A review of "Transracial: Analyzing Rachel Dolezal and Racial Identity"
This is a short and badly written piece on the Rachel
Dolezal affair. The author, Yvette Hill, describes herself as an
African-American woman. I don't think her article is particularly edifying,
except in the sense that it shows the confused reactions to Dolezal's
“blackface” or “transracialism”.
Hill argues that “transracialism” cannot be equated with transgenderism, since gender is real whereas “race” is not. Gender is both biological and psychological (in a deep-rooted sense), and therefore forms part of a person's core identity. Transgenderism is therefore a real condition, wherein a person's actual gender happens to be trapped in the wrong body. Race, by contrast, is a purely social/political construct, often with oppressive intent, solely based on external physical factors (skin color being the most obvious). Therefore, “transracialism” is impossible, since one cannot “feel Black”, there being no such thing as “Black” (or “White”) feelings. For this reason, Hill supports transgender struggles, but opposes Rachel Dolezal.
I think the confusion here is obvious. If gender is based, at least to a large extent, on biological factors, then a person who is biologically a woman should be seen as female. If she “feels” male should either be seen as tomboyish or downright ridiculous, perhaps even disturbed. Conversely, if “race” is an artificial construct, nothing stops Dolezal from calling herself “Black” despite being born “White”. Thus, Hill should logically take the exact opposite positions from those she does take.
Besides, Hill doesn't *really* believe that “race” is purely fictitious. She grew up in a White neighborhood with mostly White friends and had White cultural interests, but was nevertheless painfully aware of being different and of having to work three times as hard to succeed than her White peers. She also points out that Blacks share a common history in the United States, with experiences very different from those of Whites. Finally, Hill points to “White skin privilege” as a crucial divide between Whites and Blacks, making it difficult to take Dolezal's “Black” or “transracial” identity seriously, since her position will always be different from that of people assigned a Black identity at birth. Here, of course, Hill has a point .*This*, surely, is the main argument against Dolezal.
On one level, I think the confusion stems from the fact that leftists and liberals want to support both Blacks and the transgendered. When supporting the latter, it's necessary to accept the idea that somebody's consciousness can conflict with their visible social or biological selves, “identity” being based on the former. When supporting Blacks, by contrast, it's equally necessary to argue the exact opposite position, since most Blacks loath both “blackface” and “passing”. What nobody dares saying is that (surprise) the real criterion in both cases is purely political. It's not politic to say it, I suppose. Hence, all the panic and confusion over the Dolezal case.
Perhaps there is another source for the confusion, too. Just because something is a “social construct” doesn't mean that it's not really “there”. Here's a trivial example. Take a house. It's an artificial, unnatural construction. It didn't have to exist. It could have looked otherwise. It can be changed, perhaps repainted. Yet, it's clearly a real thing, and could even be necessary. We ignore it at our peril. It would also be rather silly to claim that, say, a prison is really a shopping mall, or that a blue house is really green. I believe “race” is a social construct of this type. Of course “race” isn't real in a biological sense – there is more genetic diversity in a flock of sparrows in your backyard than in the entire human species. However, it's a social construct we can't simply ignore (even those of us who may wish to abolish it), and that's why Dolezal's antics strike many as frivolous, mischievous or even insulting. They certainly aren't helpful. In a paradoxical sense, Dolezal's attempts to pass as a racially underprivileged Black actually absolved here from the political task of fighting against her own racial privilege as White.
Another way of putting the same thing is that many “pop identity politicians” seem to conflate social constructions of the robust type just mentioned with mere lifestyle choices, as if “gender” or “race” could be compared to subcultures like bronies or furries. They also conflate a “subjectivity” that's intertwined with objective factors, with mere personal whims. By these criteria, it becomes very difficult indeed to explain what Dolezal did wrong when she attempted to pass as Black, especially since she claims to feel Black. (If transgendered people are a robust social construct, a mere lifestyle choice, or something “essentialist”, is a question I won't tackle here.) Of course, I don't know if Hill in particular is confused on these points, but I do think her article is part of a broader discourse ultimately based on the factors mentioned.
If “Transracial” had been better written, I might have given it the OK rating despite my disagreement with its contents, but as it is, the article sounds like an extended blog post written in sometimes grammatically improper English. I therefore only give it two stars.
Hill argues that “transracialism” cannot be equated with transgenderism, since gender is real whereas “race” is not. Gender is both biological and psychological (in a deep-rooted sense), and therefore forms part of a person's core identity. Transgenderism is therefore a real condition, wherein a person's actual gender happens to be trapped in the wrong body. Race, by contrast, is a purely social/political construct, often with oppressive intent, solely based on external physical factors (skin color being the most obvious). Therefore, “transracialism” is impossible, since one cannot “feel Black”, there being no such thing as “Black” (or “White”) feelings. For this reason, Hill supports transgender struggles, but opposes Rachel Dolezal.
I think the confusion here is obvious. If gender is based, at least to a large extent, on biological factors, then a person who is biologically a woman should be seen as female. If she “feels” male should either be seen as tomboyish or downright ridiculous, perhaps even disturbed. Conversely, if “race” is an artificial construct, nothing stops Dolezal from calling herself “Black” despite being born “White”. Thus, Hill should logically take the exact opposite positions from those she does take.
Besides, Hill doesn't *really* believe that “race” is purely fictitious. She grew up in a White neighborhood with mostly White friends and had White cultural interests, but was nevertheless painfully aware of being different and of having to work three times as hard to succeed than her White peers. She also points out that Blacks share a common history in the United States, with experiences very different from those of Whites. Finally, Hill points to “White skin privilege” as a crucial divide between Whites and Blacks, making it difficult to take Dolezal's “Black” or “transracial” identity seriously, since her position will always be different from that of people assigned a Black identity at birth. Here, of course, Hill has a point .*This*, surely, is the main argument against Dolezal.
On one level, I think the confusion stems from the fact that leftists and liberals want to support both Blacks and the transgendered. When supporting the latter, it's necessary to accept the idea that somebody's consciousness can conflict with their visible social or biological selves, “identity” being based on the former. When supporting Blacks, by contrast, it's equally necessary to argue the exact opposite position, since most Blacks loath both “blackface” and “passing”. What nobody dares saying is that (surprise) the real criterion in both cases is purely political. It's not politic to say it, I suppose. Hence, all the panic and confusion over the Dolezal case.
Perhaps there is another source for the confusion, too. Just because something is a “social construct” doesn't mean that it's not really “there”. Here's a trivial example. Take a house. It's an artificial, unnatural construction. It didn't have to exist. It could have looked otherwise. It can be changed, perhaps repainted. Yet, it's clearly a real thing, and could even be necessary. We ignore it at our peril. It would also be rather silly to claim that, say, a prison is really a shopping mall, or that a blue house is really green. I believe “race” is a social construct of this type. Of course “race” isn't real in a biological sense – there is more genetic diversity in a flock of sparrows in your backyard than in the entire human species. However, it's a social construct we can't simply ignore (even those of us who may wish to abolish it), and that's why Dolezal's antics strike many as frivolous, mischievous or even insulting. They certainly aren't helpful. In a paradoxical sense, Dolezal's attempts to pass as a racially underprivileged Black actually absolved here from the political task of fighting against her own racial privilege as White.
Another way of putting the same thing is that many “pop identity politicians” seem to conflate social constructions of the robust type just mentioned with mere lifestyle choices, as if “gender” or “race” could be compared to subcultures like bronies or furries. They also conflate a “subjectivity” that's intertwined with objective factors, with mere personal whims. By these criteria, it becomes very difficult indeed to explain what Dolezal did wrong when she attempted to pass as Black, especially since she claims to feel Black. (If transgendered people are a robust social construct, a mere lifestyle choice, or something “essentialist”, is a question I won't tackle here.) Of course, I don't know if Hill in particular is confused on these points, but I do think her article is part of a broader discourse ultimately based on the factors mentioned.
If “Transracial” had been better written, I might have given it the OK rating despite my disagreement with its contents, but as it is, the article sounds like an extended blog post written in sometimes grammatically improper English. I therefore only give it two stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment