Introduction
“How does it
feel to be a problem?” goes the famous question Du Bois posed to Blacks in
his The Souls of Black Folk
in 1903, referring to the contemporary American Black experience, that of
segregation and exploitation. Du Bois considered it the major task for the
20th century to find a solution to the racial problem. But here
we are now, some 100 years later, witnessing that the racial problem not
only remains unsolved, but has intensified and been exacerbated.
1. Debating race and ethnicity
Undoubtedly,
the most significant attempts in the direction of solving the racial problem
Du Bois had been hoping for were tied to the Civil Rights Movement, but the
legal and political measures taken have in fact been unable to transform the
cultural and mental frameworks within which Americans understand themselves
and each other. Instead of establishing racial equality and a color-blind
society, (1) these measures were regarded by much of the Black population as
incomplete and insufficient to establish their real equal standing in
society and (2) as these measures themselves drew on racial categorization,
inherently and unintentionally contributed to the emergence of a newer
series of experiences, problems and argumentations regarding racial
inequality.
As a result,
heated debates over the problem of race and ethnicity continued after the
1960s, in the mist of which new conceptualizations were framed and
discarded. One of
the new concepts evolving was that of new ethnicity. Michael Novak,
based on a series of research conducted among the population of large cities
and drawing on the theoretical assumptions presented by structural
pluralists, such as Milton Gordon,
concluded that American society had remained an ethnically and racially
diverse culture, one in which these categorizations cement individuals to
permanent social, economic and political positions, are tied to life
chances, stereotypes and discriminatory views.
One response to these serious problems aimed at equalizing
the various differences was captured by the notion of
multiculturalism within which “minority groups demand[ed] recognition of
their identity, and accommodation of their cultural differences.”
Kymlicka argued that multiculturalism had been used also to “encompass a
wide range of non-ethnic social groups which have, for various reasons, been
excluded or marginalized from the mainstream of society … such as the
disabled, gays and lesbians, women, the working class, atheists, and
Communists.”
Their struggle in the political realm for equal recognition was paralleled
with efforts to establish the wide acceptance of and respect for diversity
and difference in a number of areas of identification.
Multiculturalism was captured by two models: that of (1)
pluralism, which echoed Horace M. Kallen’s
early, utopian argument for cultural pluralism, calling for a peaceful
coexistence of various cultural groups in society,which were organized around ethnic categories, thus membership in
them were determined by birth;
and that of (2) cosmopolitanism, which “argued for voluntary group
associations, as opposed to prescribed traditional group membership and thus
promoted individual choice and conceptualized individual identity as an
intersection of multiple identities. As such, it also allowed for the notion
of flexibility, both in individuals and groups, thus enabling and entitling
the individual to choose from among various identities as well as to change
them, as no absolute social locations were accepted as binding with regard
to identity.”
Despite these claims, however, multiculturalism operated with categories
that maintained ethnic and racial divisions, expected a high sense of
homogeneity within each group as well as a sense of unity based on unified
desires and united action shared by each member. Moreover, yet another
factor putting a halt to the success of multiculturalism was that, as David
Hollinger pointed out, by the late 1980s, “diversity has become too
diversified”
to be dealt with thoroughly by multiculturalism.
As a
possible new conceptualization,
Hollinger
offered his postethnic perspective which “prefers voluntary to
prescribed affiliations, appreciates multiple identities, pushes for
communities of wide scope, recognizes the constructed character of
ethno-racial groups, and accepts the formation of new groups as a part of
the normal life of a democratic society.”
He argued for a society in which traditional concepts like ethnicity or race
are decentralized, the hierarchies they constitute are destroyed, thus
freedom, democracy and equality may in fact be established.
Hollinger’s claim on ethnicity being a type of socially
constructed category had already been shared by other scholars, some of whom
studied the highly symbolic nature of racial and ethnic identities. Herbert
Gans in his work
argued against Novak when proposing that third- and fourth-generation
members of various ethnic communities had indeed been integrated into the
American society. He found that this process was completed through them
sharing in the experience of social and economic upward mobility, as a
result of which they became “less and less interested in their ethnic
cultures and organizations…and are instead more concerned with maintaining
their ethnic identity…[by] finding ways of feeling and expressing that
identity in suitable ways.”
This takes place primarily in regularly tailored, symbolic ways; therefore
the model for this new identification came to be known as symbolic
ethnicity. This model contends that ethnicity emerges as a social
construction, as a process in which the semantic field of ethnic
identification is always in flux, in the state of being re-located within
the social and re-filled with new meanings, aims and sentiments.
Joanne Nagel emphasized the political in the
construction of ethnicity,
binding categories of ethnicity to commonly shared aims and desires which
may be best achieved within the political realm; thus, ethnicity is regarded
as primarily organized around political struggles. Others, such as George
Bond and Angela Gilliam
claimed that ethnicity and race are merely cultural constructions,
which present power, which enhance further power. Werner Sollors
argued not only for the socially constructed nature of ethnic identities,
but regarded them as inventions, social self- positionings always in
the changing, “subject to the continuous play of history, culture and
power,”
as Stuart Hall concluded. Therefore, the specific conditions under which an
ethnic or racial group is constituted as a permanent, historically unified
social entity determine its position and power.
Whiteness Studies also emerged within the same
theoretical understanding, claiming that whiteness is an invented category,
operating through a created ideological fiction having emerged from a
historical set of practices of white supremacy. This field of study
aims (1) to unfold the history of the creation of whiteness, through the
examination of various economic and political circumstances that shaped the
emergence of this category; and (2) to critically analyze current practices,
especially within the realm of culture, which are prominent in perpetuating
this fiction. It hopes to reveal the artificially created nature of
whiteness, to decentralize and deconstruct it as an epistemological category
and source of power, thus dismantling racial hierarchies and attitudes in
general.
Another set of theorizations tied to the
mixed-race/multiracial movement offered perhaps an even more visible
example for the constitution of racial/ethnic identities. Although mixed
race was acknowledged legally only in 2000, the social and cultural position
of multiracial population and the boundaries outlining the possibility of
who they may be regarded as are still determined by traditional racist
attitudes, such as the “one drop of blood” rule, thus they are limited in
the categories available to them in their self-positioning in the public
space and discourses – even if they could pass as their “other.”
Before multiracial identity was acknowledged, mixed-race
people had to choose identity from among the available racial and
ethnic identifications, at least from among the options given to them by
social conventions, and many of them continue to do so. Miri Song
found that the selection, negotiation and affirmation of ethnicity, more
viable within a given racial group than between them, are determined by
internal as well as external factors and are the outcome of a complex series
of self-negotiation.
The other response to multiracial realities was the emergence
of multiracial pan-ethnicity which, according to Cynthia Nakashima,
is featured by the desires “(1) to gain acceptance and legitimacy within
traditional racial and ethnic groups; (2) to shape the identity and agenda
of various mixed-race people into a common multiracial community; and (3) to
establish connections in order to bridge differences between various ethnic
and racial groups in order to form “a community of humanity”
and with that, initiate a new dialogue, leading to the dismantling of
traditional dominant ideologies and their positioning of racial and ethnic
groups.”
2. Mapping the debates
This overview served to assist me in mapping various mental
frameworks, which tend to underlie conceptualizations of race and ethnicity
in the US. Overall, three basic approaches may be located: (1) the first
draws on these traditional categories of race and ethnicity and models a
society which maintain these, but with a major transformation; (2) the
second aims at modeling a society in which these categories are
non-existent; and (3) the third builds on the increasing particularism and
variety in the racial and ethnic landscape.
2.1. Re-constituting ethnic/racial categories
The various models, which may be regarded as representing
this type of approach, would be new ethnicity, multiculturalism, identity
politics and symbolic ethnicity. All these approaches share in drawing on
traditional categorizations of race and ethnicity in their intellectual
undertaking: their assessment of contemporary social tensions center around
these categories and they persist in engaging in a traditionalist discourse
in formulating their claims as for how the re-constitution of the various
racial and ethnic categories should result in the emergence of a fairer
society in which existing racist approaches are corrected and exclusive
patterns of behavior are defeated. That is, they use racial/ethnic
categories to fight the very same categories, as a consequence of the
natural assumption that racial and discriminatory attitudes are based on
these categorizations; it is through these, therefore, that such attitudes
can be transformed, from within, by reversing the meaning of the negative
categories, their representation and perception, elevating their position
and, in doing so, the possible power invested in them.
The Civil Rights Movement demonstrated the organizational
power inherent in these identifications as well as the power of
representation through which political power is accessed. Civil Rights
legislation injected legal power into these categories and initiated slow
but steady transformations with the purpose of correcting historical
injustices, framing choice structures and achieving social reconciliation.
Many, including Amy Gutmann
and Elazar Barkan,
welcomed these actions since they maintained that race-based discrimination
may be overturned by race-based legislation, especially if the group does
not to wish to practice what Jason Hill called its “right to forget.”
However, these arguments must also be accompanied by the
recognition that preferential treatment inherently carries the seeds of
another type of discrimination, something that became known as negative or
reverse discrimination. For that matter, I find that the implied act of
legal minoritization of whites in the Civil Rights Act figures prominently
in the emergence of white supremacist discourses which Robyn Wiegman
attributed to the civil rights language and logic. Moreover, Thomas Sowell,
for one, interpreted affirmative action as the dawn of a new type of racism:
programs continued to distinguish between people along the color line and
offered preferential treatment to Blacks with which, in fact, it denied them
equality and positioned them as indeed inferior, implying that they would
fail to compete under equal circumstances.
It comes as no surprise, then, that these theorizations
assume that race and ethnicity will remain formative in the realm of the
social and are thus treated as a continuing site for people’s identity,
self-organization, representation and negotiation, a site in which these
groups are able to gain voices and fight their “counter-hegemonic war of
maneuver”,
as Stuart Hall put it, in order to reposition themselves. Sowell’s
argumentation also suggests that equality has not been established even in
legal terms and thus the efforts in that direction must also persist.
Within the Civil Rights context and legacy other
categorizations of marginality have emerged, such as “the disabled, gays and
lesbians, women, the working class, atheists, and Communists,”
to quote Kymlicka again. Each of these groups presented their claim for
their distinct ontological and epistemological conditions, arguing in the
Civil Rights language and logic for a public voice and recognition. In this
general move towards particularism, however, specific sets of combinations
came into play as sets of positionings out of which even more specific truth
claims and demands emerged. In all of these, however, racial and ethnic
identifications remained central, reflecting the extent to which they have
remained fundamental segments of postmodern identity models, also shaping
newer, highly energetic and provocative academic discourses.
One excellent example may be Gloria Anzaldua, whose self-definition as “a
tejana patlache (queer) nepantlera spiritual activist”
and its meaning has indeed defined the direction of her academic work.
2.2. De-centering race and ethnicity
Through a
de-centering of racial and ethnic categories, Hollinger’s notion of
post-ethnicity, similarly to Hill’s radical cosmopolitanism, envisions a
state of society where these social markers lose their signifying position.
Both agree in that this ideal social state would emerge through a process,
the first stage of which is what Hill defines as moderate cosmopolitanism,
where racial and ethnic identifications prevail but not in a hierarchical
fashion, without specific, negative connotations and stereotypes. However,
they both place this utopian stage somewhere in the far future, without
actually elaborating on the specifics of the actualization of this program:
what particular conditions would lead to the emergence of the sentiment and
consensus framing this ideal state of being
and why society may be viewed as a homogeneous whole and would develop in a
uniform manner in a predetermined direction towards an ideal social
formation.
Multiracial
pan-ethnicity also envisions a society as a community in which humanity and
not racial or ethnic identifications would position and unite people – yet
another proposition assuming homogeneity and uniformity in future social
change with a predetermined outcome. It is argued that this may be realized
through the full legitimation and inclusion of the various racial and ethnic
communities.
Inherent in the conceptualization of race or ethnicity as a
form of construction and/or invention is, by definition, the possibility of
its re-construction or deconstruction. The paradox, yet again, is that these
processes remain constructions in, through and out of racial and ethnic
categories. This reflects the fact that there was a set of historical
conditions and reasons in and for which these categories were invented and
constructed, and as long as these prevail the basis and need for the
existence of these categorizations by the powers instituting them as well as
by the people signified by them will also prevail. In order to maintain
current power structures, the first group would insist on the maintenance of
these categories, thus positioning them as essential in a possible struggle
aimed at transforming and/or nullifying them.
This informs, as Madan Sarup concluded, “politics which works
with and through difference, a politics which does not suppress the real
heterogeneity of interests and identities.”
This politics, according to Amy Gutmann and Iris Young,
fights for a color-blind society, but as color-conscious policies and
attitudes still dominate the public sphere, color-conscious policies must be
fought for and implemented in order to be able to attain a just, color-blind
society, which indeed treats all its citizens as civic equals. That is,
racial categories must be mobilized in order to achieve advancements in
politics, which will result in the emancipation and social inclusion of
these groups.
Whiteness Studies attempted to deconstruct whiteness as the
race of power, the only race towards which Americans have become color
blind, as Gregory Jay noted.
Moreover, it also hoped to deprive white race of its power, through which it
also strived to dismantle contemporary racial philosophy, hierarchy and
exclusion. However, this field of study is only able to operate by
discussing whiteness, that is, by centering whiteness, the act of which, as
some critics claim, reverses the direction of the currents which may lead to
a halt in racial attitudes and policies. Moreover, much work on Whiteness
Studies relates the development of whiteness to the development of class,
especially the working class, basing the argumentation on Marxist
assumptions, which have also attracted much criticism.
2.3. Particularizing race and ethnicity
For a while I was entertaining the idea that a multiracial
population will be the key to solving the race problem in the US. Mixed race
people, I thought, would provide the best example for why essentialist
approaches must be discredited as well as prove to be the best activists to
turn the constructed nature of identity to their advantage and transform the
representation as well as the reception of these categories. I believed that
they had performed border-crossing in the biological sense and thus gained
access to what Homi Bhabha defined as “a liminal space, a pathway”, a
possible site for challenging and negotiating fixed identifications.
I believed that they may become the people whose mere existence will be the
basis for a truly tolerant, all-embracing, inclusive, mutually respectful,
and fair society.
However, this has not been the case. For one, the mixed-race
population is an enigma in US society, as they cannot be placed into the
familiar racial system; thus, they present yet a newer problem. This “inability
to conceptualize multiethnic persons reflects a colonial ideology of
categorization and separation based on a “pure blood” criterion” as
Alsultany
claimed, going on to say: “Multiethnic identity comes as a surprise and a
danger within this framework as people attempt to place us, to make sense
within the schemas available for understanding people and the world”
But it is not
only society, which has not been able to cope with multiracial positionings.
A number of scholars argued that a multiracial and multiethnic population
often used this position to choose their identity. Miri Song found that “the
issue of affiliating with a particular group is unlikely to be determined by
an individual’s desires and choices alone.”
It is rather a matter of intersubjective negotiations, which take the
complex dynamics of ethnic/racial representation, ethnic options and power
positions as well as social perceptions and status into consideration.
Therefore, choosing
one ethnicity or race and abandoning the other(s) is based on the cultural
tradition, i.e. what one may choose to be; is informed by the classification
of racial/ethnic hierarchies; and expressive of the nature of their social
positionings. Moreover, it contributes to the reproduction of these as
choices made tend to strengthen the existing views and resultant
structures/hierarchies.
Sundstrom
classified criticisms of multiracial identities and theories in four groups.
(1) It is claimed that a mixed racial position is essentially used to
express individual desire to move upward on the racial hierarchy based on
hypodescent, which preserves racial hierarchy and expresses a negative
stereotype towards those at the bottom, as, for example, individuals tend to
distance themselves from Black identity and locate themselves on the scale
closer to Whites. (2) The second argument contends that these theories and
identities will eventually undermine and perhaps even reverse the various
advances, which were the outcome of the Civil Rights Movement. (3) The third
set of objections maintained that these theories, far from subverting the
existing mono-racial hierarchy and racist attitudes, reaffirm both them and
essentialist claims in general as these theories, by speaking in biological
terms of mixed blood and features, return to the already discredited
biological essentialism in the categorization and identification of people.
(4) Naomi Zack in her “philosophy of anti-race”
also claimed that these theories involve the reification of race, which
indicates that people, instead of developing an authentic life and
personality, continue to draw on old, mistaken categorizations, such as race
or ethnicity. Since racial/ethnic categorizations are not based on
scientific evidence, they should be discredited and people should realize
how they cannot have racial/ethnic identities at all.
Zack’s
utopianism notwithstanding, what is fascinating about these arguments is
that they actually place mixed race theories under attack because they may
upset the current racial hierarchy or racial status quo and power structure
and thus threaten the known or accepted methods and achievements of
negotiations. Mixed-race people, their movement and theories threaten the
comfort many feel regarding current positions and inherent possibilities of
further moves, the certainty if not fixity attached to that which, as
Homi Bhabha argued, presents the Other through a
stereotype, seemingly in clear, simple terms, as known, predictable and
permanent in its place.
Conclusion
These discourses clearly express that race and ethnicity
still remain as central to the academic debate as they do to contemporary
existence and identifications. These categories still impact other fragments
of identification, a number of discourses, representations and negotiations.
Social and political identifications, economic positionings, belief systems,
and
gender roles
all develop intertwined with ethnic and racial categories. I see these as
part of what
Appiah
calls the “tool kit” which our culture and society make available to us and
which we use when constructing our identities.
The plurality of positionings and general move towards
particularism in terms of identification, as also reflected in the academic
discourses, is complicated further by global tendencies which, as Don
Mitchell argued, have contributed to the emergence of a new type of
transnational social structure in which the cosmopolitan, hyper-mobile,
privileged “globalized class” is taking the lead, not being “tied to any
locale but at home in many.”
Arjun Appadurai,
however, mapped the disjunctions in global processes and argued that
homogenizational tendencies occur in five dimensions or spaces which may be
located as the sites for the negotiation and analysis of these: ethnoscapes,
mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes and ideoscapes. These may become
instrumental in the analysis of global racism, which, according to
Bhattacharyya et al.,
exists to safeguard the economic interest of older cultures’ privilege.
Gloria Anzaldua in her preface to this bridge we call home
called for a mentality which refuses to walk the color line or maintain the
gender line, not by arguing for their disappearance but by “honoring
people’s otherness in ways that allow us to be changed by embracing that
otherness rather than punishing others”
for their differences. This can be attained by changing “notions of
identity, viewing it as part of a more complex system covering a larger
terrain, and demonstrating that the politics of exclusion based on
traditional categories diminishes our humanness.”
Alsultany proposed that this can be achieved through the decolonization of
essentialized frameworks, the transformation of “dislocation into location”
and the reconstruction of “belonging” to embrace the experiences of all
human beings.”
The reconstruction of race and ethnicity from a fixed
hierarchical system to a flexible, relational structuring may indeed be a
possible next step. These categories are unlikely to disappear in the near
future, especially since they have not been transformed and equalized yet.
We are still at a stage where, as Banerjee’s example signifies, not
acknowledging race or ethnicity seems pretentious and disingenuous: “Nobody
ever told me I was different. And yet maybe their denial was actually
proof.”
The problem
evolving around the category of race pointed out by Du Bois, in a way,
indeed resulted in an equalizing or democratizing process. The problem and
racial/ethnic categorizations, instead of disappearing, have been
intensifying and multiplying, establishing an equality not in terms of
diminishing racial and ethnic categorizations, but in terms of becoming
all-embracing and presenting sets of issues and problems for everyone. As a
result, instead of Du Bois’s powerful question having become obsolete in the
American society, now everybody may be asked the same old question: “How
does it feel to be a problem?”
Bibliography
- Alsultany,
Evelyn. “Los Intersticios: Recasting Moving Selves.” In Anzaldua, Gloria and
Analouise Keating eds.
this bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation. New
York: Routledge, 2002, 106-110.
- ---. ed. The Invention of Ethnicity. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1989.
-
Song, Miri.
Choosing Ethnic Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
- Sowell,
Thomas. Preferential Policies: An International Perspective. New
York: Morrow, 1990.
-
Sundstrom, Ronald R. “Being and Being Mixed Race.” Social
Theory and Practice
27(2001): 2(Apr).
Notes
Werner Sollors, “Foreword: Theories of American Ethnicity,” in
Werner Sollors ed., Theories of Ethnicity (London: Macmillan,
1996), x-xliv.
[50]
Mita Banerjee,
“The Hipness of Mediation: A Hyphenated German Existence,” in
Gloria Anzaldua and Analouise Keating eds., this bridge we call
home: radical visions for transformation (New York: Routledge,
2002) 117-125,
117.
|