Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Dr. Laura: Race and the Lack of Pragmatic Foresight

An recent occurrence has renewed my interest in the issues of Race and Racism. In a previous post (a while back) I had made a point that Political Correctness in regards to race and the idea of "diversity" had very noticeable limits. My argument (adapted from Walter Benn Michaels "The Trouble With Diversity") was that ideas of race, racism and sensitivity to race are secondary reactions to the problem of poverty, class and social status. Racism, while clearly existent in this era, is represented by facets of social inequality in urban social space: redlining, block busting, environmental injustice, inner city slums, gentrification, oppressive immigration policies, etc. These problems must be addressed first in order to be able to tackle less prevalent issues, like blatant racism.

So, here is a quagmire caused by out-of-step individual making a point of race and making a complete a$$ out of herself:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
Dr. Laura, a conservative radio show host (just behind the unbelievably "large" personality of Rush Limbaugh in ratings), had a caller (black) who was angry over her husband's (white) friends remarks about her race. They were making jokes about stereotypes, and asking her questions about her race. Instead of telling the caller that she should confront her friends and have a meaningful discussion about why she thought those comments were hurtful to her and somewhat "racist," Dr. Laura went into a tirade about how white people cannot say certain epithets about black people that black people can say about other black people. She even repeated that epithet many times during the interview. She even brought Barack Obama into it, talking about how he was voted in because he was "half-black."

Her Lack of Pragmatic Foresight: First, she is completely negating the whole purpose of the caller's questions. Dr. Laura needed to help this woman with her problem, but instead she used it as a platform to denounce Barack Obama (not like that's been done before...). Second, as was stated so eloquently in an article by Mary Curtis, Dr. Laura is stepping into the ring of race by being blatantly racist. She is using stereotypes about black voters (they automatically vote for black candidates) and she is assuming that black voters use "logic and reasoning" when picking their candidate. She uses that as a platform to jump to making a point about having a "half-black" person in the White House as a reason to suddenly stop decrying racist remarks.

But, where her ridiculous lack of pragmatic foresight comes in is when she starts repeating the aforementioned epithet over, and over, and over and over again. Let's pull the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance over ourselves for this moment and assume ceteris paribus. The word has a historic meaning that is unbelievably offensive, and she suddenly thinks she will not get an opposing reaction to her repetition of it, as if it were household rhetoric. You have a public forum and you are spouting out a very racially charged word? What did you think would happen? Either she is ridiculously stupid, or she has been living under a rock for the last 400 years (I suspect the former).

Her outrage over her inability to use this racist epithet did not advance our ability overcome social or racial inequality. It did not advance the idea that we should decry any divisive language and work together to solve social issues. All it did was show that a sad, old, crazy white woman is mad because there's a Democrat in the White House, and he happens to be, yes...you got it..."half-black."

No comments:

Post a Comment