Can black culture be defined?
We’ve had some discussion on this topic in the earlier “sellout” post and here is part 2. Again, a piece by McWhorter touching on the issue of the “fluidity and complexity” of cultural definitions. This time he attempts to put some parameters on the definition:
What is black culture? Definitions will differ. But we can’t treat the definition as so “fluid” that it isn’t a definition at all. I will toss out a few parameters of what “black” is:
–The dialect: which is not identical to Southern white English, and not just slang, but a sound and a series of grammatical patterns.
–Music: yes, most of hip-hop’s listeners are white. But there are proportionally more black people who listen mostly to black music than there are whites who listen mostly to black music.
–Bodily carriage. Culinary tastes. Dress style. Christian commitment. Juneteenth. And yes, skill on the dance floor.
There are whites who have some of these traits. What I have presented is not a bag of “stereotypes.” These would be stereotypes if I claimed that all black people exhibited all of those traits to a maximal degree. But I have not claimed that. I have listed a few aspects of black culture: what anthropologist might identify as traits unique to the black community – i.e. what it is to be black. [source: TheRoot]
I don’t know if McWhorter’s definition sufficiently captures the definition of blackness or how to best capture it myself, but there definitely is such a thing as black culture despite the difficulties in defining it. There’s clearly some problems in defining it that have to with identifying the unique characteristics of blackness, who it can be applied to (e.g. can white people be black?) and where the line is between traits and stereotypes. But to the extent that we can define blackness through defining black culture, it is completely reasonable to say that some people would be more steeped in that culture and therefore be more “black” in this sense than others less steeped in the culture. Objectively, there is nothing wrong or right about making that distinction.
The problem comes in when we begin placing value on one’s level of identification with blackness–when being more black makes you “down” and being less black makes you a sellout. That’s also the point at which we cross the line from talking about blackness to talking about black authenticity. Black authenticity contains the value judgment of blackness; it concerns whether you are a real brother or sister or whether you’re some Uncle Tom cornball. It’s also about assigning or rejecting membership to the black community based on adherence to acceptable behaviors. And that’s a problem–especially when based on trivial behaviors like how someone dresses, dances or speaks. No doubt that there’s plenty of that going around.
So where does that leave us? Is it even worth attempting to define blackness? Is it too diverse to place any parameters on it? If we can define it, do we only create more division by doing so? Or is the issue of authenticity the real problem?
Hey, I only have the questions…
**See McWhorter’s follow up to to the piece referenced here**
6 responses so far ↓
1
L
// Feb 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Mike, as I think you know, I have a lot to say on this topic. I plan to post a (now-customary) lengthy comment soon. However, I wanted to say that this blog is really terrific. The content, tone, and perspective are all right on time. I really appreciate the way your posts—while being true to your allegiance to the underdog—allows for a 360 degree discussion on the issues. This week, your blog officially became down by law.
2
Mike
// Feb 15, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I look forward to your comment, however lengthy. Much thanks for the compliment. It means a lot for my blog to labeled “down by law” by you. The truth is, your comments and others have greatly contributed to its quality.
3
SL
// Feb 18, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I agree with L. This is a great post and relates well to the earlier post on “sell-outs.” Just because categories are “fluid” and “complex” does not mean that they are useless or that we cannot attempt to define them. And I agree with you when you say that “the problem comes in when we begin placing value on one’s level of identification with blackness–when being more black makes you “down” and being less black makes you a sellout.” There’s a real danger in doing this that I believe can be very detrimental not only to the black community but to other communities as well.
4
L
// Feb 21, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I can’t go for that (shout out to Hall and Oats). I haven’t given this topic as much thought as I wanted to upon reading it, nor am I sure that I can articulate my view (to the extent that I have developed one) in a comment to a blog post. However, McWhorter’s analysis leaves me empty. Limiting my comments to one point, I find it problematic, if not interesting, that McWhorter’s “traits” all relate to external signifiers as the bases of commonality that he labels culture. That is, implicit in his working definition or the parameters that he offers is the notion that culture is defined, in large part, by the observers of that culture. I disagree. To me, the underpinnings of a group’s culture are its collective history and the collective practices that grow out of that history. It is a uniquely internally-defined phenomenon. That view embraces some of McWhorter’s traits, but rejects others. For example, dialect, bodily carriage, dress style, and dance skills, in my view, are not part of black culture. Some of these traits have no basis in collective history and others are too individualized to be counted as collective practices. McWhorter’s theory runs the risk of qualifying anything that a lot of black people do as black culture. A lot of black people play the lottery, but is that part of black culture? Absent the historical component, his theory is tied to nothing. I think that what can fairly be called black culture is more of a shadow that a thing itself because the population is so segmented, regionalized, and self-defining that the collective-practice component of culture is almost lost. Moreover, aren’t cultural attributes the evidence of similar choices made by similar people? An immutable characteristic, like African ancestry, is a necessary antecedent to black culture, but not one of its traits. McWhorter seems to suggest that culture is comprised of those things that blacks have in common that we almost can’t help. In this way, non-blacks can partake in black culture, but cannot be a part of black culture. And what is black music?
5
Vee
// Feb 26, 2008 at 11:26 am
I’m going through you blog at work of course. Good posts so far.
Is it worth defining blackness? No.
Yes, it is really diverse because many “blacks” you will have to consider those from Europe, the Caribbean and Africa. Alfonso Soriano is from the Dominican Republic but many won’t even consider him black yet he’s darker than Michael Dyson.
I think the authenticity argument is the real problem and divisive because if you don’t behave in a particular way, or follows certain tenets then many do not consider you authentically black.
Defining blackness is just an academic trivial pursuit. But I think L skillfully nailed it.
“Absent the historical component, his theory is tied to nothing.”
6
Mike
// Feb 27, 2008 at 9:21 am
L, apologies for the delay in response. I’m mostly in agreement with your critique of McWhorter. His definition of blackness is quite limiting. Black culture is more than just our behaviors and there is an historical component that he is missing. Elsewhere, I’ve defined culture as:
It’s not a perfect definition but I think it comes closer to what you were arguing. Does it?
Vee, thanks for the compliment (love the sketches on your site BTW) and your comments. Your point about Soriano vs. Dyson characterizes one of the problems with defining blackness. Who can it be applied to? The authenticity issue is the real problem here as you and SL mention. I do think black culture is worth defining though. Since folks will do it anyway, and include or reject others according to this definition, it is worth developing a definition that is more accurate, inclusive, and accounts for variability.
Leave a Comment