A Warm Summer Night To Think About Exploitation....
News can only travel so fast
when you live in the past,
like I do,
true blue
honest eagle
no lie, no pie
I am several oscillations
behind the vacillations
of the group consciousness
on any given day.
Today I read
An Open Letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists: On Black Death, Black Silencing, and Black Fugitivity
and also the response
An Open Letter to Supporters and Partners
published by the President,
and Executive Director of the Union for Concerned Scientists.
Firstly.... I did not consider that 60% of the dark side of *every job* I've ever had
could be summed up in terms of the culture of white supremacy.
Not that I necessarily disagree with Ruth,
but just saying... as a poverty-classed white lady
I just thought corporate and non-profit large-scale business
is inherently... a hell hole
by its own nature.
Based on the norms of free-market capitalism,
patriarchy, hierarchical thinking,
a lack of imagination for long-term strategy,
the drive of profit-motive, the American-styled 'Protestant work ethic'
and organizational/structural laziness
on the subject of what *diversity* actually *means*
in a lived, daily expression
*of everyone* individually
on the scale from macro to micro
personally to socially,
and from within *and* without [any] organization specifically,...
... it is specially constructed to suck out the passions, efforts,
ideas, energy, and the life of its employees (and volunteers)
in an unhealthy quid-pro-quo exchange.
I just took all of that for granted as a boring, inarguable fact.
But, then again... I'm white.
I experience the very same system as Ruth,
from a totally different paradigm.
To a similar *effect*
but through a different prism.
To me, Ruth's letter was framed by her experience
as a black woman,
and couched in direct language that attacks
(among other things)
the insensitive, ruthless, unprincipled,
demanding, superficial, and impersonal aspects
of accepted professional (white collar)
white-skinned, white supremacist culture.
But clearly... many of her complaints
are not [clearly] race-based at all...
but more the normalized culture
of toxic impersonal/depersonalized office professionalism.
The lack of personal leave time,
the expectation of the priority of work-over-personal time,
the lack of gratitude,
the lack of mentoring,
the preference for superficial short-term problem solving,
the lack of personal communication/relationship-building,
the culture of right answers/behavior are accepted without comment,
while "wrong" answers/behavior are strongly corrected,
for instance.
A culture where individuals are left to sink or swim...
where neither wins nor losses are shared... they are individualized
and often NOT laid at the feet
of the person
actually responsible.... but instead land on convenient scapegoats
or snatched by ambitious narcissists because naturally....
shit rolls downhill,
and gold stars get a free elevator ride.
A widespread culture where condescending paternalism is confused with
pursuing equity;
tokenism is redefined as diverse community engagement,
and where HR and supervisors can't recognize the difference between
inviting someone...
and actually *welcoming* them.
But.... isn't that almost every place I've ever worked?
That is all outside of the racist things she *also* describes.
And one thing that is clear in the Union of Concerned Scientists reply....
.... they are more interested in ensuring they give proper lip service
to the topics of racial diversity practices,
than they are truly reworking their culture.
Offering very few words
about the systemic problems
that are outside of her complaints about outright racism.
Which to me makes it clear,
that their words on racism
ARE, indeed.... just lip service.
If you can't take on the unconscious culture of transactional relationships
where your own organization thoughtlessly
and habitually treats people like production-based cogs,....
how are you going to combat the unconscious culture of RACISM,
systemically expecting staff [of particular skin tones]
to be the organization's diversity spokesmodels and/or scapegoats?
(for starters!)
The two behaviors are **related**,
they are both rooted in objectification.
Why IS objectification of staff with concurrent rights/benefits of personhood to the organization itself
tolerated in the American culture of employment?
Right now I am just thinking how much I hate the term
"Human Resources"....
Then again, it is 2am on an early Thursday morning....
and I'm just a lady on the internet
thinking about racism, capitalism, systematic institutional workplace conditioning,
and American business-style axiology, I guess.....
Really, what *is* keeping us from a moral deployment of ethical employment?
Why are "progressive" organizations that are specifically **about** helping people...
... having trouble committing themselves
to treating staff
as human individuals with diverse needs?
I probably just don't understand,
since I am not an executive... anything.
Yes,... that must be it.
Maybe someone will explain it to me.
when you live in the past,
like I do,
true blue
honest eagle
no lie, no pie
I am several oscillations
behind the vacillations
of the group consciousness
on any given day.
Today I read
An Open Letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists: On Black Death, Black Silencing, and Black Fugitivity
and also the response
An Open Letter to Supporters and Partners
published by the President,
and Executive Director of the Union for Concerned Scientists.
Firstly.... I did not consider that 60% of the dark side of *every job* I've ever had
could be summed up in terms of the culture of white supremacy.
Not that I necessarily disagree with Ruth,
but just saying... as a poverty-classed white lady
I just thought corporate and non-profit large-scale business
is inherently... a hell hole
by its own nature.
Based on the norms of free-market capitalism,
patriarchy, hierarchical thinking,
a lack of imagination for long-term strategy,
the drive of profit-motive, the American-styled 'Protestant work ethic'
and organizational/structural laziness
on the subject of what *diversity* actually *means*
in a lived, daily expression
*of everyone* individually
on the scale from macro to micro
personally to socially,
and from within *and* without [any] organization specifically,...
... it is specially constructed to suck out the passions, efforts,
ideas, energy, and the life of its employees (and volunteers)
in an unhealthy quid-pro-quo exchange.
I just took all of that for granted as a boring, inarguable fact.
But, then again... I'm white.
I experience the very same system as Ruth,
from a totally different paradigm.
To a similar *effect*
but through a different prism.
To me, Ruth's letter was framed by her experience
as a black woman,
and couched in direct language that attacks
(among other things)
the insensitive, ruthless, unprincipled,
demanding, superficial, and impersonal aspects
of accepted professional (white collar)
white-skinned, white supremacist culture.
But clearly... many of her complaints
are not [clearly] race-based at all...
but more the normalized culture
of toxic impersonal/depersonalized office professionalism.
The lack of personal leave time,
the expectation of the priority of work-over-personal time,
the lack of gratitude,
the lack of mentoring,
the preference for superficial short-term problem solving,
the lack of personal communication/relationship-building,
the culture of right answers/behavior are accepted without comment,
while "wrong" answers/behavior are strongly corrected,
for instance.
A culture where individuals are left to sink or swim...
where neither wins nor losses are shared... they are individualized
and often NOT laid at the feet
of the person
actually responsible.... but instead land on convenient scapegoats
or snatched by ambitious narcissists because naturally....
shit rolls downhill,
and gold stars get a free elevator ride.
A widespread culture where condescending paternalism is confused with
pursuing equity;
tokenism is redefined as diverse community engagement,
and where HR and supervisors can't recognize the difference between
inviting someone...
and actually *welcoming* them.
But.... isn't that almost every place I've ever worked?
That is all outside of the racist things she *also* describes.
And one thing that is clear in the Union of Concerned Scientists reply....
.... they are more interested in ensuring they give proper lip service
to the topics of racial diversity practices,
than they are truly reworking their culture.
Offering very few words
about the systemic problems
that are outside of her complaints about outright racism.
Which to me makes it clear,
that their words on racism
ARE, indeed.... just lip service.
If you can't take on the unconscious culture of transactional relationships
where your own organization thoughtlessly
and habitually treats people like production-based cogs,....
how are you going to combat the unconscious culture of RACISM,
systemically expecting staff [of particular skin tones]
to be the organization's diversity spokesmodels and/or scapegoats?
(for starters!)
The two behaviors are **related**,
they are both rooted in objectification.
Why IS objectification of staff with concurrent rights/benefits of personhood to the organization itself
tolerated in the American culture of employment?
Right now I am just thinking how much I hate the term
"Human Resources"....
Then again, it is 2am on an early Thursday morning....
and I'm just a lady on the internet
thinking about racism, capitalism, systematic institutional workplace conditioning,
and American business-style axiology, I guess.....
Really, what *is* keeping us from a moral deployment of ethical employment?
Why are "progressive" organizations that are specifically **about** helping people...
... having trouble committing themselves
to treating staff
as human individuals with diverse needs?
I probably just don't understand,
since I am not an executive... anything.
Yes,... that must be it.
Maybe someone will explain it to me.