In the June 12, 2007, issue of Christian Century magazine, I was particularly struck by the opening paragraphs of an essay titled “Unqualified Christians” — you may find it hard to get through the first three sentences, but see if you can keep reading:
You may find it strange that I, an African American, do not believe in interracial marriage. I do not believe in interracial dating or even in having friends of other races. I do not espouse trying to understand racial differences or promoting awareness of other races. I can say all of this unabashedly because I do not believe in race!
Race is a relatively recent construction conveniently created at precisely the moment when nations from the European continent were setting out to colonize the world. The construction is a precursor to an economic policy, not a result of scientific study. It came from the desire of some people to legitimate the taking of land from others. Because of perceived “racial” differences, people could be set on a hierarchical ladder of superior and inferior types; those declared “superior” then had an “obligation” to tend to the interests (natural resources and labor) of the “inferiors.” With this thinking, the “enlightened” peoples of Europe colonized the “primitive” peoples of Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. Such scriptural passages as Genesis 9 (the “curse of Ham/Canaan”) and Genesis 10 (the “table of nations”) gave theological significance to theories of subspecies variation and to a God-ordained system of enslaved peoples and a “master race.” Because the genesis of the word is spurious, I suggest that the concept of race is problematic. Even the most innocuous use of the concept perpetuates the notion that perceived differences in appearance relate to actual differences in intellect, criminal potential, and sexuality. Hence, to suggest that the theory of race is legitimate is a racist proposition, one that leads many to conclude that perceived differences in appearance are consequential for human valuation.
Towards the end of the short essay, the author, Rodney S. Sadler Jr., writes:
In the church we are too often isolated in segregated communities as “qualified Christians.” We are “black” Christians, “white” Christians, “Korean” Christians, and “Latino” Christians worshipping in separate sanctuaries….
Within Unitarian Universalism, it can be risky to state that race is an invalid construct. If you say that even the most innocuous use of the concept of race is a problem, there’s a good chance you’ll be accused of racism. For good reason — saying that “race” doesn’t exist makes you sound like the people who try to gut affirmative action and civil rights legislation by saying “race” doesn’t exist. Yet at the same time, I think maybe Sadler is right — even though to admit that Sadler is right might be to question the legitimacy of such beloved anti-racism strategies as breaking into racial identity groups.
“Race” may not exist, but we are still left with the problem that the effects of racism are quite real. So how do we address the real effects of an unreal construct? Sadler’s answer, from his Christian perspective, is to affirm the primacy of the Christian’s identity as a Christian: “Christ’s death has radically altered the nature of our identities so that who we are from the world’s point of view is no irrelevant as a determinant of power.” I don’t share Sadler’s theology, so that won’t work for me.
But Sadler also points out how his theology plays out in real life:– he claims that his theology forces us to question “persistent inequalities in our nation that are often seen but rarely examined.” Here’s how I’d put it in my theological language:– my religious perspective, which claims that all persons are equally worthy of love, requires of me that I understand and address persistent inequalities between persons.
In other words, it is possible to ask hard questions like — Why do certain persons get paid less just because they have darker skin? — without falling into the trap of using the suspect concept of “race” to frame the question. Sadler’s essay raises some interesting possibilities for new ways to address the persistent inequalities that exist among us.
I think within explicit Christianity it is much easier to stake out a “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, man nor woman in Christ, Jesus” position.
Race per se may be a good example of one of Beaudrillard’s simulacra, a simulation of something that wasn’t particularly real but becomes autonomous and takes on a life of its own.
I;m particularly a fan of Noel Ignatiev’s How The Irish Became White > but this does not mean that I can go around pretending that Irish people do not qualify as white people. I also don’t take particular offense if the protest organizers call the police vans getting ready for our arrests “Paddy wagons.”
I’ve struggled to come to terms with things that are real despite their factually inaccuracy, such as potential problematic turns of phrase that may have some assocation (however minimal) with problematic cultural practices.
I think sometimes of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of upaya or skillful means. While the classic Buddhist parable is of the man who gets his children to leave a burning house by telling them to come outside and see his new ox, I think of things like the Bohr model of the atom which is very useful for people to learn chemistry despite its insufficiency in the era of quantum mechanics or of doing math and statistics in two or three variables because it is too difficult to accomodate more. But I’m not sure how well this works in a negative way. For almost every distinction we can make between groups of people, we find greater variation within groups than between them (or so I was taught by the scientists at UC San Diego anyway).
The other main influence on my thought here is Tillich’s distinction between sign and symbol. > Chris does a good job of explaining this.
I find myself resorting to a simplified version of this when my children ask me about the veracity of the Buddhist Jataka tales (Was the Buddha really a giant turtle king?) or about the local Native American origin narratives about the creation of the local topography (Coyote, the burning of the world and the creation of Clearlake). My kids are getting old enough to be skeptical but I also want to help them have a respectful way of understanding the meaningfulness of these narratives (and those of Christian literalist orthodoxy) for believers.
I know I am a vulgar Marxist in some ways, but generally I care less about the factuality of constructs and more about if belief is useful in working towards justice and communion. As an example, race has been obviously used as a form of separation, but ignoring its current social meaning may be more of a step towards further separation rather than helping us all find power in the meaning of our shared origins. > Tillich’s discussion of sin and grace or separation and reunion influence me here.
Wow – I need to sleep on both this post and this first comment. Lots of info.
Why do certain persons get paid less just because they have darker skin?
One might then ask, “Why do certain persons get paid less at all?” If we are all equally worthy, then why don’t we all get paid at the same rate? Or, perhaps, get paid more for a less desirable job because it is less desirable?
James — I’m a vulgar Marxist, too, and find myself influenced by the Frankfurt School such that I’m aware that advanced capitalism is very good at coopting all kinds of things in order to maintain itself. The Frankfurt School also showed me that taking a critical stance towards society is essential. And as it happens, I find that religion and religious perspectives can offer that critical stance, while showing a fair amount of resistance to being coopted. Thus I am attracted by Sadler’s move of making his religious perspective take precedence over any conventional liberal political stance. It’s a scary move, in many many ways, and from the point of view of liberal politics it’s a suicidal move. But liberal politics has shown itself to be fairly inept at addressing racism over the past forty years — liberal politics had its last big success with the Civil Rights Legislation, and we’ve basically made negative progress since then. I think Sadler’s right, and it’s time to adopt a truly religious perspective, regardless of the political consequences.
I think in many ways we’re agreeing — I don’t care much about the factuality of the construct of “race” and more about whether we can eradicate racism. From a left perspective, it’s pretty clear to me (and I think to you) that “race” as a construct is inextricably intertwined with the evolution of capitalism in the Enlightenment era. Thus if we reify race as something that exists separate from capitalism, we have shut ourselves off from completely understanding it — which implies that we will not be able to eradicate either race or racism. I would prefer to talk about reification rather than symbolism (I’m not convinced that symbolism as a concpet applies here), but aside from that I think we’re heading in the same direction.
I do have to part ways with you with that last Tillich quote, however. Tillich’s notion of separation strikes me a quite Platonic, which is fine. But why not talk about sin? Racism is sinful — naming it so starkly, with all the non-technical implications of the word “sin,” seems to me to be a very useful approach.
hafidha sofia — Yup. I actually thought about sleeping on this post forever, but we Unitarian Universalists are making very very little progress at eradicating racism within our own ranks (to say nothing of in the wider world), so I figure each of us has to decide to talk openly about this at some point.
Kim — You write: “If we are all equally worthy, then why don’t we all get paid at the same rate?” Exactly. I’m a Universalist, so I know God loves all persons equally, so I know all persons are equally valuable — which then causes me to ask why there’s any inequality at all in the world. Yes, I know there’s inequality because human beings are fallible and prone to (why not use this word?) sin, but that doesn’t make inequality right. So yeah, let’s strive to create a heaven here on earth.
The context of the Tillich excerpt would probably be more agreeable. The hyperlinks got mangled when I posted the comment. Its from Shaking The Foundations. I found it online at religion-online.org.
I am always astonished that most official US forms include a field for “Race”. I wonder how this is still happening today in America, when the category for race has been proven false by scientists. This is a social category to classify humans in strata, and it is conveniently used by both conservatives and liberals, although for different purposes.