Response

ICIs move through space as gendered and racialized bodies, and they face very similar threats and challenges whether they are in Kingston or Miami. After reading Ulysse and seeing the end of the film last week, I’m tempted to say they face a much higher threat of violence in Jamaica—especially in downtown Kingston—but do they really? Is the violence just more out in the open there, or is it actually a more violent place? The tendency to envision the U.S. as a safe haven, and the fact that it isn’t necessarily so makes me question whether it’s really any safer here for a black person, regardless of gender. Isn’t the performance of “tuffness”, on some level, universal for lower class women, who have to navigate spaces middle and upper class ladies do not, and especially so for black women? Ulysse describes the tuffness the women of downtown must embody, referring to it as “protective shields.” It’s a distinctly unfeminine performance, which further pushes these women away from the status of “lady.”

            Massey discusses the way fears about time-space compression tend to represent a Western, colonizer’s perspective intrigued me not only because many white Americans probably never think about the way “American culture” is exported to other countries and simply accept or assume that it’s the dominant or most desirable culture, but also because, by importing clothes and products (brands?) popular in the U.S., the ICIs are also importing American culture—or at least, aspects of it. According to Ulysse, they buy and sell what the customers want. Their primary concerns are getting a good deal on what they buy and getting a good profit on what they sell. Nikes sell, apparently, but why do they sell? And how do Jamaicans incorporate American clothing/brands into their own styles of dress and presentation—which obviously changes depending on class and location.

            Massey asserts that place and community are not necessarily linked, that is, being in the same place does not automatically create a community, and places are experienced differently by those in them. The ICIs clearly have a community, and I wonder how much of that has to do with place. They are, it seems, pretty much all in the same place or traveling to and from the same places. Some of them travel together. They sell near or next to one another. It seems, from Ulysee’s descriptions, that experiencing the same places has helped develop their sense of community. Massey also says that “mobility and control over mobility, both reflects and reinforces power,” which I think supports the idea that ICIs are a threat to the established order. Their movement in and out of various countries, between “the cracks”, at times, across class lines, and across the line between the informal and formal economy (those few who are or have been particularly successful, the ones who have opened stores, etc.) makes the boundaries of race, class, and gender appear unfixed.

            ICIs are not wage laborers or wage workers, but rather, they chose to enter their trade as a way of escaping the constraints of wage labor. They accept that not all of them can be successful, and many stay in the trade despite not being particularly successful (by not particularly, I mean, they don’t seem to become wealthy) because it’s better than working for someone else. But because their activities are labeled “informal”, doesn’t that make them non-workers? I’m actually unsure how to link or apply Mohanty’s chapter to them because they aren’t doing “invisible” work in their homes, being pushed into a “temporary” worker category in a factory, or doing unpaid labor in a family business.