|
so what you're saying, loquitor, is that because you took on debt to go to law school that therefore the american class system and all its ramifications are hunky dory? so poorer folk who find themselves in a legal conflict *deserve* lower-quality representation because you took on debt to go to law school?
and do you really think that legal representation is like meat or shoes?
i dont get it.
your argument could be turned another way: the debt accumulated to get through the american university system is coercive and one of the indices of that coercion is your acquiescence to the structure of inequality the system produces...because that debt forced you to make choices and those choices have shaped your view and so in that sense your outlook is basically a consequence of having endured the coercion that educational debt exerts on all who take it on after the fun of university is over. at the same time, because your experience is your experience, you naturalize the elements that forced your hand at critical moments--and so now you see the class structure as neutral, have a moralizing interpretation of your own trajectory (which is symmetrical with the neutralization of the class structure as political question)--with the result that you see your own services as a consumer option. like meat. or shoes.
so someone who is not you could read off from your narrative a set of reasons why the way educational debt produces consent for the existing political order--in which case, the political issue might end up being the system that relies on that debt...
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|