R-Train Ruminations on the *race* to Obama

A raw noon-time, early in 2009, the wind biting, the sun bright. It takes a moment upon descending into the dusky underground of the subway for objects to resume their shape, and I figure out which side of the tracks is the Brooklyn-bound side.

It’s February in the city, the sparks given off by the fireworks of the recent election continue to scatter among the boroughs. The embers are still warm, and today one live-one wafts its way to my subway car where three male passengers board a stop after mine…They are African American and Latino, a voluble trio who break loudly into the hush of the off-hour, mostly empty car.  In their thirties and forties I surmise, they are similarly burly, barrel-chested, dressed for outdoors work. They seem filmed over by the dusty hues and uniform garb of labor: thickly booted, layered in hoodies and wind-breakers and parkas, toting lunch-pails and thermoses, and between them one CD player about which there is a good deal of joshing and grinning, like there’s a story behind it.

While one of the trio slumps quickly into subway sleep – head thrown back, mouth open -the other two in opposite-facing benches continue their conversation, or rather the more voluble of the two carries the other agreeably along in his meandering stream of topics ranging from his own grandmother’s exquisitely soft skin (“Man, blacks have good skin!”) to the issue of whether they’d get a shift that afternoon (“I know we started late but I always get work!”).

So, they are itinerant laborers. Their status is weakly echoed in my own adjunct position as a professor floating between poorly paid per-contract gigs, a status which yet remains tucked within the trappings of the managerial rather than menial caste.

At some point the man’s discourse slows down to wrap itself about the wonder of Obama, a victory urging him to shake his head with what I’d call a melancholy amazement. “Man, now there’s no more excuses; yeah you know I’d like to go up to all those folks in Harlem and tell them just that… You know, hmmm, when I think about my own life….”  It was a thought that took him back. There was an arrest record; it was during his youth. “You know nothing big, no felonies or nothing, just small things.” It was as if he had been fishing for some mislaid sequence of befores and afters, feeling the tug of a pre-arranged sign-chain of discrete decisions to pull and release him into a current situation that could be understood as the effect of his own individual choices, his personal responsibility.

It is bracing to hear an itinerant African-American worker, incarcerated as a youth, declare “no more excuses,” thus articulating catechisms of the campaign linking personal responsibility to hope and back again on a train whose only point of destination is the hyper individualism of neo-liberalism refurbished with ingenious finesse in the figure of Obama.  The hope-full Left (across the race-spectrum yet white-dominated) is yet more disturbing in its hope-fullness than the African American worker whose image they brandish as fodder for their unfounded optimism. Even when some leftists admit to other illusions about Obama (world peace; universal health-care; the “stimulus” package—for banks), they cling to what they call his “symbolic victory”.  Like many good white leftists, one acquaintance argues this by repeating several times the story of a black woman friend who saw pride in her teenage son’s eyes for the first time.

“You’ve outlived the bastards!” Bruce Springstein exclaims to Pete Seeger on the occasion of the famous folk singers’ 90th birthday-concert celebration. The two sing “We shall overcome” together. There has been a symbolic victory though what has been overcome should be questioned: The victory that is Obma is that of a brand-presidency that suceeded in absorbing the residual mythos of the Left (and feminism) into its own logo. “This is what a feminist looks like” with Obama’s face, the emoticon pasted next to it, circulated on the web, and memorialized by Ms. Magazine’s boast of its first cover-man. This is what a center-left candidate looks like as magazines like The Nation persist in dubbing the man who has already invaded Afghanistan and extended troops in Iraq. The phenomenon is far bigger than Obama but represents a specific triumph of neo-liberalism in its genius of putting empire in black-face, thus lubricating a more fluid, “gentler” continuation of empire, patriarchy, and the neo-racial order.

The neo-racial order – Obama has always been “perfectly clear” (a common speech-ism) about his position favoring Clintonian personal responsibility:

“I know some of y’all got that cold Popeye’s [chicken] out for breakfast. I know . . . . You can’t do that. Children have to have proper nutrition.” (Campaign speech)

We’ve got to say to our children, yes, if you’re African American, the odds of

growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. But that’s not a reason to get bad grade (Applause)—that’s not a reason to cut class—(Applause)—that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. (Applause) No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands—you cannot forget that. That’s what we have to teach all of our children. No excuses. (Applause). No excuses. (Transcript of Address to NAACP)

With such hyper-individualist addresses to Black America, a dialectical spin on the shiny image brandished by progressives as “symbolic victory” is needed in order to whirl that baby into its time-zone, its temporal dimension, its history, the fact of power relations which suspend that history, blotting it out, upholding its anti-human progress. Dialectics is a way of thinking that puts things back into time, disclosing process where objects appear to be, and realizing that appearing to be, is not what is, much of the time. Or maybe what is but not, for lack of critical consciousness, seen in its mode of its becoming.

Historically speaking, the mythos/logo of personal responsibility has been the chief artillery of neo-racialism for decades following the uprisings of the sixties and seventies, and more blatant racist bigotry of early decades. A gentler-in-tone version of the victim-bashing of the Reagan era, it inherits the  same cultural-DNA of a system reforming itself to anneal the ruptures wrought by the flares of militancy in the sixties, to produce new means of ideology for mystifying extant forms of brute domination and exploitation. The genius of neo-liberalism is in how, ideologically, it roots even more violently than before the effects (poverty, alienation) of deep structures (exploitation, domination) in the attitudes and beliefs of the individual self—as if those attitudes and beliefs were the causes of those effects.

Personal responsibility like empowerment (see entries of Dialectical Spin to come) is not just a phrase, not just the policy consecrated by Clinton (and Newt Gingrich) to deform welfare “as we know it” in the 1990s (the 1996 Personal Responsibility Act), but a way to name a whole hegemonic shift that re-structures racism into its current prevailing form. Adolf Reed Jr. has written trenchantly about the “myth of the underclass” through which racism now assumes its most virulent attacks on people of color – and the poor, generally. He argues that this has been the dominant ideology demobilizing black politics in the decades post the radicalism of the sixties and seventies. With the myth of the underclass, racism shifts gears from the blood and soil essentialism of yore, to a moralizing ideology which roots poverty and other injuries of class and race in pathology, aka the underclass mentality, the psychology and feelings and values of blacks  (e.g. whether they feed their children Popeye’s and Pepsi for breakfast or not). With Obama we have a Clintonian presidency rebooted in black-face for down-loads even easier than Clinton’s ouch-less “I-feel-your-pain” rendition.

On election night, the fireworks erupting in African American neighborhoods were momento-mori to former uprising in those same locations (Newark, Harlem). Obama provides the perfect fire-wall for dousing those earlier flames of protest. For we have all been arrested by the light of his smile, turned in—all accountability for power now out-sourced (or in-sourced) to the privatized realm of the individual/self which is bloated by hope, or burdened by responsibility, or even whittled to that flicker of proverbial “small still voice,” bottled up in the voting-booth, a relic, if not fetish, of conscience.

With the outsourcing of accountability, public actors emptied of responsibility for actual deeds become instead vessels of traits and qualities – they become, in short, personalities.  But this is not only celebrity-star-gazing. There is a compulsive way in which the inner intentions of this president, his good will, and most of all his “tone,” is attributed to Obama by the liberal-left as if to compensate for any political deficiencies or worse, traits are confounded with political deeds themselves. Certainly this “personalization of the political” (credit to Nancy Meyer) reaches a zenith of absurdity in recent days with the granting of the Noble Prize to a president whose “tone” is supposed to inspire “hope” that he will do something other than exactly what he is doing—continuing the imperial policies of the previous regime (and many before).

No excuses – the flip side of this paradigm of thought is all excuses and nothing but excuses. Some sharp thinkers I know seem to be stumped in the task of distinguishing excuse-making from thinking: in the first case, critical thought is blocked and truisms like Obama’s “symbolic victory” are barricades against rather than inlets to consciousness. The “citizen of conscience” is hailed by the Left to win this victory and celebrate it. Conscience itself becomes a barrier to consciousness – individual conscience as memorialized in the vote, or in the gush of warm feeling one gets (if one is white) listening to black neighborhoods bubble over with joy.  This is partly due to an imperative for positive thinking that glasses-in any possible negative thought (thought that negates what-is) within its aviary of platitudes and slogans. On exhibit, in its gilded-cage (the Obama bubble), the thought-forms of long-lost radicals (those former “Nay-sayers”) are preserved – as in preservative, the living-content extinguished, the shell retained, a container of radicalism called “hope.”

Sources

“Popeye” speech, delivered in Beaumont, Texas in 2008

(Between the Lines: Jonathan Alter, “The Obama dividend” Newsweek March 31 2008). http://www.newsweek.com/id/128548

“No more excuses” speech: Transcript of Obama’s Address to the NAACP convention upon its Centennial,

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5168100.shtml

Adolph Reed Jr., Stirrings in the Jug: Black Politics in the Post-Segregation Era. University of Minnesota Press, 1999.

Reed, Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene, New Press, 2000.

Thanks to Nancy Meyer for conversations critical to the dialectical development of this blog and this entry; to Nicole Whalen for setting up the blog; to Yael for sharp editing.

Advertisements

5 responses to “R-Train Ruminations on the *race* to Obama

  1. Dear Kathy.

    Thank you for sharing your process with me. Keep those thoughts spinning!

    In hope.

    Yael

  2. This is a great start to a great blog. I particularly enjoyed the metaphors and how comprehensive it was for readers, especially defining your use of “dialectical.” Starting the post with the train provides an excellent temporal metaphor and spatial image for your argument which you return to and make explicit: “and back again on a train whose only point of destination is the hyper individualism of neo-liberalism refurbished with ingenious finesse in the figure of Obama.” Ah the poetics of theory :^) I also felt your sophisticated air of sarcasm coming through at the right transitions.

    Thank you for emphasizing how much Obama means to white leftists and how they cling to stories and visions of black families expressing hope and pride “for the first time”. I find white leftists repetition of these stories and images to be disturbing and I can’t fully articulate why. Maybe because it is demeaning and actually exposes how white liberals still see themselves as superior to black Americans in that they can be touched by the pageant of black history and this particular dramatic moment. What goes unexamined is the dialectical piece: how they are one of the white liberals complicit in the long history of white supremacy that makes such a moment “moving,” and trying to get in on those feelings? How typical. Here at the state University of White Supremacy (“The Mississippi of the North” as this state was called in those early decades of the 20th century) students still articulate exactly how they feel: “Why was the camera only on black people during Obama’s acceptance speech? He is our president too!”

    “The phenomenon is far bigger than Obama but represents a specific triumph of neo-liberalism in its genius of putting empire in black-face, thus lubricating a more fluid, “gentler” continuation of empire, patriarchy, and the neo-racial order.” Wow. Awesome. Even though you are trying to talk about the phenomenon that is Obama, and not necessarily him as a person, I’m sure some will take issue about saying that an actual black man is “in black-face.”

    I liked your inclusion of the transcript of Obama’s address to the NAACP. It had a particularly chilling rhetorical effect, especially noting where the applause came in with the repetition of “no excuses” at the end—it felt like a dictator’s speech in a dystopic novel. I like how you also connected this meme of discourse– “no excuses”– to the everyday subway ride as well as the resonance of the “Personal Responsibility Act” in 1996.

    I love this passage spelling out the shift in mythos/logos from what we now look at as “blatant racist bigotry of early decades” in the 20th century to “a gentler-in-tone version of the victim-bashing of the Reagan era, [which] inherits the same cultural-DNA of a system reforming itself to anneal the ruptures wrought by the flares of militancy in the sixties, to produce new means of ideology for mystifying extant forms of brute domination and exploitation.”

    So I’m wondering about all the qualities and politics that makes Obama more easily down-loadable (to use your metaphor) than Clinton’s “I-Feel-Your-Pain” practices? The hows and whys and particulars of Obama’s quick down-loadable politics to white liberals and to black Americans separately.

    I wonder if “personification” is another poignant word, in addition to “personalization,” when speaking about Obama as both the physical embodiment and performer/actor of these political “traits”. Personalization, while often synonymous with personification, also means to mark something as one’s own, which fits in the individualism that you critique: iObama. Personalizing is a great loaded word in terms of the mystification piece as well, because it brings together not only giving an abstraction human qualities, but that these human qualities are highly personalized for the respective consumer/audience. Obama, as the personified political phenomenon, is quite a reversal of Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man: the “personification of the Negative”.

    Can’t wait to read more.

    Miranda

    • thanks for such a superb close reading of my piece. I feel very inspired to go on by such comments. You add a lot to what’s there. That’s what I want this blog to be (when appropriate)–a place of dialogue.

      What is particularly striking is your reference to the “pageant of black history” as viewed by white-liberals. This is exactly what Fanon, in the Fact of blackness, discusses when criticizing Sartre for calling Negritude a “phase” as if Sartre could stand outside of consciousness and make determinations about the indeterminable–consciousness itself–the the futile attempt to do just this is what Sartre himself would call bad-faith since it objectifies that which is in fact a verb, a process–consciousness. More to come on that when I take on one-dimensional feminism! thanks again for such lush comments.

  3. What a perfect positioning of Obama – both mirror for conservative politics, (his concern for conservative critics, and complementary individual-blaming politics) and successful detractor of critical critique/consciousness (detracting both by high management of ideas, and by this ideological wall- branded good, white, liberal conscientiousness – which you so wonderfully delve into).

    With the Bush, inc./admin, potential dissent overdue from liberals was too-little-too-late due to lack of backbone (or audacity, that appendage gone missing from obama’s promises) combined with deliberate manipulation of the facts.

    With Obama, despite rhetoric, the critical questions are managed (by hand and by ideology) before spoken, before considered. White House Journalist Helen Thomas, for example, has highlighted this problem, in terms of white house hands caught crafting media management (“caught” being a strong word in a context of no accountability). At Obama’s first press release she implicitly asked him, or dared him, (for his response was not un-expected) to step out from the veil of secrecy and ambiguity by deliberately asking a question that must not be answered- a question about nuclear weapons and Israel – Hence, testing the waters to see if Obama was prepared to be open and transparent, as he suggests he is, and prepared to engage with reality; or if, on the other hand, he is prepared only to play ball with conservative critics, and thereby continue to comply with implied white house policy of denying the contradictions and the doorways which lead way into meaningful, critical dialogue and problem solving.. hence, lead way to dismantling US imperialism. So, as it goes, Obama has thus far chosen to protect the political mores of ambiguity – thus protecting the structures of imperialism. And so the conversation about nuclear proliferation maintains its contradiction – we push North Korea, Pakistan and India with no mention of Israel… All of which is a likely snapshot of the integrity of this administration to come.

    So, the extent to which this is all crafted – specifically what you illuminate – is just perfect. With critical consciousness being likened to lack of conscience in the face of Obama-The-“hope-full” and neo-liberal redemption (patriotism now encompassing the empty shelled rhetoric of radicals past, as you name; the neo-liberal’s white pride, twisted to suppose moral justness); with hard questions being managed out, both deliberately/mechanically and ideologically, per the neo-liberalism you name – the quieting of dissent is branded with all things freedom-fighting. From war to individual responsibility.. “and back again”

    And now Obama wins the Nobel prize?? A president who is in reality escalating war, but in morals and sentiment conscientious that de-escalation is most desirable?
    Absolutely hypocritical and frightening. Peace becomes present only as sentiment, as part of the personality and personalization you name; while the realities of war continue to slip by and the promises are only ever meant to assuage. So speech becomes ever more legitimized when boiled down to empty sentiment, becoming a replacement for the real.

    Some thoughts/connections.. hope (ah, the word now echoes) they are intelligible and not too long winded- anyway, excellent work – a personally fruitful and thought provoking analysis. Thank you! Looking forward to more.

    • Another BRILLIANT post to enrich the discussion. I consider you and Miranda co-bloggers now :-), and can’t wait for you to add more. Feel free to add “guest-blog-posts.” yes, Peace as “sentiment”– a trait, part of the personalization… and bringing in Miranda’s point– the “personalization” having that resonance of ownership too– I don’t yet know how to quite integrate that point in yet. but it seems right. You write: “high management of ideas, and by this ideological wall- branded good, white, liberal conscientiousness”– brilliant; can you say more about the metaphor of the “wall” here? seems to have potential… say more?
      also not only “lack of conscience” but “conscience” itself –in how it is figured within liberal discourse–seems to stand in for critical consciousness, part of the “wall”? — as in “walling off”…
      anyway– keep on keeping on girl! i feel a guest-blog coming on! I’m working on my new entry on what I call “one dimensional feminism”…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s