Calling Kendi and NHJ ‘A-List’ and ‘journalists’ is a wide stretch, but I get your overall concept. (I’d call them woke conspiracy theorists.) John McWhorter writes wonderfully on race essentialism in his book Woke Racism. I think your premise is right: To keep obsessing about race and racial differences and historical racial grievances...is itself to continue supporting racism. It’s time to let go of the past, move on, and accept that things are much, much better now than 35, 50 years ago, both legally and culturally. The data shows this clearly. And it’s obvious. Identity politics is the trendy pop de jour right now, but it’s like gluten free a decade ago; it’ll pass.
Love this: "But a 21st century adherence to a notion of racial purity when, arguably, the point of any story of passing is that racial purity is a fiction, seems compelled by an allegiance whose aims aren’t entirely clear." It might be ironic for me to say this, given that I've written on DEI issues in higher ed, but I don't think the allegiance is always unclear. I think you're right that there is a faulty foundation for many claims to racial purity or policing of representation, but there are also clear profit motives in some cases for adhering to a standard generally understood to be pure or authentic. Ibram Kendi is a good example of this. He lacks much of Coates's nuance and sophistication, but he delivers a philosophy that is very marketable, very amenable to sound bites and television appearances. His rise has been meteoric, and I remain astounded at the academic accolades he's received. But the incentives are clear. If anti-racism can be reduced to a binary -- either you're actively promoting anti-racism or you're directly or implicitly supporting racism -- then the demand for Kendi will continue. He is more a pastor than a scholar, in my view -- as John McWhorter has explained more eloquently than I. In fact, McWhorter's book "Woke Racism" might be a useful reference here. He sees performative identity politics as a religion. In some cases, it has a moral foundation, but when celebrity and wealth are attached, it's not so different from the kind of religion that televangelists and mega-church ministers peddle. As long as there is an industry attached to race and the performance of it, I don't think we'll escape from the past.
Thank you for your remarks, Josh. I agree: i don't think the allegiance itself is unclear, either. I think its *aims* are (which is what I wrote). And by that I mean many, like Hall, pay unquestioned allegiance to an idea of racial purity because it's de rigueur, or because not doing so is just not worth the risk. But I don't think people give it much thought or even understand that they have a choice or that they could question it. And yes McWhorter would call those aims "woke racism," and I appreciate that his views are finally ascendant.
For what it's worth, though, Kendi and Coates are pretty much of the same camp in my book, only the latter's prose makes people gush more. What they do--both of them--matters. But it needs to be okay to read black writers other than the small anointed handful. If we read even a smidgeon of what's available (historically) our conversation about blackness, wokeness and racism would be far richer.
A comment on race essentialism. I'm an ethicist, and I've been teaching for decades. The vast majority of people I encounter are race essentialist to the extent that teaching race in my ethics courses is fraught with danger. Attempting to instruct people in basic truths is seen as racist!
I face the same plight on the topic of transgender, btw, as even many "gender advocates" for lack of a better term struggle to understand non-conforming, non-binary, or "passing" gender queer persons.
An odd personal side note. I'm a cultural mutt. I grew up in so many different foreign cultures, that I became a cultural chameleon of sorts. Hence, when I finally came to the US as a child, I constantly broke racial, ethnic, etc. barriers without ever realizing that was a "problem" and that continues to this day. Having faced this all my life, I can say that most people just freak out when you do that. That is, the person who may think themselves a woke warrior is too often performative. Or harbors an anti-Islam or anti-lower class bias. What I'm getting at is my astonishment at just how strongly people are motivated to preserve essentialism and barriers despite their consciously held commitments. It's no small part of why I ended up specializing in social ethics.
Thank you, Jason. I appreciate your comments. I agree that staying in your racial/cultural lane matters a lot to people, but the cost is too high for all of us. Labels, even the woke ones, even the liberating ones, are about voice and visibility, but they are also about external control.
Calling Kendi and NHJ ‘A-List’ and ‘journalists’ is a wide stretch, but I get your overall concept. (I’d call them woke conspiracy theorists.) John McWhorter writes wonderfully on race essentialism in his book Woke Racism. I think your premise is right: To keep obsessing about race and racial differences and historical racial grievances...is itself to continue supporting racism. It’s time to let go of the past, move on, and accept that things are much, much better now than 35, 50 years ago, both legally and culturally. The data shows this clearly. And it’s obvious. Identity politics is the trendy pop de jour right now, but it’s like gluten free a decade ago; it’ll pass.
Love this: "But a 21st century adherence to a notion of racial purity when, arguably, the point of any story of passing is that racial purity is a fiction, seems compelled by an allegiance whose aims aren’t entirely clear." It might be ironic for me to say this, given that I've written on DEI issues in higher ed, but I don't think the allegiance is always unclear. I think you're right that there is a faulty foundation for many claims to racial purity or policing of representation, but there are also clear profit motives in some cases for adhering to a standard generally understood to be pure or authentic. Ibram Kendi is a good example of this. He lacks much of Coates's nuance and sophistication, but he delivers a philosophy that is very marketable, very amenable to sound bites and television appearances. His rise has been meteoric, and I remain astounded at the academic accolades he's received. But the incentives are clear. If anti-racism can be reduced to a binary -- either you're actively promoting anti-racism or you're directly or implicitly supporting racism -- then the demand for Kendi will continue. He is more a pastor than a scholar, in my view -- as John McWhorter has explained more eloquently than I. In fact, McWhorter's book "Woke Racism" might be a useful reference here. He sees performative identity politics as a religion. In some cases, it has a moral foundation, but when celebrity and wealth are attached, it's not so different from the kind of religion that televangelists and mega-church ministers peddle. As long as there is an industry attached to race and the performance of it, I don't think we'll escape from the past.
Exactly. Marketing. Profit. BLM makes a killing, for example, as does DEI.
Thank you for your remarks, Josh. I agree: i don't think the allegiance itself is unclear, either. I think its *aims* are (which is what I wrote). And by that I mean many, like Hall, pay unquestioned allegiance to an idea of racial purity because it's de rigueur, or because not doing so is just not worth the risk. But I don't think people give it much thought or even understand that they have a choice or that they could question it. And yes McWhorter would call those aims "woke racism," and I appreciate that his views are finally ascendant.
For what it's worth, though, Kendi and Coates are pretty much of the same camp in my book, only the latter's prose makes people gush more. What they do--both of them--matters. But it needs to be okay to read black writers other than the small anointed handful. If we read even a smidgeon of what's available (historically) our conversation about blackness, wokeness and racism would be far richer.
Thanks again for contributing!
Really appreciated the opportunity, Josh.
Much wisdom, literary and political, in this fine essay.
Thank you, Mary! Looking forward to your piece tomorrow.
Thanks, Carol, for joining us on this collaboration and for such an excellent essay!
Wow. This is truly excellent!
A comment on race essentialism. I'm an ethicist, and I've been teaching for decades. The vast majority of people I encounter are race essentialist to the extent that teaching race in my ethics courses is fraught with danger. Attempting to instruct people in basic truths is seen as racist!
I face the same plight on the topic of transgender, btw, as even many "gender advocates" for lack of a better term struggle to understand non-conforming, non-binary, or "passing" gender queer persons.
An odd personal side note. I'm a cultural mutt. I grew up in so many different foreign cultures, that I became a cultural chameleon of sorts. Hence, when I finally came to the US as a child, I constantly broke racial, ethnic, etc. barriers without ever realizing that was a "problem" and that continues to this day. Having faced this all my life, I can say that most people just freak out when you do that. That is, the person who may think themselves a woke warrior is too often performative. Or harbors an anti-Islam or anti-lower class bias. What I'm getting at is my astonishment at just how strongly people are motivated to preserve essentialism and barriers despite their consciously held commitments. It's no small part of why I ended up specializing in social ethics.
❤️❤️🤘
Thank you, Jason. I appreciate your comments. I agree that staying in your racial/cultural lane matters a lot to people, but the cost is too high for all of us. Labels, even the woke ones, even the liberating ones, are about voice and visibility, but they are also about external control.