Erasure
by
by
On Not Fitting In
Racism is, of course, one of a large family of cultural behaviours which includes misogyny, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, among many others. We are told by sociologists that these behaviours are in some sense ‘normal’ because we have a natural human preference for those who are like ourselves. Folk have a right to value what they know and feel familiar with, politicians say. Because such preferences are instinctive, there is really no way to inhibit them, lawyers chime in. Victims shouldn’t take them personally, contend the perpetrators; such behaviour is the consequence of multi-cultural society and must be tolerated. Corporate marketers are just glad they have something on which to hang their promotions.
Bullshit. If preferences were a function of values, they can be exercised freely and without fanfare in most modern societies. The driving force of these behaviours is not any positive value but negative fear. The instinct involved is not group solidarity but the terror of uncertainty. Prejudice is not an expression of culture, it is an attack on possibility that all culture is relative. Every form of prejudice is a statement of veiled doubt about ‘truths’ that one prefers not to examine too closely: Christianity as the religion of love; democracy as the rule of the people; civilisation as a European invention; patriotism as a virtue*... or being black demands writing ‘black books.’
But there is much bigger and more general fear, a fear that is so terrifying that it has not be given a proper name. This is the fear of difference per se, a fear of that which does not conform to any categorisation, even of existing prejudices. Someone who is neither white nor black, religious nor atheist, male nor female is a threat simply because they cannot be placed and dealt with through the logic of prejudice. These are the existential non-conformists (I get the paradox of naming them as such, so eat this term before reading). They may be political but they would never join a political party. Whatever they do to make a living never becomes their self-identity. Those they associate with they treat civilly but not as friends.
Society erases these people from its collective consciousness (but not its unconsciousness, in which social anxiety without a name grows). They have no status whatsoever; they are non-persons. Nonetheless they have identifying characteristics: they are uncomfortable with cocktail party chat; they mistrust all institutions and their most enthusiastic promoters; and although they are often fluent in the professional vocabulary and speech patterns of the moment, they don’t believe any of it. This last makes them particularly dangerous because it suggests that they are effectively fifth-columnists, deep cover agents of some unknown but dangerous alien presence.
On the other hand, no one ever went broke overestimating the aesthetic of fear in the market. The existential non-conformist, therefore, has a real problem: Is there such a category as ‘fake authenticity?’ Perhaps. But being neither entirely in nor entirely out is sure to cause immense fear among those who want certainty. Call it ‘adaptive irony.’... And then forget you ever heard about it.
* Only after having written this did I realise the influence of Ursula Le Guin in The Left Hand of Darkness : "No, I don't mean love, when I say patriotism. I mean fear. The fear of the other. And its expressions are political, not poetical: hate, rivalry, aggression. It grows in us, that fear. It grows in us year by year." Isn’t the subtlety by which we develop our views incredible?
Racism is, of course, one of a large family of cultural behaviours which includes misogyny, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, among many others. We are told by sociologists that these behaviours are in some sense ‘normal’ because we have a natural human preference for those who are like ourselves. Folk have a right to value what they know and feel familiar with, politicians say. Because such preferences are instinctive, there is really no way to inhibit them, lawyers chime in. Victims shouldn’t take them personally, contend the perpetrators; such behaviour is the consequence of multi-cultural society and must be tolerated. Corporate marketers are just glad they have something on which to hang their promotions.
Bullshit. If preferences were a function of values, they can be exercised freely and without fanfare in most modern societies. The driving force of these behaviours is not any positive value but negative fear. The instinct involved is not group solidarity but the terror of uncertainty. Prejudice is not an expression of culture, it is an attack on possibility that all culture is relative. Every form of prejudice is a statement of veiled doubt about ‘truths’ that one prefers not to examine too closely: Christianity as the religion of love; democracy as the rule of the people; civilisation as a European invention; patriotism as a virtue*... or being black demands writing ‘black books.’
But there is much bigger and more general fear, a fear that is so terrifying that it has not be given a proper name. This is the fear of difference per se, a fear of that which does not conform to any categorisation, even of existing prejudices. Someone who is neither white nor black, religious nor atheist, male nor female is a threat simply because they cannot be placed and dealt with through the logic of prejudice. These are the existential non-conformists (I get the paradox of naming them as such, so eat this term before reading). They may be political but they would never join a political party. Whatever they do to make a living never becomes their self-identity. Those they associate with they treat civilly but not as friends.
Society erases these people from its collective consciousness (but not its unconsciousness, in which social anxiety without a name grows). They have no status whatsoever; they are non-persons. Nonetheless they have identifying characteristics: they are uncomfortable with cocktail party chat; they mistrust all institutions and their most enthusiastic promoters; and although they are often fluent in the professional vocabulary and speech patterns of the moment, they don’t believe any of it. This last makes them particularly dangerous because it suggests that they are effectively fifth-columnists, deep cover agents of some unknown but dangerous alien presence.
On the other hand, no one ever went broke overestimating the aesthetic of fear in the market. The existential non-conformist, therefore, has a real problem: Is there such a category as ‘fake authenticity?’ Perhaps. But being neither entirely in nor entirely out is sure to cause immense fear among those who want certainty. Call it ‘adaptive irony.’... And then forget you ever heard about it.
* Only after having written this did I realise the influence of Ursula Le Guin in The Left Hand of Darkness : "No, I don't mean love, when I say patriotism. I mean fear. The fear of the other. And its expressions are political, not poetical: hate, rivalry, aggression. It grows in us, that fear. It grows in us year by year." Isn’t the subtlety by which we develop our views incredible?
posted by The Mind of BlackOxford @ January 07, 2020
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home