As promised in my profile blurb, I already disagree with much of what I said last Friday. Time to reconsider!
This weekend past, I read Razack's (2008) Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law and Politics. It is now one of my fave Razack books. I approached the read with a thirst for eloquently woven arguments on controversial topics (namely, terrorism and the middle east) and, as usual, Razack delivers. At times her rhetoric becomes a little catch-phrasey and a few of her analogies are far-fetched even for me (especially one Dworkin reference to orgasms and torture. Whaaaa?), but it makes for good sound bites on issues that are often inadequately represented in feminist scholarship. She also dares to give words to thoughts that I am too nervous (or too confused about) to voice. Three cheers for Razack!
Razack's major intervention in Casting Out is reconceptualizing racism as 'race thinking' with regard to the modern state. This term, originally coined by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism, has been taken up by others including Irene Silverblatt and David Goldberg. Building on brilliant stuff, Razack brings the concept of race thinking to the phrase "American values" or "Canadian values." Race thinking is broader than racism. Race thinking is a "structure of thought that divides up the world between the deserving and undeserving according to descent" (8). When race thinking unites with bureaucracy, it becomes an organizing principle, no longer recognized as a prejudice. For example, the pursuit of upholding the so-called values of, say, Canadian culture (whatever that means), conceals just how racist is the hierarchy of values.
This pertains to my discussion of xenophobia in stabs at xenophobia, stabs at discovery where I say there is nothing wrong with fearing the strange and preferring the familiar. I now aim my critique (against myself) at the notion of preference, since this in fact delineates a hierarchy that contributes to race thinking. As Razack (via Hannah Arendt via Erich Voegelin) demonstrates, race thinking leads to racism when it is launched politically. And! This happens all the time. For example, my 'freedom' to prefer the coffee of a major chain and to demonstrate 'preference' through my consumer habits leads to the boycotting and displacement of the longstanding local cafe. This didn't happen, but you get the drift. And I would argue that these sorts of analogies must be acknowledged for being racialized, gendered, sexed, classed, etc. The displacement happens with regard to much bigger issues, too, especially in the name of anti-terrorism measures. Further, as Razack demonstrates with examples of security-certificate hearings and sleeper cell logic, race thinking can easily become codified. Ahh!
This afternoon I attended a lunchtime workshop where one of my colleagues presented on secularism and the veil. It was wonderfully organized and thought provoking, and my ruminations are bleeding into an idea for educating against race thinking to prevent formal/political racism. Foggy yet, but stimulating an onslaught of interesting/disruptive self-reflection. Good stuff.
Hmmm . . . one of Freud's comments comes to mind: holding up a cigar (he loved his cigars)he said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." :)
ReplyDeletehaving left behind the "analysis paralysis" of self-conscious, self-critical academic narcissism, I can afford to joke. Yet in every joke is at least a kernel of truth, if not the pulling back of the curtain on something important.
Freud has been perhaps rightly criticized by Mousson for having swept under a rather large carpet the evidence of sexual abuse he was finding in all of his female patients, and instead turned to fantasy, dreams and forbidden desire as the root of their problems. The brilliant ones who push forward our self-understanding themselves have large lacunae in theirs, and perhaps are not so adept at understanding themselves, despite their own self-conscious efforts. Freud, for example, it seems never figured out the necessary master/disciple dynamic of his students growing up and becoming masters in their own right, but instead fought each of them viciously once they disagreed with him. What will bright young analysts see in 100 years when they look at this self-indulgent analysis paralysis that perhaps is getting in the way of creative action? We can always critique ourselves and others from many different angles: it's much harder to step out and make a difference!
Interesting!
ReplyDeleteI'm at a point, though, where I'm realizing my ignorance, particularly when it comes to racism. I think it's important to think before acting in this case, because a lot of "step out and make a difference" without forethought results in more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just sitting in my room looking in the mirror. I volunteer, I write letters, I hold signs, I take a stand on stuff, however complicated the issues might be. I think it's important to do both. I get the critique (and rejection) of the whole cliche academic paralysis, but I'm not to the point where I'm ready to accept Freud's cigar complacency.
... and don't get me started on cigar symbolism!!!!!!
ReplyDeletelol! oh, don't get me wrong on Freud's "cigar complacency": his love of cigars pathologizes him according to his own theory as much as anyone else! It's just funny that he made that comment, given how far he pushed phallic imagery in everything in his Victorian context.
ReplyDeleteI also completely agree with you that there is no "right" position: we simply continue taking one step at a time, acting as seems best, as we become more conscious of our identity and action and how mutually influencing they are! :)