Violence. Brad Evans

Чтение книги онлайн.

THREE

      THE PERILS OF BEING A BLACK PHILOSOPHER

      America needs a movement that transcends the civil rights movement.

      Violence takes many different forms, from physical attacks upon bodies to the assault upon one’s dignity and sense of self. In this emotionally charged conversation, philosopher George Yancy discusses his painful experiences of racism in response to his previous forms of public engagement. What it means to be a black public intellectual is not only to bring power into question; it is to be further exposed to the violence that has long been used to mark black thinkers as incapable of thinking philosophically, as Yancy explains. In this regard, what Yancy deals with in this discussion are questions far more searching than philosophical mediation. His response is testimony on, and indictment of, today’s state of racial politics and violence in the United States and beyond.

      Brad Evans interviews George Yancy

      April 18, 2016

      George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and author, editor, and co-editor of many books, including Backlash and Black Bodies, White Gazes.

       Brad Evans: In response to a series of troubling verbal attacks you received after your essay “Dear White America” appeared in “The Stone” in December 2015, the American Philosophical Association put out a strongly worded statement criticizing the bullying and harassment of academics in the public realm. But beyond this, shouldn’t we address the broader human realities of such hateful speech and in particular how this sort of discursive violence directly impacts the body of the person attacked?

      George Yancy: Your point about discursive violence is an important one. Immediately after the publication of “Dear White America,” I began to receive vile and vitriolic white racist comments sent to my university email address and verbal messages sent to my answering machine. I even received snail mail that was filled with hatred. Imagine the time put into actually sitting down and writing a letter filled with so much hate and then sending it snail mail, especially in our world of the Internet.

      The alarming reality is that the response to “Dear White America” revealed just how much racism continues to exist in our so-called postracial America. The comments were not about pointing out fallacies in my position but were designed to violate, to leave me psychologically broken and physically distraught.

      Words do things, especially words like “nigger” or being called an animal that should go back to Africa or being told that I should be “beheaded ISIS style.” One white supremacist message sent to me ended with “Be Prepared.” Another began with “Dear Nigger Professor.”

      The brutality and repetitiveness of this discursive violence has a way of inflicting injury. Given the history of the term “nigger,” it strikes with the long, hate-filled context of violence out of which that term grew. This points to the non-spectacular expression of violence. The lynching of black people was designed to be a spectacle, to draw white mobs. In this case, the black body was publicly violated. It was a public and communal form of bloodlust. There are many other forms of violence that are far more subtle, non-spectacular, yet painful and dehumanizing. So when I was called a “nigger,” I was subject to that. I felt violated, injured; a part of me felt broken.

      Only now have I really begun to recognize how discourse designed to hurt can actually leave its mark. I recall after reading so many of these messages I began to feel sick, literally. So words can debilitate, violate, injure; they can hit with the force of a stick or a stone and leave marks on the body. In this case, I began to feel the posture of my body folding inward, as it were, under the attacks. Frantz Fanon talks about this as not being able to move lithely in the world.

       How does this relate to the intellectual history of racial persecution, oppression, and subordination, especially the denial of the right of black people, and specifically black intellectuals, to speak with their own voice in a public setting?

      I shared some of the malicious discourse used against me with some very prominent white public intellectuals. We began to exchange experiences. The exchange was helpful to me; it helped me to understand what is at stake when engaging in courageous speech. What was immediately clear, though, was the absence of specifically racist vitriol directed at these white public intellectuals, which in no way downplays their pain. Yet we must bring attention to the difference, to the perils of being a black intellectual. Not only was I being attacked for my courageous speech; I was being attacked as a black man. Yet I was also being attacked as a black philosopher.

      There were some very nasty remarks that were designed to question my status as a philosopher because I’m black. The implication of those messages was that to be black and a philosopher was a contradiction, because “niggers” can’t be philosophers. So I agree; the discourse was far more pernicious. But to understand this is to come to terms with the history of white violence in this country used to control and silence black people.

      To СКАЧАТЬ