Not being black myself, the topic is one which I can only lend an outside perspective on. It is sad that we often feel we must qualify our statements in such a way, since it is somewhat antithetical to the sort of true integration that would not produce "outside perspectives," [if there is, or ever will be, such a thing] but is still presently necessary. It's silly, in a way, to think of "outside perspectives" as being somehow less important, considering that we objectively view many things from without that are internally biased and skewed from within. Obviously, the perception of other cultures is also necessary in weighing the conflict.
Prof. Dyson made it clear, as I just listened to him talking in the interview, that white people understand the context of the word, and when it is, and is not, appropriate to use it. He thus relegates TNW to a sort of "language filter". For instance, he said that during the playing of Kanye West's "Gold Digger", a white person ought to self-censor and abstain from repeating TNW if in the presence of black friends (or black anyones). The use of TNW has obviously spilled over into popular culture, after years of being a clear racial slur, used only by bigots.
I think the real problem with his position is that it really doesn't work. Even if white persons, such as myself, don't use the phrase, TNW, like any phrase, carries connotations and imagery with it. When TNW is evoked, a mental image will form. The only question is: which image should/will form? In order to answer this question, consider: Which image do "we" want to form? Who are "we"? Can we alter the public perception of TNW? Can anyone redefine it?
Dyson's argument seems to be that the colloquial use of TNW is one of camaraderie -- analogous to the use of "home boy/girl" only a few years back within the black community. Those phrases do not share the history of TNW, nor the stigma.
While it is true that in the minds of my generation, and younger, we were not raised to hear the equivocation of the term with racism to the degree of erstwhile generations, it is certainly not true that the term does not still denote derogatory or deprecating value(s). It is certainly not a term of respect. When I consider those intelligent and hardworking friends of mine within the chemistry department, TNW is the last thing that comes to my mind. Indeed, when I hear or think of TNW, the first image in my mind is "a thug". I immediately see a gang, or at least a few guys, in big oversized parkas, with baggy jeans, sideways-cocked hats, lots of big chains, and lots of frothy, barely intelligible, Ebonics-talk. Am I a racist? Why is that the image that TNW provokes?
I don't think I'm alone. I think that not only for fellow whites, but for those in the black community that Dyson denigrates as "the Afristocracy", the mental image that forms with TNW is correlated to its popular presentation. Those who most often use the word, or at least, those who most of us most often see and hear using TNW, are naturally brought to mind upon hearing it. Who are those most frequently heard uttering TNW? Bigots, and the MTV culture. Those two camps.
Dyson doesn't seem to deny this. In fact, he seems to want to protect this latter group, the MTV culture, as a sort of "reserve" upon whose sacred ground whites fear to tread. Obviously, the issue of subcultures of all sorts having the legal or other rights to express themselves freely is not at stake, nor could it be challenged. It is a question of ought to, not able to, for this question, and thus very largely a moral issue. And it is Bill Cosby's moral stance, as well as others of us, which Dyson [and others] rails against.
Prof. Dyson was interviewed in the NYT for his views [bold], as expressed through his book:In a National Public Radio interview after his book was published last year, Dyson said, "Cosby's overemphasis on personal responsibility, not structural features, wrongly locates the source of poor black suffering — and by implication its remedy — in the lives of the poor. When you think problems are personal, you think solutions are the same.
"If only the poor were willing to work harder, act better, get better educated, stay out of jail and parent more effectively, their problems would go away."
Cosby dismisses Dyson out of hand. "The guy who calls me elitist, who is he? A professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And how much does it cost to go there?"
On the other hand, many of us feel that his comments represent an admirable attempt at self-criticism and apply not only to blacks but also to whites in a consumer culture that has run amok.Here in these last two quotations I think Dyson touched on what separates him (and many others) from Cosby (and myself, and many others): personal responsibility. Now, suffice it to say that this catchphrase can be easily injected into discussions of economics, political philosophy, religion, etc., but I want to focus here on its relevance to Cosby's comments in as narrow a fashion as possible.
Here's the irony: Mr. Cosby has been a supreme pitchman for American corporate capitalism for nearly 40 years. Had he come along now, he himself might have been promoting some gym shoes.
I actually found your book alarmingly unbalanced. How can you write 200-plus pages on Bill Cosby without detailing the millions of dollars he has donated to colleges and other good causes?
I think I mention his $20 million gift to Spelman College. It's a well-known fact. There's no need to repeat it.
But he has given to so many other black causes.
There's a dark underside to philanthropy. People who give a bunch of money are deferred to, even when they are wrong. The emperor cannot be shown to have no clothes.
You, yourself, as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, know that Cosby's following is hardly based on his wealth. Why do you think the black middle class has been so moved by his call for individual responsibility?
Of course, taken in one sense, a lot of what he said we can agree with. None of us want our children to be murderers or thieves. But Cosby never acknowledges that most poor blacks don't have a choice about these things.
So, then, how much do you think individual will counts for our success or failure in life?
I don't believe in that kind of American John Wayne individualism where people pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Someone changed your diapers. And if that's the case, you ain't self-made.
You seem to be of the Hillary Clinton ''it takes a village'' school of thinking.
Yes. But Hillary borrowed that from black people! In fact, it's an African proverb. And my ambition didn't grow out of nowhere. It was planted in me by a community that nurtured me.
I am well aware of the genetic predispositions that are intrinsic to humanity. I am further aware of the power of the environmental mold upon a fresh and developing mind. From these two things, we realize and readily admit that some people's actions and behaviors as adults are more understandable upon knowing their upbringing and hereditary records [family records of the same phenomenon/disease/addiction/etc]. We can apply these principles in understanding everything from alcoholism, to sex offenders, to the epidemic of black male imprisonment, and relative paucity of black males in college. When we apply these principles to that last sociological consideration -- nature and nurture -- what do we find? Nothing simple, obviously.
Some, like Dyson, want to focus on the freedom and beauty of the new subculture, while simultaneously ignoring the vicious cycle of the reality they represent. The dropout rates, gang membership, drug abuse, drug dealing, etc., of the urban culture are real. Their correlation to poverty is undeniable. The same is true of whites. Southern (Midwestern too), "trailer-trash" whites have the same problems, exactly, on a simply less-population-dense-scale in rural America.
TNW is colloquially equated with this image, just as "honkey" is equated with the white version. The fact is, it is this very portrayal of poor, uneducated, problem-ridden black American youths that Cosby fights against. Cosby seems to believe that acceptance of TNW is acceptance of its representation. I can't say I disagree. Popularizing ugly truths may be Dyson's reasoning for use of TNW. He may think it the only thing people can do when faced with the harshness of their own plight.
I repeat: When we apply these principles to that last sociological consideration -- nature and nurture -- what do we find? Who is "objectively and scientifically correct" in their solution to the real societal ills?
I suppose it comes down to a choice:
- encourage people to promote education, individual responsibility, the avoidance of slanderous, self-deprecatory slang, promote self-respect, cultivate an self-image of achievement through hard work and culpability...
- or, encourage people to blame everyone and everything else for their ills, promote and grow the divide between races by relegating racial epithets to the "us only" bin, and embrace those elements of popular culture which instill nothing of value to teens.
Cosby is obviously in the former camp. Dyson sure isn't in the latter. Prof. Dyson decries the "Afristocracy", all the while a professor at an Ivy League, publishing a book that will largely be read by those he opposes, encourages people to use a word which deepens the rift between races and cultures, and appears to celebrate the "thug" subculture [ghettocracy, in his words] which promotes nothing of value to youth (of both races) [and is largely a fantasy].
All I will say is this -- our environment does not stop affecting us at age 11. Or 25. Individual responsibility, in the form of feedback as discipline/punishment/justice, is part of our environment. Or lack thereof. There are either reinforcing pressures on us (from childhood on) to take charge of our lives, not make or look for excuses, and give our best effort towards self-betterment, or there are none. Those pressures constitute our environment.
The "selective pressure" of a subculture which in no way celebrates education, instead promoting the "Get Rich, or Die Tryin'" lifestyle/fantasy, professional sports as a serious career option [for large populations], and uses self-deprecating racial epithets is an environmental factor as well.
It isn't a question of whether the environment parents produce and support molds our kids, our images, and our future. It is a question of which environment will. The lines of demarcation are pretty clear.
________________
Technorati tags: Cosby, Dyson, Culture
