[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img]With the Gates incident and first-ever “Beer Summit” stoking the national obsession, it’s time to confuse the national racial dialogue with a bit of armchair philosophizing. The impetus comes by way of Ron Reagan, my favourite of Air America’s current lineup, who recently asked listeners about what shape the national dialogue on race should take. It’s a great question. What do we expect a national dialogue on race to accomplish? My question is: Is it even possible to have a national dialogue?
Insofar as l’affaire Gates is concerned, I can’t say I have an opinion: I don’t know what happened. I didn’t read the police reports or listen to the 9-1-1 call transcripts. Was it a case of racism? Was it a case of police abuse of authority? Certainly it was an example of miscommunication. Whatever it was, it’s just one of a series of race-related flashpoints dominating our social awareness these days, the others being the Sotomayor nomination and the President himself. The burning comes from accusations of racism being hurled about by white guys like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. That’s right; white guys – those privileged products of a history and institutions that have favoured the white majority over the non-white minorities — accusing a Latina and a black man of racism. My initial reaction is one of disbelief. What do we white people know of being on the receiving end of racism? We have never been turned away from somewhere because of our skin colour. “Driving while white” is not a problem we have to worry about. More often than not, we spend our time in the company of people who look like us. So how, exactly, are white people victims of racism? How is Obama or Sotomayor emblematic of a hatred for whites? A better question: How could alleged hatred for whites manifest itself in American institutions given America’s history?
Ah, but this is where the paranoia comes in, the fear of an alien invasion, of a dilution of America’s “white” fabric. In this sense, we have what may be called “common” racism. This is the racism that’s easy to spot; it parades itself in a white hood. It is unrepentantly hostile. It is obviously exclusionary and elitist. This is why the notion of Obama or Sotomayor being racist is so ridiculous; their behaviour isn’t, and can’t be, the mirror image of the white racists who once kept blacks from voting.
The question becomes, then, whether there is such a thing as a post-modern racism, a crypto-racism far more subtle and insidious than the traditional racism that makes no secret of itself. Here the issue gets confused, because not only do we have to ask whether this sort of pervasive, assumed, layered racism really exists, but what it consists of. And here we have to consider the issue of double-standards. We rightly decry the assumption of criminality, stupidity, or malevolence on the basis of having dark skin. But should we not also question the assumption that whites Iofficer Crowley weren’t white, would we be talking about police misconduct instead of racism?
In a sense, it’s because the problems of common racism have been solved (more or less) in terms of the law that we’re stuck. With voting rights and marriage rights along with non-discrimination language written into the DNA of government, what remains of the once-pervasive cross-burning racism is something vague, almost intangible: cultural attitudes. The slippery nature of cultural, as opposed to legal, assumptions is precisely why Ron Reagan’s question is such a good one. Does the national dialogue consist of proving our conquest of history? One of the sticking points is the extent to which it’s fair to ask today’s generations to apologize for acts they themselves never committed. True, whites today may have benefit for institutionalized privilege not granted to non-whites – but is that also the fault of today’s generations, something for which they must account for?
The Identity Games We Play
As usual, there’s a bigger issue at play. I wonder to what extent our perception of racism is really a question of a broader politics of identity that sees various identity-groups vying for cultural and political power. In this sense, racism may be unavoidable. Let’s break it down. As individuals, we tend to seek identification with a larger group. This is the whole notion of being part of something greater than one’s self. An aspect of this identification involves exclusivity. Being a member of group X has to hold some significance, which is gained by positing something unique and special about the group that other groups don’t have. In other words difference, magnified and glorified, is what fuels the process of self-identification. And the moment one moves to assign some sort of special quality to one’s identity group, we create the conditions for seeing greater value in our own group over another’s. This doesn’t even have to be an explicit, conscious thought; the notion of superiority comes built-in to feelings of pride. After all, we don’t tend to take pride in things we feel are trifling and small. The practical results: We’re trapped by the paradox of being individuals identifying with groups that, in turn, must be individualized to gain a special meaning not held by other groups. Is it any surprise, then, that from this platform of identity we can still veer into racism? When we set up units of black culture, ethnic culture and white culture, each judges the other in terms of politics. It becomes impossible to separate out what is malicious racism and what is “merely” political stratagem.
The answer to my question, then, seems to be that it’s not possible to have a national dialogue on race because our balkanized identity politics are inherently self-defeating and in a natural state of conflict. The good that comes from emphasizing differences also comes with a sharp second edge that keeps us apart when we should come together. Surely the L.A. Times’ Gregory Rodriguez (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez3-2009aug03,0,133608.column) is right that informal, un-self-conscious mixed-race encounters like the President’s Beer Summit is the way to foster understanding. But it will also take a revision of how we deal with our identities as individuals and members of society to move forward.
Frédérik Sisa invites you to discuss this week's column at his blog www.inkandashes.net.
