Wright Is Not What's Wrong
Photo of Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Chicago
I'm a little late in the game regarding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy. I've tried not to say anything about it, but the more I've thought about it the more I've wanted to weigh in. Here it is in a nutshell, as far as race in America goes, Rev. Wright is not what's wrong. However, the amount of ink spilled and airtime burned up in response to the sound bites of some of his sermons is an illustration of the psychologizing of racism that I described in a recent post. What happened regarding Wright from start of finish represents a post-modern version of a pre-modern social ritual, a public stoning. Here is how this works, an individual makes statements regarding race that are considered, at least by some, to be reprehensible. Various individuals and groups condemn the individual in every available media. Personal integrity itself is measured by whether or not you will also join in the condemnation (your very presidency could hang in the balance). This reaches a certain climax and then begins to recede, depending on the level of outrage the comments provoked. Then another individual makes similar statements and the whole cycle begins again. The problem with all of this is that it reflects the view that racism is about the thoughts or feelings of individuals (primarily psychological) and not about the distribution of power and resulting structural inequalities. I believe that the popularity of this public condemnation of allegedly "racist" individuals derives from the psychological payoff to those who participate, namely a sense of moral superiority or legitimacy. It becomes a part of one's "anti-racist" or "pro-American" or "uniter not divider" resume. The question is whether it actually addresses the real problem which is power and inequality. My point is not that people should be silent in the face of comments considered outrageous, oppressive etc. My point is that we should be careful not to confuse the ritualized, psychologized version of challenging such statements with meaningful action regarding race/racism. One really good policy is worth a thousand condemnations of individuals whatever they say. Ideally, the comments of individuals can be used to focus attention on how they may be a symptom of social structures and the need to change them. If the attention focused on Rev. Wright's comments over the past few weeks have that effect, then it would be much more valuable than discussing whether or not he is a "good person". I'll leave that judgment to God.
"When perfect justice reigns in every country of the Eastern and Western World, then will the earth become a place of beauty. The dignity and equality of every servant of God will be acknowledged; the ideal of the solidarity of the human race, the true brotherhood of man, will be realized; and the glorious light of the Sun of Truth will illumine the souls of all men."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 154)



5 comments:
Phillipe, you hit the nail on the head. While people's thoughts and views do affect how they treat others, policies are what affect our everyday lives - our opportunities and the barriers that stand in the way.
I agree--although, in one sense, the responses people have to inflamatory statements (I exclude politicians, who in general scramble about trying to appeal to constituents) reveal their fundamentally different perceptions of issues, kind of like ripping off a scab and seeing that a wound inside is still festering.
Think about the different responses to publicized provocative statements: one group will find certain statements scary and inexcusable, another will find the very same statements understandable, feel they contain at least a grain of truth (almost of the "yes, and what else is new?" variety,) if a little over the top. And few seem interested in seeing things from the other person's/group's perspective.
Personally, while I admit I find it satisfaying when someone articulates or clarifies my own thoughts/feelings/intuitions on a subject, some of my most transforming insights have come from listening, really listening, to those whose views and or experiences were seemingly diametrically opposed to mine. In a personal setting.
This is one of the fruits of true consultation.
PS: Anybody remember, or know, that former President Jimmy Carter attended a segregated church--I don't mean de-facto segregation, no African Americans admitted; I believe I recall it came out that a Black family tried to enter his church once and was barred; Mr. Carter's media response was he did not agree with this at all this, but he continued as a member because the church is where he and his wife were married.
(sound familiar?) It didn't get much play in the media.
Power as understood by most seems always to involve power over someone, or as opposed to someone, rather than justice for all.
There seems to be no way out of this conumdrum, other than the wider view of Baha'u'llah.
And, as you frequently point out, Phillipe action is the most eloquent speech. As my dad used to say: "talk is cheap".
judith W
Allison, you go girl thanks for coming out of the comment closet!
Judith W., you are missed whenever a post is up and I don't get to read what you think. Interesting point about double standards, I particularly irritating tendency when it comes of race in our society. Yes, I agree that hearing what others say is important in consultation. What makes consultation different than conversation is that it is focused on seeking the truth for the purpose of taking action not simply the sharing of conflicting viewpoints or engaging in group therapy which much "race talk" seems to involve nowadays. I'm too young to have much of a clue about Jimmy Carter so, you got me on that one.
Phillipe: I agree. Rev. Wright might be a bit over the top on occasion, but he is reacting to one of the basic contradictions of America: "all men are created equal" but racism and inequality are woven into the very fabric of the nation. White supremacy is no longer the law of the land, but it is still part of the structure of our society and culture. This creates an interesting contradiction in itself: if "the system" is bad, then who's accountable and who can change it, except individuals? So we argue about individuals and ignore the system. Ultimately, just as cancer begins with an anomaly in once cell's DNA, each of us, with Baha'u'llah guiding us must alter our own DNA to REVERSE the disease. I hope this makes sense.
P.S. Glad to find this blog.
Victor Kulkosky
http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com
Thanks Victor, this is one of the most thoughtful comments I've seen on this blog ever. I'm glad that you weighed in and I think you're the same person who wrote about Senator Obama's speech on race a little while ago. Nice to have a fellow traveler n this discourse. Ultimately structure becomes embodied in individuals and individuals contribute to the development, perpetuation, and change of structure. Individuals like MLK come to mind. It's really a matter of what our unit of analysis is, which tends to be individuals when it comes to race in part because of the current dominant ideology of race which as I've mentioned, views racism as primarily a psychological problem (if it exists at all).
I like the DNA analogy.
Hope you come back for a visit.
Post a Comment