There are a lot of pretty funny collections of white folks' photos
all over the internet, including this one, “The
29 Whitest Family Photos of All Time.” As
is often the case, “white” means dorky, uncool, and awkward (my biggest complaint is that the category automatically rules out my many dorky black, Latino, and Asian friends, whose dorky-ass pictures are friggin' HILARIOUS, including one who shall remain nameless but will be obvious to all who remember his denim shorts well into his early twenties. But more on non-white dorks later.) In a somewhat different sense than these funny-photos-of-weirdoes, the blog, Stuff White People Like codes being
white as rich, trendy, and smug, with all the right political commitments and
cultural signifiers. These signifiers—according
to the blog—are sometimes related to race, especially the degree to which white people
want to show their sympathy for the plight of the black underclass, as well as
their deep appreciation for black urban culture, which basically means liking hip hop and really, really liking The Wire.
I read or heard an interview with the guy behind Stuff White People Like some years ago (I just looked at the blog
and it hasn’t been updated since 2010, which is also when the second book came
out), and he admitted that what he was describing was actually more about
socio-economic status than race. As he
said, and as should be obvious, lots of non-white people also like the things
he’s describing, and lots of other white people don’t. Yet it’s telling that
the blog isn’t titled, Stuff Upwardly-Mobile Urban Professional Like (which
would probably be more accurate). The
use of the word white is important, and not only because it’s pithier. By writing about what white people like, whites are able to make clear what non-white people don’t like. I know, I know: that’s not the intention,
you say, and of course we know some black people like this stuff too, or Asians
or Latinos, or what have you. But
that’s not the title (which still hasn’t changed).
The variegated stuff that while people are said to like all mark high status. You might say that
misses the point, because, well, that stuff is just funny: the various items show smug stupidity, or silly obsessions,
or simple obliviousness. Well and
good. But that kind of self-mockery
comes from a position of strength, and it’s actually a reinforcement of social
dominance (just as the King, during Carnival, could show his power by agreeing
to be mocked). Perhaps more importantly,
the flaws that the blog presents actually help their white (note: not upper-class—it’s in the title) purveyors to
succeed in the economy and elite cultural milieus. It might be silly that we white folks love, say, microbrews
and sweaters, but these habits are also really useful ways to connect to other
members of the elite, as anyone who’s read Bourdieu—or been to a fancy party—can
tell you.
Which brings us back to the “whitest” photos of this or that
ridiculousness. The message in these
pictures is a bit different from the SWPL
blog: it tends to show pictures of white working class and lower
middle-class folks alongside their wealthier cousins, and the lesson is less that whites are silly snobs
and more that they’re awkward dorks. Yet
there winds up being a similar moral to the story, because distinguishing white people as awkward weirdoes (and to say that acting this way is white implies that not being white means not acting this way) also winds up reinforcing white people’s power in
modern America. As my friend Bob Wardlaw
pointed out to me, being an awkward dork is often correlated with
intelligence. In this country at this
time, being smart means not only economic success but also a moral justification for that success.
It makes sense that guy’s rich, because he’s smart. And who’s smart? Well dorks.
And who are dorks? Well, white people.
The underlying racism here should be obvious, but the
obverse is just as dangerous. It’s silly
to even have to point out that we’re not encouraging inner-city minority
kids—especially African Americans—to take education seriously. There are obviously lots of great inner-city
parents doing exactly that, but as a society, our inexcusable ignoring of in
inner-city education (yes it’s getting better, but it still has a long way to
go) does a lot to demonstrate that being smart (dorky?) is not a big deal, and not necessarily even a way to succeed. Add to that our knee-jerk equation of black
(and especially black male) with athlete, and we have the the equal and
opposite sort of stereotype for black kids.
Haha, it’s funny that all whites are dorks. And isn’t it awesome that all blacks are
athletic?
But where do those stereotypes get you, besides just being wrong? For a very few talented athletes, sure: you might get a job (though even athletic success is correlated with economic
privilege). But for the majority of those young jocks, they spent countless
incredibly valuable hours and days and years of young adulthood cultivating
skills that are just about useless.
(Yes, I think that sports are awesome both for the individual and for
the society; but in moderation, like practicing piano, or anything else. And by the way this problem of jock culture is not unique to young black men: it's a big problem for a lot of working-class white sub-communities as well, though at least those kids aren't running up against the idea that their very DNA equals athleticism-above-all-else). And then there’s the basic empirical fact
that plenty of black kids are actually really bad at sports (as are, by they
way, plenty of white kids). Black folks
are also often very dorky and awkward, as are Asians, and Latinos, and Native Americans,
and yes, white folks. It is precisely
the insistence that being a minority (especially black) is somehow cooler than being white that epitomizes
the problem, and for many reasons. First, being cool is a survival strategy, a means of not caring so as to
suffer through whatever the world throws at you. Being dorky means that you can take the world
as it is, because it will basically provide for you and leave you alone. Insisting on cool means insisting on the need
for protection, and allowing for dorkiness means that protection won’t be
required. Even more importantly, messages about a race's inherent coolness (or lack of coolness) tells young socially awkward non-white kids (of which there are many, probably—shockingly
enough—as many as there are socially awkward white kids) that they are somehow
extra-weird. Photos that talk about how dorky white people are subtly force non-white people to avoid being dorks. Yet being a dork (and I speak as an expert on the subject) is actually incredibly awesome, and leads to all sorts of experiences of creativity, sensitivity, and intellectual growth that you can't really find when you're busy being cool. White folks have taken too much already. We can't take being dorky too.
Yet to acknowledge this, to admit that pictures of dorky people
are no more “white” than they are any other race, is to realize that using a
racial category—even as a means of self-mockery—brings with it a whole lot of difficult
racial baggage. That’s not to say we
should avoid racial categories. It
drives me nuts when people –often well-meaning conservatives—say we should just
get rid of the word “black” or “African-American” because we’re all just people. Racial categories still exist—ask anyone
who’s experienced racism—and we still have to be able to talk about them. Perhaps more importantly, race has been inextricably
mixed with culture in this country, and so to ask some people to stop taking
about race would be to ask them to stop talking about pretty important elements
of their lives. So I’m not saying we
should get rid of words like white or black or anything else.
I’m saying we should be careful when we use them, and that we should
acknowledge our privilege and power, even when we’re just making fun of
ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment