Jean-Léon Gérôme, Part Two

JEAN-LÉON GÉRÔME: History Painter

Part Two

The Artist and Gender

In painting after painting, Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904) clearly demonstrated his discomfort with women. Before his very profitable marriage to the daughter of Europe’s biggest art dealer, Gérôme lived a rather Bohemian life in a homosocial environment. Like most men of his time, he would have had little contact with women of his own class, and he would not have considered a woman to be his equal. His female nudes are far removed from actual women, and, as if their nakedness made him so uneasy, he had to use “the nude” as a mask for their disconcerting naturalness. But he is equally uncomfortable with male bodies. Both the gladiator in the celebrated Ave Caesar (1859) and the belly dancer in Dance of the Almeh (1863) are pudgy: the gladiator sports man boobs and the dancer has a large pot. But Gérôme was comfortable with little boys, carefully delineating their backsides in The Serpent Charmer (1880) and his early Michelangelo (in his Studio) (1849). In the former, the backside is bare, in the latter the backside is literally delineated due to a pair of red-striped tights, worn by the child. Many of his paintings are simply unseemly, in today’s terms, in their confirmation of the scopophilia of male desire for conquest through the passive gaze.

Jean-Leon-Gerome-Michelangelo-in-his-Studio-Oil-Painting

Prynne Before the Areopagus (1861) presents one of Gérôme’s repeated themes: men looking at an object of lust. The object, in this case a woman, is isolated and alone and, most of all, naked, totally exposed to the male gaze. The artist tried to have his specious content both ways—men gaze upon women but the beauty of women’s bodies subdue them, stun them into silence and submission. But the male is always clothed and always retains his power. Young “Prynne” is examined by a group of startled old men, dressed in strong red robes, countering her pale hairless body. Nowhere were women under the command of the male as she was in the mysterious East. The notion of the submissive and speechless woman could have been especially appealing to Frenchmen, alarmed by the propensity of Frenchwomen to rise up during each revolution at home. Thanks to the Code Napoléon (1804), French women had been stripped of any social powers and political disenfranchisement, stripped naked in custom and law.

Öèôðîâàÿ ðåïðîäóêöèÿ íàõîäèòñÿ â èíòåðíåò-ìóçåå gallerix.ru

The Dance of the Almeh (1863) also empowers the men, who watch the gyrating dancer who writhes for their amusement. The males in the circle are equipped with long straight phallic instruments, guns, spears, violin bows and even a pipe, as though they are protecting themselves. The same excess of protection and phallic display can be seen in The Snake Charmer (1870). The old man at the center of the group has a long sword suggestively rising above his upper thigh as he watches the naked little boy playing with a long snake. The rest of the men are well equipped with erect spears, raising the unanswerable question of whether or not Gérôme was aware of the sexual subtext.

gerome_snake_charmer

Gérôme. The Snake Charmer (1870)

For Sale (The Slave Market) of 1866 is the ultimate expression of the stripped and speechless woman being exchanged among men (according to Engels). The slave market in the Middle East has replaced the European concept of marriage as a financial exchange and, as the catalogue essay on this painting reports that the French public “hardly batted an eye.” The idea that the “public” was unphased by this painting implies that the painting was intended for men, which it surely was, and that the art was not viewed by women, which it surely was. Although women of the Second Empire were apparently not expected to see art or to be the audience, but, when they went to the Salons, women were embarrassed by the painterly display of helpless female flesh. One can imagine that some of these ladies imagined the slave woman biting the fingers of the man who was examining her teeth.

gerome_the_slave_market_1860s

Gérôme. For Sale (The Slave Market) (1866)

In other paintings, the (male) audience itself is outside the scene, looking it or looking at the imagined world of the harem. The external spectator was metaphorically internalized as a red robe reclining on a wooden chair in King Candaules (1859), watching the exchange of male looks. The King’s guard, Gyes, lurking in the dark, off to the right, is watching the queen Nyssia. The queen is caught in a triangulated gaze among men, but as Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867) pointed out, she would not have been the “dull puppet,” depicted by Gérôme. As was typical for the artist, the woman is pale and naked and helpless with her back turned to the audience in a gesture of modesty thrown in by the painter. One could ask if showing a woman’s naked body from the rear is more or less discrete. The Moorish Bath (1872) is noteworthy for the carefully drawn Islamic tiles and for the inherent racism that exposed the naked breasts of the African slave and allowed the white woman to turn modestly away from the viewer.

3-jean-leon-gerome-the-moorish-bath

Gérôme. The Moorish Bath (1872)

Echoing European and American notions of racial hierarchy, The Grand Bath at Bursa (1885) is yet another Imaginary Orient, complete with white women (presumably captured by swarthy Arab chieftains) who are sexual slaves and black women who take care of the needs of the concubines. At least in the harem, the women are together and have each other’s company. In many of Gérôme’s paintings, the women are alone, with no friend and no one to defend or take care of them, reflecting the Western version of marriage, the isolated woman, entirely dependent upon her husband.

The Artist as Colonialist

Much has been written about Gérôme as painter to the colonizers, and indeed his many trips to Egypt coincided with France’s desire to master the Middle East and to build an empire. Although their imperial ambitions dated back to Napoléon, the French never caught up with the British who had an empire upon which “the sun never sets.” The Second Empire and the Third Republic, the era of Gérôme, were the high points of French acquisition of territory and artifacts from northern Africa and the Middle East. Gérôme was at his best when he acted as ethnographer, observing the Other. As distasteful as the Imperial gaze was, it did have the virtue of freeing Gérôme from the tropes of classicism and the poncifs of academia. One does not often think of Gérôme the landscape artist, but, as my friend Irina pointed out, his desert paintings are beautiful, dappled with the blue of the sky reflected upon the pale golden buff-colored rocks, just as an Impressionist would (The Lion on Watch, 1890). Here in a desert light that flattens everything, the silhouetted sharp edges of Gérôme’s dry drawing make sense. In Arabs Crossing the Desert (1870), the large scale of the figures is permissible in such open distances. In these paintings of the Middle East, colors are intensified in the light and Gérôme came into his own with his strong colors, unexpectedly pinks (The Black Bard, 1888) and brilliant oranges and blazing yellows (The Marabou, 1888), hot reds vibrating on the surfaces (The Standard Bearer, 1876). The Color Grinder (1891) summarizes the importance of color with a row of large stone mortars lined up in front of a dark shop in the Holy Land. In an age of paint in tubes, Gérôme painted the encircled lips of the large stones, which are glowing with vibrant colors pounded into submission.

Although Gérôme replicated the Middle East and its male inhabitants with apparent exactitude, his paintings are fantasy pastiches. But they are totally convincing and carried a larger truth of white European fantasies of conquest and control of the inferior Other. The people he so carefully studied and observed during his many visits are from another century were devoid of technology beyond the seventeenth century, backwards and in need of French guidance. Heads of the Rebel Beys of the Mosque El Assaneyn (1866) mixed actual events with infidel barbarity, necessitating the civilizing French touch upon a people who favored a public beheading. The irony of such an attitude of superiority may have escaped Gérôme. (The French continued to use the guillotine into the 1940s.) A fascinating and harmless object of curiosity, entertaining the French audience, The Whirling Dervish (1889) needs to be Christianized and Europeanized. Due to the precise accuracy garnered from a photograph, the Salon goers assumed that the artist was educating them with The Carpet Merchant (1887). Each painting of Middle Eastern life can be seen as a contrast to European life–a market instead of a bank, souks, not department stores, fanaticism instead of Catholicism–with the Muslim barbarians being presented as the Other, as Different, as Inferior, as Strange, as Something to be Looked At, as Spectacle, captured by the artist, commanded by the whitened gaze of the spectator.

tumblr_m1ograB0qO1r6lst2o1_500

The Artist and Orientalism

Gérôme seemed to suffer from a tendency toward a rather Victorian form of clutter and his penchant was to fill in his canvases with overwhelming detail about the Orient. Full of bric-à-brac, the paintings are crowded with information, much of which was gained from the artist’s many visits to the Middle East and documentary photographs recently published in albums. From one perspective, the artist’s work was typical of the a hoarder’s “horror vacui.” From another point of view, the artist was on a mission. The French tactic of conquest through military might and the gathering of facts dated back to Napoléon’s ill-fated foray into Egypt. The history of paintings of the Middle East done by French artists also stems from the early nineteenth-century when the Turks and the Muslims were depicted as brutal and backward. Gérôme nodded to his artistic precursor, Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres (1780-1867), in his painting of Marcus Botsaris, a hero of the war of Greek Independence who fought with Lord Byron. But the 1874 painting itself, is typical of Gérôme’s approach to the unfamiliar: he delineated a veritable encyclopedia of an Eastern inventory of décor and paraphernalia.

H0046-L00491705

Gérôme. Marcus Botsaris (1874)

Gérôme’s dedication to accuracy was part of larger tendencies: the rise of modern history writing, the rise of the French Empire, the use of photography to record and preserve the known world, and the period’s fear of empty space. Gérôme’s paintings are packed with these cultural vibrations of foregrounded empiricism. His art owed a great deal to the French delight in the Pre-Raphaelites and their facility for storytelling, which he put in the service of imperialism. It would be anachronistic to accuse the artist of “complicity” on a conscious level in an enterprise that would, a century later, be described by the French as “an accidental empire.” Undoubtedly, Gérôme shared the prejudices and desires of his time and believed in the right for the French to have an Empire and, whatever his motivations, his Middle Eastern subjects exuded Orientalism. His paintings were part of a deeply felt belief system of Western superiority and Eastern inferiority. In his investigation of the pioneering efforts of French artists in picturing the “Orient,” historian Todd Porterfield did not accept that the current French scholarship which insists that the imperialism of France was “haphazard” and “timidly entered into.” According to Porterfield, the French artists portrayed,

…national attributes are posited that pit French science, morality, masculinity, and intellectual rigor against supposedly representative traits of Easterners: fanaticism, cruelty, idleness, vice, irrationality, deviance, and degeneracy.

As was pointed out earlier, this was exactly the dialectical strategy employed decades later by Gérôme in his paintings of the Mysterious East and the Backward Other. It would be safe to assume that the artist believed, in common with most other Europeans, that the culture of the West or the Occident was superior. The discourse of racial and cultural superiority had been in the making among European scholars and writers for decades. The late Palestinian philosopher, Edward Said (1935-2003), revealed the role of discourse in the literary manufacture of “Orientalism” in his 1978 book of the same name. Although the cover of his book featured Gérôme’s The Serpent Charmer, Said did not discuss “Orientalizing” art. Said pointed out that when the Europeans wrote about the East, the scholars were creating, not the truth, but a “representation” of the “Orient.” Using Michel Foucault’s (1926-1984) concept of “discourse” in which serious speech acts from experts shape what becomes received knowledge surrounding a topic, Said stated in his book Orientalism (1978) that the “Orient” was constructed in terms of what the West was not. As Foucault pointed out, representation as constructed by the One would fabricate the Other into a inferior for purposes of discipline and punishment, power and control. Said continued the French philosopher’s thought by pointing out that an “Imaginary Orient” was manufactured for the purpose of defining the Europeans themselves by using the “Orient” as the negative to the Western positive. The Imaginary Orient had little to do with the “real” Middle East, for the Europeans were essentially uninterested in the Other and were concerned with the task of writing themselves into a position of dominance.

The concepts of Foucault and Said was quickly taken up by art historians, resulting in a major investigation into the attitude that European artists had towards the Other. Thanks to post-colonial theory, it is possible to view Gérôme and his art as an expression of French power over a dark-skinned people who refused modernity and Westernization. The art of Gérôme had to overwhelm the viewer with facts, information, detail, as though to compensate for a fundamental Lack of knowledge. Foucault equated seeing/sight with power–voir, savoir, pouvoir: to see is to know is to have power over. For all the privileging of vision in Gérôme’s work, the Other, the “Oriental” remained a slippery character in the French imperial drama. All the knowledge in the world is spread out on his canvases, but it is all from the French point of view and we learn everything and nothing. In the end, all the superiority, all the power in the world could not hold the Empire together, and today, as Porterfield, pointed out, the French seem vaguely embarrassed about their role in colonialism.

Looking at Gérôme’s art in today’s world is an interesting enterprise. The colonized subjects of the French empire have long since come home to the Mother Country, unsure of their identities, as Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) so eloquently stated in Black Skin, White Masks (1952). So thoroughly imbued with the doctrines of colonialism and imperialism, the colonized think that they are partly “French” and came to France to live, but they insist on bringing their “Oriental” culture with them. Suddenly, what seemed exotic in the Middle East caused controversy in Paris: head scarves or not? The fear of the Other continues. Gérôme, like all artists, was engaged in acts of representation; and, as for his attitudes, his biases, his complicity, his patriotism—that is for history to decide.

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to

Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed. Thank you.

[email protected]

“The History of White People”

THE DARK HISTORY OF “WHITE”

Introduction

The History of White People by Nell Painter

We were told that the election of Barack Obama meant that we—America—had transcended into a beatific state called “post-racial.” We were proud of having overcome three centuries of a history of stubborn slavery and an even more intransigent segregation, both of which were based on bogus “racial” “theories.” We proudly and overwhelmingly elected an African American as the President of the United States. Once the tears of joy and pride had been wiped way and clear vision was restored, it was shamingly clear that, far from being a phenomenon of the past, racism was alive and well and virulent in the “land of the free” and the “home of the brave.” The years-long assault on the legitimacy of a Presidency, the determined and unrelenting efforts to force “failure” upon, not only one man—because he was black—but upon the general population has spanned a gamut of accusations: “Muslim,” “Kenyan,” Socialist,” “In over his Head,” “Ineffectual,” even “Monster,” and so on. Make no mistake, racism is hiding behind each and every one of these words.

Whatever words are used, they all add up to one word “black,” which is the opposite of “white,” and, in the minds of these retrogrades racists, there are two words that should never come together: “Black” and “President.” It is important to understand that the (right-wing, Conservative, Tea Party, whatever) attitude that Barack Obama can never be a “legitimate” President is fundamentally different from that of the Democrats who felt strongly that George H. W. Bush had not been elected President twice and had been put in the office through a unilateral action on the part of the Supreme Court but bowed to the rule of law and lived peacefully (if unhappily) under his Presidency. The complaint of the Democrats was a legal one, while the complaint against Obama is a racist one. Over time, Democrats learned to live with what seemed to them to be a coup d’êtat and let the subsequent career of Bush determine his fitness to serve, but, in contrast, the refusal to accept the very basic fact that Obama is an American citizen (born in Hawaii) continues.

The question is why?

Of course, it is impossible to get inside of the psychology of a sizable group of people, but it is possible to get into the history of the culture that created the concept of “whiteness” and the racial dialectical that similarly constructed its polar opposite, “blackness.” Until recently, the very thought of “white” was an absent presence: there but invisible, unspoken but acted upon, reiterated but not acknowledged. “White” as a “race” existed and exerted an unquestioned power but “white” was not seen. This social “white noise” was embedded in the cultural common consciousness, coming from everywhere and no where. The power of “white” rested upon the fact that its source and origin remained both operative and obscured.

Some twenty years ago, “white” came out of the dark and into the light of history and “whiteness studies” was born. This 2010 book by Nell Irvin Painter is part of these academic attempts to examine “whiteness” or “white” as a concept, but, in this book, she examines how the description of a skin color, “white,” became a loaded term, implying innate superiority of one skin color over anther and, by extension, of one “race” over another. To those who watch The Colbert Report, Painter was the game author who attempted to get it across to Stephen Colbert that “white” was an intellectual construct. Colbert asked a very interesting question, trying to determine if her book was a straight historical account of the comings and goings of white people. The History of White People is not what its title infers and the title is probably both ironic and provocative.

With a Ph. D. from Harvard and an academic position at Yale, Painter, a gifted artist and celebrated historian, took up the task of tracing the history of what I could call the “need to define” “white people.” This self-imposed task separates the work of Painter from the theoretical field of “whiteness studies,” for she has produced what is a fairly straightforward account in which she traces to the formation of a discourse on “white people.” It is only recently that an African American has been in the position to write about white people. Or to put it another way, white people have written a great deal about black people but society and culture prevented the objects of this whitened scrutiny to write back. The sheer fact that Painter is black gives the title an extra punch, mitigated by her easy and congenial manner: she comes in peace not in condemnation. As Painter explains on the first page,

I might have entitled this book Constructions of White Americans from Antiquity to the Present, because it explores a concept that lies within a history of events. I have chosen this strategy because race is an idea, not a fact, and its questions demand answers from the conceptual rather than the factual realm.

One of the oddities of “white people” is that unlike “German people” or “British people,” there is a paucity of literature devoted to defining “white people.” This scarcity is particularly notable when compared to the enormous amount of time, energy and ink spent on defining “black people.” There is, in fact, an excess, a surplus, an overflow of writing on “black,” giving the relative silence on “white” the kind of power only wielded by withholding. Withholding of “white” gave “white” not just a powerful potency but also created an assumption of what white meant, a blankness that allowed “white” to be over/written by whatever qualities the culture desired. In other words, “Blackness” was defined from the position of “Whiteness,” which was the vantage point of power and privilege which claimed in inalienable right to Represent. This is power indeed.

Painter’s book in interesting because of the way in which she lays out her argument that the “history” of “white people” is a discourse devised for socio-economic purposes dedicated to the maintenance of domination. First, she tracks down the basis of the word “Caucasian” and then linked the term to “white” which is then linked to “beauty” which was then connected to “intelligence, leading to the logic of superiority. Second, she establishes how the historical connection between color, “black” with bondage and “white” with free, and slavery was made. The importance of taking these two steps or of establishing these two separate discourses, is that the discourse of racial superiority and the discourse of slavery are separable. Painter has to separate the concepts because, once slavery was abolished, the discourse of racial superiority could live on unchanged. Slavery is easy to outlaw; the concept of one race being “superior ” to another is an idea and cannot be abolished.

Slavery can die but racism can live on.

How Racism began, without “Race”

Nell Painter begins her journey into understanding how two neutral words, “white” and “people” became conjoined with ancient Greece, supposedly the “cradle of Western civilization.” The ancient Greeks had no concept of “race” and differentiated among the peoples they came into contact with in terms of place or locale. Historians divided various tribal groups in a accordances with the physical and social distinctions due to climate or terrain. But there was one group that was beyond their empirical reach, those mysterious and legendary inhabitants of the region the Greeks called the “Caucasus.” Here was the land of myth. As Painter laconically describes it, this modern territory,

…is a geographically and ethnically complex area lying between the Black and Caspian Seas and flanked north and south by two ranges of the Caucasus Mountains. The northern Caucasus range forms a natural border with Russia; the southern, lesser Caucasus physically separates the area from Turkey and Iran. The Republic of Georgia lies between the disputed region of the Caucasus, Turkey, Armenia, Iran, and Azerbaijan.

Today this region is still remote and isolated, only occasionally breached by modernity but through a historical accident that is rather arbitrary, “white people” have been named “Caucasians.” Like the Greeks, the Romans had no concept of “race” but the contribution of the Romans to racial thinking was both considerable and accidental. It was the Romans, who, in search of Empire, classified most of the inhabitants of Europe. The Romans were interested in the “civilization” or cultural traits of the non-Romans compared to the Empire builders. “For Roman purposes,” Painter writes, “politics and warfare defined ethnic identities.” Painter points out that it was Julius Caesar who gave many of the names we know and use today, from “Gaul” to “Germania,” to the peoples he encountered. In discussing the differences among these scattered and disparate tribes, Caesar was assessing their relative battle worthiness and determining how he would subdue them.

The Romans, as Empire builders, were imperially promiscuous, the better to blend the subjugated peoples to the conquerers. The result was centuries of intermixing and intermarriage resulting in a hybrid culture that some say diluted the social foundation of the Romans and gradually eroded the Empire. In contrast, the Germans or the Germanic tribes would be very resistant to the benefits of Empire and were hostile to outsiders. In the early years, during the time of Caesar when the Romans were striving to understand their northern neighbors, important differences were imagined. As Painter says,

How could eminent citizens of this great empire squeeze out admiration for the dirty, bellicose, and funny-looking barbarians to the north? The answer lies in notions of masculinity circulating among a nobility based on military conquest. According to this ideology, peace brings weakness; peace saps virility. The wildness of the Germani recalls a young manhood lost to the Roman empire. Caesar headed a train of civilized male observers—with Tacitus among the most famous—contrasting the hard with the soft, the strong and the weak, the peaceful and the warlike, all to the detriment of the civilized, dismissed as effeminate. As we see, the seeds of this stereotype—a contrast between civilized French and barbarian Germans—lie in the work of ancient writers, themselves uneasy about the manhood costs of peacetime.

The Greeks imagined the Caucasians and the Romans imagined the Germans and these ancient mythologies would link “whiteness” to “masculinity” or, to put it another way, there would be a link between purity and resistance compared to hybridity and femininity. The Gauls submitted to the Romans and permitted interpenetration of tribal cultures while the Germans remained “uncivilized” and aloof, withdrawing behind the Rhine river where they remained unmolested. The importance of “Teutonic purity” would be revived later and after the fall of the Roman Empire, Painter relates, “white people” are linked to the barbaric tribes of the British Isles, another resistant group divided by Hadrian’s Wall. The Anglo-Saxons, like the many tribes of the Roman Empire were an amalgamation of conquers and the conquerers—a hybrid mixture of Viking/Scandinavian tribes that invaded the island and settled.

It is interesting that the ethnic groups that gave the Romans the most resistance, the tribes in Great Britain and Germany, were the ones who became linked to “white people,” however, another element had to be added before the concept of “white” could come into existence. As stated, the modern concept of race is a very modern one and was linked to the final ingredient: “black” and slave. Until the sixteenth century, slaves were of all colors. In fact, as Painter points out, the word “slave” comes from the word “Slav,” or the Slavs from eastern Europe who, as the result of the labor shortage after the Black Death, were caught up in a lively slave trade. The “Slave” and the “black” “race” were not paired until the need for workers on the sugar plantations in the Caribbean encouraged the European colonizers to depend upon the Africans.

The Confluence of “Black” and “Slave”

The Spanish eradicated the indigenous population of the Caribbean in a couple of generations and, the English settlers of the North American continent also found out that it was difficult to enslave people—the Native Americans—in their own territory. Africans, seized and stolen from their homes, arrived in America dazed and disenfranchised, far removed from their own cultures with no hope of returning, made good slaves: strong and healthy, confused and divided by dialects and languages. Unlike the Native Americans, the Africans had nowhere to run and no place to hide. However, the idea of “slavery” and lifelong servitude took decades to affix itself to Africans only. Other books have outlined the process in which white indentured laborers and black indentured laborers were socially and legally separated from each other, leaving the white person “free” and the black person “enslaved,” but foundational focus of Painter is the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, because it is in this period of “enlightenment” that the slavery of black people had to be justified.

Although she later outlines how the “peculiar institution” of slavery in America was developed, Painter unexpectedly begins by linking “white” and “beauty” through

the eighteenth-century science of race developed in Europe, influential scholars referred to two kinds of slavery in their anthropological works. Nearly always those associated with brute labor—Africans and Tartars primarily—emerged as ugly, while the luxury slaves, those valued for sex and gendered as female—the Circassians, Georgians, and Caucasians of the Black Sea region—came to figure as epitomes of human beauty.

The profitability of slavery, regardless of color, throughout the eighteenth century, would stifle any moral qualms about holding humans in bondage for two centuries. However, Painter emphasizes a clear and present subtext in the racialized discourse: the practice of dividing people in terms of physical appearance—beautiful and ugly—based on the Greek ideal (as filtered through Roman art), laced with sexual fantasies, stimulated by both homosexual and homosexual desire. Beauty, for men and women, was Greek and was attributed to certain kinds of features deemed unique to Europeans (white people) as opposed to Africans, Asians or Slavs. Tall, slim, pale-skinned, straight hair and straight noses were the favored elements—not just Greek features based on marble statues, but also diametrically and conveniently opposed to dark skinned, flat nosed, coarse haired Africans and Asians.

Painter does a nice job of presenting a number of intellectual and philosophical and scientific ideas put forward in the eighteenth century (and in the two subsequent centuries) concerning the measurement of skulls and the angle of facial profiles. To the reader conversant with these endeavors, the author presents a brisk summation across a series of chapters. The underlying reason for this growing discourse on “difference” is, of course, linked to the rise of Empires. The imperial adventures of European nations coupled with the enormously profitable enterprise of slavery were inconvenient coincidences with the Enlightenment and its rational doctrines of equality. We can assume that the serious manner in which the Europeans blinded themselves with (pseudo) science to account for their unwillingness to allow the logic of Enlightenment thought to play itself out was a defensive measure.

In America the need to distinguish “white” from “black” was acute. Europeans were intent on explaining their supposed superiority in terms of beauty, equated with innate intelligence, as the reason for colonizing and exploiting the rest of the known world. Unlike the Americans, the Europeans did not keep slaves nor did they depend upon a slave economy. In the American South, an agricultural feudal economy while the Europeans built an international mercantile economy. But in a small and new nation, the South was not only anachronistic but also powerful. Its leaders were slaveholders reluctant to give up their incomes to square their words of freedom with their deeds of slavery. When the Americans gained their independence, they did so by denying the majority of its inhabitants, women and slaves, basic rights. As English politician Samuel Johnson caustically asked, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

Painter places Thomas Jefferson, slave owner, lover of a slave, father of slaves, at the center of the American thinking on the significance of “Anglo-Saxon” heritage. She writes,

To Jefferson, whatever genius for liberty Dark Age Saxons had bequeathed the English somehow thrived on English soil but died in Germany…In 1798 he wrote Essay on the Anglo-Saxon Language, which equates language with biological descent, a confusion then common among philologists. In this essay Jefferson runs together Old English and Middle English, creating a long era of Anglo-Saxon greatness stretching from the sixth century to the thirteenth. With its emphasis on blood purity, this smacks of race talk. Not only had Jefferson’s Saxons remained racially pure during the Roman occupation (there was “little familiar mixture with the native Britons”), but, amazingly, their language had stayed pristine two centuries after the Norman conquest: Anglo Saxon “was the language of all England, properly so called, from the Saxon possession of that country in the sixth century to the time of Henry III in the thirteenth, and was spoken pure and unmixed with any other.” Therefore Anglo-Saxon/Old English deserved study as the basis of American thought. One of Jefferson’s last great achievements, his founding of the University of Virginia in 1818, institutionalized his interest in Anglo-Saxon as the language of American culture, law, and politics. On opening in 1825, it was the only college in the United States to offer instruction in Anglo-Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon was the only course it offered on the English language. Beowulf, naturally, became a staple of instruction.

Jefferson’s obsession with the Anglo-Saxons and their mythical racial “purity” was shared with other Americans who were intent on establishing a cultural distinctiveness for those descended from English ancestors. The subtext was more than an attempt to elevate the “pure” white race above the African slaves; it was also a device used to coin social difference to elevate one class of white people above another. The sheer quantity of argument and writing about their racial superiority on the part of white males from all corners of intelligentsia imply a deep unease with their convoluted reasoning. Every now and then a counter argument was put forward, and a rare black voice was heard. Painter introduces the reader to David Walker, a free man in Boston and a well known activist who, in 1829 wrote David Walker’s Appeal: in four articles, together with a preamble, to the coloured citizens of the world, but in particular, and very expressly, to those of the United States of America. According to Painter,

Walker’s Appeal spread a wide net, excoriating “whites” and, indeed, “Christian America” for its inhumanity and hypocrisy. Over the long sweep of immutable racial history, Walker traces two essences. On one side lies black history, beginning with ancient Egyptians (“Africans or coloured people, such as we are”) and encompassing “our brethren the Haytians.” On the other lie white people, cradled in bloody, deceitful ancient Greece. Racial traits within these opposites never change.

Another sub-text that Painter locates in the growing American discourse on race is the dilemma of slave holders—the moral and psychic damage done to them by owning human beings and being unwilling to let the humans in bondage go free. To the modern reader, the guilt of the Founding Fathers is pure hypocrisy, for these high minded men did not have the courage to let go of their slaves, the foundation of their wealth and class position. When the Constitution was written the argument for doing nothing about slavery was put forward, for owning slaves seemed to be on the verge of being less and less profitable. However, the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1794 by Eli Whitney ended the wistful hope that slavery would collapse of its own weight. Once slavery was profitable, the discourse of justification intensified.

Slavery as the American Stain

The need to explain why slavery should continue to be a feature of American life would become more pressing as the nineteenth century progressed. European nations gradually outlawed slave trade, but sharp eyed observers such as Alexis de Tocqueville realized that the slave culture in the South constituted a moral cancer, a disease in the democratic republic. It is not just slavery, however, that is the embedded flaw, it is racism. Racism made it possible to enslave the black and to push the Native Americans off their lands. In his perceptive Democracy in America (1835) Tocqueville wrote unflatteringly of the Southerners:

“From birth, the southern American is invested with a kind of domestic dictatorship…and the first habit he learns is that of effortless domination…[which turns] the southern American into a haughty, hasty, irascible, violent man, passionate in his desires and irritated by obstacles. But he is easily discouraged if he fails to succeed at his first attempt…The southerner loves grandeur, luxury, reputation, excitement, pleasure, and, above all, idleness; nothing constrains him to work hard for his livelihood and, as he has no work which he has to do, he sleeps his time away, not even attempting anything useful.”

Europeans made fortunes in the vile trade of capturing and selling slaves but they distanced themselves, not from the profits but from the consequences by not actually owning Africans. According to Painter, Tocqueville seemed to find it hard to write of the South and its customs, but his friend Gustave de Beaumont examined slavery in America in Marie, or Slavery in the United States, a Picture of American Manners, written in the same year as Tocqueville’s first volume on America. However, Beaumont’s book was not translated into English until 1958 and, tragically, when it was finally published in America, its theme, how “one drop” of “black blood” designated an individual as “black.” Indeed, Painter does not point this out but during World War II, the American blood supply for the soldiers was divided between black and white blood.

For Painter, the Civil War and the extended blood letting over the question of slavery verses the rights of a state to own human beings is only but one part of the question of “race” that, by the nineteenth century had begun to define American thinking. As she writes,

In a society largely based on African slavery and founded in the era that invented the very idea of race, race as color has always played a prominent role. It has shaped the determination not only of race but also of citizenship, beauty, virtue, and the like. The idea of blackness, if not the actual color of skin, continues to play a leading role in American race thinking. Today’s Americans, bred in the ideology of skin color as racial difference, find it difficult to recognize the historical coexistence of potent American hatreds against people accepted as white, Irish Catholics. But anti-Catholicism has a long and often bloody national history, one that expressed itself in racial language and a violence that we nowadays attach most readily to race-as-color bigotry, when, in fact, religious hatred arrived in Western culture much earlier, lasted much longer, and killed more people. If we fail to connect the dots between class and religion, we lose whole layers of historical meaning. Hatred of black people did not preclude hatred of other white people—those considered different and inferior—and flare-ups of deadly violence against stigmatized whites.

What makes this book remarkable is that long before the Republican’s so-called “Southern Strategy” of the 1970s, American had already absorbed racial and racist thinking even before the Civil War. The other value of the book is the sad evidence of how deeply supposedly intelligent and fair minded people, American and European intellectuals and scientists were implicated in fashioning a discourse of dehumanization and prejudice. Painter devotes a segment of the book on how various immigrants who were not English struggled to be accepted as “Americans.” Broadly put, in Hegelian terms, the Master/Slave, the One/the Other dialectic became deeply embedded in the American psyche. Although America was a nation of immigrants, from the very start, only certain kinds of immigrants were welcome: no Irish, no Italians, no Jews, no Eastern Europeans, no Asians, and so on. In fact the nineteenth century, punctuated by the Civil War was one long struggle against the Other, whether it was the Native Americans in the West or the Catholics in the East.

Enlarging “White” through Diminishing Others

Many of the literary architects of the discourse of racism that constructed the concept of “white people” created a construct of “whiteness” that was designed to maintain the privilege of a favored few. Thomas Carlyle, generally well remembered for his efforts to improve the conditions of the working class, stained his record of humanism with viscous writing about the Irish. When Carlyle was writing the Irish were being deliberately starved out of Ireland but he was a man without pity. As Painter wrote,

Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881), the most influential essayist in Victorian England, held the racial-deficiency view, having fled Ireland’s scenes of destitution in disgust after brief visits in 1846 and 1849. In one cranky article he called Ireland “a human dog kennel.” From his perch in London, Carlyle saw the Irish as a people bred to be dominated and lacking historical agency. He took it for granted that Saxons and Teutons had always monopolized the energy necessary for creative action. Celts and Negroes, in contrast, lacked the vision as well as the spunk needed to add value to the world.

Thomas Carlyle teamed up with the American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson in a rather awkward partnership. Carlyle thought that slavery was a perfectly permissible state for the inferior race, while Emerson was an abolitionist. But both were involved in a mystical enterprise of elevating an imaginary Anglo-Saxon “race” above other “races,” such as the benighted Irish. As other writers have pointed out, the language and terminology developed by the English to defame the Irish and justify the British rule over Ireland. This language of inferiority and beastality was formed centuries before the African slave trade and was already ready to be deployed and applied towards any group considered unworthy. Although, as Painter points out, African Americans, such as Frederick Douglas, understood the parallels of prejudice against the Irish and the blacks, the Irish rejected this comparison and fought to be called “white.”

Other respected philosophers, from France’s Ernest Renan and America’s Matthew Arnold wrote extensively of the wonders of the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons. These writings can be read benignly as an attempt to delineate a national identity for a modern world, now obsessed with “difference.” But this strain of thinking was also at heart divisive and, for America, racist. By the middle of the nineteenth century, America was experiencing a tidal wave of immigration, starting with the Irish, followed by the Italians, all of whom were Catholic and all of whom were, therefore, alien to the supposed Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans. The poetics of a Matthew Arnold and the violent bigotry of the Know Nothing Party are but two sides of the same coin. By mid century, as Painter writes, “The Anglo-Saxon myth of racial superiority now permeated concepts of race in the United States and virtually throughout the English-speaking world. To be American was to be Saxon.”

The reasons for this painstaking and fictional construct of “Teutonic” and “Anglo-Saxon” superiority seems clears today. Carlyle feared the consequences of democracy and other writers feared the invasion of the Others. However, the extent to which these supposed “great” men were aware of the contradiction between their views of the superiority of “whiteness” and the mercy and love of Christianity and promise of equality and democracy is unclear. But for the next one hundred years (and beyond), there would be a mountain of writing piling up a pseudo scientific and pseudo philosophical explanations for why certain peoples should be excluded from the basic rights of human beings and citizens of a free nation. This discourse constructed a fantasy vision of “white people” that was the base for a superstructure of exclusionary laws directed against people who were “not white.”

Clearly the political unconscious of both America and England is an ugly one, but Painter includes an interesting section that links racism not just to beauty but also to sexual desire. Most of the constructors of “whiteness” were middle class privileged males who may or may not have been latent homosexuals. Painter reads their texts much the way in which we read Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s writings on (Roman copies) Greek Art and finds an underlying current of, shall we say, intense admiration for the (male) beauty of the Teutonic ideal. These descriptions of the beautiful white male linger on today—fair skin, blue eyes, blond hair, tall thin frame—and are seen in Ambercombie and Fitch and Ralph Lauren advertising. That said, “white people” are gendered male and “beauty” is linked to the idea of “white.”

With the dubious intellectual weight behind the notion of the inherent and innate superiority of “white people,” came the construction of the “Aryan” idea that was so powerful that art history still includes the ancient Egyptian culture as “Western,” regardless of the fact that the Egyptians were Africans and black. The romantic idea of Aryan and white continued to be supported well into the twentieth century, as after the Civil War in America, “whiteness” was linked to enfranchisement and the power to vote. Even though black men were give the “right” to vote in 1870, full voting rights for non-whites took a hundred years to come about and the hard-fought right to cast a ballot remains under threat today.

Aryan Supremacy Through Eugenics

One of the great services of Painter’s book is the parade of scholars and scientists who wrote of the wonders of being Aryan and Anglo-Saxon and who did studies of the human skull in order to “prove” racial superiority. Today, these men are obscure and well-known only to specialists, such as Painter, but, in their time, as she stresses, they were respected and celebrated. What is remarkable is not only how forgotten these architects of racism are today but also paradoxically how completely their discourses penetrated the American collective consciousness. Reading of one after another of these supposed intellectuals is simply depressing. Decades after slavery was abolished, the writings kept coming, their perpetrators festooned with honors and crowned with laurels, halted only in the face of the Nazis.

Not that the proponents of Aryan superiority would be entirely silenced by the horrors of the Holocaust but the doctrine of racial superiority would lose its luster, at long last. The nation therefore owes a great deal to the occasional and brave white dissenter, like the anthropologist, Franz Boas, who joined with Black intellectual, W. E. B. Dubois to fight racism and anti-semitism in those decades before the Second World War. As Painter points out,

During the late nineteenth century, poor, dark-skinned people often fell victim to bloodthirsty attack, with lynching only the worst of it. Against a backdrop of rampant white supremacy, shrill Anglo-Saxonism, and flagrant abuse of non-Anglo-Saxon workers, Boas appears amazingly brave. It mattered little in those times that lynching remained outside the law. More than twelve hundred men and women of all races were lynched in the 1890s while authorities looked the other way. Within the law, state and local statutes mandating racial segregation actually expelled people of color from the public realm.

The voices, such as that of Boas, who spoke out against the bogus assertion of “race,” were shouting into a headwind of rhetoric. American histories rarely stress the articulate racism of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. But early in the twentieth century, instead of leading the population into a new century with new thinking, they vigorously extended the creed of “Anglo-Saxonism.” The trend towards to “Teutonic,” abated somewhat due to the Great War in which the Germans or the Teutons were the enemy. One of the outgrowths of elevation of “white people” was the attendant fear of “race suicide,” due to the threat of intermarriage among the Anglo-Saxons and “inferior” whites. In the Northern states, these rants were due to the continued flux of immigrants who were diluting the essence of the “white” race, in the South, the fear of inter-racial mixing drove many localities to forced sterilization of those who were unfit to breed.

The “science” of eugenics, that would become the driving force behind the Nazis extermination of the Jews, gypsies, and other “undesirables” was, like many of the racist theories in America, tended to be the brian child of New Englanders. Cradled and supported by the most eminent universities in the nation, these writers drove a discourse of exclusion and elimination of the wrong kind of blood or hereditary. It was taken as an article of faith that “inferiority” was hereditary and that there was no concept of environmental considerations that may have caused generational poverty. On one hand, scholarship was turned into public policy that prevented equal opportunity and, on the other hand, those who were impacted were then declared inferior due to generations of bigots who kept the Irish, or the Italians, the Chinese, the African Americans, and so on, from achieving.

The solution to the socially engineered under achievements of the poor and disadvantaged was forced sterilization, which was found constitutional by an 8-1 majority. Virginia led the way in 1924 and for a decade (with California coming in as the second largest sterilizing state), until shamed when the Nazis took up identical policies of sterilizing the poor and those who might inherit a tendency towards criminality, other states followed. But forced sterilization continued until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Eugenics was directly linked to the argument of inherited superiority of “white people” by taking the assumption of birth rights and privileges and turning it against towards those who had inherited poverty.

If one inherited one’s low economic status, then one also inherited a low intelligence. As with sterilization, technology and pseudo science was put in the service of white suprematists. Blithely unaware of the impact of environment upon intelligence and of the inherent biases in the so-called “intelligent” tests designed by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, the anti-immigrant “nativists” used yet another measure to disenfranchise and marginalize the less white whites. The bundle of frantic efforts to maintain domination with tactics including Jim Crow Laws, forced sterilization, anti-immigration intelligence testing and restricted immigration were all based on the supposed superiority of the very white European stocks. However, as these superior beings, in all their shining whiteness, descended into the mad savagery of the Great War.

White Public Policy

The awkwardness of seeing the “white people” acting badly did not deter decades of effort during the twentieth century in legitimizing people of color, Catholics, and Jews. These bigoted beliefs mainstreamed and popularized through mass media and had become widely believed. Fortunately, these beliefs were forced underground and were muted by mid-century. As Painter explains,

After its heyday among race theorists in the 1910s and 1920s, Anglo-Saxonism declined during the Great Depression and the Second World War. A new generation of social scientists had outgrown such blather on race. Now scholars were questioning the very meanings of any and all concepts of race and studying the troubling fact of racial prejudice. Ruth Benedict, along with Franz Boas and their like, were beginning to carry the day…The change from 1920s hysteria to 1940s cultural pluralism occurred simultaneously in politics and in culture.

After the Second World War II, racism, based on the the ideal of “white” beauty, continued under other guises, despite the fact that the idea that there was a scientific entity called “race” was being debunked. During the final decades of the twentieth century, the idea of “white people” was less intellectualized and more politicized. The efforts to assert the superiority of whites was no longer respectable in academia but the efforts to deny African Americans the benefits of the New Deal, the G. I. Bill, and even basic civil rights continued in public policy through a maze of laws and customs. In addition to being pushed to the margins, people of color were trained through mass media to “look white.” As Painter writes,

Much nose bobbing, hair straightening, and bleaching ensued. Anglo-Saxon ideals fell particularly hard on women and girls, for the strength and assertion of working-class women of the immigrant generations were out of place in middle-class femininity. Not only was the tall, slim Anglo-Saxon body preeminent, the body must look middle-rather than working-class.

People of color or different “ethnic” types were forced by real estate laws and municipal zoning to live in ghettos and barrios, where they were invisible. The race presented by mass media as “American” was pure white, people of color were rare and on the fringes in movies and many mainstream magazines, from news magazines to fashion magazines, refused to print photographs of people of color. But the Civil Rights Movement countered the myth of white cultural and physical superiority by challenging white people on moral grounds. Painter quotes Malcolm X,

“When I say the white man is a devil, I speak with the authority of history…. The record of history shows that the white man, as a people, have never done good…. He stole our fathers and mothers from their culture of silk and satins and brought them to this land in the belly of a ship…. He has kept us in chains ever since we have been here…. Now this blue-eyed devil’s time has about run out.”

While the “white people” were frightened after hearing the frank assessment of a certain portion of the African American public, that same public would be alarmed at the writings of an anti-melting pot white supremacist, as quoted by Painter, as having

taught at Stanford University and the experimental college of the State University of New York at Old Westbury. In The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics, perfectly suited to the times, Novak concentrates on those unmeltable “PIGS,” Poles, Italians, Greeks, and Slavs, in their view so long reviled: “The liberals always have despised us. We’ve got these mostly little jobs, and we drink beer and, my God, we bowl and watch television and we don’t read. It’s goddamn vicious snobbery. We’re sick of all these phoney integrated TV commercials with these upper-class Negroes. We know they’re phoney.”

These words, complete with misspelling, from Michael Novak’s Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics (1972) would, today, be termed “hate speech.” At the time, they were the leading edge of the Nixon “Southern Strategy” which was a fancy term of thinly disguised racism. Here and there a few lone voices among white Southerners were raised and revealed the inherent lack of “ethics” in the system of racial segregation, bases upon the fiction of “white supremacy.” Painter presents

Lillian Smith (1897–1966), a white southern essayist, novelist, and (with her lifetime partner Paula Schnelling) operator of a fancy summer camp for girls, powerfully described her South in Killers of the Dream (1949 and 1961). The book pilloried southern culture as pathological and white supremacist southerners as caught in a spiral of sex, sin, and segregation.5* Here was a book of wide influence that portrayed whiteness as morally diseased.

It would take science, real science this time to put to rest the notion that there was “race.” There are only human beings who have skin colors and facial features that have evolved due to the environment. Painter quotes

the words of J. Craig Venter, then head of Celera Genomics, “Race is a social concept, not a scientific one. We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world.” Each person shares 99.99 percent of the genetic material of every other human being. In terms of variation, people from the same race can be more different than people from different races.18 And in the genetic sense, all people—and all Americans—are African descended.

Painter’s book is divided into a series of what she terms “Enlargements of Whiteness.” The First Enlargement” is in fact the formation of the post-Enlightnement discourse on “white people” by writers in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. The Second Enlargement builds on these beginnings and uses the ideas of racial superiority to expand political rights for one group of white people, the males, and excluding other groups, people of color and women. The Third Enlargement expanded these privileges after the Second World War by showering benefits upon white males and by excluding equally deserving people of color and women from the great government “thank you” stimulus that created the male middle class. The Fourth Enlargement is one of the struggle of women and people of color to enter fully into the American dream.

Conclusion

People of color made inroads during the post-war period because the discourse that defined “white people” was doubly discredited. First the Nazis adopted lock, stock and barrel the entire panoply of racist ideologies and used this discourse on “Aryans” and “Anglo Saxons” and what have you to slaughter millions of human beings. Second, the final stand of the white supremacists during the Civil Rights period was so public and so ugly and the resulting photographs and television coverage was so shaming that it was impossible to defend the determination to disenfranchise millions of American citizens. But the final coup de grâce was the genetic studies that proved that all humans share the same genetic makeup and that there is no scientific entity that could be separated out as “white people.”

Painter ends with the hope that perhaps intermarriage and “race mixing” will end the black/white dichotomy but that is far in the future. In the meantime as she points out “Nonetheless, poverty in a dark skin endures as the opposite of whiteness, driven by an age-old social yearning to characterize the poor as permanently other and inherently inferior.” The discourse on “white people” is alive and well and is an article of faith by millions of Americans who may or may not be aware of the immoral and unethical and unAmerican roots of their ideologies. It is sad to learn from this book that the term “American exceptionalism” is a code for “white people”—Anglo-Saxon “whiteness.”

When politician say that “Barack Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism,” they are saying “Barack Obama is black.” Like all the invading immigrants from the Irish to the Hispanics, he doesn’t “belong;” he is not an “American.” The discourse on “white people” is why there is such a strong belief that the President wasn’t born in America. Obama cannot be an American because he is an African American; he is black. Painter needs to write a sequel to this book that focuses on the twenty-first century salvage operation of this discourse which continues on the fringes on hate websites and in political speeches. The Discourse of “White People” continues to mar the American Dream.

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to

Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed. Thank you.

[email protected]

Post-Colonial Theory: Edward Said

POST-COLONIAL THEORY

PART THREE: EDWARD SAID (1935-2003)

Orientalism

Perhaps the most influential and widely read Post-Colonial critic was the late Edward Said (1935 – 2003) a Palestinian intellectual who was born in Jerusalem and died in exile in America. His well-known book, Orientalism was published in 1978 and is probably the often utilized structural analysis of Post-Colonial theory. Said’s approach is the first fully developed analysis of Post-Colonialism that is impersonal, intellectual, and yet in the tradition of engaged scholarship. A generation after that of Albert Memmi and Aime Cesaire and Frantz Fanon, Said was more of a New Yorker than a colonized individual and belongs to the postmodern phenomenon of the global diaspora. In the privileged precincts of Columbia University, Said joined the “cultural turn,” in which literary theory and Foucauldrian discourse became methodological tools through which to view culture.

It is obvious that “culture” is neither nature nor natural, but how is culture made and for what purposes? By the seventies, Marxism had been folded into a postmodern theory of representation which is where “Orientalism” can be located. With the now-expected antecedents of Hegelian logic embedded in critical theory, it was possible for Said to build on the foundation of previous scholars. In contrast to Memmi and Cesaire and Fanon who viewed colonialism as a psychological sickness created by the twisted intertwined Master/Slave dialectic, Said took a Post-Structuralist–he read the discourse of “orientalism,” consisting of text of 18th and 19th century European scholars and antiquarians who constructed a representation of an idea of an East that was not the West and conversely of a West that was not the East.

The basic assumptions that underly the book include the historical fact of European colonial domination and imperialist exploitation that put European scholars in the position to gaze upon the exotic other and to study this alien otherness for European purposes. As was noted in an earlier post, the European concern with the East can be traced back as far as the religious clash between Christianity and Islam that began in the seventh century and continues today. For centuries a parity was reached when the demarcation between religious territories was sealed by the Austro-Hungarian empire, but, after two world wars in the 20th century, the wound was reopened and laid bare. When the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East began to weaken, the Europeans, led by the French under Napoléon, began to encroach upon northern Africa. Under the scientific gaze of Europeans, Egypt and by extension the Holy Land became an object of study and a place of imaginative exploration.

This land, Holy to Christian and Muslim, this territory that was an eternal historical battleground trod over by many civilizations was the starting point for Said who turned the intellectual tables on the West. For Said, “Orientalism” or the Western construction of the “imaginary Orient” was fashioned by Europeans through practices of writing, which had the effect of representing the Other, the East. Few people, except for hard core historians and literary theorists have ventured much beyond his introduction and most readers probably find his later work, Culture and Imperialism (1993) more interesting to read. When he established the notion of the “Occident” in opposition to the “Orient”, Said was echoing Georg Hegel and Simon de Beauvoir and using these intellectual sources, Said re-positioned the West as the masculine One to the East’s feminized Other.

That said, Michel Foucault’s elaboration on the “discourse” is probably the most important of Said’s intellectual influences. Foucault’s impact can be discerned clearly in traces: the repeated exhortations as to what Said is not saying and the long meandering sentences with endless pauses with semi-colons. When Said established a literary or discursive “field” in which “the Orient” is constructed through language and representation, he was following the concepts of Foucault. Foucault dated the habit of Western Othering from the post-Medieval substitution of the leper with the mad person as the Other in society. Someone had to be an outcast. As Foucault pointed out in Madness and Civilization, this Other was constructed through discourse, or non-expressive utterances, that constructed an object to be first written of and then examined and then incarcerated. The language must be created for the Other to be spoken of and for the discourse to be constructed. People had always lived in territories that had a Muslim history but in order for these groups to be elucidated they had to be discursively constructed–named and studied and controlled.

Foucault posited the power of the “gaze” of the One that would then represent the Other. In his later work, Discipline and Punish, he linked “voir” (to see) with “savoir” (knowledge) and “pouvoir” (power). Thus seeing (the gaze of the authority) produces knowledge, which produces power. Through historical circumstances, it was the Western regions who “advanced” technologically faster than the East and thus it was the Europeans who took it upon themselves to name the regions, “The West” and “The East,” “The Occident” and The Orient.” Today to merely use these terms is Eurocentric–Europe is at the center of the world and all other regions relate to it–a totally imperialist position. The imperialist stance and language is part of the discourse of Orientalism, which is an example of how the powerful represent the powerless. from former Secretary of State, Henry Kissenger, stating the the problem of the Middle East that the region did not experience the Enlightenment to the more recent work of scholar Bernard Lewis who insisted that the Muslim nations deliberately refused to participate in Modernism, the “Orient” has been seen as the uncivilized, barbaric, backward Other.

orientalism_John Frederick Lewis_The Reception

John Frederick Lewis,. The Reception (1873)

But all that has been stated by Western scholars is merely words, language which have created a veil of representation that allows the East to be spoken of from a position of power, not truth. Said, following Foucault, stated that “Orientalism” is a discourse, a whole network of interests. Orientalism as a practice of writing was mainly a British and French enterprise due to the particular closeness of these nations with the “Orient.” Another way of expressing this “closeness” is to point to the long history of colonialism and imperialism by these two nations in the Middle East. “Orientalism” was but part of a network of cultural effects that justified Western control over such a backward region. The Orient is not a fact of nature but an idea that has a history with its own vocabulary and its own imagery. European culture gained in strength and identity be setting itself up against the Orient, so, as Said stated, the two geographic entities support and reflect each other–as opposites in a mirror.

Like a mirror, the images reverse each other with the privileging on the side of the Occident. In Lacanian language, the Orient is the narcissistic reversal of the fictional Self of the Occident or the “idea” of Europe. This Orient is a European idea and invention, not, as Said warned, essentially an idea with no correspondence in reality. The East is a European construction that facilitates a very real relationship of power and domination between West and East. Orientalism became a textual grid through which “The Orient” was filtered into Western consciousness.In saying that the West was a prevailing ideology, Said borrowed the concept of hegemony or prevailing “cultural form” from a new influence on Post-Colonial theory, Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937) and his odd assortment of Prison Notebooks from 1929-1935 . According to Gramsci certain cultural forms or representational discourses have dominance over others and reflect cultural leadership. Orientalism was a collective European notion of European superiority with the West having the upper hand. The network of discursive structures was put in place by European scholars over time with the intention to understand (to produce knowledge) in order to control and manipulate a very different world: the Orient.

The European encounter with the alien culture was not only a cultural clash but also a meeting between unequals. By the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, the Orient was but a shadow of its former self. According to Said’s arch intellectual enemy, Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus at Princeton, the Middle East had deliberately made the collective cultural decision to eschew Western scientific modernism and thus “missed” the Enlightenment at a crucial moment. The technological gap between East and West was signaled by the stunning victory of Napoléon over the Egyptians in 1794 (where his army discovered marijuana. Soon everyone was inhaling and Baudelaire writes under the spell of the weed. The British imbibed the drug as a “medicine” and the Queen herself used hashish for menstrual cramps.). The Western imagination was fevered by thoughts of the depravity of the East and, although Said did not discuss art, by the second decade of the nineteenth century, Ingres was painting his many paintings of the legendary harems and Delacroix actually paid a visit to the secluded ladies of Algiers. The idea of the Orient was “appropriated” both artistically and scientifically by the all conquering Europeans. It is at this point in time, the early decades of the 19th century, when the West was actively changing the West, Lewis wrote,

Some centuries earlier, the Islamic Middle East had led he world in science and technology, including devices for measuring time. But Middle-Eastern technology and science ceased to develop,precisely at the moment when Europe and more specifically Western Europe was advancing to new heights. The disparity was gradual but progressive.

Not only could Western powers come and go in the Middle East as they pleased, but it was also at this time that the East became the object of the European gaze. The scrutiny of the “Orient” is linked to imperialism and empire with the Middle East the first and closest territory of conquest. As Foucault stated in Discipline and Punish, to see is to produce knowledge and to have power. The Orient was constructed along the lines of other conquered territories, as “inferior”, as “feminine”, as “uncivilized”, as “barbaric”, and as the Other. Europe is powerful and articulate; Asia is defeated and distant. The Orient is insinuating and dangerous; and Western rationality is undermined by Eastern excesses. These literary characterizations fulfilled two needs, first to justify the domination of one group over the other and second to create an identity for the dominant group. The Orient was contained and represented within the dominating framework. The rise of Orientalism as a system of representation coincides with the rise of European empires. Between 1815 and 1914, Europeans directly controlled 85% of the globe.

Orientalism as a European textual construction is implicated with colonial authority and is a product of exteriority in which the Orientalist is the one who represents the Orient as the other. If the Orient could represent itself, it would; but it cannot, and therefore, it is the task of the Orientalist to represent the silenced culture. Thus the Orient is made clear to the Westerner, and the representation of the East functions in terms of traditions, conventions, and codes. The Oriental is “irrational, depraved, fallen, childlike, different”, while the European is “rational, virtuous, mature, normal”. This “knowledge” of the Oriental produces “the Oriental”. The Orient is divided into two spaces: the Near East and the Far East, but this Orient is but a stage where the East is confined. The Orient is penalized for being outside the system of Western Christianity’s morality. The tropes of Orientalism were collections of free-floating fragments that were accumulated into units of knowledge. This “knowledge” was a resistance to the strangeness of the Orient. Said pointed out,

..Orientalism is not a mere political subject matter or field that is reflected passively by culture, scholarship, or institutions; nor is it a large and diffuse collection of texts about the Orient’ nor is it representative and expressive of some nefarious “Western” imperialist plot to hold down the “Oriental” world. It is rather a distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic, scholarly, economic, sociological, historical, and philological texts; it is an elaboration not only of a basic geographical distinction (the world is made up of two unequal halves, Orient and Occident) but also a whole series of “interests” which, by means as scholarly discovery, philological reconstruction, it not only creates but also maintains; it is rather than expresses, a certain will or intention to understand, in some cases to control, manipulate, even to incorporate,what is a manifestly different (or alternative and novel) world; it is, above all, a discourse that is by no means in direct, corresponding relationship with political power in the raw, but rather is produced and and exists in an uneven exchange with various kinds of power..

Said wrote that the Western writers had a strategic location, or a location of power, from which s/he writes texts that become part of a strategic formation or a discourse where the “oriental studies” reside. He pointed out that the practice of Western representation of the East, from the “exterior” is done on the assertion that if the East could represent itself it could and since it cannot, the West must do this task of representation. These cultural discourses are ” not ‘truth’ but representations. “It hardly needs to demonstrated again that language itself is a highly organized and encoded system, which employs many devices to express, indicate, exchange messages and information, represent and so forth.” As a result of this “representation,” regardless of the century, the Orient is always fixed in time and place in the mind of the West and the represented “history” of the “Orient” is conceived of as a series of responses to the West which is always the actor and judge of Oriental behavior. Edward Said made the point that this binary opposition based upon the semiotics of power results in paternalistic or aggressive foreign policy decisions. He noted that Henry Kissinger based his policy towards the Orient upon the very binary relations that Orientalists had been constructing for centuries.

Henry Kissinger, architect of the last stage of the Viet Nam War, divided the world in terms of the colonizer: there are those societies which are pre-Newtonian and post-Newtonian, undeveloped and developed. In other words, Kissinger assumed that the experience of the Enlightenment is necessary for “civilization”. His assumptions were based upon the supposed superiority of Western—Newtonian—scientific, rational thinking that produced “superior” technological society. In the year 2007, Kissenger warned against imposing Western ideas upon a region that did not share the same history,

In the West, democracy developed within a religion that, even when it when it was the dominant religion, elaborated a distinction between what was God’s and what was Ceasar’s. That doesn’t exist in any other religion. Then we had the Reformation. Then we had the Enlightenment. Then we had the age of discovery. None of these precedents exist anywhere else.

Edward Said lived long enough to witness September 11th an event that elevated Bernard Lewis to a consultant to the Bush administration. He also lived long enough to watch the American invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, an invasion predicated “Oriental” perfidy and the need of backward peoples to be rescued by democracy. Forty years later and two invasions of Iraq later, Orientalism was still one of the best known books, widely read in theory but completely ignored in practice. Edward Said died in exile, never wavering from his position that Israel was a colonial entity established by imperialist powers and imposed illegitimately upon a people that were considered to have no claim to territory or to identity.

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to

Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed. Thank you.

[email protected]

 

Post-Colonial Theory: Frantz Fanon

POST-COLONIAL THEORY

PART TWO: FRANTZ FANON

Black Skin, White Masks and The Wretched of the Earth

Since the voyages of Columbus, Europeans sought out the territories of the Other, claimed the dark skinned people for slaves, and exploited the resources of those alien “virgin” lands. There are two steps to imperialism: economic imperialism in terms of a trading relationship in which the Europeans dominated the indigenous peoples of South Asia, and Asia and the Middle East and colonialism, in which colonizers are sent to these subjugated territories to either conquer and control them and keep them safe for capitalism. In this dyad of economic exploitation, the Americas were a special case: a huge continental mass supposedly “empty” and “undeveloped” through the inability of the “inferior” natives to properly put the lands to good use offended the European sensibility. Territories left in their virgin state, unclaimed and untamed cried out to be tended and in the colonial era, colonization was a migration to a permanent new home. Colonial Americans, seeing vast spaces in need of cultivation, an undertaking that required cheap of free labor, followed the lead of the British, French, and Dutch and brought in captured Africans to build the new continent.

Elsewhere, the Europeans settled in outposts that were embedded within large already established robust often urban cultures, from Hong Kong to Dubai to New Delhi. The outposts developed from trading stations to centers of conquest and rule, activities that were staffed by military and civilians shipped over from Europe. This ambiguous approach to colonialism in Africa and Asia brought a small but dominant population of Europeans into close contact with a large mass of the original inhabitants. As with American slavery, control could not be only physical–never could such a small number of people effectively control and subdue millions of human beings. As was pointed out in the last post on Albert Memmi, the problem of maintaining dominance was solved through establishing a psychological order of Master and Slave which was internalized by both the colonizer and the colonized alike.

Post-colonial writings have many points of beginning, both European and American, but among the most eloquent were the two books published by Frantz Fanon (1925 – 1960), Black Skin, White Masks (1952) and The Wretched of the Earth (1961). Like Aime Cesaire, Fanon was Caribbean, born in Martinique, one of France’s “possessions,” like Albert Memmi, he studied in France but in Lyon, practiced medicine in Algeria, next door to Tunisia, and like, Memmi experienced the end of colonialism in North Africa. Fanon’s books came out of his experiences with racism as a black man and the struggle for self-determination as the colonized. Like Memmi, he attracted that positive attention and patronage of Jean-Paul Sartre. After a short life and an all-too-short career, he contracted leukemia and went to Baltimore for treatment where he died in 1961 of cancer. In his lifetime, Fanon was little noted but he would be long remembered for his anguished and emotional accounts of what it meant to be the Other. Algeria was the last major French colony to be relinquished to its “rightful owners,” after a long and bloody and repressive war.

01f1a05053c6242fcfa23075e5b963c1_XL-1

Frantz Fanon (1925-1961)

After the war in which they absorbed a humiliating defeat and occupation, the French viewed their former imperial empire from two perspectives–either the empire should be retained as a point of pride or, so as to not mimic the Nazis, the colonies should be set free. The French public was split, left and right, over the ethics of retaining a colony and the immorality of keeping a people in imperial bondage. The French were the colonizer and their dual positions were political ones, but Frantz Fanon viewed the struggle between Algeria and France as one of racial and not religious difference. This political contest between unequals was not just a cultural clash or a quarrel over aspirations but, on a deeper level, there was also a psychotic confrontation between two wounded souls and maimed minds. Fanon sought to analyze the combatants as one would study a patient in need of help.

Educated in the French Hegelian, Marxist, Freudian tradition/s, Fanon asked “What does the Black man want?” He relied on Georg Hegel for his answer: the Black man wants to be recognized by the White man. The problem is that the White man and the Black man are caught up in the master/slave relationship that is not mere theory but is an actual psychosis. “The Negro enslaved by his inferiority, the white man enslaved by his superiority alike behave in accordance with a neurotic orientation.” Fanon wrote freely and expressively in his first book, while The Wretched of the Earth, with the preface by Jean-Paul Sartre, is more measured and clinical, a theoretical critique. The early publication date of Black Skin, White Masks–1952–is remarkable, predating the rise of the Civil Rights movement in America and the wars of independence in North Africa. But this book is a shout of anger against the regime of colonialism, a form of rule that had outlived its usefulness. Fanon understood the power of the linguistic construction of opposites, the One and the Other, in which one term subordinates the other term and renders it inferior. The linguistic construction mirrored the domination of the white man over the black man in the colonies and in America. Both sides, guilty and innocent, are trapped in a sick relationship.

Fanon also paralleled the writing of his contemporary, Albert Memmi, who wrote of the “colonizer” and the “colonized”, in appropriate Structuralist language. Fanon dealt with language and pointed out that when the black man speaks the language of the white man, the black man assumes the culture and the civilization of his oppressor. The conqueror has no interest in the culture of the conquered who are considered in need of civilizing. As a result of the civilizing mission the mask of imperialism, colonized people have been stripped of their own languages and, without their own culture, they lived with inferiority complex. The colonized individual is faced with the “superior” culture that dominates her and is “elevated” above “jungle status” only to the extent that he adopts the mother country’s standards, from language to learning.

“I ascribe a basic importance to the phenomenon of language. To speak means to be in a position to use a certain syntax, to grasp the morphology of this or that language, but it means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization,” he wrote. The black man who approaches the white world and attempts to fit in–to learn French, to be educated in France, to live in France–becomes “white” only to his black friends but remains irredeemably “black” among white people. Like W.E.B. DuBois, Fanon writes of what DuBois called “two-ness,” or the sense of being caught between cultures, a state that Fanon called “two dimensions” or “self-division” or what DuBois called “double consciousness.” This self-division is the result of colonialism and subjugation by the colonizer. The result is a psychotic break that is a recognizable mental illness.

Descended from slaves captured in African to work the plantations of the Caribbean, Fanon writes of the mental state of “the modern Negro” as a “clinical study.” “The black man becomes whiter as he renounces his blackness, his jungle.” “The white man is sealed in his whiteness. The black man in his blackness.” The black man wants only to break through this “seal” which is the white belief in white superiority to show the richness of black culture and African intellect. In other words, the black man/slave wants recognition form the white man/master. The black man has only one way out of his inferiority and that escape route is through the white world. The result of this contact or impact of whitening is that the black man is radically changed into what Fanon refereed as an “absolute mutation” with the result of “ego-withdrawal” or “restriction” or a renunciation of authenticity to avoid the pain.

The accommodation of the black man to the white man brings no rewards, only alienation, and this alienation or de-humanization, is the object of Fanon’s study. Writing in the early fifties and early sixties, Fanon could see no way out for either of the parties. “The Negro is enslaved by his inferiority, the white man is enslaved by his superiority”. The neurotic withdrawal of the black man is a defense mechanism and the Negro become abnormal due to the trauma of his encounter with white culture. Desiring the approval of the white man, the black man becomes impaired in his development and becomes one sided. In his deeply felt book, Fanon explains, more eloquently than any Hegelian variation on the One and the Other, what it is like to be judged negatively on the color of one’s skin. Fanon combined psychoanalysis and Marxism, understanding that colonized people were traumatized and could never create their own cultures unless they were truly liberated. In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon described the process of “decolonization,”

Decolonization, which sets out to change the oder of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder..Decolonization, as we know, is a historical process: that is to say that it cannot be understood, it cannot become intelligible nor clear to itself except in the exact measure that we can discern the movements which give it historical form and content. Decolonization is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature, which in fact, opposed to each other by their very nature, which in fact owe their originality to that sort of substantification which results from and is nourished by the situation in the colonies. The first encounter was marked by violence and their existence together–that is to say the xpoloiatiaonof the native by he settler–was carried on by dine of a great array of bayonets and cannons. The settler and the nataive are old acquaitances.

Fanon was a warrior and a healer. He actually fought against fascism in the Second World War and was disgusted with the racism of the Allies. The American military was shamefully segregated and racist elements at home in Washington D. C. plotted to prevent soldiers of color from voting in federalized elections. The British military, as well as the Free French, kept their colonials carefully separate. After the war, even the French Communist Party supported the continuation of colonialism, perhaps because to be a colonial power would still mean something to the nation’s prestige. It was his disgust that led Fanon to participate as a revolutionary in the Algerian uprising against their French masters. Fanon also participated, as a teacher, in what we would term terrorist activities. Indeed, modern terrorism has as one of its beginning moments, the war in Algeria. Fanon realized, however, that the revolutionaries were like any other revolutionary power: essentially bourgeois and wanting only to take over power from the French and to maintain the class and religious oppressions that the French had set up. As he stated, “For the black man there is only one destiny. And it is white.”

Today, Algeria is a fundamentalist Muslim country, a far cry from Fanon’s Marxism vision of equality, even for women. The new interest in Fanon, for the uninitiated, can be dated back to 1995 London conference organized by the Institute of Contemporary Arts. The book published in relation to an exhibition of the same name, Mirage: Enigmas of Race, Difference and Desire is an interesting example of how a writer—Fanon—has been re-contextualized and depoliticized and appropriated for contemporary purposes. The difficulty for the post-colonial writer lies in the famous opposition between the Colonizer and the Colonized, set up in a book of the same name by Fanon’s contemporary, Albert Memmi. To speak and to be heard, it is necessary to speak “in the master’s voice” and thus lose the specificity of one’s own heritage, one’s own voice. Fanon is an interesting writer because his voice was not blunted by accommodation or co-option. Although he died decades before the literary écriture feminine movement in France, Fanon, like Luce Irigaray, was an early disrupter of the politeness of university French. Fanon concluded,

I should constantly remind myself that the real leap consists in introducing invention into existence. In the world in which I travel, I am endlessly creating myself. And it is by going beyond the historical, instrumental hypothesis that I will initiate my cycle of freedom.

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to

Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed. Thank you.

[email protected]

Post-Colonial Theory: Albert Memmi

POST-COLONIAL THEORY

PART ONE: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Albert Memmi, The Colonized and the Colonized

Just as Race is essentially an American phenomenon, Post-Colonial Theory is essentially a European phenomenon. While it is necessary to make a distinction between the very different experiences of people of color under European and American rule, it is also possible to make a more general theoretical point. Colonialism and racism are both outcomes of the concept of “the Other.” The idea of the One and the Other stems from European philosophical thinking that both pre-dated the system of European model of imperialism, which included conquest, slavery, colonialism, and exploitation of non-Europeans, and justified a set of practices based on difference. For hundreds of years, colonialism, a manifestation of imperialism, was the means whereby Europeans controlled peoples of other continents, until two World Wars gradually eroded a rule that included over ninety percent of the globe. The “post” of Colonialism is both the after-time of a historical period and the critique of the episteme or mind set that led one small part of the world to dominate the Other.

Descartes posited a separation between mind and matter, Emmanuel Kant placed a gap between the subject and the object, Georg Hegel distinguished between the master and the slave. Saussure noted that language is structured in pairs of opposites. Jacques Derrida insisted that polarities are interdependent upon each other. Whether through language or philosophical models, the point is that the subject, the thinking human being, can understand what s/he is only in terms of what s/he is not. Human consciousness comes into being through this recognition of difference and, as Hegel demonstrated, the need to be acknowledged by the Other. The germ of the problem is clear in Hegel who understood that the difference between the One and the Other constitutes inequality. Rather than a neutral “difference” that merely designates or distinguishes, “difference” is loaded with judgments: the Master is superior to the Slave, and, although they recognizes themselves through each other, this recognition favors the Master and works to the detriment of the Slave. It does not matter that the Master cannot exist without the existence of the Slave, without the presence of a “master” the “slave” would be free.

Later philosophers point out that, while language might be structured out of opposites, socially and politically the One and the Other are not “natural” events but are constructed out of the need, not just to determine differences, but to dominate. The mode of constructing the Other is a form of representation or of the One re-presenting the Other in terms that craft domination. Taken to extremes Othering others moves very quickly to dehumanization. According to Theodor Adorno, the “Identity thinking” or the concept of universality, of the Enlightenment is based upon exclusion. If certain selected elements are included within an existing structure, then certain “other” elements have to be excluded to make the initial inclusion meaningful. Post-Colonial theory is about that exclusion. However, Post-Colonial theory is about existentialism or the conditions under which one comes into existence or consciousness through the deliberate extinction of the humanity of the Other.

Exclusion and dominance began long before the philosophy of post-coloniality. Just as colonialism antedated and generated racism, sexism antedates all prejudices and establishes the primary division or the primal Othering between the genders. In isolated communities, in small tribes, the people saw only themselves and there was no other. Long before there was a need for tribes to confront each other over control of territory, the Other had already been created and that Other was Woman. When he attempted to theorize the universal dominance of women by men, Friedrich Engels reasoned that the creation of the idea of “property” or “ownership” allowed men to reduce women and cattle and land to objects to be owned. However, even if Engels was right (and we have no way of knowing that he was), the idea of the One and the Other must have already existed if only because the concept of “equality” needs “inequality” to be meaningful.

In his linking of property and inequality, Engels, along with Karl Marx, would lay the groundwork for a theory of the economy in which capitalism determines society and human relations. Marxism, therefore, was the foundation or stepping stone for Post-Colonial theory, which began to emerge in the 1970s out of traditional Marxism. Post-Colonialism was the intellectual creation of post-war immigrants or the children of immigrants who had come to the Mother Country of England or France to be educated at elite institutions. Marxism’s critique of capitalism provided a useful frame through which the capitalist thrust of imperialism and the class relations of colonialism could be analyzed. In these early years, Post-Colonial theory showed up on the theory radar as “Subaltern Studies” at the University of Sussex with the colonial subjects, the subordinated and the marginalized as active speakers. However, the position of Post-Colonial theory within Marxism was an uneasy one and there is an earlier approach that provided yet another avenue for critique, Albert Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized published in 1957.

memmi_book(2)

Albert Memmi (1920-) is the ultimate Other, a Jew in a Muslim country, Tunisia, colonized by the French. Born in 1925 of a Berber mother and an Italian father, who passed on his Jewish identity, Memmi was able to observe the turbulent process of de-colonizaiton when Algeria and Tunisia became independence from the French in in 1956. Memmi’s contribution to the Post-Colonial conversation was that he lived within colonialism, unsure of his place: as a native of Tunisia he was colonized, as a Jew he identified with his fellow Europeans, the French. Although he certainly recognized the economic “fascism” of imperialism, Memmi placed colonialism in it more precise structure: racism. While it is correct that imperialism and colonialism were the result of the needs of capitalism to continually expand, the point is that only in territories of color did the Europeans take over and exploit (Asia and India) and exterminate the inhabitants (the Americas) and establish colonists to control their economic interests. In his remarkable book, Remarkable Possessions: The Wonder of the New World, Stephen Greenblat remarked upon the unprecedented nature of this post-Columbian imperialism.

As Memmi pointed out in the beginning of his book, the imperialist adventure was a layered one: on one hand it was a purely economic quest which was authorized as a good-hearted desire to “help” and “civilize” the poor unfortunate native through benevolent colonization. The argument for civilizing of the dark-skinned native is linked to just that—the dark skin, which is racism, which in turn is simple Othering another human being out of viable existence. Thus Post-Colonial theory became part of existentialism long before it was funneled through Marxism. It is no accident that it was Jean-Paul Sartre wrote the introduction when The Colonizer and the Colonized was published in 1957. In his opening sentence Sartre, whose companion Simone de Beauvoir was friends with American writer Richard Wright, links colonization to racism, the kind of racism flourishing in America.

Only the Southerner is competent to discuss slavery, because he alone knows the Negro; the puritanical and abstract Northerners know man only as an entity. This fine line of reasoning still has its uses: in Houston, in the newspapers of New Orleans, and in “French” Algeria—since we too are someone’s Northerners. The newspaper there tell us that the colonizer alone is qualified to speak of the colony. The rest of us, who live in the mother country do not have his experience, so we are to view the burning land of Africa through this eyes, which will just show us the smoke.

Memmi’s writing is a doubling: he is both the colonizer by dint of being a European and he is also the colonized by dint of being Tunisian. His approach is hybrid for he lives with a version of what W.E.B. Dubois called “double consciousness.” As a Jew and a Tunisian he suffered from a double anti-Semitism, both in in Tunisia and in France, where Jews had been deported to death camps. After being educated in post-war Paris, Memmi’s place in society that he has no place for he is part of the diaspora, pulled back and forth between Paris and Tunis, at home nowhere but finally settling in Paris. In 1982 he published Racism which begins with a sentence that could be written today: “There is a strange kind of tragic enigma associated with the problem of racism. No one, or almost no one, wishes to see themselves as racist; still racism persists, real and tenacious.” Memmi’s most recent book and sadly probably his last is the 2006 book, The Decolonization and the Decolonialized, which subverts the “civilizing” argument of the imperialists by asking why these former colonies have not flourished.

The answer can be found by returning to the groundbreaking The Colonizer and the Colonized where Memmi outlined the psychological effects of racism upon the One who is the colonizer and becomes morally corrupted and upon the Other who incorporated the role of the (non)Other as inferior and incapable and without consequence. The One systematically eradicated the native culture and the native language as the price for merely entering into the company of the Colonizer. The Colonized is forced to give up indigenous identification but in the process loses any meaningful identity. The process is one of psychological slavery that dehumanizes the Other and turns her into an object. The Other begins to identify with the (impossible) One but evolves into what Caribbean poet and politician, Aime Cesaire (1913-2008) called “thingification” in the 1955 book, Discours sur le colonialism. Memmi described the path of the Colonized into the exile of religion, the only remaining refuge and his discussion of the trajectory of the Colonized into religion and rebellion sheds light on the events unfolding today in the Middle East and North Africa.

Memmi’s seminal book outlined the social costs and the psychological damage a racist system of inequality does to the colonizer who enjoys unearned privilege. His portrait of the colonizer is scathing. The colonizer is pictured as a glamorous figure who is nevertheless an individual who is mediocre and who would have little future in the Mother Country. In the “colonies,” the colonizer can succeed but not in open and honest competition but at the expense of people who have been dis-empowered. Once the colonizer becomes aware of–becomes conscious of–the Other or the colonized, then the truth of the situation becomes clear. The colonizer is in charge and can write the rules and can make the laws, all of which benefit one element of the binary: the colonizer. The colonized are dehumanized, like a Slave, and exist to be exploited for the benefit of the Master. True, on the surface this exploitation is economic, the outcome of the punitive capitalistic practices of imperialism but at another level, suppressed by the colonizer, lies a narrative of oppression based solely on skin color. As Memmi wrote,

Colonialism denies human rights to human beings whom it has subdued by violence, and keeps them by force in a state of misery and ignorance that Marx would rightly call a subhuman condition. Racism is ingrained in actions, institutions, and in the nature of the colonialist methods of production and exchange. Political and social regulations reinforce one another.

The colonizer is doubly illegitimate: not only is he an interloper in a land that is not their but she is also taking away opportunities from the colonized. Making unjust laws that reinforce an unjust system only make the system doubly unjust. Both parties are entrapped in a society that harms them both but one party, the colonizer receives too many benefits to be willing to relinquish her unjust privileges and the colonized have no power to change his conditions. Aime Casaire presciently perceived that a price would have to be paid when he observed in 1955,

A civilization that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization.

A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization.

A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization.

The fact is that the so-called European civilization – “Western” civilization – as it has been shaped by two centuries of bourgeois rule, is incapable of solving the two major problems to which its existence has given rise: the problem of the proletariat and the colonial problem; that Europe is unable to justify itself either before the bar of “reason” or before the bar of “conscience”; and that, increasingly, it takes refuge in a hypocrisy which is all the more odious because it is less and less likely to deceive.

Like Memmi, Cesaire laid out the charges against the colonial system during a time when the system was breaking down, bent and bowed under the weight of its own injustice. It is interesting to note that the years in which Memmi and Cesaire were writing, the mid to late fifties, were the same years that initiated the Civil Rights Movement in America. Like Memmi, Cesaire compared the rule of the French over their colonies to the rule of the Nazis over their conquered territories. In effect, in attempting to retain what is not legitimately theirs, the French have become their own worst nightmare. As he wrote,

..colonization works to decivilize the colonizer, to brutalize him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred, and moral relativism..

Although the early critiques of colonialism predate all “posts,” Memmi and Cesaire clearly understood the interdependence of the two poles: the colonizer and the colonized, and this interdependence is the very agent that will deconstruct the binary. Memmi was aware that the colonized would demand self-determination and that war and rebellion would continue until the ties were severed.The ties between the colonizer and colonized are not just political they are psychological. The interiorization of inferiority on the part of the native would have grave consequences. Later post-colonial theorists, writing after the end of Empires would take a Post-Structuralist approach inherited from linguistic and literary theory and re-evaluate the dialectical dance between the colonizer and the colonized. Cesaire used his poetry as a political weapon, twisting Shakespeare’s Brave New World to reproach the usurper:

Prospero, you are the master of illusion.
Lying is your trademark.
And you have lied so much to me
(lied about the world, lied about me)
that you have ended by imposing on me
an image of myself.
underdeveloped, you brand me, inferior,
That is the way you have forced me to see myself
I detest that image! What’s more, it’s a lie!
But now I know you, you old cancer,
and I know myself as well.

Aime Cesaire’s version of Shakespeare’s The Tempest (1968)

Both authors lived long enough to engage in scholarly debates about colonialism and would see the end of the “civilizing” mission of European imperialism. Both would live in the Mother Country of France and speak and write in the mother tongue and both would live to see France changing as the colonized, the oppressed Muslim population, “come home.”

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to

Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed. Thank you.

[email protected]

 

Podcast Episode 15: French Romanticism: Delacroix, Part Two

DELACROIX THE CONSERVATIVE

Part Two

The art of Eugène Delacroix was uniquely suited to his time. In an era of imperialism and colonialism through conquest, his exciting art captured the violence of a turbulent age. Like all artists of the Romantic era, Delacroix was fascinated by the mystery of the Middle East. Although much of the art of his later career was government sponsored, Delacroix also acted as a reporter and visited the French possession of Algeria and captured, first hand, the allure of the Other. After an early career being cast (0r mis-cast) as a Romantic rebel, Delacroix spent the rest of his life doing official commissions—such as murals for the French government.

Also listen to: “The French Romantics: Gros and Girodet, Part One” and “The French Romantics: Gros and Girodet, Part Two” and “French Romanticism, Ingres, Part One,” and “French Romanticism, Ingres, Part Two” and “French Romanticism, Delacroix, Part One”

Also read: “French Romanticism: The Historical Context” and “The French Academy: Painting” and “French Romanticism: Subject Matter and the Artist” and “French Romanticism and the Avant-Garde”

 

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to
Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed.

Thank you.
[email protected]

Important Announcement

The Podcasts from this Website

by Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette

are now available through iTunes and can be listened to on your iPad or iPhone

Remember to download the iBooks app to your iPad or iPhone

Art History Unstuffed: The Podcasts

Also the complete

Art History Timeline Videos

by Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette

are now available and can be viewed on You Tube

This twenty-seven episode series of five minute videos span Western art history, from the Caves to Romanticism. The videos can be used by students and teachers as introductory, supplementary or review material. Each video is written,narrated and produced by the author of this website, and is reinforced by written text and is richly illustrated by many images. The entire Timeline can be accessed through

this link: Art History Timeline