Heh. I’ve been incredibly unhappy with therapy and its failure to treat actual causes. But maybe that’s just me.

I hear ya. It totally depends on the kind of therapy and your relationship to the therapist, though. I’ve been to numerous therapists over 13 years for my bipolar disorder, and I’ve just now found one that’s really been helpful. In the old-style analytic tradition! And I have to speak Norwegian! Which I’ve been speaking for 7 years, so I’m relatively fluent, but jeez–you really start feeling the limits of your vocabulary when you need to talk about very specific things and feelings.

In the US, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is considered the gold standard. It works pretty well for superficial problems like “How do I talk to my spouse without alienating him?” or “How do I assert myself at work?”, bit it’s nigh on useless for serious psychiatric ailments. Because of the way healthcare is done in the US, psychiatric treatment consists mostly of running the patient through a set series of drugs in a set order, a visit to the psychiatrist once a month, if the patient is lucky, otherwise occasional visits to a clueless GP for med adjustments, and maybe 12 sessions with a Cognitive Behavioral therapist. The emphasis is very much on patching up the problem by learning “coping skills”, which is necessarily going to be a short term solution.

I was really skeptical to analytic-style therapy at first, what with the free association and ideas about the subconscious, but it turns out it’s mostly about examining the deeper causes of your behavior, causes you might not necessarily recognize at once, plus applying logic to your actions to examine them for consistency. Which is all right up my alley.

Anyway, point being, some kinds of therapy can be useful for some kinds of ailments.

OK, that was quite OT.

So who decides what is maladaptive?

Good question. I think mostly it has to do with whether the person is better off as a result of the behavior in question. Usually it’s up to the person to decide, but sometimes it’s obvious to outsiders when someone is cluelessly fucking up her life. Heroin addicts, for example. The way I look at it, adaptive actions lead to less suffering. Every individual her to decide for herself how to balance her suffering with the suffering of others (it would be asinine to donate so much money to charity that you end up in the poorhouse, for example). Basic preference utilitarianism as I understand it, but I’m far from an expert here.

Anyway, the individual is the final arbiter, regardless. Nobody should be able to make your decisions for you, ideally.

Are all questions asked of a person of a different, less privileged race about differences usually associated with race necessarily racist?

In short, no. It is not necessarily racist.

OK, good. This is what I was looking for.

Actually, this is a really complicated question even apart from race.

Ain’t that the truth? These are major issues in linguistics, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind… I think an important thing for everyone to remember is that questions like these are incredibly complex and it’s not necessarily the case that there’s a right answer or even a good practical solution. We want things to be solvable, black and white, cut and dried, but the real world isn’t like that. It’s such a hard lesson to learn.

Personally, and this is my human, subjective response, on a close call like this, I think the decision should go to the person or persons most affected by it. In this case, I do think Nubian gets to decide. I think that in situations where a question is asked of a person of a different, less privileged race about differences usually associated with race, that the person who is asked gets to decide.

…

So, while not all questions asked of a person of a different, less privileged race about differences usually associated with race are necessarily racist, the question that Nubian was asked was undoubtedly racist. Is that clearer?

See, I still disagree. Probably racist, but not undoubtedly racist. Because you’re essentially saying that racism is defined by the victim. Which is not the same as the definition we agreed upon earlier: “racism = racial prejudice + power/privilege”. If each person gets to decide for himself what racism is, it’s going to be impossible to have a discussion on the subject (e.g. the problems we had earlier before agreeing on a definition). I think it’s imperative to agree on a definition in order to make discussions on the subject productive, but I know that this is incredibly difficult.

So it seems to me the conclusion is that we can never know for sure whether something is racism, both because of the problem of intention and because of the difficulty of reaching a consensus about the definition of racism (same thing with feminism). However, like you said:

…it bears repeating that it’s better to overmark racism than undermark it.

In which case, a hard and fast definition isn’t really necessary, and deferring to the victim’s judgment is the most adaptive solution. The most adaptive solution doesn’t require nailing down what is or isn’t racism. And that’s a damned good thing.

the speaker’s intentions or perceived intentions
the actual words and gestures and what they meant both
literally and
abstractly
the context of the speech act
in what setting
the relationship between the parties
whether it followed social norms or violated them
the impact of the utterance on the less privileged person/people
the place of the question in its socio-political and historical context

I think it bears repeating that it’s better to overmark racism than undermark it. I also think that PoC generally go out of their way NOT to mismark racism, for reason discussed in the “What Kind of Card is Race” essay.

So, while not all questions asked of a person of a different, less privileged race about differences usually associated with race are necessarily racist, the question that Nubian was asked was undoubtedly racist. Is that clearer?

Heh. I’ve been incredibly unhappy with therapy and its failure to treat actual causes. But maybe that’s just me.

Its not necessarily the case that an individual knows whether or not her reactions are maladaptive, proportionate to the offense, or interfering with her ability to lead her life. Not by a long shot.

So who decides what is maladaptive?

I’m just skittish on this one because so many times it’s men that decide what’s maladaptive for women. Or white people deciding that the behavior of black people maladaptive and telling them to get over racism while they are perpetuating it. Even family members have their own agendas when discussing whether the behavior of the people they are close to is maladaptive. I don’t see how there is a solution to deciding what is and isn’t maladaptive without using a subjective measuring stick for what “normal” or “happy” is, a standard that is usually decided by those in power. Does that make sense?

Oooh, this is extremely condescending.

I apologize for the way that sounded. I should not have said it like that. I just meant this is a long and confusing process for all of us, even when we’re willing. As I’ve said several times, I’m still working through this stuff myself, so, I am learning along with you.

Are all questions asked of a person of a different, less privileged race about differences usually associated with race necessarily racist?

In short, no. It is not necessarily racist.

Actually, this is a really complicated question even apart from race. I’ll take a lit crit approach.

You know the intentional fallacy right? The error of assuming a text means what its author intended it to mean? That means we can’t decide the meaning based on what the author or in this case the WC speaker meant.

What are our other options?

Reader reception?
That means who ever interprets the words decides the meaning. So, it’s Nubian who gets to decide. But if she posts in on her blog, do the readers of the blog get to decide? How do they decide? Who has the most convincing argument? Is it a majority rule? Is it who can shout the louded and longest? Is it whoever is deemed most wise and knowledgeble? If these “answers” conflict, and they often do, then it can’t be just the reader who gives it meaning.

Do we go back to deciding that the meaning is in the words themselves, and decide that if we just look at the utterance enough times, studying the words carefully and parsing them out that the true meaning will become apparent? I think many people came to the conclusion that it wasn’t just in the question itself, but in the way it was framed and in the context in which it was uttered that gave it its meaning.

Literary critics argue about all these approaches and others, sometimes giving more weight to one, sometimes to another. I don’t know that we really can make that call with 100% certainty.

I think it really comes down to what we decide to value more. Is it the intention of the speaker, regardless of how it becomes racist after it enters the world in a loaded context? Is it meaning as it is perceived by the person who it is addressed to?

Intellectually, no, such an utterance is not neccessarily racist, because there is no absolute and universal way to determine the absolute meaning and resulting significance of something as complicated as a speech act, even though there are better and worse ways, of course.

If someone wants to make a decision about whether it is or isn’t racist, though, it is a judgement call based on what we value.

Personally, and this is my human, subjective response, on a close call like this, I think the decision should go to the person or persons most affected by it. In this case, I do think Nubian gets to decide. I think that in situations where a question is asked of a person of a different, less privileged race about differences usually associated with race, that the person who is asked gets to decide.

I actually would like to read the Apartheid section of Bowker and Star’s book.

I’ve also been thinking that we’ve pretty much reached the end of productivity (for now) by just limiting the discussion to your perceptions, Nubian’s incident, and the blog threads that surround it.

Anyway, I’m reading up. Also about minority issues in Norway, ’cause I want to know how this stuff translates to Norwegian society.

I think this is a really good idea for you. I’ve always found it helpful to learn about a situation where you’re not personally so invested in what is, ya know? I mean, as an outsider, you can see what is happening to both the white Norweigans and the racial minorities there without feeling like you’re part of either group.

Also, I want to bring back this point I made earlier, which I think is the most important part of all the junk I said:

But in the end and most of all, the best way to understand is to actually listen to people of color, and not just about what is hurtful. It’s also important to listen to them about their passions and their concerns, their ideas and hopes and priorities.

I’ve been talking about people of color think this and people of color think that. But really, they aren’t a monolithic entity and hold a variety of perspectives and argue about different issues and what those issues mean. If you want a fuller and richer understanding of what “people of color” are thinking, you need to find out what they think. I would suggest reading POC blogs, since they are probably easiest for you to access right now.

You might find it easiest to start at Granny Gets a Vibrator.

Granny is a white woman doing a Black Media Immersion Month. Here’s what she wrote today:

Today: the personal blogs. More than any other medium, personal blogs seem to have had the most powerful impact when it comes to popping the bubble of my complacent white myopia.

I love the blogs because they’re not a sanitized, prepackaged medium designed to appease or sell while never offending. These are real people, speaking in fearless, eloquent and unedited voices about their day to day experiences and observations; expressing their feelings of anger, hurt, pride, confusion, and joy. These are unique individuals offering compelling insights into their own personal quotidian lives and what it’s like to be a black person surviving in a white supremacist society.

Sometimes when I’m reading a blog where the writer is reacting in anger to something white people said or did, I find myself feeling defensive. “Now wait,” I start thinking. “I’m not like that! Don’t paint me with that broad brush!” But I’ve learned to stop myself. Because as soon as I get caught up in knee-jerk defensiveness, my eyes and ears start to close, and I lose the ability to fully grasp the real and relevant point that’s being made. I’ve learned to stop and remind myself: hey, this is NOT about me. I need to step back from the picture, silence my own ruffled ego, and honestly ask myself: what must it feel like to be this particular person, having this particular experience, in this particular context? Pay attention, self: not my story; their story.

In her posts, she’s been providing lists of links. I read some of the blogs and news sources she links to. Highly recommended.

Anyway, my conclusion is that if we want to have real, open conversations about race, we need to end racism. That’s why I do stuff like this.

I could not agree more. That’s why I do stuff like this, too. I think what’s happening here is that we agree on what needs to be done, although we disagree on the best way to do it.

…blogs are a prickly medium.

Indeed. I felt a little queasy after posting my original take on the situation, even though like five people read this blog. I knew that putting my opinions out there in public invited controversy, especially if I was going to ping Piny’s post. I figured it was likely a debate like this would ensue, and that I’d piss people off.

…let’s say you’ve had a bad day and your male co-worker (or boss) makes a comment about you having PMS. You get angry (whether or not you actually respond). Does you getting angry and posting about the incident on your blog with a largely feminist readership invite men to come and debate whether or not the incident was sexist? Do men get to debate whether your angry response is or is not maladaptive? Is your anger even maladaptive?

Well, it depends on the blog, for one thing. I would have to accept that if I’m putting my experience out there for public consumption, yeah, I’m gonna have to expect to have to defend myself. I feel that I have to be prepared to defend absolutely everything that I express to another person. And sure, men get to debate whether or not my response is maladaptive. People are allowed to talk about whatever they want, wherever they want to, although they’re going to have to accept the fact that they’re also going to have to deal with any reactions they might get. My anger is maladaptive or not in the same way as Nubian’s–do I benefit more from educating the men and therefore potentially furthering the cause of racism, or do I benefit more from chilling out and not giving myself an ulcer? That’s also what I had to decide when posting my rant. I figured, what with the pingbacks and all, this was going to be a painful experience. But I hoped that what I had to gain would outweigh that pain. And it has. For me personally, and I hope also in a general sense, e.g. how my new understanding of the situation will affect my future behavior, the good that will come as a result of people reading this, and me telling my friends and family what I’ve learned here.

But I think I may have support for my hypothesis that ingrained and institutional racism decreases white people’s compassion for black people who feel pain because of racism, since Nubian got compassionate responses from PoC readers of her blog. Also, a lot of the white apologist commenters seemed to have compassion for the poor WC. In fact, Ohioboy wrote, “I still have to say I sympathize with the white woman in this scenario”. To me this shows that the ability to identify with and empathize with one of the participants in Nubian’s blog post was in fact racialized, not a result of the “argumentative” format of blogging. Personally, I think it’s dehumanizing that we white people have been trained not to empathize with black people who experience racism. We’ve been taught that, you know, since if we did a good job of empathizing with them, how could we live with ourselves when we allow and perpetuate an unjust system like racism? If we really want to relate to people as people across color lines, we have anknowlege and work to rid overselves of this racist garbage that we are seeped in.

I think you’re right, absolutely right, although I see the ultimate cause in what was adaptive in our EEA. We had to be able to kill an other without having an attack of conscience–we had to “other” the other–because otherwise the other would exploit our conscience to kill us before we could kill them. That’s what I was talking about when I said that this stuff was bred into us. So it is dehumanizing–it’s an animal instinct. It’s the kind of instinct we need to learn to repress if we’re going to live ethical lives.

Which brings me to this:

I also worry that your speculation over whether Nubian’s response was personally adaptive or maladaptive misses the point.

See, when I’m arguing here, or arguing over anything for that matter, the form of the argument is really important to me. I want to look at the ultimate causes of behavior, because I think that the only way to change behavior is to understand where it’s coming from and treat the cause. I see this particular argument in a larger perspective–that of how we are to live in general. So I think about stuff like the psychology and sociology of the situation, but also the sociobiology, the ethics, and the logic of the situation. This is the way I approach all controversies, even those within my own head. Why are things really the way they are?

…it is up for Nubian to decide that, not for you to debate it. It’s Nubian’s life, and she knows when her reactions are or are not proportionate to the offense and if they are or are not interfering with her ability to lead her life.

And again, I maintain that I do get to debate it, ’cause it’s out there in public. Generally, when someone posts this kind of thing in a public space, I’d assume that she was inviting debate, precisely for the purpose of getting other people’s opinions about her actions. Its not necessarily the case that an individual knows whether or not her reactions are maladaptive, proportionate to the offense, or interfering with her ability to lead her life. Not by a long shot. People are constantly fucking up their lives because they react in a maladaptive way. That’s the essence of failed human relationships, after all, and that’s the main cause of unhappiness for humans. It’s why we have therapy, you know?

I’m just saying that that is what your general line of argument sounds like, especially to people of color.

OK, good to know.

I’m saying that this argument - “it’s my right to be totally comfortable talking about race, and PoC’s possible reactions to me have to be suppressed if you want me to engage in dialogue about racism” - does not come from you, Sarah. I’m saying that you picked it up from The System. Now, that line of thinking was must more prominent in your original post and in your earliest comments, so I do think you’ve started to move away from it over the course of our conversations. I just wanted to highlight it and make you aware of it, because I hadn’t addressed it specifically.

I think you’re being a little condescending here. You say that the statement above is my argument, while I’ve been saying repeatedly that it’s not my argument, and I don’t see that it ever was. Do you think it’s possible that you keep attributing this argument to me because you’re so well “trained” in anti-racist politics that you believe that every contentious white person holds this opinion?

So a real, open dialogue can happen when no-one pussyfoots around, and everyone is forced to deal with, accept, and analyze their reactions and the actions of others.

It’s a nice idea, really, it is.

Well, I’m allowed to dream, aren’t I? I wouldn’t be arguing for it if it were already the case.

I wish it could be that way. But this comes from a perspective of privilege. I wish it were the right of everyone, but alas, the fact is that for PoC, it’s almost impossible not to pussyfoot around when talking about this subject with white people. Because of the power dynamics.

OK, I don’t believe in rights. They’re constructed by humans in order to further their personal agendas. Some actions may be more dangerous than others–e.g. a black person speaking her mind about race, and yes, it is more dangerous for a black person to speak her mind about race, for the reasons we’ve discussed and for reasons put forth in some of the essays you linked to–but fuck “rights”. The concept is useless in reality. I see the idea of “rights” being used to promote racism, not end it. I see it being used to promote all sorts of evil. “Rights” are used to try to bring “others” up to a more privileged level, while at the same time confirming by default that those levels do exist as a property of the people themselves and are not merely a social construction. I don’t need a “right” to vote, speak my mind, control my body, etc. if I’m the same kind of being as you are.

It’s nice to say that you don’t want people of color to pussyfoot around, but you can’t really ask that of them until you eliminate the inequality caused by racism in our society.

It depends on the context. Somewhere, someone’s got to be able to discuss this stuff openly, or we will not be able to end racism because we will not have understood the full extent of the problem. This open discussion doesn’t have to involve situations like Nubian’s, and I’d argue that it would have been nigh on pointless for Nubian to try to educate the WC, for all the reasons we’ve discussed.

I was a willing participant when I went through this, you too are asking and willing to learn, and see how long this is taking?

Oooh, this is extremely condescending. So you went into this with the purpose of merely “educating” me? You didn’t come into this situation with an open mind, figuring that maybe I might have a point about some of my concerns? Were that the case, I wish you’d have told me that from the start–it would have saved me a lot of typing.

I know the WC protocol for comparing skin color. See, one WC says either “OMG I am soooo pale” or “OMG I got soooo tan yestserday”. Then she pushes back her sleeve and sticks out her forearm. “Look” she says, and waits. The other WC says something like “Wow,” and then either “you are” or “I bet you I’m…paler/tanner”. Then the other WC sticks out her forearm too. They hold their arms next to each other so that they can compare. NO GRABBING IS INVOLVED.

And, yet again, explain to me why WC’s behavior was necessarily racist as opposed to socially clueless.

I found this reaction to Nubian’s post in a livejournal discussion, and I thought it would be helpful for you to hear it. Kerrickadrian wrote:

Is it always poor judgment to talk about race with people you don’t know very well? I don’t think so, myself. But that’s not what this person was doing. She was asking an intrusive question of a relative stranger predicated on the assumption that biology works differently for people of different races, invading personal space, and making unwanted physical contact. That’s somewhat different from having an informed, mutual discussion about race with a relative stranger. I don’t know many white people who are capable of doing that, so maybe this crap is easily confused with “talking about race.”

*sigh* Again, why is “asking an intrusive question of a relative stranger predicated on the assumption that biology works differently for people of different races, invading personal space, and making unwanted physical contact” necessarily about race? The world “race” in the above quote was introduced by Kerrickadrian. She–and all of you, and this was what the debate was about, for me–assume that a question about differences usually associated with race and aimed at a person of another race is necessarily a question about race. And again, I’m saying that’s not necessarily the case. You’re all assuming your conclusion, and that is precisely the kind of “argument” I cannot accept. Tell me why it’s necessarily the case, don’t just tell me it’s necessarily the case. You’ve told me why it’s probably the case, and I agree. But I don’t see you telling me why it’s necessarily the case–I only see you asserting it.

I would like to know, actually, why white people think that asking about skin temperature was, actually, learning about or talking about race.

This is a very telling question. We did not see the question as being about race–we were frustrated because Nubian made that assumption. You perceived that we were making the question about race for the same reason Nubian did–because you’re trained to see all questions asked of a person of a different race about differences usually associated with race as racist.

So answer me this, once and for all:

Are all questions asked of a person of a different, less privileged race about differences usually associated with race necessarily racist?

In fact, race is a social construct…

I know. Which is why I’m generally not comfortable using the word. I ended up using it here just as a shorthand…which in discussions like these, can be dangerous and misleading, I know. I like the term “ethnicity” better, or even just referring to people by the color of their skin for this purpose, since that’s how racists draw the lines.

You can hate the system and still like people who are a part of it. Again, black people are far better at making a distinction between a dislike of The System and opinions about individuals influenced by The System than white people with a tentative understanding systematic racism are.)

That’s another thing Americans don’t understand, something that I found really interesting when I moved here. Afghanis, Palestinians, and Iraqis, they don’t hate Americans. They like Americans. They hate the American System. Americans think these people hate us personally…thus, the defensiveness. I think this is always going to be the case when there’s a power differential, for all the reasons we’ve discussed here.

I bet Nubian is exposed to many, many situations every day that could be construed as potentially racist. Hello institutional racism! Things that she probably could get upset over if she wanted to. I bet you she makes healthy and adaptive choices about where to spend her energy and outrage all the time. In fact, I bet she’s extremely good at it, considering she’s successful enough to be in a lily-white graduate program. And so she was mad at this situation and made a venting blog post to sympathetic readers. In the end, it wasn’t the bike incident that was most hurtful to her. It was all the posts from white people arguing that she was blowing things out of proportion. In her words, “grr. i’m more angry now than i was that day on my bike.” In fact, the only thing maladaptive that she did was post her experience in a blog where white people could comment on it, even though you ultimately found it productive.

Yep. I agree.

Delux wrote: “Situations like what happened in your blog about that crazy ‘hot skin’ question are why I pretty much only discuss race and related issues with other people of color now.

Hmmm…but didn’t we white folks get castigated for implying that this would also be the easiest thing for us to do? Nobody said this was supposed to be easy, and likewise, nobody said everybody has to be a part of the debate.

I have avoided doing so (because I want it to be beside the point), but I want to state that I’m not a bigot. I don’t deny that bigotry exists, I don’t deny that racism exists, I don’t deny that white privilege exists, and I don’t deny that I possess it. I know that racist things go on under my nose without me realizing it ’cause I don’t have to. I know that I behave in racist ways without even realizing it. I deny that race exists. I think it’s weird that people make such a big deal about something that is–or was, to begin with–so purely superficial, like you said. It blows my mind. I mean, WTF, all this because A’s skin is darker than B’s skin? And it’s not as if all people who are considered or consider themselves to be black have darker skin than “white” people.

Look at the rules of Apartheid in South Africa, for example. There’s an excellent dissection of this issue in Sorting Things Out by Bowker and Star. My master’s thesis was about prototype theory in linguistics–the idea that categories in real life do not conform to the kinds of rules we like to believe they do. Categories are fuzzy and fluid, and there’s absolutely no way to define whether or not a given object will belong to a particular category. “Race” is a perfect example of how trying to draw lines of demarcation in order to make perfect categories causes trouble. I’d be willing to scan in the Apartheid section of Bowker and Star’s book if you’re interested. It’ll get your blood boiling, though.

So here’s where I’m coming from. I want to end racism because it’s maladaptive and it causes suffering. It’s understandable, but it’s an extremely dangerous relic of a time long past. White privilege exists, and we’ve got to figure out how to penetrate it. But I think that when activists imply or assert statements like “all questions asked of a person of a different race about differences usually associated with race are necessarily racist”, it majorly weakens their argument, if only for a purely reason: universal statements are impossible to prove in the real world. Making universal statements is a Bad Idea, especially when it comes to psychology. Kendall Clark again: “I happily accept the burden to validate my claims to mark racism.” You’re making this universal claim, yet failing to validate it. Piny’s explanation made perfect sense to me, and I left it feeling that if only we white folks understood what Piny had explained, we would nullify one of the major sources of animosity between races today. But you have thus far failed to validate your claim, and you’re in a nasty position because you’ve made a claim that’s almost certainly impossible to validate. I’m on your side, Hannah. I want us to reach a consensus, if possible. Do you see my point?