Next week, as I mentioned, I shall make a guest appearance in a graduate philosophy/law school course at Georgia State. The topic for that day is Charles Mills’s book, The Racial Contract. I thought I would start by reading a brief passage that I find especially powerful and then take off from that on a riff that goes in various directions. Here is the passage, from pages 17-18:
“The Racial Contract requires its own peculiar moral and
empirical epistemology, its norms and procedures for determining what counts as
moral and factual knowledge of the world. … There is an understanding about
what counts as a correct, objective interpretation of the world, and for
agreeing to this view, one is (“contractually”) granted full cognitive standing
in the polity, the official epistemic community.
But for the Racial Contract, things are necessarily more complicated.
The requirements of “objective” cognition, factual and moral, in a racial
polity are in a sense more demanding in that officially sanctioned reality is
divergent from actual reality. So here, it could be said one has an agreement
to misinterpret the world. One has to learn to see the world wrongly, but with
the assurance that this set of mistaken perceptions will be validated by white
epistemic authority, whether religious or secular.
Thus in effect, on
matters related to race, the racial contract prescribes for its signatories an
inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, a particular pattern of
localized and global cognitive dysfunctions (which are psychologically and socially functional), producing the ironic outcome that whites will in general
be unable to understand the world they themselves have made.”
This is an extraordinary passage, a brilliant passage. It
is, in a way, the central passage of the entire book. It echoes the magnificent passage in the section of chapter 1 of Capital entitled “The Fetishism of
Commodities and the Secret Thereof” in which Marx first describes as absurd the
central thesis of bourgeois economics and then says that such forms of thought
express “with social validity” the production of commodities.
Just as one can unpack all of Capital from that brief passage, so I believe one can unpack
Charles Mills’s book from the brief passage quoted above.
We shall see.
18 comments:
With all due respect, Prof. Wolff, I do not agree with this passage from Prof. Mills treatise, and, frankly, I find it offensive and racist. Although he qualifies his assertion using the words “in general” that, “on matters related to race, the racial contract prescribes for its signatories an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance … producing the ironic outcome that whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have made.” It is offensive, and erroneous, with respect to myself and many other Caucasians I know because:
1. Neither I nor they are signatories to such a presumed social contract.
2. Neither I nor they “have made” the world he refers to, a world which is the legacy of slavery and de jure segregation. I did not make that world, do not approve of that world, and reject that world, and I am not alone among Caucasians who reject that world.
3. His generalization is just as offensive as the bigoted generalizations that the racists whom he condemns as signatories to that social contract believe about individuals of African descent. Generalizations which stigmatize any racial or ethnic group as automatically, necessarily, having certain biased views about others who do not belong to that racial or ethnic group are equally erroneous and offensive.
4. His observation, in my view, and I hope in the view of the students whom you will attempting to indoctrinate with this offensive view, is hardly an “extraordinary passage, a brilliant passage.” It is nothing more than racism clothed in the guise of political correctness.
It's complicated.
You can't really lump together the white civil rights activists murdered in Mississipi or my white friend from college, Mike Flug, who dedicated his entire life to the cause of African-American liberation with the KKK, Donald Trump and the rightwing of the Republican Party.
https://forward.com/culture/428596/michael-flug-caretaker-and-maker-of-civil-rights-history-dies-at-74/
On the other hand, even Mike Flug benefitted from being white in many ways during his lifetime, he was less likely to be stopped by the cops, probably had certain employment opportunies (which he did not take, it seems), it was easier for him to hail a cab at night in New York City, etc.
Maybe the subject of racism should be studied, not with philosophical generalizations, as above, but in sociological and historical detail.
s. wallertstein,
You, Prof. Wolff and Prof. Mills, were he alive, might retort, “Well AA, if you really are not a signatory to the Racial Contract, then put up, or shut up. If you do not believe that you have been the beneficiary of white privilege, then you have an obligation to reject and divest yourself of all the fruits you have enjoyed as a result of your white privilege. Otherwise, you are a signatory to the Racial Contract and a hypocrite.”
How would I even begin to determine whether I, and others like me, have been beneficiaries of the Racial Contract and the white privilege that comes with it, and what those benefits are which I currently enjoy, and how would I go about divesting them in order to compensate for my undeserved enjoyment of them? Did I obtain my undergraduate education, my post-graduate education, my employment as a lawyer, my successful lawsuits, at the expense of some unidentified African-Americans? Even if I did, what could I possibly do now in order to compensate for my undeserved beneficiary status? Is it not enough that I support progressive political candidates who seek to undo the current legacy of the past history of slavery and racial discrimination? Is it not enough that I empathize with the Black Lives Matter movement when it legitimately applies to the death of an unarmed African-American? Must I also donate all that I own to African-American causes in order to prove that I am not, really, a signatory to the Racial Contract? How does one expiate oneself from this hereditary sin and guilt of being born White in the United States?
There's a difference between capitalism and racism as systems.
The "good" capitalist, as I learned in my first lessons in Marxism, will simply go out of business because if they pay the workers for the work they do, they will have to raise prices and the "bad" capitalist will pay their workers less and thus can charge lower prices for the same goods and run the "good" capitalist out of business.
On the other hand, the "good" white person, the one who struggles against racism in their daily life, does not "go out of business" and can be an effective anti-racist activist.
Another,
It's very Christian. It's original sin. Got to go.
Does Mills mean by "a racial polity" roughly "a systemically racist society"?
If so, then the passage as I read it contends that, in order to be a full member (or have "full cognitive standing") in the polity, you have to agree to the false proposition that it is not a systemically racist society. (Contrary to what AA believes, the passage is not accusing individual whites of being racist but rather of having a false belief about the character of their polity and/or society.)
I'd guess, though, that if you stopped a random group of white Americans on the street in a big city (outside the deep South) you'd find a certain number -- 20 or 25 percent, perhaps more -- who would agree with the statement that the U.S., despite advances in this area, is still a systemically racist society. So what the passage calls "an epistemology of ignorance" is not shared by all whites.
LFC,
Sorry, but Prof. Mills was speaking of individuals, and referring to individuals. Who are the signatories to the so-called Racial Contract but individuals? He repeatedly uses the pronoun “one” to refer to individuals. And what is a “systematically racist society” without individuals who subscribe to the institutions which render the polity “systematically racist”? What must those who oppose those institutions do in order to demonstrate that they do not subscribe to those institutions and are not signatories to the Racial Contract. Must we definance police departments, as some supporters of Black Lives Matter insist must be done in order to reduce or eliminate the murder of unarmed Black youths at the hands of racist cops? Is that the solution in order for us to expiate ourselves – to expose the rest of society to the depredations committed by criminals? Must we prohibit bigots like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz from running for office? How do we do that? Do those who oppose the restrictions being passed in voter registration legislation despite their efforts become signatories to the Racial Contract because their efforts have failed? Is the only way for White citizens of the United States to expiate themselves of the legacy of slavery and de jure discrimination to pay reparations to the descendants of that atrocity, and how much money are we talking about and to whom should it be paid, and with what proof of entitlement? Were Prof. Mills alive, what would he say must Whites here and abroad do in order to prove and demonstrate that they are not signatories to the Racial Contract?
That does seem to be a key passage. Will this class find its way to YouTube?
I haven't read the book, but that passage doesn't say anything about expiation, guilt or reparations. Maybe some of that follows from the book's whole argument, I don't know, but the passage in question is about "the epistemology of ignorance" and perceptions and misperceptions. It's always useful to have read the book to put a passage in context. I think maybe Jerry Fresia has read the book, so he's better placed to discuss it than I am.
Very interesting passage. AA I think is overreacting and arguing against positions nobody has posited. I think the phrases to emphasize are "matters related to race" and "generally". I would agree that the passage would have more potency in the 60s but still has a lot of relevance. I also have some reservations about "the world they themselves have made". I have not read the book and so I do not how he expands on the point, but that line of thinking can lead to dangerous places. I would also argue that it is not only whites that on "matters related to race" have inverted views. One need only have basic understanding of Latin American culture to see this. You see similar patterns in India, Nigeria, etc. Unfortunately being an oppressed race for hundreds of years can also do deep damage in the understanding of race by that race.
I'm sure Murray Chotiner and Lee Atwater would have understood the passage. They certainly understood how to use the contract to maximum advantage. AA, you may be taking "contract" too literally. I'm sure that most of the folks who saw the Willie Horton ad or the Helm's ad consciously followed through to the desired conclusion. White peopling can be a thing without being universal.
s.w., I found this to be truly terrible. I assume you've seen it but if not:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/12/the-price-of-power/376309/
aaall,
Thanks. I hadn't seen that article, but yes, I have a couple of books about the events leading up to the 1973 coup and most of the information in the article has appeared in other sources over the years.
aaall,
A lot of Americans were turned off by the Willie Horton ad, and voted for Dukakis. Dukakis received 45.7% of the popular vote, which hardly demonstrates, as Prof. Mills claims, that “whites will in general be unable to understand the world they have themselves made.” In order for the terms “in general” to apply, one would expect that the signatories to the so-called racial contract would have to exceed 80%.
I am using the word “contract” too literally? Well, of course, Prof. Mills did not mean that there was a point in time when all, or most, Caucasians sat down at a long table and signed a contract on the dotted line, any more than Locke believed they signed a Social Contract on the dotted line. But Locke did intend to mean that in order for a government to succeed, there had to be a general consensus on certain fundamental principles. According to Prof. Mills, was there a general consensus in the white communities around the world that Blacks were inferior and deserved to be discriminated against. The fact that there are white racists in the world hardly constitutes a “consensus.” You do not belong to that purported consensus; I do not belong to that purported consensus; s. wallerstein does not belong to that purported consensus; and the 41,809,476 American voters who voted for Dukakis did not belong to that purported consensus. None of them were signatories to Prof. Mills’ purported Racial Contract.
AA, one doesn't have to agree or even be conscious of this contract in order to benefit or suffer from it's provisions. I don't have to deal with simply driving (or just walking in a stop an frisk jurisdiction). The contract seems like a fish/water thing to me.
Mere numbers are meaningless due to our flawed Constitution. All that is needed is to get the votes of electorally significant folks. Wallace carried Michigan as did Trump because of that states demographics.
"According to Prof. Mills, was there a general consensus in the white communities around the world that Blacks were inferior and deserved to be discriminated against."
You might consult a well known 1640 case in Virginia that involved five run away indentured servants. Four were white and one black. The four whites were punished alike according to the law. The Black guy, although his case was like three of the whites, was additionally made a slave.
While a few people may have been turned off by the Horton ad, most of the
forty odd million voted Democratic for other reasons. I doubt it registered with most, as it was a dog whistle - the folks who mattered, consciously or unconsciously, got it.
Besides you and I still benefit as we never have to worry about driving while black or brown, etc.
aaall
I do not dispute that there is still a lot of unfair discrimination affecting the lives of Black people, discrimination based on the color of their skin; discrimination which I am not subjected to because my skin is white. But I have not done anything to encourage, to endorse, or to perpetuate that discrimination, and there is nothing I can do to change the color of my skin. My beef is with Prof. Mills’ use of the term “contract,” notwithstanding that he is not referring, as I state above, to all Caucasians having signed a document on the dotted line. Notwithstanding this clarification, the use of the word “contract” implies a certain degree of volition on the part of those who benefit from the discrimination in question. I and you are the passive beneficiaries of the absence of that discrimination against us. Note, I stated “absence of that discrimination.” We are not the beneficiaries of the presence of the discrimination directed against Black. When a Black person is unlawfully stopped for driving while Black; or an unarmed Black teenager is shot and killed because s/he is Black; or is denied a job for which s/he is qualified because s/he is Black, neither I nor you benefit from these actions. So I resent the use of the word “contract,” which to me suggests that I have engaged in some action with the intention of fostering the discrimination, so that I can benefit from it. And I haven’t, as I believe you haven’t, so why should I be accused of having participated in the creation of this Racial Contract? What am I supposed to do in order to expiate myself from being the passive beneficiary of the absence of such discrimination aimed at me, over and above supporting progressive political candidates who support policies and legislation to eliminate such discrimination; to donate money to causes aimed at ameliorating the effects of that discrimination; etc. Why should I be cloaked with the mantel of being a participant in the Racial Contract when I have done absolutely nothing to deserve that mantel?
Marc,
I agree with you except for the point about job discrimination. That blacks are stopped for driving while black does not benefit me nor does the killing of unarmed black teenagers, but
given that the number of good jobs is limited, if blacks are discriminated against in the job, I as a white person have more possibilities of being hired. Obviously, at my age that no longer matters, but job discrimination in favor of whites benefits my son, my grandson, my nephew, my niece, etc.
s. wallerstein,
You are correct regarding job discrimination. Probably some/many Caucasian job applicants benefit from the availability of more job openings which have been denied to qualified Black candidates. But it is not feasible for any one Caucasian who gets hired to determine if s/he was a beneficiary of that discrimination. In the light of this indeterminancy, should your niece or nephew feel guilty about obtaining the job? Should they decline the job, just in case the opening was at the expense of an equally, or more, qualified Black applicant? But the use of the term “contract” suggests that such beneficiaries are beneficiaries because they played a causative role in the creation of that job opening. (The same analysis applies to college admissions.) I may be wrong, but my impression of Prof. Mills’ analysis is not only to document the role that discrimination against Blacks has played in history, but to accuse Caucasians “in general” (his term) of being actively complicit in the existence of the Racial Contract, not just passive beneficiaries. But what are the passive beneficiaries of discrimination against Blacks in the job market, or in college admissions, supposed to do in order to extricate themselves form their purported passive participation in the Racial Contract?
I would expect that these are the kind of sentiments which Prof. Wolff may be confronted with when he gives his lecture to a group of law school graduate students. For law students and lawyers, the term “contract” has a special meaning, a meaning which entails voluntary participation in order to achieve the goals of the contract. This entails that the members of the Racial Contract have deliberately sought to be parties to that contract, and seek to benefit from it. I don’t think that will sit well with many law students, especially in Georgia.
Marc,
That's a problem with any social contract theory.
Let's take Hobbes. The first generation actively enters into a contract to leave the state of nature and form a state. I don't know whether Hobbes really believed that such a contract occurred, but the second generation is born into a state with a previously existing contract which they must either accept or become literally outlaws (live outside the law).
Post a Comment