Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The Politics of "Othering"
















Frank Rich’s column from Saturday’s New York Times is too good to go unnoticed here at Social Science Lite. Rich brilliantly tackles the “birthers” (proponents of The Greatest Political Conspiracy in the History of the World*), placing their rhetoric within our so-called “national conversation on race:”
“Obama’s election, far from alleviating paranoia in the white fringe, has only compounded it. There is no purer expression of this animus than to claim that Obama is literally not an American — or, as Sarah Palin would have it, not a “real American.” The birth-certificate canard is just the latest version of those campaign-year attempts to strip Obama of his American identity with faux controversies over flag pins, the Pledge of Allegiance and his middle name. Last summer, Cokie Roberts of ABC News even faulted him for taking a vacation in his home state of Hawaii, which she described as a “foreign, exotic place,” in contrast to her proposed choice of Myrtle Beach, S.C., in the real America of Dixie.

[…]

One of the loudest birther enablers is not at Fox but CNN: Lou Dobbs, who was heretofore best known for trying to link immigrants, especially Hispanics, to civic havoc. Dobbs is one-stop shopping for the excesses of this seismic period of racial transition. And he is following a traditional, if toxic, American playbook. The escalating white fear of newly empowered ethnic groups and blacks is a naked replay of more than a century ago, when large waves of immigration and the northern migration of emancipated blacks, coupled with a tumultuous modernization of the American work force, unleashed a similar storm of racial and nativist panic.”

Racial panic over minority invasions and challenges to white hegemony is nothing new; the history of “othering” minorities is a long and storied one, with its organizational zenith going as far back as the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893. There, white Americans celebrated the supposed supremacy of American culture, collectively embracing whiteness as they mocked and ridiculed “savage” foreign societies. White Americans defined their unstable racial identity in opposition to an ill-defined, uncivilized racial “other.” At the Chicago World’s Fair, whiteness, nationalism and modernity were all intertwined: to be intellectually superior, patriotic, and American was to be white; to be white was to be intellectually superior, patriotic, and American. Sounds familiar, right?

This collective re-drawing of racial boundaries has been a common American practice during times of economic distress and demographic change. Take the influx of African-Americans into manufacturing jobs during the 1930s and 40s. This onslaught of blacks into Northern industrial cities during the Second Great Migration precipitated violent resistance in formerly all-white neighborhoods and workplaces. In more recent decades, the growing Hispanic population in America has spawned a pervasive anti-immigrant ethos with blatantly racist overtones. In each instance, white Americans enacted social, political, and economic structures—such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and political gerrymandering—to limit upward mobility when people of color challenged their hegemonic power.

So-called “birthers”—questioning President Obama’s country of birth—are only the latest in a long line of white Americans dead-set on “othering” minority populations. There's just no way this Obama guy is one of us. This "othering" of President Obama is exactly where we need to focus our discussions of race in America—not on individualized instances of racial discrimination, but on historical continuities and the institutionalization of racial animus. Our “national conversation on race” won’t happen over beers, but through careful historical analyses of racial identity formation and the hoarding of economic and political resources.

The politics of “othering” has long been a dominant facet of public discourse. No “national conversation on race” is going to do much if we don’t address this core aspect of American political identity.


* I'm officially coining "The Greatest Political Conspiracy in the History of the World" as my new term for the "birther" claims.

10 comments:

  1. Have you read Hofstadter? His book on Paranoia is good (though it does not focus on the racial angle so much as the othering angle). Yeah its ass-old, but I look at othering in American politics from before 1893 (though it DOES lend a nice symmetry to Obama's Chicago and the Chicago of a century earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Birther-mongering doesn't seem to be helping Dobb's ratings:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/4/761677/-CNNs-Lou-Dobbs-Problem-Grows:-Ratings-Plummet-after-Peddling-Debunked-Birther-Conspiracy

    I still find the concentration of birtherism - 75% of Southern whites are birthers/don't know if Obama was born in the US - unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, Jeremy.

    The simple fact of the matter, at least for me, is that there are Whites who have it in their minds that now that there's a Black man in the White House, Black Americans are going to rise up in armed revolt. Isn't going to happen.

    In as far as 75% of Southern whites being birthers - there are racist White people everywhere, and I would not want to see the South demonized as holding a premium on racism, because, it doesn't. If anything, the South is really the only region of the United States which was forced to deal with its race problem. Is there still a lot of work to be done? Absolutely. But, the South needs to be given some props.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Winslow - I'll have to check out that book. Bu yeah, I liked the parallel with Obama and the World's Fair. I still think it might be the "organizational zenith" of othering, emphasis on the "organization" part, just because it was so coordinated and consumed by a mass public. I'm not as well read in international work, so i'd assume "othering" is also present in other cultures. The World's Fair seems to be a good starting point, though, for the contemporary zeal and mass consumption of this rhetoric, especially how it relates to American patriotism.

    Carl - The statistics coming out are sobering.

    Missincogengro - All I can really do is shake my head in approval of your comment. This line is particularly true: "The South is really the only region of the United States which was forced to deal with its race problem." We've definitely let other parts of the nation slide, giving other states a free pass as we focused all our anti-racism efforts in the South. Our future efforts definitely need to work under this premise.

    ReplyDelete
  5. J, this is history we are talking about here, so there is always issues of periodization :). I mean, World's Fair, Spanish-American War, White Man's Burden... you did nail the timeline, but I just wanted to complicate whiteness a lil'.

    Keep on nailing the birthers, and their deranged intellectual tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birthers-movement-part-one-080409

    ReplyDelete
  7. (Social) Identity and 'The Other' is at the heart of many - if not all - conflicts and disputes in the world, which sadly leads to bloodshead and ultimately, war.

    Simply put - building on the work of Anthropologist, Fredrik Barth's 'Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (1969)' - in which he outlines an approach to the study of ethnicity which focuses on the on-going negotiations of boundaries between groups of people - 'The Other', 'Insider/Outsider' groups focus on perceived/actual similarities and differences between individuals and groups. Yet it is these differences that are used to de-humanise individuals, to make it easier and therefore, give oneself permission to hate and ultimately exterminate 'The Other'. Witness what occured to the Jews in Nazi Germany, or the Muslims in the Balkan wars, or what took place in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis.

    This binary-code method of looking at similarity and difference - on a very basis level - can be used to explain a lot of the conflicts and disputes we see taking place, historically and contemporary. For example:

    Israeli Jew v Palestine Muslim
    Conservative v Liberal
    Blood v Crip
    Hindu v Muslim (v Sikhs) in India
    Pakistani v Indian
    Chinese v Tibet
    Russia v Chechnya
    Protestant v Catholic (in Northern Ireland)

    Similarly, this model can be applied to what's happening in Sudan, Somalia, most of the conflicts in Africa, that prima facie, are ethnic/tribal based, East Timor, Sri Lanka, ad infinitum.

    At the heart of these conflicts is bigotry and prejudice based on perceived/actual differences. That said, as I also see things by using a model of how power is exercised in these conflicts, one cannot also dismiss the analysis of power structures within these conflicts. Where usually, a powerful and privileged minority have exercised power over a majority for many years but are reluctant/unwilling to give up or share power (e.g. Apartheid South Africa, Malaysia, UK and USA, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, I think you're right in your comment about the othering of a specific group, as well as social identity, being at the heart of conflic is accurate, though I'd go a step further and say that it is absolutely at the heart of all major conflicts.

    The thing about your reference to anthropology makes me a little uncomfortable though. Anthro (and I'm speaking as someone who's a big fan of anthro in general) has a notorious history of "othering" groups that were at the heart of their studies. Those studies are actually a separate field, ethnography, but the point is that at first they referred to the people they "studied" as "informants" which is little better than "subject of study" in this context. It took a long time for Anthropologists to come to consider their interests and studies as being equal humans to themselves, instead of some kind of highly cognizant mammal. In short, there's a long history of "othering" in anthropology as well., and it's not entirely gone yet.

    Do you really think it's just bigotry? I always thought it was more of an issue of historicism.

    Btw, J, I would've thought the "greatest conspiracy et. al" would actually be the enormously insidious and thoroughly plagiarized scam the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which has probably caused more bloodshed and evil and hatred than any other official document in history (this may be a slight overstatement). I use "great" here in the same way Ollivander does in his referent to Voldemort in the first Harry Potter book.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting post...........

    Every one should read this .........
    Thanks for sharing.............
    ________________
    DyanaDevis

    Online Marketing of your brand

    ReplyDelete
  10. Barth is actually a good example to bring up. He may have been a part of a disciplinary "othering" in his role as an anthropologist, as Kate brings up. However, his theories laid the groundwork for the current boom in sociology around theories of boundary work. The basic idea is that groups create and maintain boundaries--based on behaviors, religion, culture, whatever--to hoard/monopolize scarce resources. Basically, the mechanism by which groups distinguish between themselves is some sort of agree upon boundary.

    But that doesn't entirely explain *why* they would choose to distinguish between themselves. Here other theories could come into play, but I'll just throw one out there: Herbert Blumer argued that ethnic prejudice stemmed from "a sense of group position." This means that groups are jockeying for power, and develop antagonisms with other groups competing for the same resources. Joan Nagel has an interesting take on this line of though, dubbing it "Resource competition Theory."

    As far as The Greatest Political Conspiracy in the History of the World--we're *not* trying to take over the world?? [sarcasm intended]

    ReplyDelete