In reflecting on the presentation
given in class yesterday on the “Colonizer and the Colonized” by Albert Memmi,
I found myself reconsidering what seemed to me to be one of a number of
existing paradoxes within the paradigm of colonization: assimilation.
Colonization, Memmi asserts, holds within it the implicit demand for attempts
of assimilation by the colonized - at least in the sense that the colonized is
forcibly removed from his/her original culture and language which ensues a stripping
of identity. The full and complete realization of assimilation however is both
undesirable and impossible. Full and complete assimilation is only realized
when new members/subordinate groups become indistinguishable from older members/dominant
group. Thus, for the colonizer who proposes the need for assimilation through
acts of coercion, this would mean an end to the hegemonic system of oppression
and exploitation upon which the colony is dependent. It would mean an end to
the system of colonization which would be detrimental to the economic interests
of the colonizers. For the colonized, the notion becomes even more problematic
in that the colonized, based on their subordinate positions, are unable to
close the gap of unequal relations between oppressors and the oppressed. They
can attempt to cultural assimilate through various levels of acceptance towards
the values and beliefs of the colonizers, but they will never be able to
discard the essential divisions which exist between conceptions of colonizer
and colonized. Full assimilation would imply that the colonized has been repositioned
as colonizer. This reversal of roles cannot exist in reality because of implicit
notions of identity that are tied to the social location (and often physical
appearance) of the colonized. Senghor asserted his acknowledgement of this paradox
of assimilation in his assertion of the inability to “strip off” his black skin
or “root out” his black soul. Similarly, in speaking of post-colonial theory,
Fanon mentions the problematic image of black skin wearing a white mask.
Blackness is not invisible, and therefore to attempt to assimilate into a
culture based on white privilege is doomed from the get go (though others of either
race may argue otherwise).
This
paradox of assimilation brought me back to discussions we have had in previous
classes about racial identity and self-identification. The Susie Guillor Phipps’s
case mentioned by Omi and Winant brings this very issue into the light. Her
call for a change in her racial classification on her birth certificate was denied
on the basis of the 1/32nd designation of “blackness” for which she
qualified. How can individuals be called to choose sides? And what are the
ramifications of these decisions once devoted to? According to Mills, this
question of racial self-identification, not surprisingly, is heavily layered in
moral and metaphysical implications. Neutrality is not an option because race
plays a huge factor in situating and normalizing an individual’s identity and
therefore duty within society. The standard accusation made when “choice”
actually does exist is that any refusal to identify with the subordinate race
is “morally culpable and a result of a desire to avoid the stigmatized fate”.
Any other attempts at explanation or justification are rejected as irrelevant
and lacking in truth. But, do we have the right to judge people for these types
of decisions? Can we honestly say what decision we would make if positioned on the bi-racial "edge" and forced to choose a side? What kinds of effects would this type of decision have on the further shaping
of an individuals’ notion of self-identity?
Throughout the African-American literary canon, the notion of 'passing' often comes up; in fact, 'passing' literature encompasses an entire genre. (Nella Larson, James Weldon Johnson and Charles Chesnutt, three authors who could 'pass,' gained prominence by investigating this phenomenon.) As social deviants effectively subverting the system, 'passers' were able to gain a certain social status that would not normally have been accessible to them; however, the psychological impact of that transition plays heavily upon the subject. While to the public a 'passer' appears white, the 'passer' remains destabilized by the constant fear of betraying their 'true' identity. Also, the 'one drop rule' demarcates the race line. THe subject never forgets that he or she remains inferior according the metaphysical and epistemological beliefs that their society holds. In many cases, one member of the family can 'pass' and others cannot. The result often leads to a conflict within the family or a final choice that must be made: total assimilation or total withdrawal. This is, of course, not always the case. There are many fictional accounts (presumably grounded in real events) where protagonist strategically 'passed' when 'passing' became advantageous. Even then though the subject remains suspended between two distinct social and cultural identities that are systematically reinforced.
ReplyDeleteBuilding from your question and Tim's response, it is interesting to consider what passing means in the queer community. The choice to pass as heterosexual is a tempting one. Even if just at work or another specific context, the ability to retain the privileges of heterosexuality and not have to deal with the conversations, discrimination, fear, etc. is an option that most LGBT people have that most people of color do not. Still, as Tim noted, this choice does not come without consequences. Passing plays into the dominant system, reinforcing the idea that there is something to be hidden and that difference should be suppressed. I still struggle with this decision fairly regularly. In his book Becoming a Man, Paul Monette writes, "When you finally come out, there’s a pain that stops, and you know it will never hurt like that again, no matter how much you lose or how bad you die.” There's a power in accepting your own difference and presenting it to others openly rather than hiding it away. Still, as you said, I don't think that we have a right to judge those who choose not to step out (for the most part; I have no problem with those who out homophobic closeted politicians) because the weight of stepping out is so heavy.
ReplyDelete