Notes on
selected chapters of : Yancy,
G. (2008). Black Bodies,
White Gazes. The
Continuing Significance of
Race.
Dave Harris
[For notes on Chapter one click here]
Chapter 2 Whiteness:
"Unseen" Things Seen
Because race has no reference or
factual support, some have
argued that it should be
abandoned. However it persists
as a lived intelligibility and
reality — 'socially
ontologically lived', maintained
in social performance, embodied,
generating real effects. Using
it does not necessarily involve
essentialism [see also chapter
5].
Race is 'a contingent social
category, but the persistently
real
bodily–cum–material–institutional–symbolic
effects of race are profoundly
devastating… It's reality [is]
historically specific' it is
maintained by social forces,
institutions, individuals, laws,
values and traditions. It is not
metaphysical but 'relationally
lived' which is why narrative is
important, more than just
reflection. It helps see the
unseen of Whiteness.
We actually see ourselves and
behave in transactions with each
other as if there were race
differences. Whiteness is
enacted. An example shows this
for him. A White philosopher
commented on a book he had
recently edited and contributed
to where he had 'consciously
decided to use African–American
vernacular' he did this to
'capture the reality of my lived
linguistic mode of
being–in–the–world' and to
vernacular speech as a perfectly
viable form of communication,
and aesthetic commitment,
deliberately to contradict Kant.
His White colleague asked why he
had used that language when he
could speak very well '[meaning
in Standard American English]'.
He reacted to 'layers of White
racialised meaning' in that
remark, especially the lack of
understanding of the reasons for
his choice of African-American
vernacular speech. He
misunderstood the reason for
employing an effective means to
capture reality, the complexity
of his identity, and how he was
playing a language game — he saw
instead just a close link
between language and identity.
He thought Yancy had turned his
back on the gifts offered him by
White people and insulted their
language. If he considered the
possibility that Yancy was
playing language games, he
rejected it and preferred his
own assumptions.
He also upset Yancy by
criticising another Black
philosopher who had spoken
'poorly'. Yancy feels he should
have checked with him first to
see if he knew him personally
[!]. This might involve class
values, but these were 'not
sufficient to account for his
remarks. The message was clearly
one of race' [but how does he
know]. He was inviting Yancy to
put social distance between
himself another Black people.
But he was also saying that
normal Blacks would speak
English poorly, essentialising
them [and for Yancy implying
that that was because they had
thick lips and sloppy tongues,
and incoherent ideas]. He was
implying that Black people
should speak like White people
so as not to make them
uncomfortable, to wear a White
mask. Subsequent commentary [by
Jones] suggested that he was
expected to give up even more,
to leave his own community.
[I've
done this with working class
idiom, nearly always receiving
an adverse reaction! Yancy
seems to think that the White
philosopher is also rejecting
him as an African-American
really, so to speak, perhaps
one who can fake Standard
American now and then, which I
have had]
Yancy says this is like Sue
experiencing micro-aggressions
by being congratulated on
speaking excellent English.
The episode shows that Whiteness
has got aspects of silence,
assumptions about proper
English, basic grammar. The
remark really meant that Yancy
spoke English well 'for a
Black', but this is really still
parroting. Choosing
African-American language was a
kind of lack of gratitude. All
this was silent and unmarked.
The relations were unnoticed,
how White identity was dependent
upon a Black person's inability
to achieve a privileged state.
The dialogue concealed the
racial undertones. The White
philosopher occupied the
discursive centre, but he evaded
Whiteness and indeed did not see
issues of race.
Yancy generalises to philosophy
itself as a rejection of
'critical Black subjectivity',
that to belong means to erase
the self and adopt the master
self, the philosophy is 'a
significant White institutional
force' rather than what it
claims to be, 'a site of play
for multiple voices'. 'All I
seem to hear was "Turn White or
disappear"', although if he
turned White he would also
disappear! [classic acdemic
stuff really]
He found meetings of the
American Philosophical
Association stressful, and
noticed the other Black people
did as well, although many
appeared 'so incredibly at ease'
as if they had finally been
accepted, into racially neutral
spaces. There was certainly no
reason to fear Black
philosophers because they could
quote European philosophy or
speak European languages [snide
--buggers can't win]. He felt
estranged by contrast, far less
at home, conscious of race while
all the White folk weren't.
He has also been praised as a
fine philosopher by a White
person, and compared favourably
to another better-known Black
male philosopher. No doubt this
comparison made the White man
feel good, but it is a
suspicious qualification — Yancy
is only as good or better than
another Black philosopher rather
than simply a philosopher: there
are still different criteria.
He might be rebuked for being a
professional victim or paranoid
[!]. There are self-deprecating
White philosophers, for example
those who deny that race exists
or who evaded Whiteness in
another way, but it is easy to
find examples where race
intrudes [one example is a study
of pedagogy in an all-White
class does not feature race, but
a study of American Indian
students typically does]. He
gives an example from the class
he was involved in discussing
Frederick Douglass when he asked
the White students whether they
felt angered by the behaviour of
Whites in those texts, like he
did — 'there was absolute
silence in the room', even
though the teacher tried to
rephrase the question and
generate discussion. 'The norm
of Whiteness continued to resist
exposure'. The teacher then
admitted she was angered and
this finally got a limited
response. Yancy thinks the other
White students were there as
voyeurs, to experience exotic
Black literature without being
challenged, able to back away
when Blackness became dangerous.
However, students classically
protect their own beliefs and
refuse self engagement in many
academic courses.
The White students focused on
the texts rather than
themselves, and talked about
racism as performed in the texts
rather than their own White
privilege. This privilege in
this case 'signified the very
real power to "remove"
themselves from the complicity
involved', to maintain a
protective racial barrier. As a
result, the classroom dynamics
were racist, and counter
discussion was regulated [he
doesn't say this did occur, but
suggest that he might have been
condemned as a hate monger].
Blackness became the real object
of discussion. Whiteness was
normative, and could remain
absent.
He took the risk and named
Whiteness as an issue. He marked
his own body as resistant and
challenge their attempt to
become absent. He wanted to say
they had been seen. They felt
'uncomfortably exposed', but
bell hooks says that this
surprise '"is itself an
expression of racism"'
[everything is]. His own
behaviour was transgressive,
perhaps even an act of violence,
typically '"uppity"'. This is a
common reaction with White
students, but it only reinforces
the status of Whiteness as
natural and enables strategies
such as colourblindness,
ignoring the material,
forgetting the body, acting in
bad faith.
The normalisation of Whiteness
requires dutiful maintenance. Of
course the 'always already
larger White racist systemic
power structure' positions
individuals but we do have
existential freedom. That is
what Whiteness invades. The
assumption is that Whiteness 'is
lived as pure mind, while
Blackness is lived as pure
body': only Whiteness can do
transcendence, as a form of
flight and attempting to hide
something. Whites try to
persuade Blacks of this truth
and indeed invent a Negro who
will correspond.
These constructions help Whites
disavowal responsibility and
maintain their illusions of
individuality, achievement
through merit alone, through
abstract mind. Whiteness would
also become just another
difference in the whole system,
something specific rather than
universal and normative, with
definite political interests,
not some fixed essence without a
history or without inhuman
politics.
There may be a psychodynamic
element gained from a woman
psychotherapist investigating
the formation of White racial
identities in Euro – American
kids. They remembered critical
incidents where they were told
about knickers as unclean or
undesirable. It adds to Yancy's
position that being White
skinned turns into racism after
the play of social forces, and
becomes lived process, complicit
in social distancing, a source
of discourses and rituals to
maintain distance, being a White
person. The emphasis on infants
denies that greater agential
power might have been exercised
[another contradiction]
Because White identity
depends on negating or disliking
the dark other, it needs to
persist and to preserve the dark
other in various forms, if
necessary as a 'phantasmatic
object' in a White imaginary.
This contributes to its
apparently universal and eternal
nature, and permits it to be
unsaid. Adults have absorbed
this and pass it on to the
children as an induction
process. There is a cost, for
example in the form of constant
denial and constant
re-evaluations — children have
to become White, '"hate learned
in the context of love"'.
This can be a problem for
students who have to analyse
their own Whiteness in
comparison with clearly White
racist views, say in the texts
of Douglass in the example above
(and below). They can be
productive transformations.
There can also be a division of
racism into say ultra racism,
bad Whites. This division
ignores a common centre of
power, which permits such
distinctions. It is the same
power that is used to deny 'the
epistemic and effective
certainty in terms of which are
Black person, for example, knows
that he/she has just been
subjected to White racism'
[original emphasis] [stretch
here in my view].
A participatory action research
has been used by McIntyre to
examine how teachers managed to
avoid facing Whiteness through
dualist approaches, degrees of
racism, constructing a continuum
of racism, with extremists at
one end — McIntyre insists that
extremists often converge with
the centre, however. Daniels has
argued the same tendencies exist
in academia, separating White
supremacist movements and the
context in which they exist,
including '"the privileged
position of White academics
[and] the way ways White
supremacy (with all the
connections to class, gender and
sexuality in place) are
inscribed in academic
institutions"' [definitely a
stretch too far in my view!].
The same tendency is displayed
in nationally syndicated TV
shows such as Oprah,
where White supremacist
extremists are framed as distant
and often referred to as hate
groups preventing the
interrogation of [normal]
racism.
There are normal investments in
'Whiteley ways of behaving'
however, like the ones he has
given with the White
philosopher, involving an
investment in Whiteness, rituals
'from a position of White
normative power'. There is no
physical aggression but there
was still a 'crushing' performance.
He was an individual, Yancey was
a stereotype. This display of
Whiteness was covered over, made
invisible. No doubt the White
people would identified as race
free, somehow living in a 'power
free space within which all
voices were equally audible',
the business as usual of
American institutions, requiring
no critique. For Yancey, this
sort of passivity is no
different from active collusion
with laughing at racist jokes,
not challenging the exclusionary
hiring practices, avoiding
discussing race -related issues.
[Okay he might have a point
here]
The ways in which Whiteness is
'translated into advantage and
group solidarity' thus
remains invisible, especially if
we only have 'the discourse of
liberal individualism' which
sees racism as individual
manifestations of prejudice, not
the collective exercise of
power, especially those which
declare an intention not to
discriminate. There may also be
people who achieve despite their
race, due to their own merit.
Even those may have 'invested,
even if unconsciously in
Whiteness' [he means White
people] — it is easy to deny
responsibility
[We come onto the vexed issue
of White privilege]. '"All
White people, intentionally or
unintentionally do benefit from
racism"' [quoting Tatum] The
social structure provides these
privileges. Of course some
Whites may be 'invested
differentially', some may engage
in antiracist forms of practice
but 'even in this case, they
will continue to benefit from
being White independently of
their good intentions'. Some
White people will be 'targeted
by sexism, classes ageism or
homophobia'. Some 'reap the
benefits of being White in
different ways. However
Whiteness functions as a site of
power even for poor Whites and
there is a racial hierarchy 'in
which it is still beneficial,
all else being equal, to be
White than to be a POC'. Poor
Whites can go into department
stores and not be followed by
security, even though they do
not possess the same power as
Donald Trump. Overall, White
people still maintain advantages
relative to POC despite not
being particularly wealthy.
Class analysts might disagree,
but even one of those has
experienced discrimination that
trumps their class status, on
being refused permission to do
late shopping as a suspected
undesirable because she had a
Black face: she was reduced to a
raced body. In other clothing
stores 'it is not uncommon for
Blacks to be followed closely'
as a relative of his has
confirmed, or surveyed by a
camera, constructed as a
problem, an example of '"the
dance that cripples the human
spirit, step by step-by-step"'
[substantial talk-up here of
course -- this is a wounded
bourgeois!]. Security guards
never consider that they might
be incorrect — they are
confirmed by contemporary images
and representations which are
embodied.
This kind of criminalisation
'through White surveillance
involves being 'attacked at the
level of one's person; it
involves the invasion of the
ontological integrity of one's
sense of self, is one's self
conceptualisation' [here too].
White security guards might
abhor White racist extremists
but can still perform
'Whiteley'. You may be working
class and yet have very real
power to effect 'ontological
violence'. If it comes to court,
the guard's testimony 'has a
greater chance about weighing
the voracity of my intentions
not to steal' even if Yancey
earns three times as much, so
the courts themselves 'foreclose
any possibility of my being
other than that dictated by the
White imaginary'.
It is false to think of all
people as White supremacists,
but Whites continue to benefit
from being White. The project of
making White privilege seen goes
beyond extreme racism.
McIntosh develops the famous
metaphor of the invisible
knapsack. She was not taught
about how Whiteness
functioned as an advantage until
she unpacked her knapsack of
'special provisions, assurances,
tools, maps, guides, code books,
passports, visas, clothes,
compass, emergency gear, and
blank cheques'. There are 46
examples, Yancey selects 10
including: being able to go
shopping alone without being
followed; seeing people of her
colour on TV or in curriculum
materials; not being asked to
speak for her race; finding
materials that refer to people
of her race and so on.
He is not saying that 'all
Whites are listed in all
dimensions above all Blacks.
That claim would be empirically
false. I believe all Whites can
do benefit from their Whiteness
with in various contexts.
However, like Tatum, I believe
that "they do not all benefit
equally"'. It is certainly not
true that America has moved
beyond any influence of race or
racism towards anything like a
post-segregation or colourblind
society, although this is still
popular. He quotes data about
segregated neighbourhoods,
'Black ghettos' compared to
White spaces which are safe. He
talks of the 'Horatio Alger
myth' ['rags to riches']. There
is no distinction between
freedom from and freedom for,
the formal freedom from racial
discrimination and the positive
freedom to overcome the
conditions to achieve social
mobility.
There are White philosophers who
now claim that White men are the
true victims of discrimination
in the USA, that Whites are now
more oppressed. For Yancy, this
is not listening properly to
Black people, a form of bad
faith, a reproduction of the
view that Black people are
naturally happy, but are prone
to excessive complaining. More national
statistics are cited to show
that Black people are still more
likely to be imprisoned, less
likely to achieve elite
positions or to live in poverty.
Overall, 'there is no need to
quibble: North America is racist
'.
These economic and social
realities still persist, so does
the culture which sees Black
bodies as dangerous. He has had
White salespeople drop change on
the counter rather than touch
his hand, an example of 'mundane
White racist communicative
performances — resulting in
consequences that I somatically
bear — that reveal the continued
efficacy of the historical force
of White embodied ideology'
Note 33 says that some
contemporary Black people also
feel uneasy about playing the
victimology card
Chapter 4 The Agential
Black Body: Resisting the
Black Imago in the White
Imaginary
There has been Black resistance,
despite the dominant White view
that Black people do not make
meaning as other men do, but
just exist, within the
one-dimensional of White
ideology. The imago has been
maintained by violence as well
[as in chapter
5], to close with the
reality. There has still been
struggle, via 'syncretism,
bricolage, the blending of
cultural, epistemological, and
ontological retentions'. It is
not about recapturing an
authentic identity, more a
struggle to make sense in a way
which acknowledges 'fissures'
and does not romanticise.
The Black body is 'ontologically
excessive', especially when
embodied and socially situated
and this is a resource to see
through impersonal discursive
practices and neutral values. It
is possible to oppose and affirm
in the very act of resistance,
asserting that one exists, even
if this means adopting some
White values, as long as they do
not fully re-inscribe them. A
counter narrative or even a
'counter memory'can be
developed. There is a danger of
just seeing this as a 'fleeting
private moment of joyous
transgression while the social
and material conditions of
oppression go unchallenged' but
it can be an important initial
moment resisting racist
interpolations and marking
'epistemic intervention'. It
might only lead to 'an ironic
and exaggerated locutionary act'
[an exaggerated 'Yas suh,
Boss?']
Black people can experience
themselves as a living
contradiction or an anomaly,
something more than their imago
and this can cause disquiet
among Whites. They can fight
back, even violently. It is not
a matter of claiming an
essentialist notion of the self
or some objective identity, some
'pre-discursive self, or 'empty
and abstract humanism' which are
often implicated in
configurations of power. Nor is
'strategic essentialism' the
only option,which can also
sometimes reject identity theory
as dangerously groundless.
Instead of saying that
White representations of Black
people 'are false', we are
employing an 'unworkable set of
categories or narratives' which
is 'not faithful to Black's
hermeneutic self understanding'
[empirical tests here?]. Instead
we want one that 'illuminates
Blacks being in the world, their
historicity', something
workable.
We can employ multiple
vocabularies and think of Black
identity as 'a dynamic core of
narrative gravity that is
sustained through historical and
imaginative Black agency'
[further defined by Alcoff as a
relationship to a community, an
objective social location, a
participation in negotiation of
one's identity as opposed to
having interpellations foisted
upon you — looks a bit
tautological]. One is already
constituted and yet capable of
constituting. White identity
develops through negating Black
existence dialectically, but
Black identity does not aim to
negate White people as such,
but it does negate the
'ideological structure of
Whiteness'. It involves
re-narrating rearticulating its
own being in the world, making
sense. It is not a matter of
universal abstraction or
'"ontological Blackness"' which
would deny complexity.
However there is a common
identity of Blacks, because they
have all had to struggle in
order to survive [in White
dominated societies that is,
until recently anyway]. Thus
Blackness is a 'lived
existential project', related to
that complex history, but not
reduced to it. This project is
'protean' and involves continual
reassessment of Black identity
and its implications.
Heterogeneity is important but
so is 'a profound sense of
inclusive solidarity' and not
just for political expediency
[lots of twists and turns here].
We should avoid the 'postmodern
playground' and remember what we
have in common — the pain of
antiBlack racism shown in a
labyrinth of strategies,
desires, fears 'and a healthy
dose of fallibilism'. Different
aspects can be centred, but
narrative plots are not entirely
random because centuries of
oppression provided major
experiences. Narrating the
history means solidarity and
also expansion. We must also be
aware of 'class, sex, and gender
differences' and avoid abstract
identities including proletarian
ones. We should not see
Blackness as a mere abstract
value 'which is to be achieved
in the realisation of
raceless society… The
rejection of the category of
race does not entail the
rejection of an identity'. Black
people should not be suspected
of only having a single aspect
to their identity, but having a
broader expensive existential
project. Many African-Americans
fear that if they abandon
essentialism they will lose
their specific focus, but this
can be overcome, according to
bell hooks, by emphasising '"the
authority of experience"', the
way in which a constant
experience shaped their
identity.
[Another reservation] Black
identity is not just a reaction
to White power and hegemony, but
a matter of active resistance.
It is affirmative, and not just
in the sense of an inversion of
White values, as in the slogan
Black is beautiful — it should
mean affirming a space 'where
Whiteness has ceased to matter',
where Blackness ceases to
signify any other flawed
identity. There is also need to
avoid an equivalent seriousness,
by talking up Black identity as
'abiding fullness, richness and
joy' which can descend into
'smug hubris… Collective pride…
What defines "real kinds of
persons"'.
We must be sensitive to what
Jenkins describes as the
teleological aspects of Black
subjectivity [what they actually
intended by what they did] —
their meekness actually was
intended to demonstrate a
superior understanding of
Christian dignity, or 'ironic
signification' according to a
'hidden transcript that was
beyond the cognitive range of
White oppressors. Thievery, for
example was sometimes seen by
White people as the result of
natural criminality, but was
also a way of maintaining
dignity, self-assertion. Clumsy
handling of tools could be a
form of resistance. These forms
imply dialectical thinking and
potential transgression, common
conformity to White expectations
while undermining them — for
example tools were not broken
when Black people worked for
themselves. Black people
pretended to be crazy or stupid
to get out of work. Other slaves
carelessly poisoned White
people. Some feigned illness,
especially women. Some found
spaces as skilled workers.
Yancey wants to understand these
as guerrilla tactics.
There were also work slowdowns
'a form of working class
consciousness', fake
disciplinary whippings. Black
seamen in particular were able
to develop some autonomy in
their skill, and kept Black
communities informed, including
transmitting abolitionist and
revolutionary news, and contact
with family members. They were
able to engage in some organised
crime via the informal work
economy [which included
'"swindling other working class
people"'], and took pride in
their ability to trick the
world. It made them feel like
real men. They called themselves
'rascals'. They often were
severely punished
Singing and dancing in leisure
'is also a form of resistance',
empowering, embodying freedom,
creative, especially for women.
[There's a hint of the music as
well] songs and dances also
contained hidden transcripts —
'infrapolitics' Flamboyant
behaviour might be seen as
resistance, including wearing
flamboyant dress. Uniforms were
rejected or modified Working in
the Black underworld similarly
[with hints of Merton here],
including bootlegging..
There was machinery breaking
industrial sabotage, shared with
other workers, exchange of
information about bad employers,
cooperation among the workers,
stealing from utilities. There
was self-employment
[there's no discussion of the
alternative interpretation of
leisure and crime — that it
masquerades as politics as a
kind of consolatory identity or
rationalisation]
Note 8 says that passing for
White is a form of resistance —
one Black person joined in with
lynch mobs in order to make a
case against lynching. Note 11
says that coping while resisting
can also produce serious
strains.
Note 25 revisits the idea of a
workable narrative and says that
obviously various
characteristics determine
whether it works or not
including levels of
comprehension. It also implies
dispensing with a fixed goal and
an unchangeable telos. He still
insists there can be 'the
narrative gravitational core'
however.
Note 93 says that middle-class
Black people also wanted to
control and define the resistant
Black body, for example in
dancing or various 'plebeian
cultural expressions'. Note 94
admits that singing blues
playing jazz has its own
aesthetic dimensions which may
not be politicised
Chapter 5 click
here
|
|
|
|