Colonial world of images and the subject

von Gregor Samsa - 01.07.2002 17:10

Or else: whiteness, blackness & gender: About the crossing of racism and sexism

From the 17th to the 20th january the first cross-over-conference will take place in Bremen - its subtitle: Attack power networks! It is the aim of this conference to examine the specific links between various relations of domination and power in order to meet a concern which may be voiced on a regular basis but is much too scarcely translated into action. That means: All the planned workshops are going to link two or more power relations, like for example heterosexism and capitalism or sexism and antisemitism. It is the aim of this text to illustrate - with a concrete example of such a link - the theoretical as well as practical use of such an approach.

Prologue: Colonial MCA (Maximum Credible Accident) at the 3rd + 4th anti-racist border-camp ' We have come to the conclusion that it is better not to address any white women on the camp; because otherwise we run the risk of being once again accused of being sexist.' This was formulated by two men from The Voice Africa Forum and the Refugees Initiative Brandenburg during a predominantly constructive discussion about racism and sexism, which took place during the last 3-4 hours of the final plenum of this year's anti-racist border-camp. The background for this almost serene assessment were not so much incidents at the camp itself, but rather numerous, now and again nerve-racking, discussions about sexism, which had been lead by representatives of The Voice, the Refugees Initiative Brandenburg and of other migrant organisations in the past 2-3 years - many of them having been with (white) Germans. One of the inglorious highlights regarding this was surely the debate on last year's no-border-camp in Forst. At that time the camp-publicity got an e-mail from some participants of an Antifascist-camp in Weimar. In this mail, on the one hand they talk about a sexist encrouchment comitted by a man who had been mobilized for the camp by The Voice; on the other hand, they draw far-reaching conclusions from this: "We ask The Voice to not only make a statement on this incident, but to tackle the problem of sexist behaviour in their group and with those associated with it. We demand that they make sure that such encroachments will be impossible in the future, so that we can continue our common struggle against the racist state and the racist population."

These demands, which were directly addressed to The Voice resulted in bitter debates at the camp, especially because representatives of The Voice were hurt and in addition anxious, that this criticism could lead to the destruction of The Voice, even fearing that this could possibly be intended. In an inofficial camp-resolution, which was supported by the vast majority of campers, the camp-debates which had been going on for several days were finally summed up in two directions: not only was the sexist encroachment on the antifa-camp condemned and possible consequences of such encroachments were pointed out, the e-mail from Weimar was also harshly criticized: By marking the sexism of an inidividual, actually of an individual black men (not the sexist conditions in general), and by secondly holding The Voice particularly responsible for the avoidance of sexist encroachments (instead of reminding all men of their anti-sexist duty), the writers of the e-mail give the impression, that sexism is a special problem of black or rather migrant men. And this amounts to a racist ethnicization of the problem! It is also criticized that the e-mail from Weimar makes the resolute fight against sexist conditions as a requirement for anti-racist struggle. Because this is nothing else but playing one power condition off against another one, a procedure which inevitably ends in a self-contradiction, as the debates on the camp have shown.
Back to the camp in Frankfurt: If one lets last year's and other, similar debates around sexism and racism pass in review, it should become understandable, why the two men from The Voice respective the Refugees Initiative Brandenburg came to the beforehand quoted assertion. Still: One should not be content with this. Because the fear which is voiced in the estimation "We as black men run danger to be accused of sexism by the whites" is more than this, it is the return of one of the most basic colonial classics ever, in which sexism and racism interlock indisdriminably. In the colonial everyday life as well as in the thousands of lynchings in the US-post-slavery-era, or in 1992 at the racist mob in front of a refugees home in Mannheim-Schönau, no matter where and when, there are always colonial worlds of images circulating, there are always sexist-racist regimes of representation at work. According to them, it's the black man - hypersexual, greedy and violent - , of which the white woman - worthy, week and asexuell - has to be protected, in fact by the white man, who is on his part rational, strong and disciplined, while on the contrary the black women is always already the morally fallen one - bestial, lascivious and bizarre, being at the mercy of male-white craving.

Keeping this colonial subtext in mind, it becomes obvious, why it is a political MCA when on a no-border-camp frequented mainly by white western europeans black men voice the fear, that they - as blacks - could be denounced as sexists. And this is not changed by the fact that most men are in one way or the other sexists anyway. Because in a society, in which the different relations of power are always already linked, and in which human beings are at the same time gendered, ethnicized and made to members of certain classes etc. , every reproach of sexism is always already ethnically charged, no matter if it addresses white, black or other sexists, and regardless if these are out-classed, conservative bourgois or members of whichever class. That means: The fact that on the Frankfurt no-border-camp (certain) black men preferred it, to not or only defensively address white women is due to the circumstance, that the social basic power conditions along with their discursively founded regimes of representation were at work even in Frankfurt. This incident is not surprinsing, but still worth to be understood.

So who wants to comprehend how aforementioned race-gender-super-MCA could happen, has to investigate a couple of basic questions, for example: What is blackness/ what is whiteness/ what does ist mean, that blackness respective whiteness are historically-culturally produced identities - like gender as well/ how do these identities emerge/ why does blackness depend on whiteness/ what are fantastic-projective ascriptions (concerning lust, desire and fear)/ how and why do these ascriptions become internalized and therefore reality/ how are blackness, whiteness and gender (as well as other power relations) interlinked/ what means black, phallocentric hypermasculinity/ what white supremacy/ to what extent are blackness and whiteness reductionist polarizations (in view of Asian, Arabic, Eastern European identities) etc. etc.?

This is certainly a host of questions. So the following notes shall be understood primarily as highlights; as highlights who have the purpose to indicate what happens as soon as light is not only thrown on the deep layers of racism (from which emerge - in turn - racism by the state, actions of the racist mob etc.); but when also links are established, particularly to sexism and heterosexism.

Blackness & whiteness : between construction and reality

As the gender-term aims at the heterosexist system of patriarchal dual sexuality, the double blackness & whiteness directs attention to the fact, that there is a multitude of ethnic identities in western societies, which have come out of processes of ethnic marking and self-marking, not least those of blackness and whiteness which are going to be addressed now.

The analytic focal point of the concept of blackness & whiteness is that blackness and whiteness have no such thing as a natural nucleus, quite similar to the fact, that the ideal of a naturally given biologically sexed body turned out to be a discoursively produced misapprehension. It is rather to emphasize, that in the course of historical processes (that is due to colonialism and slavery, due to the development of capitalist-patriarchal nation-states, due to apartheid and racist discrimination etc.) skin colour and other physical markings were not only constructed as allegedly eminent orientations of distinction but also marked. It was on this basis that - by reverting to further actual as well as ascribed markings and features - it came to the formation of different identities, among them for example white and black ethnic identities. The concept of blackness & whiteness does not really tackle the question why this happened, that is which role such identities played respectively still play for example for the emergence of capitalist-patriarchal nation-states. But this matter isn't crucial, because any further attempt to tackle this complex would be beyond the scope of this article anyway. The concept of blackness & whiteness is instead interested in the how, that is the question, by means of which mechanisms - some of which being circular - ethnic identities are created. The core of this concept is therefore the treatment of the facts (known also from the debates about gender), that races or rather ethnicities are not natural but effects, that is real starting- and ending points of socially regulated mechanisms of construction. Or put differently: Even though races or rather ethnic identities are no mere fantasies, that is that blackness and whiteness exist as real identities (each understood as specific ways of thinking, feeling and acting, which also have a physical dimension), it is true at the same time, that the fact of construction mechanisms, which are permanently at work, has to be kept in mind.
That means: If one wants to comprehend aforementioned mechanisms of construction, one has to deal with real racism - racist discrimination as well as racist privilege - whereby it should be clear that both, privilege as well as discrimination not only differ according to class, gender etc, but also entail different effects. On the other hand - as as direct countermove - it is important to throw light on the discursively founded regimes of representation, that is those 'image tanks', in which the material is assembled, of which components black, white and other identities are constructed; material, which comes out of the discursive sphere, that is which consists of visual images (in films and print media, in advertising etc.), of values and norms, of spoken and written expressions of any kind, of music etc..

The images of blackness and whiteness which are depicted within the ruling regimes of representation are directly referring to each other, even more: the principle of negative reflection unites them: that which one lacks, is a feature of the other, and vice versa. This principle is not balanced, though. It is the colonial look which dominates, and the images are constructed from a white view-point, and this is even true for a considerable part of the image material coming from blacks.

In practice the images of blackness and whiteness (and therefore of racist difference) are depicted by means of a multitude of opposingly structured pairs of concept (pairs of concept, which build the spine of the discursive sphere, that is also of the ruling regimes of representation): It is grown-up whites who stand out due to work, mind and disciplin, which actively and diligently create culture, moral and civilisation, always in the light and visible, always dry, moderate and clean. On the other hand side the blacks are infantile, all body, emotion and idleness; they are passive, depraved and soft, close to the moist and dark nature, lacking history and culture, sunken into wild babarism, dirty, lazy and aggressive.

But this is not all, because the contrast between blackness and whiteness is a crossed one; crossed not least by the system of patriarchal dual sexuality. This is particularly piquant because of the fact that images of women and men (and therefore of sexist difference) are depicted by means of exactly the same pairs of concepts which are used for the difference between blacks and whites, whereby women hold the black and men the white position. This crossing of these two power relations has as a result, that there is only one ruler, if one takes stock: the white man - superior, and always calm and able to assert himself (white male supremacy). In contrast the white woman is only a limited ruler: She belongs to the side of civilized culture, but is at the same time muddled, she is soft, determined by feelings, her boundaries are blurred, even fluid. That renders her delicate towards the side of the natural, the blackness; it's only by the white men that she can be protected from this. On the other side of the bank are after all the black woman and the black man. The most important difference between those is that the black man, equipped with a huge penis, is insensible, dissipated and dangerous, while the black woman oscillates between sexually charged animality and the caring mother-position.

The conclusive question is now in which way the worlds of images, which are depicted in the ruling regimes of representation relate to actual blackness respective actual whiteness. Because the fact, that the subjects are produced by these worlds of images (always in interaction with the real living conditions as they result from the respective class-, gender-, ethnicity-, etc. position) does not imply at all, that this happens in an 1:1 proportion. And: However central this question is, it is impossible to briefly answer it. Therefore I want to once again try brief mentions.

Split whiteness: between controlled rationality and suppressed lust

I want to start with whiteness (not without mentioning that whiteness itself is always rugged depending on class, gender etc.): Of course, real whiteness is more than work, spirit and discipline. For even though the regimes of representation lead us to believe this: desire, feelings and impulses, in short body respective everything having to do with it, can be suppressed, can be modulated or directed into socially regulated paths, but they cannot be abolished, that is eliminated. Or put differently: It is true that the subjects are the product of socially regulated mechanisms of construction, but however: that, which is constructed is no creation out of nothing; at the beginning of their life human beings are an energetic bundle of bodily-affective needs, impulses and energies, nothing more and nothing less! And because of this, becoming a subject (at least in capitalist-patriarchal nation-states) is principally a painful process. Or in the words of two doyens: " Humanity had to bear horrible things until the self, the identical, purposeful male character of the human was created, and some of this gets repeated in each childhood." (Adorno/Horckheimer) Being aware of this, one unterstands the true meaning of the negative mirror image: As within the patriarchal logic it' s women, who personify the suppressed (sweet and dangerous as it is^Å), in the racist logic it's blacks who are the governors of the split, personifying from a white point of view that which is fascinating and desirable, which gives pleasure, but also fear, and which is then persecuted with hate and disgust; because the split is as seductive as it is dangerous, threatening to blast one's own control: the painfully etablished heterosexuality, indeed the creation of sexes in general, the self-disciplin in order to labour etc. In other words: They, who want to unterstand the white ambivalence, the willingness to consumistic-relishing assimilation of black culture (including the fetishistic celebration of shiny-black skin) while at the same time not questioning one's own whiteness, should be referred to the splitness of white identity. That means, that the white subject in her/his heart wishes to be controlled rationality, but still cannot flee his/her body, with the consequence to again and again stagger with fear and relish at the same time towards what is embodied by blackness.

However: The white subject does not want to know anything of this, it wants to remain invisible within the representation regime, as well as that, which the split of is damned to invisibility. As they see themselves, whiteness is that which is normal, which is universell, that, which does not need to be addressed. It's blackness which is perceived as different and which therefore belongs in the limelight. It is as such difference that it shall be addressed, and that is for no other reason than the identical reinforcement of one's own, that is of white identity.

I want to take stock provisionally: regarding real whiteness the images depicted within the ruling regimes of representation have turned out to be ambiguous. On the one hand side they fade out body and affection and thereby constitute a wrong representation. On the other hand they are the substance out of which real whiteness is made. Because the split of white identity is no fiction, it is real! Whiteness really means control of one's own body and vitality as well as compulsory heterosexualisation, compulsory sexualization etc.. And in addition, whiteness means to cause (once again) racist difference by means of phantastic-projective ascriptions, as it means to have an outlet in order to reduce inner tension. Speaking with Toni Morrison, within the ruling regimes of representation the blackness-side is primarily a dream, a dream, which, like any dream, gives exclusively information about its dreamers, in this case: its white dreamers!

split blackness: between subordination, self-hatred and resistance

It goes without saying: under these conditions the relationship between real blackness and those images depicted of blackness among the regimes of representation is tremendously difficult. Just as whites are not only controlled rationality, blacks do not take up with Körperlichkeit; it's also valid, that blacks, as well as whites, are subject to the requirements of capitalist-patriarchal nation -states, and therefore also have to control Körperlichkeit und vigour, develop heterosexuality and Geschlechtlichkeit etc.

That means: The black identity is structurally split, too: On the one hand side the people marked as black are subjugated to the same imperatives of subjectivation, which are ascribed to the white subject position within the ruling regimes of representation. On the other hand it's not possible for the people marked as blacks to avoid racist marking. No matter if they want it or not, they are subjectivated as black people, like whites are as whites as well. Therefore they are inevitably at the mercy of all those ascriptions, which the ruling regimes of representation hold at hand for blacks (that is for people marked as blacks). This and the structurally necessary subjugation under the white subject position result in two different things: On the one hand side the often quoted black self-hatred: "And they took hold of the ugliness, threw it round their shoulders like a coat and went through the world." (Toni Morrison) On the other hand the aim to set something of their own against the self-hatred which is imposed on them from the outside, that is to meet this ethnization self-confidently and subversively. With the example of one certain variant of black masculinity I now want to show that this practice is inconsistent and does not always lead to an emancipatory blueprint.

In the course of the past 200 years a whole lot of black men in the USA and GB (who have not managed the still seldom plunge into the middle class) have developed a heterosexist, phallocentric hypermasculinity, that is a concept of masculinity, which is so extreme, that the black cultural historican bell hooks talks about a "highly dangerous stranglehold of patriarchal masculinity", with which many black men are mixed up.

This development started already at the time of slavery. At that time black men faced the humiliating experience to be subjugated and degraded in any possible regard and not having access to those attributes which commonly, that is in the frame of patriarchal relations, are linked with self-confident masculinity - among them being authority, being able to look after one's family or having private property. This experience of humiliation (which makes sense only against the background of a patriarchal code of honour) is continued by the personal and structural racism until the present day. Then as well as today, black men have defended themselves with the development of aforementioned hypermasculinity, have answered to violence and discrimination by their own cult of strenght. This includes the non-willingness of many black men to demystify the myth of their allegedly huge potency (which includes the white fantasy of the black monstrous phallus). At the opposite: The racist stereotypes were often absorbed, the myths continued. In sports as well as in rap-music - one works on one's own body and tries to improve it. Pulsating liveliness, intensity and offensively displayed zest for live are one's programme - against the racist everyday life! This development escalated in the 80s and 90s. It was at that time, that the political ideas of liberation from the 60s and 70s were replaced by a "bio politics of fucking" (Paul Gilroy). The articulation of freedom, autonomy and power to act was more and more equated with heterosexual desire and expressive Körperlichkeit. This lead to the consequence, that the black community was sometimes made a place, which was represented mainly by outstanding (heterosexually marked) bodies like that of Michael Jordan.

These developments have often been addressed as problematic (especially from the black side), not least because of two reasons: On the one hand side because of the massive violence within the black community itself, violence among heterosexual men as well as misogynist respective homophobic violence. (It is until today among some blacks a standard quotation, that homosexuality is 'the white men's disease'.) On the second hand because of a fatal circle: The bodycentric and in addition sexually charged hypermasculinity among black men, which is always already an answer to racist oppression, has on its part often been perceived as the confirmation of white projections, even more: it has made the racist fiction real until a certain point - which can be seen for example at the predominance of black men in certain sports. To which dramatic consequences such a circle between reality and discursively founded regimes of representation can lead, this has shown the colonial MCA at the 3rd and 4th anti-racist-border-camp (referring to the colonial thoughtlessness, with which The Voice were attacked in the e-mail from Weimar). Therefore I want to emphasize here the following: Masculinity has many faces, two of which I have referred to (in passing): white male supremacy as well as black phallocentric hypermasculinity. What they and further (white, black and other) masculinities have in common is that they all exercise personal as well as structural violence, none being better than the other. Therefore they should be fought against together (without however loosing touch with their respective different conditions of formation).

One more aspect shall be briefly mentioned: In the beginning it was said, that blackness & whiteness are reductionist polarizations which have to be differentiated. This should be taken to heart in any case. Who wants to seriously analyse racism, has to be a lot more precise than this article, for example by making different differentiations already within Europe, for example between eastern, western, southern as well as southerneastern european identities - and even this should not be enough^Å Still: No matter which racist relationship is investigated, the pattern is often similar, because the ethnization always follows opposingly structured concepts. How this works in practice could be recently once again noticed after the terrorist attacks in the US, when once again western-christian civilization was brought into position against arabic-moslem barbarism.

Conclusion: cross-over-conference in Bremen

I hope that I could make two things to some extent clear: 1. Racism is structurally inherent in each white marked person. So white anti-racists can therefore not limit themselves to attacking only the racism of the state. They should also bear the social racism and therefore themselves in mind. That means concretely: One of the central aims of white anti-racist politics has to be the smashing of white identity! Only if this happens there is a real chance that anti-racist border camps in the long term do not stay a predominantly white matter. 2. Sexism, heterosexism and racism are interconnencted in such a way that it is only together that they can be comprehended and fought against - or not at all! This should be taken to heart - theretically as well as in practice.
One place, whrere these and other questions can be discussed will be hopefully the cross-over-conference in Bremen, taking place 17th to 20th january 2001 in Bremen.