In thinking about the concept of
race as a social rather than biological construction, I couldn’t help but draw
parallels to the story which broke last year on Rachel Dolezal. For those who
are unfamiliar with this, Dolezal was the president of the NAACP’s (National
Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) chapter in Spokane,
Washington. It was discovered that she had been misleading in regards to her
racial identity; although identifying herself as black, it was discovered that
Dolezal is actually (or at least biologically) white. A firestorm of
controversy erupted over what was labelled by the mainstream media as fraud and
wrongful cultural appropriation.
However, if we are to agree that
race is created through socially constructed norms, the story of Rachel
Dolezal’s takes on a new level of complexity; how exactly does one define
racial identity? A white women
portraying herself as black through taking on stereotypically black traits such
as braided hair is seen as bizarre in itself, regardless of her role in society.
Yet it is safe to assume that a case of the opposite, a black women taking on
stereotypically white traits, would receive little attention. How can one
define what it means to be stereotypically ‘white’ in a culture which is so heavily
dominated by ideological whiteness?
I don’t wish to offer an opinion
on Dolezal, but it’s clear that she does genuinely and intensely identify with
black culture; she is an expert in African American literature, politics and
history, devoting herself to black welfare through the NAACP. She even held a
teaching position in African Studies at Eastern Washington University. Dolezal herself
has stated that “If somebody asked me how
I identify, I identify as black. Nothing about whiteness describes who I am.” (I
will attach the interview where this was said to this post for those who are
interested). Certainly her actions were in no way intended to harm the black
community.
Culture itself (ideas, social
behaviour and customs) has nothing to do with ‘race’ in the way mainstream
society views it; a basis on physical appearance. Is it fair to say that
Dolezal’s behaviour is more than simply an extreme form of cultural
appropriation? Is it possible that race can be as fluid as gender is now widely
accepted to be? Transgender individuals are defined as feeling that they don’t
identify with their assigned or ‘biological’ gender, something which is increasingly
accepted by mainstream society. Why couldn’t the same hold true for race? Her
clear lack of identification with ‘whiteness’ certainly suggests this is a
possibility. I offer no answer to this, but I think it’s certainly an interesting
concept which this case brings to light.
Ultimately the Rachel Dolezal
controversy stems from the fact that she was, in the eyes of society,
pretending to be something which she was not. It isn’t surprising that it
seriously challenges many of the essentialist assumptions which have been held
about race for hundreds of years. Yet if Dolezal’s story can help shift the
perception of ‘biological’ race, it could be the start of a more open and
negotiable definition for racial identity which can only be a positive thing.
The Guardian's interview with Rachel Dolezal:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/13/rachel-dolezal-i-wasnt-identifying-as-black-to-upset-people-i-was-being-me
Very interesting. Seems like black people and only black people can speak about the black experience. A very good topic to think about. With a lot of cultural appropriation regardless of the intent it can still be appropriation. Yet is it possible to have positive appropriation? I don't know. Is it appropriation if you have been raised in that life? Is Dolezal able to participate completely in the white society or is she too black because of her own identification? Where does Dolezal fit in society? Is anyone able to elaborate on this??
ReplyDeleteCertainly, we can draw strong parallels between the construction of gender and of race. In my views, these parallels are worth examining and giving credence: if we are able to examine our own subjectivity through a lens of fluid gender or sexuality surely, then, we must be able to do the same with race. Some may argue that this a logical fallacy or that the politics of gender and race are not interchangeable. I'm not so easily dissuaded and think these distinctions are well worth examining. Omi and Winant's theory of racial formation is particular helpful here and through Dolezal we may see the instability and 'decenteredness' of race.
ReplyDeleteTo me, motivation is critical when examining an individual's actions.
Malicious intent and, perhaps, indifference to the act of racially fluidity is certainly not constructive. To swing race as a bag around one's head is to ignore centuries of lived experience and trivialise. On the other side of the coin, to be transracial is to acknowledge history and context. It means listening to those without the liberty to choose and respecting the complexities of the racial formation. Where Dolezal lies in my messy framework is unclear and perhaps irrelevant.
What is more clear is the Dolezal may have been inadvertently instrumental in breaking the term 'transracial' out of academic journals ... and on to academic blogs (but, Rome wasn't built in a day).
I enjoy this post a lot, actually, because this has become a topic of much interest by scholars in the United States: how do you define blackness? It is interesting that this discussion is happening, because it appears that both "ethnic groups" (black and white) for complete lack of a better term, are having this discussion-- and that neither one has come to a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteBlackness, according to Stuart Hall when he wrote his article "What is this 'Black' in 'Black Popular Culture'" discusses this idea fairly deeply: he says that blackness is a performance, and is also a postmodern concept-- we are quite incorrect to try to define blackness as one thing, but rather, it is the conglomeration of many different cultures. I appreciate this definition, because it does not reduce the concept of “blackness” down to voices, rap songs, hip hop, skin color, clothing, speech patterns, music styles, hair styles, etc.
This discussion of blackness really came ahead when President Barack Obama was elected to office. President Obama, of course, doesn’t seem “black enough” to some people (he has light skin, and his parents have an interracial marriage). The next year, Disney released its first black Princess in the film The Princess and the Frog, which resulted in an explosion of derision and praise. Every aspect of the film was critiqued— perhaps most notably the fact that Princess Tiana wasn’t “black enough”. They didn’t like her hair, they thought her skin was too light, and they thought she didn’t speak correctly, despite the fact that Tiana was based off of her voice actor. Perceptions of what’s “black” and what’s not clearly vary wildly from individual to individual.
On the one hand, I’m a little appalled that we can have this discussion— that someone can be considered “not black enough”. On the other hand, I am glad that these discussions are beginning to come forward into the public eye, because this gaping wound in our history cannot be healed if we continue to ignore it.