04 July 2009

Race as Oppressive Social Construct?

Of late, I've become more and more interested in exploring the philosophy of race. After reading several essays by Cornel West--who for obvious reasons has a vested interest in the subject--and working extensively on theories concerning the identity of the Other in politics for my thesis, I continue to notice the complex ways in which a philosophy of race must necessarily be considered inextricable from a cultural theory of violence.

I'll admit that all these various ideas came crashing together very unacademically tonight as I watched The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (which, by the way is the second best late night talk show behind Conan). During a chat with Corkie Roberts about the self-designated supremacy of the white male, Craig made the comment, "Do you know we just elected a black president?"

In light of the context of the conversation, I suddenly thought to myself, But, isn't Barack Obama as WHITE as he is BLACK?

The simple illustration of a man with a white mother and black father being labeled 'black' seems to me an indication that we are talking much more than ethnicity when we talk race. This ironically coincides with a book I had just started earlier today, "Violence" by Slavoj Zizek. In the introduction, Zizek writes, concerning necessary distinctions between various types of violence:
...Subjective and objective violence cannot be perceived from the same standpoint: subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of a non-violent zero level. It is seen as a perturbation of the "normal," peaceful state of things. However, objective violence is precisely the violence inherent to this "normal" state of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent. Systematic violence is thus something like the notorious "dark matter" of physics, the counterpart to an all-too-visible subjective violence. It may be invisible, but it has to be taken into account if one is to make sense of what otherwise seem to be "irrational" explosions of subjective violence.
We Americans are acutely aware of the disturbing volume of subjective violence perpetrated as a result of racial tensions. But, if we take Zizek's cultural theory and examine race in this light, I wonder if the imposition of race itself is the latent systematic act of violence, which, like dark matter, physically holds together our conceptions of peaceful racial normalcy (which, as we know is itself rife with various forms of objective political and economic violence). This ties into an earlier comment of Zizek's that:
...There is a more fundamental form of violence still that pertains to language as such, to its imposition of a certain universe of meaning.
The universe of meaning associated with being black is a universe I personally can observe but never experience or fully understand. However, there is commonality between it and my own racial universe of being white in that both, in my opinion, are violently imposed from without, rather than arising out of self-revelation.

Resulting from externally imposed racial identity, the impulse towards self-segregation is maddeningly more common than I think most people realize, and it's evident everywhere from the locations we choose to live, to the language we use to even talk about race. Imagine, for instance, a white immigrant from Johannesburg who chooses to call herself an "African-American." The term carries with it all of the associations and prejudices of the term 'black,' so I find it puzzling that it is often seen as being more politically correct. While racial identity makes us comfortable by drawing neat lines between us, these lines seem to be the very thing that must be examined and questioned if we are to understand and effectively act against the violence perpetrated because of them.

Returning to the example of our new president, we see this in his own profession of being a black man, in that this identity is entirely a result of experiences resulting from the larger system of racial prejudice and violence which has pre-defined him as 'black.'

So, again, I wonder if I'm way off in thinking that racial identity is itself violent. For the record, I think a 'color-blind' system is equally violent by imposing some sort of neutral identity, over a self-revealed one which would of course include skin color and resulting conceptions based on one's treatment because of it. Yet, behind segregation (self-imposed, or forced), behind prejudice, behind political and economic oppression, the ultimate act of violence seems to be defining who is black and who is white.

3 comments:

  1. Ben, my personal experience has been somewhat as you descibe; my father was an extreme bigot, the quintessential Archie Bunker-type racist when I was growing up. As such I became racist but really didn't know why other than that's what I was exposed to regularly. As I got older and out of my father's house I began to question why I felt the way I did and believed the things I did. It took some years to be de-programmed from my racists indoctrination. Having said all that, I think you can run on the treadmill of trying to make sense of the genesis of racism and racial identity and perpetually get nowhere. I've discovered the reason to be found in Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" nuf said!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would be weary of thinking in a such a way, to simply, proclaim that the "genesis" or the core of "race" becomes inherently wrong because it comes with labels.

    The reason "african-american" or "black" many times has an image or identity the coincides with it in these United States is because of the majority & frankly not-so-generalized behaviors and culture of black America.

    If you went to the UK and took a survey or a questionnaire concerning "race relations" in the region you would find a vastly different response and thought process concerning blacks in the UK.

    Race is appropriately and completely a regionalized phenomenon.

    Having a conceived notion using a simple scientific method of observation, using uncontrolled objects, that largely tend certain behaviors, is completely reasonable and intelligent.

    It is when the REALITY of race, and the behaviors that majority TEND WITHIN that race are attempted to be either ignored or reversed through government intervention, that race becomes a problem.

    To simply view this issue in an over-used and worn out blanket excuse of "racism" or "bigotry" is more ignorant than both terms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. brent-
    i'm not sure what you mean in your allusion to the UK, but i'm sure that race relations there are not all that different. obviously there are the same tensions tracing back to the beginnings of the transatlantic african slave trade, but that's another topic. i think in your response you miss my point that there is a DETERMINATIVE quality in defining race. because of underlying racial tensions, your place in society as a black or white person will in very real ways prescribe your treatment (in and outside your own race) as well as your behavior (as being in line or not in line with certain racial expectations).

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for contributing to the conversation!