The Reconceptualization And Commodification Of Blackness In A Post-Eugenic Neoliberal Economical ModelOr Black, The Other Other White Meat

Despite the title, this week's post remains fairly simple. Having two main questions, I want to address Sexton's use of blackness as a means by which persons of color are existentially reconceptualized; and how this reconceptualization is used to further their value as commodified assets in capitalism.


Regarding "Hypodecent"

In what way does hypodescent contribute to commodification of persons of color, women of color in particular, within a neoliberal economy?

To preface my inquiry, I am framing this subject in the context of the Human Eugenics movement (mtDNA, phenotype as marketability, etc... further thoughts on which I reserve for discussion). Hypodescent is prevalent in mixed raced studies, and is the idea that your social classification is no higher than that of your least socially prominent parent. I chose the human Eugenics movement to briefly highlight the ethical perspective of hypodescent, and relate it to WOC feminism in capitalist society.


The Black body as the other Other

In what way is Sexton, through Fanon and Vasconcelos, reconceptualizing, and expanding Jean Paul Sartre's concept of "The Other" to not only address blackness, and the black gaze (I suppose in contrast to... or rather in its contact with whiteness, and the white gaze), but also the Black Body? ie. Is it possible that if the black is blind to self-realization through assisted reflection, that the black body is a conceptualized as a separate entity capable of returning not so much a "gaze" but perhaps realization through touch/feel/intimacy? (afterall, what is more intimate than dissection? and what is more self affirming than comparing of bodies?)

I take 3 sections to highlight this point:
First - "The sterilization of the black population, barring the reproduction of its ugliness and inferiority, is engineered for Vasconcelos through an aesthetic pedagogy promoting the dazzle of loving human beautification. The black simply has to be educated as to her unsightliness, an unambiguous point with which she will eventually agree, for her to refrain and "give way to the more handsome."

Second - "The very thing that grants whiteness its social existence, blackness, is the very thing that at the extreme, the edge, the verge of race-prevents it from enjoying a stable l ife, that "gives . . . its classification as seeming.""

Third - "Fanon goes on to speak of a desire to refuse this disassembling force of the white look, to avoid the mournful shroud of blackness, a conservative desire for repair or resolution. "I did not want this revision," he says. "All I wanted was to be a man among other men." That is, to participate in the honorable world of whiteness, to not be deemed animal, bad, mean, or ugly. A desire to not be slashed, dissected, cut to slices."

Foucaultian Conceptualization of Neoliberalism, Pleasures, and Free-Trade Capitalism Or Here Comes Michel "The Buzz Kill" Foucault

This week, I haven't much to say neccesarily, but I did have a brief thought to offer for discussion. As I understood "The Queer Thing about Neoliberal Pleasure: A Foucauldian Warning", Shannon Winnubst conceptualizes pleasure in as a end in neoliberalism. Declassified, pleasure is "subsequently the aspect of living that neoliberalism trumpets as its grand prize: maximizing our interests and minimizing our labor is quintessentially enjoyable". What a concept, eh? Arguably, there's a tremendous amount of appeal in broadcasting to the desires of the hard working; particularly, given the superfluous complexity of the capitalist system. Contrariwise, I implore you to consider the following: Perhaps the Foucaultian warning isn't towards the simplification of the individual/general public in their acceptance of the end goal of pleasure, but rather the real danger is the reconfiguration of one's life towards seeking pleasure. To explain further, the "reconfiguration" I am consideration is an immersion of one's life in the Neoliberal framework; consequentally this requires an embrace of Free-Trade Capitalism and all it entails in the process.

I am not convinced that pleasure is inherently bad. Pleasure is one of, if not the simplest element to being. Even complex beings strive to satisfy a need for pleasure regardless of how they broadcast their values. Relative to less complex beings, all this fannying about seems rather silly. However, I am convinced that reduction of one's life to pleasure is devastating. Pleasure-living is not authentic living, and we all want to be good little Dasein, don't we? What I see from Winnubst's use of Foucault is that we ought to address our desire for pleasure in such a way that we don't succumb to the pitfalls (inauthentic living) that await us in a capitalist system. Relating to my previous text on freedoms and maturity in freedom, Pleasure living is comprable to slave level freedom. I guess where I'm going with this is that it's ok to seek pleasure, just don't lose your autonomy in the process.

Consider who gains through your pursuit of this "Grand Prize of neoliberalism"? Immediately, the cause of neoliberalism is furthered as its existence is now as a paradigm. Next, the shareholders of the capitalist system themselves advance from your toils. As Winnubst mentions, "Pleasure is tied with desire, which was driven by a lack". This lack is the danger. Lack is easily exploited, and even more easily when the exploited party is satisfied in simplicity. Thoughts on this?

Love In A Time Of SlaveryOrThe Conceptualization Of The Young-Girl, And Why I Probably Won't Be Getting Any Sleep Tonight

After several hours of reading an excerpt from Tiqqun's "Raw Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl"... and re-reading... and re-re-reading, I was able to reflect. During my reflection, I couldn't help but wonder

There was SO MUCH going on. It was reminiscent of James Joyce, only I didn't despise this experience as much. There were several key points and Ontological one-liners dispersed throughout that each deserve far more attention than I am able to (and desire to) give in this response here. I would, however, like to address a few notions that rang clear to me amid the apparent cacophony.

The first thing I would like to address is the nature of the Young-Girl as something that exists conceptually. The Young-Girl appears to exist along the same plane as abstract concepts like "love", or "yellow". By that I mean, the Young-Girl is the sort of thing that you know it when you see it, but you can't just explain it to someone who has no reference/experience of it. In addition, like love & yellow, it appears that the only way that you can portray the concept is through example. "Young-Girl" is used 622 TIMES in this section of text.

Moving forward, there are specific instances of the Young-Girl's existence I would like to bring to light. Consider the conceptualization of the Young-Girl as slave. So Tiqqun speaks of the Young-Girl being "the final slavery; by which the silence of the slaves has been achieved". I'll admit, of all the slave references, I understood this the least. I suppose it was in reference to how refined the Young-Girl is as a mirror; the ultimate manifestation of the ideology of those holding the reigns of her enslavement? Let me move forward. Describing her reality in the slave dialectic, Young-Girl seems not only to affirm the control of the masters in this case, but through submission affirms her own control. I have been through this text numerous times, and can not find the exact statement to which I am referring here; I apologize. To paraphrase, it went something like "she reverses the situation, and as a slave oppresses the oppressors". I can't figure out if the Young-Girl is a sexual being, or perhaps a sexualized being? Maybe, dependent on her context, she exhibits characteristics of [behaves like] either one? Or both? (like how light behaves like a wave, and/or like a particle).

Next, I was concerned with the Young-Girl's experience of love, and happiness. The Young-Girl appears to be unable to love for herself. There is a desire for love, but there is a fully understandable hesitation. "The Young-Girl wants to be either desired lovelessly or loved desirelessly. In either case, her unhappiness is safe". From my understanding of the text, to be desired suggests a possessive sexual relationship. Love then would be something she wishes to compartmentalize from desire. If the Young-Girl is to be used to satisfy desire, do not taint the experience with the sentiment of love. If she is to be loved, do not contaminate it with desire. Doing so isn't necessarily a bad thing for anyone else, but it would really screw up the essence of the Young-Girl. Also, consider whether or not the Young-Girl is capable of love. "There can be nowhere a person feels so painfully alone as in the arms of the Young-Girl".
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn, son!
Maybe it is that the Young-Girl has an affinity for joyless existence, and empty smiles? I would like to discuss love further.

Finally (for now), the Young-Girl is a gendered experience. There are female and male Young-Girls. Would this not suggest that aside from the multitude of performances that the Young-Girl puts on to create and maintain relationships with others, perhaps the grand performance is being the Young-Girl.

Why I Broke My Silence OrThe Role Of A Male Voice In Feminism: Deconstructing The Ambiguity Of Silence

To preface what I am about to say, allow me to explain that this is the result of a thought experiment. The nature of this experiment is delicate and paradoxical. Explaining it renders it ineffective in the exact same way that explaining the rules of "The Quiet Game" is a direct violation of said game. Regardless, my intention here is to highlight an issue that may lead to an understanding of what I believe brings about one's constant need/desire to contribute to feminist discourse [unfortunately] often to the detriment of Women Of Color, and other such marginalized and oppressed groups. Ie. Why, no matter what it is I have to say, I have such difficulty shutting up and just letting other people talk.

In consideration of a concern for Feminist voices amid Misrepresentation, Mansplanation, Space Sharing, etc... I decided to conduct a personal experiment. During Feminist Theory this week, I tried to speak as little as possible. As the discussion continued, I listened and absorbed, and watched the discourse proceed beautifully. During the time I spent listening, and as a result of the input I witnessed, I found myself unable to escape a thought:
What is the role of a male (my) voice in Feminism?
I've been pondering this for a few years, and haven't gotten very far. In addition, as we discussed the #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen discourse over the past few weeks, it was brought to my attention that within feminism, Women of Color Feminists face a similar conflict with White Women Feminists. This broadened my question to "What is the role of a dominant group's voice in Feminism (as it pertains to not infringing upon non-dominant and/or marginalized voices)?"

What I found was a dilemma. A big one. If I spoke on issues presented by Women Of Color Feminists, I risk infringing upon what would be a genuine expression of their voice(s). And yet, solidarity, for whatever reason, is a desired yet unattained virtue. So on the matter of joining the discussion, if I remained silent, I risk failing the discourse? maybe? Still working on that one.

So I struggled. I needed to see whether me saying nothing was the most positive contribution I could make to seldom heard feminists. So I kept silent. If you know me, you'll understand that that is by no means in my nature. I like to contribute, if for no other reason but for love of philosophical conversation. So being the well intentioned windbag, I decided to present a view that hadn't been mentioned yet in response to one of the questions. I believe it was "If you could describe problem that results in the apparent need of White Women Feminists to contribute to feminist space in the name of solidarity, what would it be?". To which, I replied "Trust". My idea was that you wouldn't feel the need to contribute your voice in every conversation of a movement if you trusted, or granted faith that other members of the conversation would successfully progress the movement, and achieve its goals, even without you. Consequently, by explaining this I contributed to the conversation thus violating the very thing I was talking about. I. F*cked . Up. Experiment over.

I was guilt ridden (not because I had failed the other feminists in the class, but because I failed the integrity of my own ideas).I KNEW what would happen to my experiment if I spoke. The ENTIRE time I was talking, part of me kept saying "Shut it. Just shut up. Shut. Shut. Shut up. Just shut it. Shut Up. You're going to mess up everything". Of course, I kept going. But that got me to wondering... why did I speak? I assumed, by the reaction of my classmates, that they weren't as disappointed in my act as I was. In fact, they seemed to welcome my input. So what was the problem? It wasn't as if I had said something detrimental? There was value in what I said. So what is my role? What did I give them through my silence? What did I give them through my voice?

Having replayed both the internal and external elements of the class period repeatedly in my head for the past 27+ hours, I realized a few things, and begged a few more questions.
Realization: I am not a White Woman Feminist, but I served a similar purpose in the discussion.
Realization: There was value in my voice, but what was needed was silence. By not speaking, I granted faith and trust.
Question: How would any of you know this if I didn't say anything?

I haven't come up with a solution (which is why I posted this for discussion), but to address the latter question, I came up with the following:
There is an issue with silence in that it carries, and broadcasts *ambiguity*. Consider what happens when you are babysitting and everything goes quite; ANYTHING could be happening. To you, as I sit there in silence, I could be thinking of anything (or everything, if you are a Schrödinger fan... ba dum tss). To me, I am not sure if anyone is aware of whether or not I am paying attention, agreeing, disagreeing, ignoring your voice (Patriarchal dismissal), or granting faith (my desire). This may have been Why I Broke My Silence. Perhaps I wanted to remove the ambiguity. I risked it in order to show that my silence was intentional. Why I felt the need to do so? I don't know... Perhaps I desire solidarity? But, I digress.

So my question now is how do we remove the ambiguity of silence? How do I make silence an affirmative, and not just inactivity? Ie. could me not saying anything be percieved as participation? I am a male voice in Feminism, and I desire to contribute without infringement lest there be a #SolidarityIsForNii. I Recognize that sometimes I just need to shut up, grant faith, trust, concede the floor, share the space, etc... And perhaps my inability to understand how to go about this dialogue is an indication of my position of privilege as an African Male Feminist.

Anyway, I hope I have explained my observation in a way that was clear, concise, logical, and organized enough for you to understand what I'm saying. If any clarification is needed, please ask. I'm not the best writer, and occasionally what I wish to convey through my writing is askewed from what I actually meant to say. This is an "Easier said through phone call than through text message" scenario.

Ps. I recognize that it is also possible that no one really noticed my silence at all. The world doesn't revolve around me.