentally and vice versa. This way, human thought, decision, and action plays no role whatsoever in searching causes for any human habit. It let's the real sorting of human material that takes place by governments off the hook.
In my view, this is the classic nature vs. nurture premise to “take down” Dr. F.C. Welsings’ work. Why would a clinically trained psychiatrist formulate a “nature vs. nurture” argument that uplifts “nature” as the absolute rationale for human behavior? Isn’t this antithetical to psychiatry as a field?
Not at all, actually. Don’t confuse psychology with psychiatry; they’re actually very different fields of study, where the only sub-field of psych that’s even close to being analogous with psychiatry is clinical psychology, and even then, these are hardly synonymous.
(Answering that last question btw, idk about the first part of your comment, I’m not familiar with that person or their work, but I’ll look into it. I’m just saying, your comment seems to indicate a misunderstanding of psychiatry.)
@@nikolademitri731 Psychiatry is pseudomedicine. But most psychologists depend on the DSM, the "psychiatric bible." to get paid. You can't bill insurance without a code.
2) Both Dr. Adolph Reed (non-scientist) and Dr. Barbara J. Fields (non-scientist) inaccurately categorized Dr. Welsings (scientist) work as genetics propelling human behavior patterns. Essentially, asserting that since “race” is a social construct and by accepting this construct, Dr. F.C. Welsings’ theory is moot.
Race is a social construct.
They’re absolutely CORRECT
psychiatry is no more or less ”scientific” than the sociopolitical sciences. Just an fyi.
@@tmsphere To be clear, are you claiming that a medical degree is NOT a "scientific" credential?
Oh, well that clarifies absolutely nothing, thanks for pointing that out.