I want to
concentrate my post this week on section 5.2.1: Endogamy
and the elements of ethics,
particularly Taylor's discussion of the "conjugal expressiveness
argument" which falls under the category of "strategic
endogamy." Strategic endogamy, as Taylor defines it, entails an
intentional choice to engage in conjugal relationships. One of the justifications
for this practice is identified as the “conjugal expressiveness argument,”
which claims that seeing a non-white person with a white partner will
perpetuate white supremacist standards of beauty. However, Taylor claims the fifth
chapter’s introductory “simple Story” demonstrates that JJ’s insecurity about
dating Inga does not necessitate the absolute dominance of “somaesthetic white
supremacy”—a psycho-physiological inclination towards white bodies; JJ
questions whether his desire to date Inga may be problematic. The crux of
problematizing the conjugal expressiveness argument is that “strategic endogamy
targets the symptoms instead of the disease, in this case, colorist ideologies
of bodily beauty.” Fair enough: emphasizing the individual preference of JJ
overlooks the structural implications of somaesthetic white supremacy in the
media, fashion industry, etc. Because JJ is, to be direct, of marginal importance
in the public sphere compared to say, Jay-Z, then the significance of his
choice for a partner is almost negligible (Taylor refers to this as the “role
model corollary”). Here, I believe, Taylor offers a weak conclusion, which I
will return to soon.
Taylor
further delegitimizes the conjugal expressiveness argument based on the
weakening of “our overall cultural inclination toward a pro-white
somaesthetics.” Such instances that indicate its decline include Lucy Liu
joining Charlie’s Angels, Black women winning Miss America, collagen-induced
plumped lips, and tanning to darken the skin among others—a humorous example of
the paradox that comedian Paul Mooney identifies: “everybody wants to be a
nigger, but nobody wants to be a nigger.” To be fair, there has been a
considerable presence on non-white bodies in historically white dominated
industries. Now, what Taylor critically overlooks in his offering of the
non-white presence in the celebrity and public sphere globally is the
simultaneous reinforcement of pro-white somaesthetics. Famous examples include:
(most notably) Michael Jackson, Sammy Sosa, Lil Kim, Nicki Minaj, etc. Skin
bleaching creams abound not only outside the United States, but they have also
gained popularity within the country as well. I raise these examples not
necessarily to disagree with Taylor’s point that such forces are declining in
their salience, but to qualify that their existence and perpetuation are real
and have noteworthy consequences.
Returning
to the relative insignificance of JJ’s desire to be with Inga, we are
encountered with Taylor’s conclusion that JJ does not have a right to make a “color-conscious
conjugal choice” despite the conjugal expressiveness argument. His solution: he
should just have an honest conversation about with the children in his life
about his decision. Admittedly, having open racial dialogue with children has
proven to be significantly impactful (I am thinking in particular of Drexel
Professor Dr. Yaba Blay’s public outreach to a 7 year old sent home from school
for having dreadlocks: http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2013/09/tiana-care-package-full-locs-love/).
However, if Taylor considers one who opts out of an interracial relationship
because he does not want the children to experience the “special challenges”
that accompany being bi-racial—which is a consideration of both internal and
external ascription factors—permissible then should not a similar exception be
granted to JJ’s case? Indeed, JJ’s angst partially refers to the psycho-social
pressures of being in an interracial relationship. Does this invalidate the
existence of interracial relationships? Of course not! It does, however,
recognize that while one may not be ethically obligated to demonstrate color-conscious
conjugal choices, the private relationships of “common people” are inextricably
public as well. Perhaps not to the degree of Black Philadelphia native rapper, Eve,
and her white husband Maximillion Cooper. But to sisters, nieces and nephews,
and others he encounters in the street, JJ’s relationship bears racial
symbolism, especially contingent on his social class. Although JJ may not be
famous, his decision does indeed hold significant racial weight.
No comments:
Post a Comment