The privilege of being generic

Some White people don’t like being called “white“.

Why do we need labels? Why can’t we all just be people?

Those of us with post-colonial backgrounds, and elsewhere might raise an eyebrow at this,

“Why indeed?”

Some people have always had labels affixed to them. If you’re not white in the U.K. you likely spend a lot of time negotiating various labels both those you affix yourself for others and those they place upon you. Where you’re from, where you’re really from.

But being white does not normally necessitate this. If you’re white you’re assumed to be from here. This is perhaps where the anger comes from. If you’re accustomed to being accepted wherever you go it can be difficult to feel that you suddenly require explanation.

There’s a historical irony to this. White as an ethnicity was a conscious creation of racial theorists of the 18th and 19th centuries. It was shaped by the need to differentiate Europeans from inferior, colonised races; and by efforts to fashion and preserve hegemony by Protestant elites in America. Who got to be white has always been up for negotiation, but the principle of exclusion was vital.

Having moved from an identity based on reified differentiation, Whiteness became the default from which everything else is an exception. If you are the generic option then you must, by definition belong. However much space is allowed for people that differ from you (and that space can contract as much as it expands) it is clear that you are making space for others at your indulgence. They might be allowed to stay (or they might not), but that’s not the same as belonging.

The consequences of this trope become clear when a broadcaster comments on the number of white people that attend a Brexit rally and unleashes a torrent of white grievance. Grievance that would be called identity politics if the parties involved had more melanin.

But the consequences are bigger then just Jon Snow being made to give a public apology. The consequences of the White default are that members of the Windrush generation can face sudden deportation to countries they left as children. They are that MPs like Diane Abbott and David Lammy can face continual vicious racist abuse and death threats. Because some people think that just being born here and then getting elected does not give one carte blanch to criticise a state that fundamentally isn’t for you. They are that the Mail can decide a Black MC is being “ungrateful” when he castigates the failure to offer justice for the Grenfell disaster. The consequences are that Shamima Begum’s newborn baby can be left to die in a camp for the sin of having an abused teenager for a mother. Because the rule of law is only conditional for people who are exceptions to the rule.

It does not matter that the Home Secretary who revoked Shamima’s citizenship is not white. Not being white does not necessarily inoculate you from the overwhelming logic of the white default. Especially if your career ambitions rely on it not doing so.

White is not the only default. A recent book has pointed out how much of our lives takes men to be the basic unit of measurement, across culture, design, healthcare. And people who are LGBT have a lot they can tell you about the assumptions of heteronormativity that run though discussions of sexuality. These are just two examples. Each of these defaults have their own historical roots, and modes of expression. But all of them reinforce the idea that the generic is the common good. Everyone else has narrow sectional interests which are granted more or less tolerance depending on the times. To draw attention to this dynamic is to engage in divisive identity politics, and even the default are not free to do that.

Threats to The West.

Hurrah, another open debate.

Do middle-aged pundits pose a threat to civilised society? How might this threat be managed?

Let me be clear, I’m not suggesting that the likes of Claire Fox, Trevor Phillips, Matthew Goodwin, Eric Kaufmann and David Aaronovitch really are a threat, I’ve always opposed discrimination against pundits of all ages. I’m just asking questions.

There’s a debate taking place at Conway Hall, the original subject was ‘Is rising ethnic diversity a threat to the West?’A glance at the website shows they’ve changed the title to the less race-baity “Immigration and Diversity Politics: A Challenge to Liberal Democracy?” It is reassuring to know that ethnic minorities are no longer a threat to the whole of western civilisation, we only constitute a challenge to liberal democracy.

But the original is what the panel signed up to. So it is worth unpacking that original title a bit. On one level it might be dismissed as pure click-bait. Designed to garner publicity, I guess it was dumped when the backlash proved to be a little more vociferous than the organisers expected.

But what is implied by asking if ethnic diversity is a threat to the west?

Firstly, that there is something readily and unambiguously identified as “The West”. What might that be? Presumably this is not just a geographical marker.

So a concept then. Not just the west, but The West.

If ethnic diversity is potentially a threat to The West, then clearly ethnic diversity must be intrinsically lacking from The West to begin with. The West, therefore denotes something ethnically homogeneous, or at least it ought to be. It was in some purer, more authentic time. To the extent that The West is ethnically homogeneous it is safely The West, to the extent it is becoming diverse it is not.

Does it exist, this ethnically pure West? If so, when was it? And where?Who were the ethnically pure Westerners? The debate is taking place in London, so presumably the English are in. Or some of them at least. If the English are in The West, are the French? Presumably.

But are Australians? Geographically they can’t be, but if not then do Australians also constitute a threat to the ethnic purity that is so vital to its survival? What about Canadians? Or Americans? If they don’t count then this West is looking very small and embattled indeed.

But if they do, and Australia is in, then maybe it is just White Skin that defines the West? For how long have America and Australia been homogeneously White? Have they ever? Do Southern Italians count? They can be downright swarthy, so does Italian migration constitute a threat? There have certainly been times in American history when it did. But does it now? That might be news to Matteo Salvini and the Lega Nord.

What about the Irish? We might include them now, but I think if we were to inform some Victorians that Irish Catholics were to be included within the rarefied circumference of Western Civilisation many of them would object in the strongest possible terms.

If the West doesn’t make much sense as a term of definition, it does make sense as a term of exclusion. The most important point about The West has never really been about who it includes. Its always been more about who it excludes.

All ideas contain the idea of their opposite. So this West, the one that may or may not be threatened by ethnic diversity, cannot exist without its reverse. The Orient perhaps. The Orient is also not an actual place. It is a concept. The Orient signifies ethnically, diverse, polyglot impurity. When we talk of the threat to The West, post by ‘ethnic diversity’, we mean the threat that it will become like The Orient.

At the moment The Orient is often Asian and largely Muslim. At times however, it has included Africa and it sometimes still does. In the 50’s and 60’s it also included the Caribbean, and within the last century it has included the Irish and Jews. People who are not currently from The Orient, would do well to remember that they might find themselves from there at some point in the future.

People from The Orient are inherently destabilising. Their very presence is problematic. The more people from The Orient, that there are in The West, the more diverse it becomes and the less it can be said to exist. The very existence of these Orientals is a threat to the binary separation on which The West depends. Too many of them and it will simply collapse.

This impression is confirmed if we look at some of the people who have invoked the defence of The West, who have raised the alarm and rallied to its defence.

Last year Donald Trump voiced his concern over the threats to Western Civilisation and praised the far-right Polish government’s role in defending it. Marine Le Pen is fond of invoking defence of Western Civilisation to buttress her attempts to alienate and exclude French Muslims, and Victor Orban has made it a key plank of his authoritarian ethno-nationalism. To that rather unedifying list can we now presumably add Conway Hall and Academy of Ideas?

Some participants in this debate have been defending their liberal, anti-racist credentials and arguing that of course they fervently disagree with statement; but they believe in free-speech and confronting racism with open debate.

The problem is they’re not the ones currently being debated.

Once the topic of whether one’s identity is a civilisation-level threat has been put on the agenda, those who endorse the question do not have a great claim to the gratitude from the people who’s lives they are debating. They are playing the game regardless of which team they may be on.

Other of the participants in this debate have been on Twitter defending their participation on the grounds that they are just asking important questions. These questions are out there, whether or not they get publicly answered. The fact that they are now being answered at prestigious events involving Russell-Group academics, prominent radio and press-pundits is neither here nor there.

It’s a useful move, the “Just asking Questions” defence. It allows those who often have very little at stake to say irresponsible and offensive things without ever having to take responsibility for the tension they create. They would never shout fire in a crowded theatre. But they are loudly asking if anyone else sees all that smoke. It’s open debate and you can’t blame them for any resulting stampede. They’re just asking the question.

 

Ben Fogle and the “Beautiful Massai”.

Ben Fogle doesn’t go exploring to colonise. He’s excited about the unknown. He just wants to shine a light on exciting peoples around the world.  When he goes to Papua New Guinea – as Benedict Allen notoriously did recently – Ben Fogle goes to introduce people to fascinating new environments, rich with flora, fauna and people. It’s like Blue Planet. Ben Fogle goes out to meet with the “beautiful Massai” people. He appreciates the Massai are beautiful, he doesn’t want conquer anyone. So what’s wrong with that?

Well, it turns out quite a lot. The problem with the attitude of Ben Fogle and Benedict Allen is that they talk about people as if they are a species. We see it a lot with discussions of aboriginal cultures, but it recurs across discussions of Africa and much of Asia – India in particular. Very often, the words used to describe people are overwhelmingly positive, and they are not necessarily untrue. But they complement in a very specific way. Discussion will often talk about the spiritual aspects of a people, their lack of an obsession with material culture that the corrupt, decadent West is enmeshed in. They are likely to be more in touch with nature. They may be beautiful.

It is worth noting that there is a subtext to much of this praise. “They” have not succumbed to all of the trappings of civilisation that “We” have fallen into. The corollary of this back-handed compliment is that they have not done so because they have lacked the sophistication to do so. Decadence is often, implicitly opposed to simplicity. Our fallen state may cause us to admire the honest simplicity of the Other. But we still consider them simple. Readily comprehended. Comprehending another culture is not the same as conquering it of course, but it often seems to be just as one-sided.

Even when this is not the case, with stereotypes that relate purely to physical or mental capabilities, its a problem. The most obvious examples relate to the sporting prowess of African-Americans, or people from east Asia’s affinity for maths. “Now now” you might say, “don’t be such a snowflake. Sure stereotypes are simplistic, but everyone does them and at least those ones are flattering. They must be harmless.”

Probably, everyone does have stereotypes, regional, national and hyper-local. But the fact that everyone does something doesn’t mean we can’t think critically about it. It matters who is doing something and where they do it. If the French have a stereotype about the English being unable to cook that might be somewhat insulting (and frankly implausible to anyone who’s tasted my carrot and coriander soup) but it has been almost a millennium since the Norman conquest. So your average Frenchman has very limited opportunities to put their stereotypical views of the English into practice, in any serious or harmful way.

However, the stereotype of African-American physicality can do real, even lethal harm. There is evidence that Black men in America are perceived to be larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men. Black men are also statistically much more likely to be shot and killed by the police when unarmed. The evidence indicates that police tend to perceive Black men as inherently more of a risk to themselves, and so are more likely to respond with lethal force.

In fact, all stereotypes are damaging in this way. Evidence indicates that people who believe a positive stereotype about a particular group, are more likely to believe a negative one. The stereotype sets this group, nation or ethnicity in the mind as fixed and uncomplicated. Once that hurdle is crossed, it is easy to ascribe other traits. They have stopped being a complex and contradictory people. Unlike us,  the complicated and sophisticated, they have become a species. They have been orientalised. Their traits are fixed and immutable. Like the Beautiful Massai.

TLDR – Ben Fogle, Benedict Allen (and probably everyone else) should read some Edward Said.