In December 2013, Barack Obama declared that inequality is “the defining issue of our time” (Sargent 1). President Obama condemned national decline in economic mobility as a direct consequence of inequality, rather than lack of mobility itself.

In April 2014, Thomas Piketty released Capital in the 21^st Century, a six-hundred-page tome offering a general theory of capitalism. His theory proffered that capitalism will inevitably lead to ever-widening income inequality in the 21^st century as it did in 19^th century Europe. This rising inequality, Piketty argued, can only be addressed by immediate, heavy taxes on accumulated wealth.

Two months later, as Hillary Clinton traveled Europe promoting her memoir, Hard Choices, she agreed with Piketty, stating that “we have unbalanced our economy too much towards favoring capital and away from labor” (Haberman 1).

Even Pope Francis gave his input, adding a religious facet to inequality in a tweet in April 2014, “Inequality is the root of social evil” (Green 1). We must reject “the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation” or we will never find “a solution for the world’s problems, or for that matter, to any problems” (1).

Before I begin, I must admit that this particular book review pushed me to challenge my personal biases with pure, tangible, economic reasoning, and to engage in active introspection, to identify why I resist arguments against my racial privilege. I am white, male, and what economists term ‘economically disadvantaged.’ I grew up watching my mother forego haircuts or lunch for months at a time to provide my sisters and I with certain opportunities or a better meal. We had little money to spend on tutors or trainers or club fees, and each academic, athletic, and social progressive step we took was hard won. Thus, I grew up hard and proud in my labor, and in the power of discipline and focus and determination. I don’t feel privileged or lucky. Yet the undisputable reality is that despite my social class, my discipline, focus, and determination had such potential because of the color of my skin.

The Color of Wealth lays bare a dirty secret in terms the layman can understand: for the last two centuries, Americans of color have been barred by laws and discrimination from government wealth-building programs that benefit white Americans. Government policy and practice have been the driving force for racial wealth disparity in the United States since the country’s birth. Leveraging the collective histories of Native Americans, African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and White Americans with pure economic diction and calculation, the book shows how exploitation of people of color and programs providing resources to whites systematically established a United States in which wealth is controlled by the white majority.

The Color of Wealth is a collaboration among five women, all members of United for a Fair Economy (UFE), a non-partisan organization dedicated to challenging the concentration of wealth and power that corrupts democracy, deepens the racial divide and tears communities apart. Meizhu Lui is the executive director for UFE and has focused much of her work towards equality in Boston. Rose Brewer is a professor of African-American and African Studies at the University of Minnesota, with a Ph.D. from Indiana University. Barbara Robles received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Maryland, and writes frequently about Latino/a entrepreneurship, educational attainment, and consumer patterns. Betsey Leondar-Wright is UFE’s communications director and a long-time economic justice organizer and researcher. Lastly, Rebecca Adamson is founder and president of First Nation’s Development Institute and founder of First People’s Worldwide, lending her voice and experiences as a Cherokee.

Our authors tactfully broach the mammoth topic of the racial divide of held wealth with some simple economics. Government policies aimed to improve the end-distribution outcome for dis-enfranchised individuals do little to provide equal opportunity or even open the door to access a different mode of life. The key term is wealth, specifically financial wealth. Wealth is defined as economic assets, including real estate, cars, cash, stocks, pension, businesses, and anything else that can be readily converted to cash. “Income feeds your stomachs, but assets changes your head” (8). That is, individuals act differently when they have a cushion of assets to strategize around important opportunities in life. When an individual must live from paycheck-to-paycheck, they are forced to think about how they’ll make the next day. But when an individual has a set of resources that allows them to think about their future in a positive way, they can strategize about the future, create and take advantage of opportunity. From the outset, the inductive reasoning is simple and relatable, yet with powerful implications.

The Color of Wealth then offers a brief lay-man’s history of household, American historical events and policies that contributed to enormous racial divide. Ranging from government regulations ranging from the 1849 California Gold Rush to Operation Bootstrap and American-Japanese treatment in the 1950’s. In addition, over the last fifty years, the American economy has trended towards providing huge returns on held wealth– disproportionate to returns on income. Thus, the rich get richer at a far greater rate than the poor gain wealth. Our authors argue that government policies, rather than systemized racism among the populace, played the largest role in the intense racial divide. The economy is not Adam Smith’s invisible hand that operates by its own natural laws. It’s a human creation that embodies racial power differences, both caused by and causing discriminatory government policies and individual interactions. By making full restitution to marginalized groups, both whites and people of color will benefit. They argue: “By making a distinction between modest transformative assets and huge fortunes swollen by exploitation even the firmest critics of capitalism can get behind the goal of asset building for all” (29). This formulate listing of government policies designed to repress people of color offers a powerful and humbling series for one like myself, who has studied each of these events in a white classroom, rather than one that considers the marginalization. Their breadth and applicability of their argumentation positions them in the end-distribution arguments of John Rawls and Robert Nozick, contending that a balance of end-distribution (income affecting) policies with policies that offer opportunity can only change the United States’ racial divide—not just one or the other.

Our authors then launch into an analysis of the history of government obstacles to asset building for Native-American, African-American, Latino, and Asian-American people, and then of government boosts to asset building for white people. One of their most powerful examples considers the enslavement of African-Americans, and the enormous benefits of African-American dis-enfranchisement to the rise of America as a super power. Without slave labor, our authors argue, it is unlikely there would have been a successful textile industry. The business profits made off of enslavement were thereby transmitted across generations. Building those great industries on the back of slave labor certainly opened up a space for the incorporation of the white working class, and ultimately the building of the white middle class, followed by a white elite. So whether you were an owner of slaves or not, the process of building this country under conditions of racism and white supremacy opened up a space for all whites—a space ultimately denied to people of color.

So what can we do to close the racial gap? Our authors tell us. The immediate focus ought to be on education. Education has been an important tool in creating white advantage. “It was a crime to teach African slaves to read and write; Latinos have been disadvantaged by English-only classrooms; Native Americans were forced to assimilationist school settings and Asians had to sue to go to school with the whites” (293). [Truly] free public universities will result in a well-educated populace—the very cornerstone of democracy. Subsidized and readily available English classes will allow non-English immigrants enormous upward mobility.

The federal government, too, ought to use public resources to create “wealth-builder starter kits” for marginalized groups (300). These policies fall under four strategies: asset accumulation, asset leveraging policies, asset creation, and asset preservation. Universal will healthcare protects income and assets, as even just one uninsured health issue can wipe out several years of saving.

The Color of Wealth proposes small “trust funds” or “baby bonds” for each new born, where taxes from the wealthy match yearly contributions made by parents, to be available for withdrawal when the child reaches age eighteen. These funds will provide social and financial opportunities for young adults, eager to advance realize their life’s goals. However, social and fiscal capital will not facilitate this realization. The United States needs an “activist government” that invests in people and communities from the bottom up” (306). Trickle-down economics does not work. For example, at the rate of improvement in black income compared to white income, it would take 581 years to reach parity (308). Each of these structures and mechanisms should be paid for via progressive taxation, where those with greater income are taxed at higher rates than those with less financial means. Yet, they write, each of these efforts is ultimately futile unless America takes a step forward in changing public consciousness and recognize that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is not a law of nature, but a man-made choice (312).

The weakest facet of the unifying argument The Color of Wealth’s authors provide is contained in the last chapter, as they present a paradigm on which rests their proposed policy changes. The paradigm is explained via a quote by W.E.B. Dubois, “To be a poor man is hard. But to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardship” (288). Our authors boldly claim that the “economic and social problems in our society today are not caused by poverty per se” but by the “growing inequality between the have-too-muches and the do-not-haves” (300). Thus, their preference would be to systematize poverty rather than increase mobility through the presence of inequality.

Our authors provide an example: “But if your little dinghy is stuck in the mud and Queen Elizabeth comes sailing by and will not stop to give you a lift, then your situation becomes unbearable” (288). Yet this logic seems flawed. The mere fact that ‘Queen Elizabeth’ chooses not to help us is not inherently unjust—in fact, we benefit from her tech companies’ research and advances and her medical research and new cures. Our situation becomes unjust if Queen Elizabeth uses her capital to keep us stuck in the mud, and manipulates the macro-weapons of American politics and the American media to her own advantage.

Thomas Piketty’s theory follows identical reasoning, with a proposed progressive tax on wealth of five to ten percent for billionaires, two percent for people worth five million Euros or more, and one percent for millionaires; on top of a marginal, confiscatory tax rate of 80%. “If one follows Piketty in assuming a normal return on capital of 4% for the 21st century, a 10% tax on wealth is equivalent to a 250% tax on the resulting capital income. Combined with the 80% income tax, taxpayers would face effective tax rates of up to 330%” (Homburg 1401). This is not surprising, since Piketty, like Lui, Robles, Brewer, Leondar-Wright, and Adamson, argue that the high return on capital in the United States “inextricably intertwines” with “outright theft” (Piketty 446). If we assume criminals face one hundred percent taxation of ill-gotten gains, his favored tax rates are not far off. Unfortunately, this would be next to impossible to uphold at a national level as the rich will inevitably switch to income in untaxable forms.

In addition, The Color of Wealth does not seem to account for the moral dilemma of behavioral economics, namely free-loading or human vice. For example, among the asset leveraging policies our authors advocate for, rotating savings and credit associations (ROCSA) play a vital role. ROCSAs provide funds to be utilized by immigrant households in order to start a small business, purchase a home, or pay for a child’s education. A ROCSA requires participants to pay in a monthly sum agreed upon by the group, to be available to participants to make a request to borrow of the month’s pool of money at any time, withdrawal-tax-and interest-free. This continues until all members have had access to the funds. “The system is based on trust and social pressure. Thus, if members do not return the money at some point, their reputation in the community is tainted, something they are not usually willing to risk” (301). A system based on trust and social pressure seems far too utopian. Immigrants from different religions and ethnicities inevitably stem from different cultures and customs with widely differing mores and social values. A central tenant of modern economics is that individuals will act in self-interest. Utilitarian judgements in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Thomas Murray, in his 2012 Coming Apart, notes the rapid rise of consumer bankruptcies declared within the U.S. as a sign of changing stigmas—where the shame of being unable to repay debts, living outside of your means, or living off welfare no longer exists. Consumer bankruptcies now account for fully 97% of bankruptcies filed in the United States.

Closing the racial economic gap in the United States is not just about dividing the pie into fair shares. The Color of Wealth presents it well: American economy is not a zero-sum game, in which some must lose so that others win and society advances. True progress can only be achieved if we tap the innovative spirit and cultural contributions of people of color, as well as those with white skin. In his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize address, Dr. Martin Luther King noted, “There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that now we have the techniques and resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will” (312). As the twenty-first century progresses, America can choose to increase her consciousness or stiffen her will. We must develop a shared understanding of the roots of the divisions, before we can understand how to overcome them. For me, that means putting aside bias and opening my mind to consider and join the fight for worlds outside my own.

 

Works Cited

 

Green, Emma. The Atlantic: “The Pope Tweeted That ‘Inequality is the Root of Social Evil’: Big

Deal?” 2014 April 29. Web. Accessed November 2016.

Haberman, Maggie. Politico: “Clinton: Piketty Right on Labor.” 2014 July 8. Web. Accessed

November 2016 2016.

Homburg, Stefan. Applied Economics: “Critical Remarks on Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-

            First Century.” Accessed November 2016.

Lui, Mezhui. The Color of Wealth. New York Press: New York, 2006. Print. Accessed

November 2016.

Krulick, Al. “Bankruptcy Statistics.” Debt.org. Web. Accessed November 2016.

Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the 21^st Century. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2014. Print. Accessed

November 2016.

Sargent, Greg. The Washington Post: “Inequality is ‘the defining issue of our time.’” 2013

December 4. Accessed November 2016.

Stefan Moskowitz
Gonzalez
GSS 101
October 29, 2016

Singled out: how singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored and still live happily ever after

Until rather recently, the purpose of marriage was to reinforce or elevate one’s social status, to seek political power, to acquire property, to have the family name be carried on from generation to generation or any combination of these. Around the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century, Marriage started becoming more associated with love and emotional attachment, which helped establish the notion that a successful marriage was the most important relationship that one could have in their lifetime. Until then, relatives and friends often played a larger role in shaping the well-being and happiness of someone than their spouse, and very few were self-conscious of this (DePaulo, 22 & 23). As the purpose of marriage shifted, those who chose to participate in the institution obtained certain privileges that were unavailable to those who did not, a practice referred to as singlism. Because being single is not perceived as an inherent quality such as race or sexuality, single people are marginalized through productive power much more so than through repressive power, the ism much less frowned upon than others such as racism or sexism and because of this, many feel that it is acceptable to practice singlism explicitly and publicly.

The book Singled Out: how singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored and still live happily ever after by Bella DePaulo attempts to deconstruct singlism and to make it clear that it is completely unacceptable, especially in the 21st century when many other isms are very much frowned upon and when an increasingly larger portion of the US population is delaying marriage or is choosing not to marry at all. She makes a clear distinction between singlism from government that enables married people to pay fewer taxes and receive each other’s social security benefits, and singlism in “everyday life” where “marriage and coupling are indistinguishable” (DePaulo, 26). To do this she uses methods such as reanalyzing and debunking statistics that support the notion that marriage helps increase happiness and well-being through the identification of logical fallacies such as pointing out the distinction between correlation and causation, as well as recapping interviews of famous people where singlism is clearly present.

At the time the book was published, Bella DePaulo was a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she is now a project scientist. Her past and current professional activities that are most relevant to the studies of single people and singlism include being the Chair of the Academic Advisory Board of the American Association for Single People, a fellow for the Council on Contemporary Families, a member of the Advisory Board for an organization titled Single-Woman.tv, a member of the Board of Advisors, Single Edition, and a Single Workers Topic Page Editor for the Sloan Work and Family Network. She also received the Excellence in Research award from the American Association of Single People in 2003 (DePaulo, 1 & 3). Some of her later publications on singlism address the psychology of modern discrimination, why some people view singlism as a legitimate prejudice, and the differences between how singles are perceived “compared to those who are in romantic relationships” (DePaulo). This last publication shows that DePaulo wants to actively broaden our understanding of singlism, to also include the discrimination of those who are not in a romantic relationship in addition to those who are not legally married.

To debunk the myth that marriage leads to greater happiness, DePaulo uses the analogy of a fictitious drug study that is flawed on many fronts. The four groups that the study examines include a set of individuals called the drug group that take the drug for the entire experiment, a no-drug group (who never take the drug), a group that begins taking the drug but voluntarily stops taking it who are given the title of no drug – intolerable, and one that begins taking the drug but have it taken away from them at a certain point who are labeled as no drug – withdrawn. The categories of people that DePaulo is representing are people who get married and stay married, people who do not marry , people who get married but then divorce and those who get married but later become widowed, respectively. At the end of the experiment, people from all groups answer the question “Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are these days?” “People who say they are “very happy” get a happiness score of 4; those who are “pretty happy” get a score of 3; people who are “not too happy” are assigned a 2; and people who say they are “not at all happy” are scored as 1. The average scores are 3.3 for the drug group, 3.2 for the no drug group, 2.9 for the no drug – intolerable group, and 2.9 for the no drug – withdrawn group.” It shows that taking the drug does not necessarily make people happier, as those in the no drug – intolerable group and those in the no drug – withdrawn group scored lower than those who never took the drug because either the drug was making them less happy or because they felt deprived from not taking it. The difference between the drug and the no drug group was one-tenth of a point, making it difficult to claim that the drug would make a significant difference in their happiness. Perhaps the people in the drug group were already happier before taking the drug than those in the no drug group, which would mean that the drug made no difference whatsoever (DePaulo, 30 – 33). It is also possible that the people in the drug group were convinced that the drug would make them happier and thus they became happier as a result, known as the placebo effect (medicinenet.com).

DePaulo also refers to the imposition of the mentality that singles only care about themselves by referring to when Chris Wallace interviewed Ralph Nader during the 2000 presidential race, asking him if Bush had a “more mature lifestyle” than Nader because he was married and had raised two daughters (DePaulo, 127). Even after Nader had replied that “he had contributed to the health and safety of children nationwide” through advocating for cleaner water, more nutritious food, safer cars, etc. as well as citing Bush’s own words by stating that “Until he was forty, he was young and irresponsible,” Matthews kept insinuating that because Bush was married and Nader was not, he was more mature (DePaulo, 127 & 128). The more implicit message behind this example, is that singlism distracted the focus of the interview, which should have instead been centered on the differences between the platforms, experience, and voting records of the candidates, all of which are directly relevant to the presidency.

Although DePaulo briefly mentions the differences in how single people with different social identities are treated (DePaulo, 5), there is a lack of examination of the intersectionality between these social identities such as with being single and being a person of color, being female, having a lower income and/or education level, etc. While I completely acknowledge that no ism is better than any other, I believe that only people of a more advantaged positionality have the privilege to believe that singlism is the cause of their oppression. The intersectionality between race, gender, and marital status is especially pervasive amongst black women. The controlling image of a single black woman as either being a dominating matriarch or being a welfare mom regardless of whether she chooses to have children who has a different combination of race and gender (Collins, 270). Although DePaulo did mention that Ronald Reagan aggravated the American public’s image of the Welfare Queen as president (DePaulo, 169), she misinterpreted it is as something discriminatory of single mothers, when in fact it was mainly targeted at single black women. She also neglected to address that one reason for why many black women are single is because black men have one of the highest incarceration rates out of any other group in the US. Leaving race aside, there is no discussion of how language shapes our perceptions of positionality. For example, there is no married variant to the male prefix “Mr.” but the distinction is present when it comes to female prefixes. Another distinction in how single women and single men are treated that the book does not consider is that society often perceives single women as much more lonely and needy than single men, in part because few women attended college or entered the labor force until the 1960’s.

Some of the texts that DePaulo references speak about singlism mainly as a symptom of sexism against women, particularly from the idea that single women attempt to disrupt the patriarchial model that women should help make men complete (Glick and Fiske 109), whereas Singled Out attempts to universalize the prejudice to also include men and single people regardless of their gender. Her lack of regard for gender in many chapters helps establish the notion that singlism should be dealt with in isolation to other forms of discrimination. Another text that DePaulo references addresses the questions of whether stigma awareness and analysis of past experiences that are specific to singlism help boost one’s self-esteem, particularly among women, ultimately concluding that the former has a slight positive effect on self-esteem but that the ladder does not (Morris). Several of Singled Out’s chapter titles are directed toward people of different social identities within the spectrum of single people. DePaulo thereby implies disagreement with these conclusions, as she uses stigma awareness to prove that single people can be just as successful and happy as those who are married or who are in a committed relationship. Jill Reynolds and Margaret Wetherell discuss the idea of compulsory heterosexuality, which cause many women to view being in a romantic relationship with a man as necessary (Reynolds and Wetherell, 490). While they frame this as something that mainly targets women, DePaulo expands this to include everyone by showing a study that concluded that 55 percent of unmarried people were not in a committed relationship nor did they want to be in one (DePaulo, 84).

While I completely agree that prejudice against single people should not be tolerated from any standpoint, I have a fundamental problem with DePaulo’s framing of the issue as an ism. Apart from some financial drawbacks, DePaulo was unable to prove that there are significant material effects to being single. Furthermore, there was no mention of subconscious implicit biases that are universally rooted in our society when it comes to the discrimination of single people, unlike those that cause many to favor some races and genders over others. Part of the reason for why this may be the case is because it is impossible to know whether someone is single just by looking at them in isolation. Some demographics that Singled Out would appeal to include anyone who has not ever been in a relationship and who feels self-conscious about it, anyone who is in a relationship but is not married and who is over a certain age, say 35, as well as anyone who is in a cohabiting relationship but who is not legally married. The book was published in the year 2006, at a time when people were marrying, having children, and entering the workforce at a later median age, which suggests that the stigma against single people was already on the decline. Today, this is even more so the case as rising living costs have made it harder for millennials to purchase housing near where they work (if in fact they do have a stable source of income), thus incentivizing them to live with their parents or with several roommates. Rising college attendance rates, increasing student debt, and more advanced degrees per capita have all helped exacerbate this trend.

References

DePaulo, Bella M. Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored and Still Live Happily Ever after. New York: St. Martin’s, 2006. Print.

DePaulo, Bella M. “DePaulo VITA May 2015.” belladepaulo.com N.p., n.d. Web. Jan. 2015. 27 Oct. 2016.http://www.belladepaulo.com/about-bella-depaulo/social-scientist-phd-harvard/

DePaulo, Bella M. “Scholarly Papers.” belladepaulo.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2016. http://www.belladepaulo.com/singles-research-writing/scholarly-papers/

“Definition of Placebo Effect.” medicinenet.com. N.p., 13 May 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31481

Collins, Patricia Hill. “Controlling Images of Black Women’s Oppression.” N.p., n.d. 29 Oct. 2016.

Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. “An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Belevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality.” www.sanchezlab.com. N.p., Feb. 2001. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/GlickFiske1.pdf

Reynolds, Jill, and Margaret Wetherell. “Discursive Climate of Singleness: The Consequences of Women’s Negotiation of a Single Identity.” http://fap.sagepub.com. N.p., 11 Sept. 2003. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://fap.sagepub.com/content/13/4/489.full.pdf+html

Morris, Wendy Lynn. “Effects of Stigma Awareness on the Self-Esteem of Singles.” http://libraprod.lib.virginia.edu. University of Virginia Library, 2005. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://libraprod.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:5282

“Our dreams have become so small.” Karma Chávez concludes her book with this quote from trans activist Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore. Chávez’s Queer Migration Politics, is an attempt to widen the horizons of our current possibilities when it comes to both LGBTQ activism and migration politics. Chávez begins by outlining a brief history of the American political climate towards both members of the LGBTQ community and migrant populations. She points out that in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, George H. W. Bush signed “what was known as ‘homosexual exclusion’” which essentially meant that those who were HIV/AIDS positive, were not permitted to migrate into the U.S.[1] At the same time that this multitude of issues was bubbling up in the American consciousness, so was the movement of LGBTQ activists to try and bring attention to the AIDS epidemic, and in doing so, gave “greater significance in defining a national gay and lesbian political agenda focused on rights and inclusion.”[2] As Deborah B. Gould points out, the AIDS epidemic shaped the “emotional habitus of the LGBTQ community and essentially led activists of the time to, “suppress more confrontational rhetoric and activism that it might compromise their social acceptability.” [3] Thus, the LGBTQ activists of the early nineties were forced to work within existing American frameworks. In the same way that queer activism became centered around “respectability” of members of the LGBTQ community, migration politics in the United States has also become centered around who is “worthy” of citizenship. Chávez in her work, points out how legislation like the DREAM Act, excludes migrants who do not fall into these categories of exceptionalism. Furthermore, so much of migration politics rhetoric has centered around upholding familial values, standards that could only be upheld by heterosexual couples. So as both groups attempt to grapple with standards of respectability and the current discriminatory climate in America, Chávez offers unique perspectives on how these two groups may be able to coalesce to overturn current power dynamics, and create a higher standard of living for everyone.

Before we dig into the content of Chávez’s argument, it is important to have some understanding of the author. Karma R. Chávez is a former assistant professor of Communication Arts and Chican@ and Latin@ Studies at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and now teaches at the University of Texas- Austin. In her introduction, she notes her sense that queerness, “not only refers to a kind of critique and to non- or anti- normative genders and sexualities, but it also implies what is possible for making lives livable.”[4]  One of the reasons I really loved this book is Chávez’s acknowledgment of multiple identities that people can assumed, particularly of those she observes in her work. Also, how these intermeshed identities take shape in the form of politics and experience. Chávez employs a mainly qualitative approach. This is evident by her accounts in Arizona and the comparison she draws between CDH and Wingspan- two different activist organizations. She also makes many references to laws and different activist responses in this piece, signifying her knowledge of legal frameworks and the social push back to these laws.

In order to understand her argument fully, we must understand where this book falls in the greater scholarly conversation. Her work is grounded in the larger field of migration studies, which expands on the important thinking done by feminist scholars on gender and migration. She points towards scholars such as Oliva Espín, Mary Romero, Pierette Hondagneu- Sotelo and Lynn Fujiwara, who shifted the focus from the male migrant experience, to the experiences of women, “negotiating the US immigration system.” [5] However, their work still left out the experiences of queer migrants. Eithne Luibhéid, she notes, tries to bring to light the experiences of queer migrant populations, and many other scholars expand on this work in the late 1990s and early 2000s.[6] Chávez notes that even with the increasing scholarship around the aforementioned issues,  few scholars have really investigated “how migration politics and activism are connected to queer politics and activism.”[7] However, scholars such as Dean Spade, Jasbir K. Puar, and Lisa Duggan, who all examine queerness in a more global context, have contributed greatly to Chávez’s theory and thinking.[8] Chávez’s studies also pay homage to the scholarship of Monisha Das Gupta and Amy L. Brandzel, whose work is dedicated to rethinking the notion of belonging and citizenship for queer migrants. [9]

It is drawing on the work of other scholars and her own observations, that Chávez makes a compelling argument about queer migration policies.  She comes out boldly stating that we need to redraw the lines of the groups we belong to, and create more space for difference in the groups that make up our identity. She states that by rethinking belonging, “individuals reveal that the divisions upheld and promoted within hegemonic constructions of belonging that put, for example, racialized minorities against sexual minorities are not natural.” [10] Essentially, Chávez uses the majority of this book to express that as humans we exist within a set of interlocking oppressions. Thus, oppression that exists in one group should be the concern of another group of oppressed people. She explains that LGBTQ migrants “are invisible within both movements because the migrant rights movement places undue emphasis on heteronormative family relationships and the LGBTQ movement focuses on partners of US citizens.” [11] Thus, it becomes crucial to rethink affiliation with either group, unless these two groups can coalesce to make life better for all. Chávez uses the majority of the second chapter to highlight one particular activist, Yasmin Nair, who is a queer, migrant, woman of color theorist. She works to expose discriminatory measures towards migrants based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and the how the economic system in America exploits the immigrant population. [12]  Nair rejects the idea of promoting individual stories from both the LGBTQ and migrant community, and argues that putting one LGBTQ migrant’s personal story on display in a sense exploits the human and becomes a question of, “whose story can be melodramatically effective?”[13]  Chávez uses Nair as a prime example of an activist who is attempting to rewrite the boundaries of identity and create more expansive areas of belonging.

Since the majority of Chávez’s book is how to effectively build these coalitions across difference, Chávez takes a more in depth look at coalitions around migrant and LGBTQ rights that have already been established. Chávez asserts an interesting analysis of “coming out of the closet” and “coming out of the shadows”- the rhetoric that is normally associated with LGBTQ rights and migrant rights, respectively. She notes that many migrant rights groups have employed the tactic of “coming out as undocumented” not only as an act of empowerment, but also as a rhetorical reference to many LGBTQ activists, who have pronounced their unapologetic pride in their identities. However, as Chávez points out, this idea “reduces the work of challenging marginalization to the private individual.”[14] In essence, the work of individuals, while rhetorically effective in many cases isn’t enough.

She then turns her focus towards examining the relationship between two Arizona groups, Wingspan and Coalición de Derechos Humanos (CDH), an LGBTQ activist organization and a migration rights organization respectively. She highlights the challenges and benefits of forming this coalition across difference. For one, these organizations can pool their resources together to increase the effect of each group. However, Chávez notes the natural challenges of coalescing two seemingly disparate efforts. Wingspan is described as predominantly white whereas CDH is predominantly Latino. Chávez comes to realize that the CDH ends up doing the majority of grassroots organizing in this coalition, citing Geovanna (Wingspan’s breast health educator at the time) who noted, “white people in her organization use large words but neglect action.” Moreover, Chávez contends that CDH doing more grass roots organizing is a matter of race and class.[15] Chávez further highlights the challenges of coalescing across difference by noting the CDH’s alignment with the Catholic Church in Arizona. The Catholic Church is in partnership with CDH because of the Christian belief to welcome the stranger and help the poor. However, the Catholic Church is also very outspoken about their beliefs towards homosexual couples. The pre-existing alignment presents challenges for the tenuous alliance between CDH and Wingspan.[16] Although this coalition is a good start towards rethinking the boundaries of belonging, Chávez indicates that it is obviously flawed.  Furthermore, she mentions that the coalition barely exists now or only when it is politically expedient, saying, “the existence of a relationship with Wingspan is simply assumed… when it is necessary to respond to something or to take action.” [17]

Overall, I appreciate the contents and arguments of the book. Chávez is certainly a dreamer. The biggest strength of her argument is her dedication to seeing possibilities instead of barriers, in the face of difference. As she puts it, “Dissonance fosters acute awareness, though sometimes without clear direction for movement from the awkward tension.”[18] However, one major weakness I see in her argument is the precariousness of the coalition she seeks to build. Her research is focused on the work of two organizations, who in three years after she completed her research in 2007, were no longer in a working relationship. Moreover, when these two organizations were working together, there was debate about whether or not they were a coalition in “name only.” [19] Chávez does a great job of pointing out the problems within this seemingly flimsy coalition, but does not offer other examples of how to coalesce more effectively.  This book is mainly meant to be read by other scholars and activists, who strive to make universal human rights a reality for all people. It should be read by activists that are looking to expand their platforms; but since there is no example of effective coalition building, her utopian thinking does not seem to lend itself to practical solutions.

Overall, I was a huge fan of this book and the lengths Chavez went to write it. While I remain frustrated by the lack of concrete examples of effective coalitions in this realm, I believe that this ineffectiveness is more likely due to the current political climate in America. Yes, most of her argument is impractical and requires utopian thinking, but Chávez’s bold declaration that we can be much more than we have been, and that our boundaries of belonging can be more expansive is an inspiring thought. Queer Migration Politics is a proud pronouncement of ways the oppressed can reclaim their power, in an American culture that demands “respectability” and “worthiness” to access. However, the beginning of this pronouncement must begin in the grass- “the dirt and concrete where people live, work, and play.” [20] As she puts it, “I hope Queer Migrations can be part of what changes the size of our dreams.” [21] I do too.

[1] Karma R. Chávez, Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities (Champaign: University of Illinois, 2013), 1

[2] ibid, 2

[3] Deborah B. Gould, Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight Against AIDS (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2009), 63-64

[4] Karma R. Chavez, Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities (Champaign: University of Illinois, 2013), 6

[5] ibid, 10

[6] ibid, 11

[7] ibid, 12

[8] ibid, 12

[9] ibid, 13

[10] ibid, 27

[11] ibid, 45

[12] ibid, 52-54

[13] ibid, 62

[14] ibid, 96

[15] ibid, 139

[16] ibid, 136

[17] ibid, 143

[18] ibid, 136

[19] ibid, 140

[20] ibid, 7

[21] ibid, 150