As usual, there is so much to talk about here that I don't know where to begin. The book made me look at American racial politics in a deeper way that will benefit my future students. It seems to me that how we look at race, or what paradigm we choose, determines the stance we take on cultural/racial functions in our studies. We can readily disprove the theory of race from a biological perspective. I watched Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s show on PBS that looked at the DNA of different groups of people. His own DNA is ultimately constructive- an professor of African-American studies that "looks" Black, yet has much more White DNA. Fascinating. Of course, we have to go beyond the science because, so often in our history (and especially these days) science is not trusted to tell the whole story for it might counter our trusted belief systems. Gates looks Black and takes pride in his Blackness, therefore his DNA doesn't really matter. If we can't look at science to rid society of Whiteness and its hegemonic structure, we must look at the "function" of race in society. I use this too much, but it just wouldn't do for Barack Obama to be looked at as White or Tiger Woods thought of as Asian-American. Their racial makeup serves a function for White and Black people alike.
Mullen does a good job explaining the limitations of functionalism, but like the goal of "no Whiteness", I wonder if we're throwing out the baby with the bath water. We can look for the ideal, race-free landscape today. We are certainly closer to that than ever before because racial mixing is not as taboo, but this view is ultimately Polyanna-ish and dangerous. It's not just who you mix with racially, it's how you are perceived by others. Instead of spending time debunking functionalism and other isms of the moment, we can embrace the tensions inherent in our all too human decisions and desires. Some tension exists because we rail against essentializing race, yet embrace our racial qualities to the point of generalizing theory and practice. In the case of the Black/White divide, Mullen and others rightly label this "pathology". Some say you can't have it both ways. Sure, you can! We all do in any given moment. Barack Obama embraces an African-American Christian preaching tradition in many speeches, yet distances himself from "inflammatory" statements coming from his pastor. Is there contradiction here? Yes, and I believe it to be as natural as anything else.
If the potential result of functionalism is "pathologizing" a group, then we make a decision. Is it politically expedient to air the contradictions? Or do we hush that cacophony in our heads and hearts? I appreciate the book looking at the dichotomous relationships revealed by Critical Race Theory. Toni Morrison's explanation of Whites projecting the "not-me" is instructive. Years ago, I read Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew. One idea that he writes is if the Jew didn't exist, the anti-Semite would create him. Sartre's Jew is recognizable only by those who believe he is, in fact, a Jew. This may be my own pre-conceived prejudice, but while Sartre is denying a Jew the right to define himself/herself, he is not living in Israel or the United States. Outside of these two concentrated places of Jewish empowerment, "Jew" has always been an epithet. We pathologize race in this country because we have to. "Black" exists in order to avoid defining ourselves. Mullen points out Whiteness does not exist without its contradicting form, Blackness. There is inherent danger in this, and history has shown us how horrifying enactment of differences can be. Where do we go from here? We have a need to essentialize (different than pathologize) in order to give a context for the specific performances of culture we encounter, participate in, and/or study. I'm not ready to throw out functionalism per se. I do want a melding of the theories to create a new understanding of how dynamic the process is. Almost everything has its place. Dell Hymes played a critical role in moving folklorists, linguists, and anthropologists beyond the limits of cultural or racial function by looking at the minutiae of detail. He didn't intend for the detail to not have a context. However, he might have wanted the contextual aspects of this research on "folk" to live side-by-side with the absence of context (I'm at a loss for the right word) in order for us to see that while functional theory can give us a big picture, it doesn't or shouldn't give us the big picture. There needs to be room for agency.
Mullen does a good job explaining the limitations of functionalism, but like the goal of "no Whiteness", I wonder if we're throwing out the baby with the bath water. We can look for the ideal, race-free landscape today. We are certainly closer to that than ever before because racial mixing is not as taboo, but this view is ultimately Polyanna-ish and dangerous. It's not just who you mix with racially, it's how you are perceived by others. Instead of spending time debunking functionalism and other isms of the moment, we can embrace the tensions inherent in our all too human decisions and desires. Some tension exists because we rail against essentializing race, yet embrace our racial qualities to the point of generalizing theory and practice. In the case of the Black/White divide, Mullen and others rightly label this "pathology". Some say you can't have it both ways. Sure, you can! We all do in any given moment. Barack Obama embraces an African-American Christian preaching tradition in many speeches, yet distances himself from "inflammatory" statements coming from his pastor. Is there contradiction here? Yes, and I believe it to be as natural as anything else.
If the potential result of functionalism is "pathologizing" a group, then we make a decision. Is it politically expedient to air the contradictions? Or do we hush that cacophony in our heads and hearts? I appreciate the book looking at the dichotomous relationships revealed by Critical Race Theory. Toni Morrison's explanation of Whites projecting the "not-me" is instructive. Years ago, I read Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew. One idea that he writes is if the Jew didn't exist, the anti-Semite would create him. Sartre's Jew is recognizable only by those who believe he is, in fact, a Jew. This may be my own pre-conceived prejudice, but while Sartre is denying a Jew the right to define himself/herself, he is not living in Israel or the United States. Outside of these two concentrated places of Jewish empowerment, "Jew" has always been an epithet. We pathologize race in this country because we have to. "Black" exists in order to avoid defining ourselves. Mullen points out Whiteness does not exist without its contradicting form, Blackness. There is inherent danger in this, and history has shown us how horrifying enactment of differences can be. Where do we go from here? We have a need to essentialize (different than pathologize) in order to give a context for the specific performances of culture we encounter, participate in, and/or study. I'm not ready to throw out functionalism per se. I do want a melding of the theories to create a new understanding of how dynamic the process is. Almost everything has its place. Dell Hymes played a critical role in moving folklorists, linguists, and anthropologists beyond the limits of cultural or racial function by looking at the minutiae of detail. He didn't intend for the detail to not have a context. However, he might have wanted the contextual aspects of this research on "folk" to live side-by-side with the absence of context (I'm at a loss for the right word) in order for us to see that while functional theory can give us a big picture, it doesn't or shouldn't give us the big picture. There needs to be room for agency.
No comments:
Post a Comment