I’m relieved that the alleged
racial slur from the mouth of George Zimmerman was false. Let me be clear: I’m
glad, because if Zimmerman had uttered the slur we could continue to blind
ourselves to the pervasive hold, however invisible, race has on our
imaginations. We could have chalked Zimmerman up to a racist bigot who was
different than the majority of the population and continued to hope in a
colorblind system. Like most people, I don’t utter racial slurs, so I’ve spent
most of my life blind to racial logics and operations for discerning the
identity and character of others. But because Zimmerman never called Trayvon
Martin a coon, we thought we could dismiss race as relevant to this tragedy.
Indeed, most of us (non-black persons) are quite alike Zimmerman insofar as we
justify the man in his suspicions or deceive ourselves by thinking that being
suspicious of someone like Trayvon in this case has nothing to do with race.
The connection is made, and now we’re all either justified or implicated.
Racial slurs are not the heart of
racism, but simply the outworking of a racial logic birthed in the colonial
moment. They are one type of expression that flows “out of a person’s mouth,
[but] come from the heart” (Matt 15:18). At the heart of the matter is how
humans created a new system to articulate the identity of others. These humans
were the Europeans during the colonial event. Prior to colonialism, one
identified other people and themselves in relation to space, the immediate land
and all it contained that served as someone’s home. With the discovery of the
new world, however, bodies and lands were severed from one another as Europeans
sought to understand themselves and the indigenes inhabiting the new world.
They developed a racial hermeneutic in which whiteness (the European self)
signified the ideal identity and blackness represented the anti-ideal. The
colonizers thereby discerned a person’s/people’s identity by their body. Though
these operations entirely fail to reflect true identity, they are nevertheless
fully real forces exercising real power over bodies and imaginations.
Of course, the subjection of
bodies to this calculus manifested itself in the colonial moment quite visibly
and violently, so much so that that abolition of slavery and deconstruction of
state sanctioned segregation has led most (at least, white) Americans to
believe race is no longer a systemic problem. But the racial logic that began
visible, reasonable, and natural has now become invisible, at least to the
system and those of us who haven’t been forced to be conscious of our bodies in
the ways victims of the operation have. Cloaked thus, the reign of racial logic
has become all the more dangerous. It is the demonic force that becomes more powerful
when people ignore or don’t believe in its existence. We can no longer detect
our racial calculus and operation of discerning the identity of others except
through blips of slurs. But when we discern another’s identity by bodily
aesthetics on this scale, which includes the ideational perception of attire
that transforms garments into prosthetics of the body, we employ the racial
logic.
The matter has become
more complicated in this age of statistics and data. There are twice as many black
people in prison than there are white and Hispanic people. Statistically, black
people tend to be criminals far more than other racial categories. Given the
data, it seems perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of bodies that do not
appear to belong in the space where they travel. But this simply reinscribes
the racial logic through a sleight of hand. Any black person that someone else suspects
to be dangerous is liable to the “statistically” motivated interrogation. To
justify this operation only perpetuates the right and power of one type of body
(that embodies the ideal statistically) to judge and identify the body that the
statistics condemn. Statistics didn’t replace the racial logic; they simply
justified it and masked the operation at once. What enlightened Europeans knew
objectively of black bodies is now reasonable enough to be suspicious of black
bodies because data supports the racial reality.
But if statistics pragmatically
support the reality of criminality around black bodies, then isn’t this simply
an unfortunate reality necessary to maintain the safety and order of society?
We might say it’s merely coincidence that black bodies commit more crimes than
non-black bodies. But we must cease interrogating the other’s body and now
reflexively interrogate ourselves. What sort of relationship does the racial
calculus and its operation create between the self and the “suspicious” other?
What does it mean to identify a particular appearance as suspicious, dangerous,
and criminal? To articulate another’s identity according to a racial calculus
is to place oneself in the position of judge. The judge determines what is
right, normal, and acceptable. The judge also has the right to require another
person to give an account of him or herself. Within the racial operation,
certain bodies that most closely align with the ideal (prosthetics and all)
have the right and exercise their right to demand an account from another body
that appears suspect, dangerous, or criminal. This is not a reciprocal
relationship. This system of identity allows the judge to never really address the
other, but rather assert, “Oh, now I know who you are.” This operation requires the “perpetrator”
to give an account of oneself according to the judgment of normalcy. The racial
calculus inhibits authentic address between persons. In short, the judge possesses power to which the "suspect" must become subject. Zimmerman articulated
Trayvon’s identity as suspicious, dangerous, and criminal and then, through
pursuit, required Trayvon to give an account of himself.
But if we don’t judge all black
people to be suspicious, dangerous, or criminal, how could it be that we view
blackness itself as suspicious, dangerous, and criminal? Blackness is not
simply a skin color any more than white skin strictly biologically manifests
the reality of whiteness. The ideas of whiteness and blackness work themselves
into bodies, not vice versa. Particular appearances signify the reality of
blackness, so that a judge imagines certain appearances, races, as symbolic of
criminality, suspiciousness, and danger. In Trayvon’s case, his hoodie and
sweatpants served as prosthetics of his black skin. This distinction is
important. When we (embodying whiteness) know a black friend personally, there is no need to
articulate his or her identity. Also, if a black person dresses and lives a
life that appears "normal" and familiar in our estimation (suburb house, wife and
kids, steady career, and “proper” attire), those artifacts serve as prosthetics
of our whiteness so that we needn’t discern the character and identity of some
unknown person. But Zimmerman didn’t know or recognize Trayvon, and Trayvon was
wearing prosthetics that confirmed his blackness in Zimmerman’s eyes. So
Zimmerman was immediately suspicious of and felt threatened by Trayvon’s body.
Much of what I’ve said thus far
has questioned from our position instead of Zimmerman’s. I do this because
Zimmerman’s position is our position when we believe his suspicions are
reasonable. Zimmerman’s position is that of the judge who identifies the other
through the racial operation of discerning identity (he asked, “What are you
doing around here,” rather than asking, “Who are you?” The former evaluates with suspicion the answer according to a predetermined calculus, while the latter awaits the answer of the other for discernment), and reserves his/her
right to require the other to be accountable to him/herself. Zimmerman saw
Trayvon, judged his appearance (hoodie, sweatpants, and seemingly black
[confirmed at closer sight], which symbolize “up to no good” and/or “on drugs”)
and immediately linked it with those “fucking punk” “asshole” burglars who have
been stealing in the neighborhood. Trayvon deviated from the norm that
Zimmerman represented and upheld. Zimmerman didn’t need to use a racial slur to
betray the prevalence of the racial hermeneutic. He didn’t have to use hateful
words to criminalize, demean, and judge another person’s body through racial
superiority (normalcy). He demonstrated as much through his paranoia at the sight of
Trayvon and interrogating the teenager through pursuit. The court didn’t need
to acquit a man (teenage) slaughterer (or even murderer) who used slurs or
showed himself to be a racist bigot as we imagine to reveal that the system
condones and is complicit in racial logics through its colorblindness.
Zimmerman simply had to supply Trayvon’s identity and judge him as he did to confirm
to victims of the racial identifying operation that race was at play. The court
and jury simply had to say there was insufficient evidence of murder or
manslaughter and deem Zimmerman’s actions reasonable to show black persons that
the system cannot adequately address racism in its color-impaired state. The
system still favors the norm of whiteness, because it’s too busy searching for
racial slurs.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: "A Letter To White Americans" is not meant as an attack, but simply a qualification of audience given the language of "we" throughout the post.
For further reading on the nature of race or the role of race in America and the Zimmerman case, see:
Willie Jennings, The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origin of Race.
J. Kameron Carter, Race: A Theological Account.
Anthea Butler, "The Zimmerman Acquittal: America's Racist God," Religion Dispatches.
Willie Jennings, "What Does It Mean To Call "God" A White Racist," Religion Dispatches.
J. Kameron Carter, "Christian Atheism: The Only Response Worth Its Salt To The Zimmerman Verdict," Religion Dispatches.
No comments:
Post a Comment