Race, Space, and "Common Sense" in America

The main thread that held my attention throughout this week's readings was the concept of "common sense." Omi and Winant state that "race becomes 'common sense'--a way of comprehending, explaining, and acting in the world" (60). Race is definitely a lens through which we understand and interact with the world, but if spatial imaginaries differ based on racial identity and experience(s), then does a "common sense" ever exist? Is the only constant in common sense that it is relative to and dependent upon one's racialized spatial imaginary?
Schein points to "normative dimensions of any landscape" as common sense (217). Rojas further complicates the idea of common sense by pointing out the ways in which different communities clash with one another. The Mexican and Chicano community/ies in East LA make new use of and redefine the physical and cultural landscape, ultimately producing a new register of "common sense." It is when multiple "common senses" exist without mutual recognition that real social strife exists and structural inequality is ignored and/or untouched.

The notion of emotional ecosystems that is mentioned in Lipsitz's article ties into the concept of multiple common senses. We can understand a community's "common sense" in relationship with its "emotional ecosystem." Mindy Fullilove describes the destruction of black emotional ecosystems at the hands of urban renewal projects. If we stick with Omi and Winant's definition of race as common sense, then it becomes clear that an emotional ecosystem can be demolished while common sense remains intact. Both might become confused by the "common sense" the destructors hold to be true, but ultimately "common sense" has never become a universal truth in America. American hegemony, powerful as it might be, does not destroy or negate the multiplicity of racial lenses and experiences--aka the array of "common senses"-- in this country.