Is it Racism (Sexism)?
RoboTom is rereading Inga Muscio’s Cunt: a Declaration of Independence and he’s disappointed. RoboTom is disappointed by what he feels are Inga Muscio’s offensive and off-putting tirades which he characterizes as “sexist”. Is Inga (“the Gringa”) Muscio being sexist?
I find more salient parallels for me personally in my day-to-day existence here. My lunch break is around the same time as when two secondary schools next to my office get out. Daily I walk through this gauntlet of adolescents who shout racial jeers at me; “accidentally” bump into me or knock their friends into me; or just point and laugh. Or at a concert I once attended, one of the headliners featured a clown in white-face. Actually, I don’t think I would have realized what it was if it weren’t for everyone sitting near me turning around to look at me and laugh. When I asked my friend if the dude was supposed to be a white guy, he says: “yeah, but it’s a joke.” This sorta stuff is the landscape of my days. It makes things uncomfortable and sometimes hurts my feelings, but can it be called “racism”?
Can racially-based negative attention white people receive here be characterized as “racism”? (Or, to address RoboTom’s disappointment, can a woman be characterized as sexist if she evokes The Man in a book about how to liberate oneself from the pervasive reach of patriarchy?)
Racism is not just about discrimination. I can discriminate between two brands of chocolate because one has a shinier label. Racism is about creating a hierarchy of humanity where the objects of racism are denigrated to lower levels of humanity. Now I am borrowing heavily from Nussbaum’s Hiding from Humanity, but it seems to me, disgust plays a role in racist maligning. Nussbaum talks at length about the relationship between disgust and an emotional need for innate superiority: “Because disgust embodies a shrinking from contamination that is associated with the human desire to be nonanimal, it is frequently hooked up with various forms of shady social practice, in which the discomfort people feel over the fact of having an animal body is projected outwards onto vulnerable people and groups. These reactions are irrational, in the normative sense, both because they embody an aspiration to be a kind of being that one is not, and because, in the process of pursuing that aspiration, they target others for gross harms” (74-5). Think back on theoretical justifications of racism by its perpetrators – how often do you hear language about disgust and a racially-banded hierarchy?
Here’s what Merriam-Webster has to say about racism (as of 1997): “a belief that some races are by nature superior to others; also: discrimination based on such belief” – and discriminate: “distinguish, differentiate; to make a difference in treatment on a basis other than individual merit.” I think in the above scenarios we can agree there’s discrimination taking place, but is it based on the belief that white people (or men) are by nature inferior?
No. My skin conjures some pretty awful memories and associations. After years of living under a white regime which relegated everyone else to cordoned off (often uninhabitable) areas; policed their movements; and brutally tortured and killed innocent people – quite a few people (at least as many who make racial comments to me) harbor reasonable anger against white people – and anger, even if it is now misplaced, is not the same as racism. And maybe not every white person participated (although I would argue that it is hard not to be complicit in that sort of system when you are reaping the benefits of the privilege it bestows on you – I often feel I’m the unintentional beneficiary of residual privilege), but like any kind of conditioning: you get treated like crap by any one type of person enough times, you start to associate that type of person with crap. In this case, white people can evoke feelings of anger. Similarly, the racial jeers directed at me are expressions of anger and/or resentment. This treatment isn’t based on a perception of me as sub-human; it may be discrimination, but however misplaced, however myopic, however hurtful and unfair, it isn’t racist.
Besides, RoboTom, it’s funny discrimination.
8 Comments:
Putting aside, for the moment, whether or not Cunt or Inga Muscio is sexist (I address that below), I feel that you are making racism into more than it has to be....certainly more than how I use the word.
You state that "racism is not just about discrimination", but one of the definitions of racism (also from Merriam-Webster) is "racial discrimination". Disgust has nothing to do with it.
For example, someone who looks at a black man and thinks, "he's black, he probably loves fried chicken, I am totally in the mood for some fried chicken, I'll ask him where to get some". There's no disgust there, but I would totally rate that thought as racist. I don't think it's a "bad" thought rooted in disgust, but it's a misguided thought, based solely on the race of the man.
It seems to me that you believe racism is an elaborate construct that takes into account the life-experiences of those involved. There is room in the definition of "racism" for that belief. But equally valid is my use of the term simply to mean any discrimination based on race.
And equally valid is my use of the word sexist to describe someone who looks at all men with hatred.
Which brings me back to Inga Muscio and Cunt. I do not believe that Inga Muscio is a sexist. In every instance I've reread so far, when she mentions a specific man in her book, it doesn't sound like she's judging him based on his sex. It never sounds like she carries any animosity towards specific men. These instances are few and far between, however, and Cunt is littered with snide remarks and direct accusations about "men" and the machines and propaganda that "men" invent to keep woman oppressed.
When I first read the book, I overlooked all of that language. I found the ideas in Cunt very compelling and I was willing to ignore the belligerence towards men. I gave it the benefit of the doubt that when she said "men" she meant "the system", "the patriarchy", or "The Man"....whatever you want to call it.
But you know what? There are words for "the system", "the patriarchy", and "The Man". I just used them. Frankly, in the instances where she's talking about "men", she just comes across as a man-hater. I find it repugnant, and, perhaps worse, unproductive. There are plenty of men who hate "the system", too. "Men" aren't the enemy. "The system" is.
I don't know what her intentions are when she uses the term "men", though. Is it a carefully selected word choice, with an accusation towards all men in general? Or is it a sloppy reference to "The Man"? I don't know.
In general, I completely agree with Tom. On both points actually. I think that saying racism is exclusively "a belief that some races are by nature superior to others" is a very narrow definition. I also think that from a practical stand point it is a dangerous thing to so narrowly define racism. Discrimination and anger are easy to excuse. A person doesn't mind if someone calls them angry, but nobody wants to be labeled a racist. The very language can effect an attempt to change, or at least an attempt to hide one's true feelings.
Speaking on "Cunt", well, I actually disliked the book pretty intensely, (except for one chapter), which probably tainted my view of her sexism. I think we might have actually had a discussion about this.
Yes, IMO she makes overtly and covertly sexist "man-hating" remarks, which I found offensive being a woman who loves many men. It further alienated me from the rest of what she was saying. There are other, more practical, reasons that I disliked the book, but this post only addresses the sexism.
The problem is the cycle, which Inga Muscio and the clown in "white face" propagate into more hatred and anger coming back at them. Their reverse racism lends the men and whites who are already racist to say, "See, they're idiots.", and also lends the men and whites who aren't naturally sexist or racist to say, "Well, yeah, I do see that. I guess you're right." ... ... ...
And the cycle starts over.
Is it ok if I link this post? I think it's an interesting discussion.
i really appreciated this post. i want to think more before posting more myself... and read the book!
but i tend to appreciate sonia's definition (am myself sympathetic to our U of C philosopher attorney). while i think tom makes a good point about racially oriented characterizations not always having to do with disgust and so forth, i think that the narrow part of 'racism' that sonia points to is the part that deserves to be attended to and changed / removed from our world. it annoys me when people are offended / hurt / act appalled by the sort of 'soft' prejudice (e.g. black people like chicken and watermelon) b/c i don't find much of this offensive. at a MINIMUM, i don't find it offensive in the same way. and i think segregating those different kinds of 'racism' (disgust v. soft prejudice) makes sense from a political standpoint.
Gotta back my girl Sonia up on this one. Racism does suggest a racial superiorty over another race as within the context of physical, emotional or economic oppression that is attached specifically to the color of one's skin. I've been posed the question before: "can a black man be a racist" I find it very difficult to reply affirmatively to this. Even Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe can not be called a racist for his land reform policies, due to the fact that they are just that. He is trying to unwrong the injustices of previous racist colonizers, as misguided and insane as his policies may be...
I really don't know how well the term racism applies to individuals anyway. To me it has a deeper and more general context. I think we call people racist out of anger and frustration, but to actually be a racist, one would have to oppress others based solely on skin color. There are many of individuals that have been powerful enough to enforce this oppression, however...Apartheid South Africa was formed by these individuals...it has occured repeatedly in other parts of the world over time, but essentially racism requires the backing of a race of people that benefit directly or indirectly from it.
I'm particularly interested in the United States context. in the post 1964 Civil Rights era many Americans live in denial of the racism that is still alive and prevalent throughout US society. Heaven forbid you try to convince some white Americans that they are beneficiaries of "white priveledge" Call it denial, call it ignorance, call it whatever...but one only has to look at the inner cities of the U.S. to see the economic oppression that inflicts many American blacks. That economic oppression is a direct product of racism. Cities like Cincinnati, Ohio, Washington D.C., L.A., new Orleans, Detroit, MI and my home town of Flint have been subjected to the economic oppression of a history rooted in racism.
I also think it is wrong to confuse discrimination and prejudice with racism. We are all guilty of the above. A generalization about a black man liking fried chicken does not oppress him in any way...it is just an ignorant generalization. We can all be guilty of this at times, but not all of us can be racist.
But to say that a black man can't be racist is to say that he is above a basic human deficiency. We all have this tendency.
Example: My roomate and I, (both white, living in Harlem), were walking to the grocery store. This black woman passed us, and in the most contemptuious manner spat out: "When are you going to leave and give our neighborhood back to us?"
Now I'm sorry, but that was racist, even by the most narrow definition Sonia is speaking about. She said that my roommate and I were not the right color, so therefore were making "her" neighborhood sullied somehow. So whether you agree to a broad or narrow definition of racism, I don't think it is possible to say that a human being is incapable of racist or sexist thoughts just because of the color of their skin or their gender.
Also, isn't this just semantics? Hate is hate is hate.
To be honest, I agree with Heather on one thing. I don't think racism motivates Mugabe. That is giving him too much credit in my opinion. Greed and power are his motivations, if I had to guess. It's a lot easier to control a starving population. It's a lot easier to get wealthy off corruption.
A (Potentially) Practical View of the Matter
Culture(s) "pre-digests" information making beliefs and generalizations available (particularly through the media) to individuals for use. When the individual fails to exercise adequate critical thinking, (s)he adopts what, in many cases, are misguided beliefs and views. Each of us suffers to some extent from this outgrowth of the way human brains work. There is no crime in being human, but it is unfortunate that so many humans fail to think critically.
When based on such views one participates, individually or collectively, in limiting rights of or respect for other individuals or groups based on race, gender, economics, sexual preference, etc., one becomes a practicing "*ist".
These practices can be institutionalized...laws/rules: e.g. US criminal penalties associated with use/distribution of powder vs. crack cocaine; police discretion to stop drivers (that results in disproportionate numbers of Blacks and Hispanics being detained - per national police statistics). Or, the butterfly can cause the hurricane via subtle contributions: laughter rather than protest of racist jokes; hiring the man - not the woman - because he is more like you; or, protesting your child’s assignment to room with a college student "on financial aid."
I suggest both means of imposing (not necessarily harboring) biases are wrong.
I think Sonia is correct in her assessment. And Heather is correct too, while black people can be wrong or injust, they cannot be racist. The black woman in Harlem was obviously only reacting to past injustices - if you analyse her remark this becomes clear. The remark about Mugabe being motivated by greed and power, now that may be racist. Is he seen as a stereotype African potentate perhaps? Fact is he was democratically elected, is still immensely popular in Zimbabwe and Africa and his people are much better of than ever, at last owning the land.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home