How to Deal with Your Racist Uncle in 2018
2017
was the actual worst. From the inauguration to the hurricanes, to the bombings
and shootings, to the wars and earthquakes, all accompanied by surreal
presidential tweets, we made it by the skin of our teeth and the strength
of our respective communities.
We live in a stratified and hostile society
that grew out of more stratification and hostility. Do you feel it? It’s
perhaps most insidiously present during the holidays, when we return home
and all is jolly and bright until our grandmother says something racist or our
dad doesn’t get why colonialism was bad, and if we call them out, it gets
really… uncomfortable. The truth is, each generation and each political party
has an idea of what society must accept to continue as it ought, and these
ideas tend to oppose each other. They aren’t just a progression of harmless
opinions, however; two thoughts can be diametrically opposed and accepted, but
they cannot be diametrically opposed and true. What, then, can we do when the
choice appears to be between peace and truth?
We
can find the answer at the beginnings of our twenty-first century
perspective(s). The (s) is important here because it lies at the heart of
this generation’s way of thinking, that of plurality and diversity, and
one of the most important voices that opened the door to new voices was that of Jacques
Derrida, whose central practice was deconstruction. Deconstruction is a method
used by literary theorists to examine the ways that systems and structures of
power are embedded within the very linguistic structures of the words we say
every day. By examining how words – and even the sounds within those words –
have multiple connotations, we are able to see the plurality of interpretation
and meaning. Words are self-referential and may appear to be arbitrary;
however, the practice of deconstruction encourages us to question things and
ideas that we’ve assumed true in the past. After all, ideas are based on words,
and words don’t necessarily reflect “reality.” Consider the word
“love,” which in Greek has multiple meanings as diverse as love for a mother
versus love for a spouse. Once the multiple meanings and interpretations of
words and ideas are exposed, the objects society considered
sacred suddenly lose their foundation. Philosophy, as a system of thought
that explains something (think: political parties), is a sacred object. “What
deconstruction reveals,” writes Nancy J. Holland in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "is that the
repression that is necessary for creating a history of philosophy is in large
part a repression of what philosophy itself cannot control, of what escapes the
grasp of philosophy while being part of it.” In other words, to synthesize and
systematize into what we might call an “-ism" (any belief system,
including religious or political platforms) leaves gaps and overlaps that can't
hold up to rigorous analysis. The very foundations of words and thought
are built upon multiplicity and diversity – not upon singular meanings. In the
past, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, old thoughts implied “a certain
grandeur and completeness,” and they “darted through the universe and
solved all its problems”; however, those old ideas cannot suit us anymore. In
every ideology that totalizes, cracks and fissures appear. Derrida laid bare
the inaccurate notions inherent in the ideological systems engrained in
twentieth and twenty-first century philosophy. Other philosophers and
literary critics practiced the same and similar work, notably Edward Said
in Orientalism, where he dismantled the patronizing and illogical values
of colonialism. In many ways, rigorous analysis of sacred ideas would not exist
today without the word of Derrida, Said, and many others.
Thirteen
years have passed since Derrida died, and fourteen since Said.
In that time, the West has hurtled forward to the melody of deconstruction
and “postmodernism.” The latter word is in quotes for a reason: the very
notion of an “-ism” goes against what Derrida and Said worked for. In
Derrida’s own words, “Monsters cannot be announced. One cannot
say: ‘Here are our monsters,’ without immediately turning the monsters
into pets” (“Some Statements and Truisms”). As with any thought that was
originally edgy, the current of the mainstream removes its edge for safe and
comfortable use. Of course, many beneficial pieces of thought have
entered the collective consciousness through deconstruction, such as a
breaking apart of ideologies like racism, sexism, and heteronormativity.
However, that is what they are: pieces of thought. The whole, the practice of deconstruction, has been pre-applied
and bundled for individual sale: “political correctness” objects to
certain statements, but do we really understand the tearing down of ideologies
that brought us to the point of rejection? In other words, critical thinkers
have deconstructed systems of oppression that systematically deprived
individuals of power, but without that original critical thinking, we are at a
loss to know how to proceed. The result is good ideas and causes that nevertheless,
as we figured out last year, can't seem to make much headway. 2017’s tragic
lack of mutual understanding must wake us up to the realization that
our strategy is not working. How many of us know brilliant people who can't seem to
understand the intricacies of racism and/or will not let the
term “micro aggression” pass without a snicker about “snowflakes”? The issue here is not the truth/untruth
of statements, but rather the lack of critical thinking packaged along with bite-sized
deconstruction, which seeks not to destroy “truth,” but instead to expose ideas
that we have constructed and impose on others. This is not to tear apart, but instead to
examine our social constructs instead of taking them for granted or considering
them inevitable. A greater understanding of society and its issues comes not
from ascribing to a point of view, but rather from a taking stock of all points
of view. In the end, we may end up squarely on one or the other side of the
strange political binary we practice in the United States, but stock-taking is
what gives power to belief. When a belief has been considered, it can
exist without becoming an “-ism,” a notion that is not an overbearing ideology.
This next part may be difficult, but a
merciful eye works wonders. Consider what we have, for better or for worse,
termed "political correctness." The basic concept is that people
ought to consider if what they’re saying really conforms to reality or not
– to examine not simply if it conforms to one’s own reality, but also to the
experiences of others. In other words, “political correctness” encourages a
person to try not to be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. The attempt to be kind
and considerate to all is perhaps one of the achievements of our generation.
There is, however, a point where this becomes problematic. It is not the
weighting of some groups over others that becomes troubling; to me at least, this
effort can set conversation (and society) aright. It is rather the
hegemony of thought to which Derrida might most heavily object. This
is not isolated in the "political correctness” of the Left, however; the
conservative political right engages in this, too, as we may have experienced
around the family dinner table when the conversation turns to social
issues. Paradoxically,
it is hegemonic thought that divides us. As "political correctness"
seeks to allow all voices, so the union of male, wealthy, heterosexual, white
voices will reject those voices. In turn, the rising power of diverse
voices will reject the former hegemony. Except this current hegemonic
union isn’t former quite yet. It hasn’t gone away. We’re left with a
seemingly endless struggle, and the weapons/defense mechanisms have become
the same on both sides: complete agreement within and complete rejection
without. This structure makes the groups involved in
binary opposition to each other; that is, they cannot exist without the
antagonistic/opposing existence of the other. The diversity of the political
left unites into a single voice. And this is what is losing the battle.
In
the spirit of Derrida, to deconstruct the singleness of our ideas and to make
space for the multiplicity of voices is crucial, not for the fun of it, but to
bring justice to everyone. So yes, we must continue to speak carefully and
to give space and power to all voices. However, we must also listen to
what those voices have to say. If it is erroneous or illogical, to correct and
even call out is important. But too often these become knee-jerk responses
with no allowance for dissenting ideas. The reason for rejecting minority
voices in the past was prejudice, of course, but also fear of what they might
say to challenge the existing point of view. We face a similar danger now.
The way forward is not to let go of the truth, but to analyze it.
This is not a manual for how to deal with
your racist uncle at a family gathering. People have disagreed about politics
over the dinner table for time immemorial, and as we all probably
discovered this Christmas break, that practice is more harmful than helpful.
Instead, consider this: most of America has some ill-informed opinions and
inaccurate assumptions, and those misconceptions ought to be different and
ought to be changed. We can change them through calling people out, opening
dialogue, and introducing diversity into the lives of the people who hold them.
What we might consider changing in our approach is the urge to separate
ourselves from individuals who hold disagreeable and unacceptable views about
the people around them. And a disclaimer: not
everyone is called to engage with the jerks of the world. There are individuals
who have experienced harassment, prejudice, bigotry, and trauma to the degree
that they should feel no burden to engage with the ideological other. But for the rest of us, it is time to engage
in a different way. We know deep down that very few individuals who say
unacceptable things know what you’re talking about when you call them out. They
just feel shut down. There are better ways to deal with that.
Also, as much as older white people often have trouble with what we consider
basic human decency, they can also be lovely people from whom we can
learn and whose company we can enjoy. It’s through relationships, after
all, that opinions change. The way to fix our society is not always as simple
as it seems. It’s not just waiting for the old people to die, because they
never will. Certainly, our grandparents will die just like theirs did. But then
we’ll be the parents, and then the grandparents, and society will march on
toward justice without us. If only the young and the educated know what’s up,
there’s no hope for us. Only a tiny fraction of America will exist in a bubble
of lucidity. No, as difficult as it is, it is crucial to talk to people who hold
wrong opinions, whether they’re gullible and misinformed, products of a
different era, or just plain ugly on the inside. And that means reviewing our own thought
processes, because never is one side completely wrong
and the other completely right. Derrida and other advocates for ethical
ways of living insisted on ruthless examination of systems and ideologies.
Without that rigorous analysis, our ideologies will have flaws that will
destroy our argument. So as we consider another year of hand-wringing
helplessness, let’s examine ourselves first. Then we can speak patiently to
those who don’t deserve patience. That’s what will change America, the sexist,
the homophobic, and the racist uncles included.
Derrida, Jacques. "Some Statements
and Truisms about Neologisms, Newisms, Postisms, Parasitisms, and Other Small
Seismisms," trans. Anne Tomiche, in The States of ‘Theory,’ ed. David Carroll
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
Comments
Post a Comment