PHL hip hop research paper
SunCY1992
160 WE W H O A RE DA R K
5
Race, Culture, and Politics
It is inconceivable that I feel alienated from the Western tradi
tion; my people have contributed so much that is vital and
good to it. I am alienated from the people who call themselves
white, who think they own Western tradition.
-Nikki Giovanni, Racism 101 (1994)
I have argued that a black public philosophy should include a com
mitment to antiracism, antipoverty, and substantive racial equality.
Yet many advocates of black solidarity would urge that we also
include a commitment to black cultural autonomy. At least since
the late nineteenth century, prominent black intellectuals, artists,
and activists have advocated various forms of black cultural self
determination. And as William Van Deburg has observed, cul
tural nationalism, perhaps more than any other ideology of the
Black Power era, continues to have an enormous impact on African
American self-understanding, political consciousness, and social
institutions.' Moreover, the cultural politics of difference (or multi
culturalism), which many progressives embrace, has some striking
similarities to the cultural nationalism of the Black Power move
ment. Thus many have come to think of this "politics of recogni
tion" as an enduring component of black politics.
162 WE W H O A RE DARK
In light of its continuing currency, I want to critically evaluate
the principal claims of black cultural nationalism. The focus of this
inquiry, as before, will be on the philosophical presuppositions and
political significance of the doctrine. I will argue that black Ameri
cans should not embrace black cultural n ationalism as a compo
nent of their public philosophy and that contemporary black poli
tics should not be understood on the model of multiculturalism.
Black cultural nationalism (though not always under the label
nationalist) takes a variety of forms, as it has had numerous pro
ponents of various ideological stripes at different historical mo
ments. Canonical representatives include W. E. B. Du Bois, Alain
Locke, Amiri Baraka, Harold Cruse, Haki Madhubuti, Maulana
Karenga, and Molefi Asante.2 Rather than discuss each historical
variant, I offer a general characterization-a sort of Weberian ideal
type or heuristic construct-comprised of eight tenets.3 These ten
ets should not be regarded as the necessary and sufficient doctrinal
commitments for one to count as a bona fide cultural nationalist.
Nor do they aim to get at the "essence" of black cultural national
ism. The tenets are merely meant to articulate, in a relatively ab
stract and schematic way, what I take to be the main concerns of
those who seek black cultural autonomy. But my aim is to charac
terize this popular philosophy in such a way that any proponent of
black cultural autonomy would endorse some substantial subset of
the tenets and would be generally sympathetic to them all.
There will be some who subscribe to a number of the following
tenets yet do not think of themselves as nationalists of any sort.
With regard to such persons I see no need to insist on the designa
tion nationalist, a label to which many would object. Some would
prefer to be regarded as "cultural pluralists" to distinguish them
selves from versions or aspects of the doctrine that they reject.
Again, my point is not to debate political labels but to critically en
gage with substantive positions that are widely accepted among
RACE, C U LT U RE, A ND P O LIT I CS 163
those who identify with, or at least have some affinity for, the n a
tionalist tradition.
Tenets of Black Cultural Nationalism
Each of the following eight tenets of black cultural nationalism has
embedded within in it both factual (descriptive) and normative
(evaluative) presuppositions. In this section I will make these as
sumptions explicit and outline the basic rationale behind each
tenet. Part of the aim will be to suggest how they fit together to
form a coherent outlook-a black nationalist philosophy of cul
ture.
1. Distinctiveness: There is a distinct black culture that is different
from (and perhaps, though not necessarily, in opposition to) white
culture. The "black" culture in question is sometimes understood
narrowly to mean indigenous African American culture (that is,
the culture of African slaves in North America and their descen
dants). Alternatively it may be thought to include cultures from the
broader diaspora (for example, from parts of Latin America or the
Caribbean) or from sub-Saharan Africa. The relevant "white" cul
ture is conceived variously as WASP, Anglo-Christian, Euro-Ameri
can, European, or Western. Within these categories, some would
also distinguish between high, middle-brow, and popular culture
or, alternatively, between fine art and folk expression. For simplic
ity, I will use the terms black and white to denote all conceptual
variants, and I will not invoke a high/low or fine/folk distinction.
The account of the specific characteristics of and differences be
tween black and white cultures varies with the particular advocate
of black cultural nationalism. Yet it would not be unfair to say that
such accounts generally characterize black culture as fundamen
tally oral, communal, harmonious, emotive, spontaneous, spiritual,
earthy, experiential, improvisational, colorful, sensual, uninhibited,
164 WE W H O A RE DA R K
dialogical, inclusive, and democratic. White culture, by contrast, is
often viewed as essentially logocentric, individualistic, antagonistic,
rationalistic, formal, materialistic, abstract, cerebral, rigid, bland,
repressed, monological , elitist, and hegemonic. These are, as I say,
typical ways of representing the differences between the two cul
tures. Other, perhaps more nuanced, ways of distinguishing them
are of course possible. 4
2. Collective Consciousness: Blacks must rediscover and collectively
reclaim their culture, developing a consciousness and a lifestyle that
are rooted in this heritage. It is thought that this would enable
blacks to form an identity on their own terms, autonomously and
endogenously. Some c ultural nationalists concede that black cul
ture, especially the Afr ican American variety, has been eroded or
suppressed by other ethnonational groups, in particular those of
European descent. But rather than acquiesce to this cultural impe
r ialism, they insist that this loss of cultural distinctiveness is all the
more reason for blacks to self-organize and perhaps to self-segre
gate in order to revive their heritage or construct a new indepen
dent c ulture without the interference of nonblacks.
3. Conservation: Black culture is an invaluable collective good that
blacks should identify with, take pride in, actively reproduce, and
creatively develop. Black culture is held to provide ma ny benefits
for blacks, including these: a basis for psychological integration,
sources of self-esteem and group pride, a repertoire of valued social
roles, a stock of useful skills and techniques, conventions of social
intercourse, artifacts of aesthetic worth and historical import, im
ages of symbolic significance, distinctive styles of expression, a ven
erable intellectual tradition, and common narratives that contain
vital sociohistorical knowledge. The loss or decay of this culture
would be tragic, as it would mean the disappearance of an irre
placeable and multifaceted, shared social good. As they (could)
benefit in countless ways from its existence and would be harmed
R A CE, C U LT U RE, A N D P O L I TICS 165
by its extinction, blacks must do their part to preserve black cul
ture. This may involve, among other things, contributing to the
establishment and maintenance of cultural institutions, such as
schools, churches, archives, and media and entertainment outlets,
that store and disseminate black cultural knowledge and artifacts.
4. Rootedness: Unlike white culture, black culture provides a stable
and rich basis for feelings of community and for the construction of
positive and healthy individual identities. Some have maintained
that many blacks suffer from self-alienation and dislocation as a re
sult of living (or attempting to live) in accordance with the values
and norms of a white culture that disparages the ability, beauty, and
moral character of black people. Authentic black culture, they con
tend, offers a sense of rootedness within a unified community, a
space that feels more like home. This culture provides an existential
defense against madness and self-destruction in a world hostile to
the very presence of black peoples. An identity fortified by black
cultural traditions will be more self-affirming and better integrated,
and thus blacks should accept cultural blackness as an integral
component of their sense of self.
5. Emancipatory Tool: Black culture is an essential tool of liberation,
a necessary weapon to resist white domination, and a vehicle for the
expression of nationalist ideals. A role for-or the role of-black
artists, intellectuals, and cultural critics is thus to produce works
that represent and affirm the authentic black experience and that
inspire ordinary black folk to work for freedom and independence.
Some black nationalists have no faith in the emancipatory potential
of white culture, for they believe (or at least suspect) that it is inher
ently biased against black interests or that it is contrary to the true
sensibility of blacks. Some maintain that no dignified fight for self
determination can be carried out using the culture of the oppressor
group. Hence, the struggle for cultural self-determination must be
prosecuted using cultural weapons taken solely (or almost exclu-
166 WE W H O A RE D A R K
sively) from the black world. And those resources should be used
for the uplift and advancement of black people, not simply for self
expression or personal gain.
6. Public Recognition: The state should refrain from actions that
prevent the endogenous reproduction of black culture; and non
blacks, perhaps with encouragement from the state, should cultivate
tolerance and respect for black culture. The vast majority of black
Americans are not immigrants or the descendants of immigrants
but the descendants of African slaves, forced into exile in the Amer
icas. Although the United States did not appropriate their native
land, the people of African descent in America have themselves
been annexed to the United States. They thus have no obligation to
assimilate, as perhaps voluntary immigrants or refugees do. As a
stigmatized minority culture threatened by white cultural imperial
ism, black culture has a right to protection and social recognition.
The government may even have an obligation to support black cul
tural infrastructures through public finance or tax breaks.
7. Commercial Rights: Blacks must become the primary producers,
purveyors, and beneficiaries (financial and otherwise) of their cul
ture. Nonblacks have reaped tremendous profits from the exploita
tion of black culture (especially its music and vernacular style).
Moreover, blacks are rarely given full credit for their innovations
that have contributed to American c ulture, and they are almost
never appropriately compensated for them. However, if blacks are
to have c ultural autonomy, then they must be the ones to decide if
and how their culture is to be used for commercial ends, and they
should be the ones to gain profit and recognition from this use.
8. Interpretive Authority: Blacks are (or must become) and should
be regarded as the foremost interpreters of the meaning of their cul
tural ways. This claim has a dual basis. F irst, some white teachers,
scholars, and art critics have taken up the task of explaining the sig-
R A CE, C U LT U RE, A N D P O L I T I CS 167
nificance and value of black cultural practices to the rest of the
world. Because of their white privilege and the general disparage
ment of black cognitive abilities, white interpretations of black cul
ture are sometimes accepted (even by some blacks) as more au
thoritat ive than black interpretations. Second, white interpretations
of black culture typically contain considerable distortion and mis
representation, leading to greater stigmatization and widespread
misunderstanding of the distinctive ways of black life. But even
knowledgeable whites with genuine good will toward blacks often
mischaracterize black culture simply because, given their whiteness,
they are incapable of being fully incorporated into the culture they
wish to represent. Their ineradicable outsider-status prevents them
from fully understanding and thus appreciating the culture from
the inside.
Responding to t h e Legacy of Cultural Imperialism
Black cultural nationalism is often criticized on the grounds that no
black culture exists (or could exist) separate from so-called white
culture. This challenges the very coherence of the idea of black cul
tural autonomy. Although I would reject the crude, ahistorical, and
Manichaean visions of black/white cultural difference put forward
by cultural nationalists, I do not deny that it is coherent and useful
to speak of specifically black forms of cultural life. For purposes of
the argument to follow, then, I assume that there is such a culture
(or cultures) along with a white counterpart (or counterparts) . My
focus will be on how blacks should think about and relate practi
cally to these cultures.
First, it is important to note that not all persons designated as
racially black self-identify as culturally black. The significance
of this fact should not be underestimated. The cultural nationalist
is speaking not merely to those black individuals who already have
a robust and committed black cultural identity, but also to those
who are tempted to assimilate, who only marginally identify as cul-
168 WE W H O A R E D A R K
turally black, o r who are not culturally black at all. Thus whether
the collective consciousness tenet is ultimately defensible will de
pend crucially on whether the cultural nationalist claims merely
that it is permissible and laudable for blacks to identify with and re
produce their culture or that blacks have an obligation to embrace
black culture.
Most will agree that blacks should be free to develop and main
tain their cultural identities without being inhibited by unjust mea
sures or artificial barriers. But it does not follow from this that their
cultural identities must be rooted in black culture, no matter how
cultural blackness is defined. Keep in mind that cultural autonomy
is a right that blacks may exercise or, if it is denied that there is such
a right, a legitimate goal that blacks may strive for. It is perfectly
consistent with such a right or goal that those blacks who do not
desire this form of group self-determination are free to cultivate an
alternative cultural identity, even to assimilate completely to white
culture. On straightforward grounds of freedom of association, and
provided they respect the autonomy of individuals to opt out,
blacks are entitled to self-organize to preserve black culture by es
tablishing separate educational, religious, and artistic institutions
and by maintaining historical societies and museums over which
blacks committed to the cause would have controJ.5
However, a familiar argument for a positive obligation to de
velop a shared consciousness in black culture goes as follows.
American slaveholders prevented slaves from reproducing their Af- .
rican cultural forms, and historically blacks have often been misin
formed or prevented from learning about their African heritage.
Such actions deprived generations of the knowledge of their ethnic
or national origins. Moreover, racist ideology maintains that blacks
have no worthwhile culture of their own-neither past nor pres
ent-and that therefore they should allow themselves to be assimi
lated into a "civilized" culture. Part of the oppression that blacks
have experienced thus involves the malicious deprecation of their
R A CE, C U LT U RE, A N D P O L I TICS 169
culture. This assault on the value of black cultural contributions
has been so thoroughly damaging to the self-esteem of blacks that
many fail to identify with and take pride in their unique cultural
heritage. Hence, in order to reclaim their self-respect and dignity as
a people, blacks must participate in, celebrate, and identify with
black culture. Once we fully understand this, we will see that a col
lective identity, rooted in black cultural traditions, is a constitutive
part of black liberation.
Historically, and even now, this has been a very influential argu
ment. And, like so many others, I have been tempted to accept its
conclusion. But this urge must be resisted, powerful as it is, for
while much of what the argument suggests is true and important, it
simply does not follow that the best or only response to the issues it
raises is to make a common cultural identity a fundamental aim of
black political solidarity. Blacks can restore and maintain their dig
nity in the face of the legacy of white cultural imperiaJism and the
devaluation of black culture(s) without adopting a collective cul
tural consciousness. For decades now, blacks have fought white su
premacy and the cultural stigma it imposes by celebrating, both
privately and publicly, black history and cultures. This has been
done through a variety of vehicles, including Black History Month;
cultural festivals; black periodicals, books, and documentaries; Af
rican American museums and archives; the BET network; black re
ligious and political organizations; black private schools and col
leges; black studies programs at predominantly white universities;
and, more recently, numerous sites on the Web. These are all essen
tial efforts to educate blacks and non blacks alike about black his
tory and black struggles, to instill in blacks a sense of pride, and to
cultivate a greater appreciation for the cultural contributions of
black people to this country and world. And there is no doubt that
blacks should be informed about their history and cultures-as
should non blacks-for, at a minimum, this will help them better
understand the nature of their subordination and the possible
170 WE W H O A RE D A R K
routes to freedom. Yet none of this requires embracing a common
cultural identity. One can acknowledge the importance of learning
black history and appreciating the beauty of black cultures without
treating cultural blackness, however delimited, as defining who one
is as a person or allowing it to set the boundaries of one's lifestyle or
self-understanding.
The Blackness of Whites
By foc using o n the collective good that black culture provides to
those who benefit from it, tenet 3-the conservation principle
suggests a different basis for a positive duty to embrace black cul
ture. It is not at all clear that just because blacks (could) benefit
from the existence of black culture, they thereby incur a duty to ac
tively preserve it; but if we do suppose that they have such a duty,
parallel reasoning would suggest that they also have an obligation
to preserve many aspects of what is sometimes regarded as white
culture. Perhaps the cultural nationalist can concede this. After all,
it is consistent with tenets 2 and 3 that blacks have an obligation to
adopt a cultural way of life that is rooted in both black and white
cultures. Indeed, some have maintained that the creative and dy
namic sy nthesis of European (or Euro-American) and African (or
Afro-American) cultural elements is precisely what is unique about
the form and content of modern black cultural expression.6 This
emphasis o n hybr idity is certainly a more nuanced view of the
meaning of diasporic blackness than is typically advanced by cul
tural nationalists. The difficulty with this position, however, is that,
on this reasoning, nonblacks would also have a duty to preserve
black culture, as they too have benefited in countless ways from its
existence.7 Ralph Ellison has famously emphasized this important
point:
The problem here is that few Americans know who and what
they really are. That is why few of these [ethnic] groups-or
R A CE, C U LT U RE, A N D P O LITICS
at least few of the children of these groups-have been able to
resist the movies, television, baseball, jazz, football, drum
majoretting, rock, comic strips, radio commercials, soap op
eras, book clubs, slang, or any of a thousand other expressions
and carriers- of our pluralistic and easily available popular
culture. It is here precisely that ethnic resistance is least ef
fective. On this level the melting pot did indeed melt, creat
ing such deceptive metamorphoses and blending of identities,
values and lifestyles that most American whites are culturally
part Negro American without even realizing it.8
171
Moreover, there are aspects of black culture that whites have
played a constructive role in maintaining and developing-such as
musical forms and literary traditions. Do their efforts make the cul
ture any less black? Or are we operating, absurdly, with a reverse
"one-drop rule" of culture-with a criterion that holds that a cul
tural trait is black if and only if blacks alone invented it and it is
white if any whites had a hand in its creation? To say that a cultural
trait is black or white depending on which racial group played the
larger role in creating it is still somewhat arbitrary, coming quite
close to a racialized conception of culture. But even if we accept this
majority-contribution criterion for ethnocultural provenance, this
would not entail that blacks alone have an obligation to perpetuate
black culture. Because many nonblacks benefit from the existence
of black culture (whether or not they have contributed to its cre
ation), it would seem that these nonblack beneficiaries should also
play a role in sustaining it. Certainly it would be perverse to insist
that those nonblacks who now play a constructive role in perpetu
ating the culture should cease to do so.
Perhaps the underlying worry is that some whites may have a
corrupting or disproportionate influence on the development of
black culture and thus that it is essential (as tenets 7 and 8 suggest)
that blacks lead and maintain control over this conservation proj-
In WE W H O A RE D A R K
ect, ensuring that there are at least some all-black or black-led cul
tural infrastructural institutions. Yet even if we concede that the
fate of black culture should rest largely in black hands, this would
not, by itself, entail a duty on the part of blacks to embrace a black
cultural identity. Granted, if black culture were to come under un
justified siege or suppression and as a result were threatened with
extinction, then there arguably would be an obligation on the part
of blacks to act to preserve it, especially if the state refused to help
and if, because of race prejudice, nonblacks failed to see why it was
worth the trouble. Here the obligation to keep black culture alive
would spring from the obligation to resist the injustice of cultural
intolerance. However, discharging this duty does not require one to
identify with the culture as specifically or exclusively one's own, as a
part of who one "really" is. While maintaining an alternative cul
tural identity, one could simply contribute funds and other re
sources to those institutions committed to black cultural preser
vation and development. Or one could, in a suitably post-ethnic
spirit, periodically participate in black cultural practices, just as one
might do with respect to the cultures of other groups.
Culture as Group Inheritance
But there is a deeper, and quite old, philosophical question here.
Should a person value the elements of a culture because they are in
trinsically or instrumentally valuable; or, rather, should she value
them because they are components of her culture-that is, because
she is black and because these elements are a part of black culture?
If she should value them because they are valuable, then there is no
reason to think that she, as a black person, has a special stake in
black cultural forms, a stake that is different from that of the mem
bers of other racial groups. All who view the culture as beautiful or
useful, regardless of their racial identity, have a reason to value and
preserve it. But if she should value it because she is black, then in
R A CE, C U LT U RE , A N D P O LITICS 173
what way, if at all, does the proprietary claim (It is mine) justify or
entail the evaluative claim (I should value it)?
Henry Louis Gates Jr. has argued that the proprietary claim itself
should be questioned: "I got mine: The rhetoric ofliberal education
remains suffused with the imagery of possession, patrimony, legacy,
lineage, inheritance-call it cultural geneticism (in the broadest
sense of that term). At the same moment, the rhetoric of possession
and lineage subsists upon, and perpetuates, a division: between us
and them, we the heirs of our tradition, and you, the Others, whose
difference defines our identity."9 Gates suggests that we abandon
this discourse of cultural possession, the lynchpin of cultural na
tionalism. In his view, by accepting the proprietary premise, native
born blacks who are descended from African slaves, having been
dispossessed of their African ethnic culture, inevitably end up af
firming their status as cultural outsiders and interlopers in the place
of their birth and the only home they have ever known.
In seeking to ground the evaluative claim in the proprietary
claim, the cultural nationalist must avoid this trap of cultural self
marginalization. Consider a few ways that this might be accom
plished. First, she could take the short road: blacks created the cul
ture, so they should value it. But surely the fact that blacks created
the culture does not, in itself, give them a reason to value it . We do
sometimes create things that lack value; and it would be more than
a bit paradoxical to insist that people should value things that lack
value, to insist that they embrace junk. This is not to say that valu
ing something that lacks value is irrational. People sometimes con
fer value on otherwise worthless things, such as items that would be
considered junk if not for their sentimental value. But as to the
question of whether a black person should value the elements of a
culture simply because these elements are a part of her culture ( in a
sense yet to be specified), it would seem that the value of the culture
is a necessary condition for justifying this normative claim. Let's
174 WE W H O ARE DARK
proceed, then, on the assumption that black culture is valuable, ob
ject ively speaking. So the question becomes this: Assuming the in
trinsic mer it or instrumental value of a cultural form, is there a fur
ther reason to value it that springs from a proprietary claim?
Perhaps a black person should value black culture because of its
role in making her who she is. So Sarah Vaughan might have valued
black culture because its musical traditions contributed to her be
coming a great jazz vocalist, which, we may assume, was a constitu
tive component of her identity. But nonblacks could value the cul
ture for this same reason, because many of them have been
positively impacted by black cultural traditions. Moreover, many
blacks will not feel this way, for the culture may have had little im
pact on who they have become. Thus, although this account may
provide those who already have a strong black cultural identity with
a reason to value black culture, it does not give blacks, in virtue of
their racial classification, a special reason to value black culture.
Here the culture does not belong to me in virtue of my member
ship in a racial group; it belongs to me, when it does, in virtue of
the fact that it is a part of me.
A third possibility is that we can value a culture because we have
participated in its maintenance or development. Here we value it
because its reproduction is a product of our efforts. So, for exam
ple, by participating in black rhetorical repartee-what Gates calls
the vernacular art of signifyin'-one contributes to keeping this
lively and enjoyable practice alive.1o As one's contribution is a
source of pride, one would therefore have a reason, apart from its
intrinsic merits or utility, to value the culture. But, again, many
nonblacks participate-to good effect, one might add-in black
culture, while some blacks have made little or no contribution to
the preservation or advancement of black culture. Some, arguably,
have had a negative impact on it . Thus, some nonblacks could have
an achievement-based reason to value black culture, notwithstand
ing the fact that the culture is not "theirs," and some blacks will lack
RACE, C U LT U RE, A N D P O LITICS 175
such a reason, despite the fact the culture ostensibly "belongs" to
them.
A fourth possibility is to hold that individual blacks have a rea
son to value black culture, quite apart from whether they have
made any contribution to it, because it is the product of the imagi
nation and efforts of their people. On this view, it is because blacks
view themselves as constituting a distinct ethnoracial community
that they can rightly take pride in the achievements of the other
members of the group, in much the same way that a child might
take just pride in his mother's achievements even though he has
had little to do with her success and, indeed, may have been a hin
drance to it. It is this sense of "we-ness" or shared belonging, rooted
in mutual recognition, that underpins the special claim that all
blacks have on black culture. Whites may indeed have benefited
from, been shaped by, participated in, or contributed to black cul
ture. But because they lack the descent relation and somatic charac
teristics that classify someone as racially black, they are not recog
nized members of the black nation and thus cannot possess this
unique reason for valuing "its" culture.
The fact that black racial identity has its origins in the ideologi
cal fiction of "race" does not undermine the idea of blacks as a peo
ple. Other national identities are derived from similar myths
think of American narratives about being a free and democratic
country even while it allowed slavery and denied women the fran
chise. The trouble with the position under consideration is not that
blacks are not a people but rather that it does not follow that blacks
have a duty to embrace black culture simply because they are ra
cially black. At most, black peoplehood makes it permissible for
blacks to take special pride in black culture and thus to value it as
uniquely their own. Such identification is their birthright. Yet it
does not entail that blacks cannot fully participate or find ful
fillment in white culture. Those who do not strongly or primar ily
identify with blacks as their people, or with black culture as
176 WE W H O A RE D A R K
uniquely theirs, have no special obligation to take up a black cul
tural identity. In this way, being entitled to identify with black cul
ture as one's own entails having the freedom not to exerc ise this
right. Thus, without deny ing who one is as a black person, one may
reject or simply ignore one's black cultural heritage.
Instability, Hybridity, and Rootlessness
Tenet 4, which emphasizes the value of rootedness, suggests an ad
ditional reason why blacks should cultivate a black cultural identity.
It insists that black culture can provide blacks with a more stable
and healthier basis for communal fellowship and identity construc
tion than white culture can. Before considering the plausibility of
this claim, we should note that cultures are never static but change
with the sociohistorical context.11 Such contextual factors will in
clude prevailing economic conditions, state policy, material inter
dependence of cultural groups, those groups' relative isolation or
integration, social pressures to assimilate or remain separate, and
the number and kinds of cultural groups living in close proximity
or otherwise having access to each other's cultural ways. We should
also keep in mind that there has been significant black immigration
to the United States in recent years from Africa, Latin America, the
Caribbean, and Europe, and that these black peoples have quite di
verse cultural and national identities. Their presence in America
has clearly altered the contours and content of the greater black cul
tural milieu, reshaping our sense of the scope of black diasporic
culture.
Given the external and internal forces that create cultural dyna
mism and hybridity, there cannot be a stable or rooted black cul
tural identity in contemporary America. This does not in itself
mean that blacks cannot cultivate and sustain feelings of commu
nity among themselves. However, it is by no means obvious that
black culture will be a unifying rather than a divisive force. And
even if black culture, properly understood and appreciated, would
R A CE, C U LTUR E , A ND P O LIT I CS 177
promote a greater sense of community, not all blacks will want
to realize the value of community through ethnoracial affiliation.
They may find it more appealing to attain the value of community
by means that are not based on race (for instance, through occupa
tional groups or religious organizations), or they may consciously
seek interracial community.
We must also come to terms with the fact that the increasing
commercialization of culture, especially youth culture, has had a
profound effect on the meaning and content of black culture, in the
States and around the world.12 Symbolic blackness, particularly in
the form of ghetto outlaw images, is a tremendous source of profit
in the world market, exacerbating the already contentious debate
over what constitutes authentic black culture and what represents
cultural exploitation and "selling out." As Paul Gilroy puts it: "Black
culture iSBot just commodified but lends its special exotic allure to
the marketing of an extraordinary range of commodities and ser
vices that have no connection whatever to these cultural forms or to
the people who have developed them."13
Furthermore, the cultures of the world are becoming increas
ingly hybrid. To find favorable markets-for labor, goods, services,
or investment-people are perpetually on the move, migrating
when possible to where they are likely to acquire material advan
tages or to avoid material disadvantage.1 4 Information networks
also distribute ideas, sounds, and images across the globe in an in
stant . Thus, cultures are inevitably changing, sometimes dramati
cally and rapidly, because of cultural imposition, diffusion, em
ulation, and fusion. Although the cultural bases of black social
identities are not, and cannot be, stable, the velocity and scope of
global cultural exchange has made a vast array of cultural resources
readily available to blacks, especially to those in the United States.
Blacks can therefore construct their identities using cultural mate
rials drawn from diverse sources.
Of course, the availability of this broad array of cultural re-
178 WE W H O A RE DA R K
sources will not guarantee that blacks will avoid social alienation,
existential angst, or identity crises. As Durkheim and Weber have
taught us, increasing anomie and meaninglessness are among the
unfortunate general consequences of modernity, and the struggle
to avoid being overcome by them is indeed formidable. IS Yet, at
tempting to bring about or maintain a pristine and homogeneous
black cultural community against the currents of globalization will
create, not integration and fulfillment, but rather fr ustration and
disappointment. We should therefore avoid thinking of social es
trangement and melancholia as somehow peculiarly black issues
that require a distinctive black response. These are no doubt serious
threats to our sense of belongingness and happiness, but they are
features of the human condition in the modern world.
Some contend, however, that there is a peculiar threat to black
psychic health best remedied by a wholehearted embrace of black
culture. This is the problem of internalized oppression, the so
called black inferiority complex. The ideological attack on blacks
involves the devaluation not only of black cultures but also of the
intelligence, physical beauty, and moral character of black people.
At various times, blacks have been viewed as childlike, stupid, and
lazy, and thus in need of white paternalism.16 At other times, blacks
have been depicted as wild, vicious, and impulsive, and therefore in
need of being contained. Worse yet, and this is the heart of the mat
ter, these negative images have also seeped into the consciousness of
many blacks, often without their being aware of it.
Part of the remedy for this self-alienation is to be found in
the strategies already mentioned: spreading accurate information
about black history and cultural forms; using various forms of cul
tural expression to resist and subvert antiblack racism; and engag
ing in the relentless critique of the doctrine and practice of racial
domination. However, there is more that can be done. Black people
can also bond together to collectively combat their racial oppres-
R A CE , C U LT U RE, A N D P O L I T I CS 179
sion. Indeed, the need to overcome the self-contempt produced by
antiblack racism is an important justification for black solidarity.17
Given the widespread internalization of antiblack race prejudice, it
becomes necessary for black people to be a significant, if not the
primary, force behind their liberation from racial subordination. It
is not enough for black people to be freed from their subordinate
position by their nonblack allies and sympathizers. They must par
ticipate, i n a meaningful way, i n freeing themselves. The collective
struggle for self-emancipation, even if unsuccessful, can itself en
hance the participants' self-esteem and self-respect.
This was well understood by those blacks who voluntarily fought
in the Union Army war against the slaveholding Confederate States.
The same can be said of those who walked miles to work in order to
boycott segregation on buses in Montgomery, who worked to regis
ter black voters in violent Mississippi during Jim Crow, and who
marched through southern towns in nonviolent protest for their
civil rights, often r isking mob violence, police brutality, and even
murder. Moreover, fighting together to free themselves from racial
exclusion and domination is one way, in addition to the ones al
ready mentioned, for blacks to strengthen their conviction that the
doctrine of white supremacy is a vicious lie.18 No doubt, blacks
should have a liberated consciousness, one that is as free as possible
from the devastating effects of racist ideology. However, in freeing
their minds from the grip of such degrading and essentialist images
of themselves, they don't need to, nor should they, replace these
representations with another essentialized group identity, no mat
ter how healthy or group-affirming some may think it to be.
There is a tendency among some black nationalists to exaggerate
the "problem" of black cultural homelessness. As suggested by the
quotation from G iovanni that opens this chapter, blacks r ightly feel
alienated by white racism, but not all blacks feel out of place in or
ambivalent about white culture. In fact, although some are reluc-
180 WE W H O A RE D A R K
tant to admit this, many blacks do not feel particularly at home in
even the most revered black cultural spaces. For example, the tradi
tions and modes of expression that are characteristic of many black
churches are widely thought to be paradigmatically black. 19 There is
no reason, however, to assume that those committed to other faiths
or to no religion at all wil l find peace and security in black churches
simply because these institutions embody black cultural traditions.
Moreover, white and black cultures are not the only alterna
tives. Some blacks may choose to identify with another ethnoracial
culture altogether (for example, black P uerto Ricans who identify
culturally as Latino/a or black J ews who are committed to Juda
ism). Or some may simply opt for a more self-consciously hy
brid ethnocultural identity, notwithstanding the (unsubstantiated)
charge that such identities are incoherent and anomic.20 There is,
furthermore, no need to accept every element of a culture. Those
components that are obnoxious, immoral, pathological, or other
wise unappealing need not be embraced, regardless of their puta
tive racial origins. J ust as it is a mistake to assume that we must
choose between white and black cultures, it is also an error to as
sume that we are faced with accepting all or nothing from a cu�
tureY
Now, the cultural nationalist may nevertheless insist that blacks
should feel more comfortable within black culture, notwithstand
ing its dynamism, fuzzy boundaries, hybridity, and diverse roots.
But why should they? If the different cultures of the world are
learned and reproduced through socialization or acculturation, as
they surely are, rather than genetically predetermined, then no cul
ture is more "natural" to a particular individual than any other.22
A person's comfort with a culture will depend on, among other
things, which culture(s) she was initially socialized into, which cul
tures she has subsequently come in contact with, the freedom she
has to experiment with different ways of living, and her tempera
ment. It will not depend solely, if at all, on what race she belongs to.
RACE, C U LTURE, A ND P O L I T I CS 181
Tools Are Tools
Tenet 5 maintains that black culture is an important emancipa
tory tool, one that black artists and intellectuals should make use
of, perhaps exclusively, in the collective struggle for freedom and
equality. Certainly cultural expression has an important role to play
in black liberation. One way to fight against the dissemination of
racist ideology is through cultural forms, such as literature, film,
music, theater, dance, humor, painting, sports, theology, speech,
dress, and hairstyle. Black people have a long and remarkable his
tory of using various cultural practices, not only to express them
selves aesthetically and spiritually, but to resist and subvert the
forms of racial domination that oppress themY Insofar as the cul
tural nationalist's interest in expressive culture is explicitly instru
mental, the question for us is which cultural resources will make
effective weapons of resistance or vehicles for propaganda. But if
this is so, blacks should use the cultural resources that would ad
vance black interests and discard or avoid whatever would impede
them, regardless of the ethnoracial pedigree of these resources. Cel
ebrating the emancipatory potential of black culture should not be
allowed to blind blacks to the instrumental value of ideas and prac
tices that lack black origins.
There is, however, a more plausible version of this tenet. It holds
that white cultural forms are acceptable as tools in the struggle,
particularly among the black elite and middle class, but black polit
ical mobilization requires black artists, cultural critics, and intellec
tuals to use familiar black cultural forms (for instance, the idiom of
the black church and black popular music ) to inspire working-class
and poor blacks to progressive action. There are at least two ways to
defend such a view. The first assumes that many blacks regard white
culture with suspicion. Thus if black artists and intellectuals are to
energize and inform everyday black people, they will have to do so
with cultural tools that have greater legitimacy among these folk. If
182 W E W H O A RE D A R K
this assumption about working-class and poor blacks i s sound
which by no means is obvious-then, on pragmatic grounds, it
may make sense for cultural elites seeking to start or energize a
mass movement to work within cultural idioms that are more to
the liking of most black people. Yet insofar as the intelligentsia want
to play a leadership role, they must be willing to challenge preju
dices among blacks. False assumptions about white culture-or
black culture-must be questioned. Indeed, as Du Bois maintained,
such courage is a qualification for leadership, and it is one criterion
by which we can distinguish the true leader from the demagogue.
As Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cornel West put it: "Being a leader
does not necessarily mean being loved; loving one's community
means daring to risk estrangement and alienation from that very
community, in the short run, in order to break the cycle of poverty,
despair, and hopelessness that we are in, over the long run."24
According to a slightly different view-one to which both Gates
and West seem sympathetic-white culture is not necessarily prob
lematic from the standpoint of most black people, but it is unfamil
iar or opaque to many working-class and poor blacks. If the black
intelligentsia are to get their message across to most black people,
they will therefore have to "speak their language"-that is, use a
cultural idiom that most black people can more readily understand.
Again, this may at times be pragmatically necessary. Yet, in account
ing for this communication gap, we should not exaggerate the ex
tent of black/white cultural differences. Blacks and whites have a lot
of experience interacting with each other, if not in common resi
dential communities and schools (due to de facto segregation),
then certainly in the workplace, marketplace, and public sphere.
Misunderstandings between members of the two groups certainly
happen. It must nevertheless be relatively rare that dialogue breaks
down because blacks fail to understand the cultural ways of white
folk.
Most importantly, we must be careful not to confuse differences
R A C E . C U LT U R E . A N D P O L I T I CS 183
in cultural traditions with differences in education. What is some times regarded as "white culture" is simply that variant of post industrial, mass culture that prevails in the United States-that fa
miliar set of standardized meanings, assumed common knowledge, and basic competencies that the vast majority of adult citizens must
master if they are to live minimally decent lives in liberal cap italist America. This common culture, which is largely transmitted
through educational institutions, allows citizens from diverse eth
nic and class backgrounds to communicate with one another, coor
dinate their actions, carry out commercial transactions, and con
duct their common affairs. Because of substandard public schools
and unequal educational opportunity, far too many people and a disproportionate number of blacks have underdeveloped verbal
and cognitive skills, deficient knowledge of history and world cul
tures, little familiarity with different political traditions, and low
reading levels. Rather than emphasize the need to recognize black cultural difference, then, it is more urgent for black progressives to
push for reforms in our failing public school system. This I take it is one of the insights that Du Bois wanted to convey with his Talented Tenth doctrine, though the point may have been obscured by his
vanguardism and cultural nationalist leanings (see Chapter 2 ) .
Some will b e made nervous, i f not put off, b y this emphasis on
educational problems over intercultural misunderstandings. They
will fear that it gives comfort to racists who disparage black cogni
tive ability and who maintain that black underachievement is due
to the cultural pathology of blacks. Others will take it to be an ex
pression of elitist contempt for the "uncultured masses." However, I
would not suggest for a moment that blacks are intellectually infe
rior to whites, or that black expressive culture is any more an obsta
cle to learning and educational achievement than any other such
culture. Nor do I think that educated blacks are inherently or cul
turally superior to blacks with limited education. Rather, the point
is that the need for equal educational opportunity regardless of
184 WE W H O A RE D A R K
race-or gender, class, ability, national origin, and region-is a
pressing one and that the demand for such opportunity must be a
central component of any progressive black agenda. The first im
pulse of the pragmatic nationalist must of course be to defend
black humanity against insult. To do any less would show a lack of
self-respect, group pride, and commitment to defending the dignity
of the least advantaged in the black population. But if such solidar
ity is not to be merely symbolic or, worse, reactionary, then it must
distinguish between the depredations of white cultural imperialism
and differential educational opportunity. With educational reform
and, just as important and not unrelated, the expansion of eco
nomic opportunities, there is no reason why blacks cannot main
tain their cultural distinctiveness and yet develop the basic reper
toire of skills and knowledge needed in a complex market society.
Such reform would constitute tangible black empowerment. Not
only would it equip black youth to compete in a global economy,
but it would provide them with the skills and knowledge needed
to understand their world and the political measures needed to
change it for the better.
Ethnocentrism, Cultural Intolerance, and Race Prejudice
This leads us to tenet 6, which demands both state-sponsored pro
tection of black culture from the forces of white cultural imperial
ism and public recognition of the equal worth of black cultural
contributions. There might have been a time when such mea
sures were justified, but they have little pertinence today. To see
why, first it is necessary, drawing on Oliver C. Cox, to distinguish
between ethnocentrism, cultural intolerance, and race prejudice.25
Ethnocentrism "is a social attitude which expresses a community of
feeling in any group-the 'we' feeling as over against the 'others."'26
This is simply a matter of group solidarity (see Chapter 2 ) , which is
not always expressed as "racial" unity. Such in-group sentiments
and partiality can be rooted in cultural traditions, religious prac-
RA CE, CULT U RE , A ND P O L I T I CS 185
tices, national origins, shared experience, or common aspirations.
This group preference need not be antagonistic toward those out
side the group, and both dominant and subordinate groups in a
stratified society can be, and typically are, ethnocentric. Yet it is
clear that ethnocentrism is often joined with hostility or prejudice
toward various out-groupsY
One such form of out-group hostility is cultural intolerance,
which Cox defines as "social displeasure or resentment against that
group which refuses to conform to the established practices and be
liefs of the society."28 Here the dominant group is unwilling to tol
erate, and thus actively suppresses, the culture of a subordinate
group because it regards these beliefs and practices as detrimental
to national solidarity or a danger to the dominant group's privi
leged position.29 Whites would be culturally intolerant toward
blacks, then, if they had negative attitudes toward blacks because
blacks refused to adopt the shared beliefs and practices of the white
majority and to abandon their distinctive cultural identity. Such in
tolerance would yield were blacks to assimilate into or be absorbed
by the dominant culture, leaving behind all traces of black culture.
Race prejudice, according to Cox, is based on somatic charac
teristics. It is characterized by an emphasis on obvious, visible,
physical characteristics like skin color and hair type. In the case of
blacks, such traits carry the stigma of inferiority. Quite apart from
anything blacks believe or do, these physical characteristics com
municate diminished social status. Cox rejected the use of the term
. racism to refer to race prejudice, for he feared that this usage (asso
ciated as it was at the time of his writing with the Nazi "philosophy"
of racial antipathy) would mislead us into thinking of racial antag
onism as merely a matter of dogma or rationalizations. Instead, he
insisted, it should be viewed as a materially based form of oppres
sion that is facilitated by the social attitude of race prejudice. I think
the worry here is well founded. Yet if we conceive of racism as an
ideology that functions to stabilize systems of oppression, as I have
186 WE W H O A RE D A R K
urged (see Chapter 4), this i n no way precludes the careful study of
the ideology's material basis-it invites it.3D Thus, I will continue to
speak below of race prejudice as a form of racism. Such prejudice is
not "instinctive" or "natural." The social significance attached to
relatively superficial bodily traits is the product of the spread and
solidification of racist ideology.
White racism should not be confused with white cultural intol
erance. In addition to being subject to race prejudice, those Native
American, Latino/a, Asian, Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim persons who
maintain their distinctive religious, ethnic, or national identities
are often unfairly disadvantaged in the United States by Anglo or
Christian cultural intolerance. As a condition of being fully recog
nized as equal citizens, they are pressured to give up beliefs and
practices, often related to religion and language, that set them apart
from most whites. Being English-speaking Christians, the vast ma
jority of native-born black Americans are not oppressed by cul
tural intolerance, but by racism. African Americans are not cur
rently subject to pressures to assimilate to the cultural ways of white
people-though obviously some of their African ancestors were.
Rather, because of race prejudice they are inhibited in their attempt
to assimilate and thereby are prevented from becoming equally val
ued citizens of the United States. Indeed, those black Americans
who have adopted the beliefs and practices of the dominant culture
nevertheless remain vulnerable to race prejudice.
Black "difference," where this has negative implications for the
life prospects and civic status of African Americans, has mainly to
do with a somatic profile that is associated with African origins and
that signifies inferior social status. If African American cultural dif
ference is similarly stigmatized, which at times it surely has been
and to some extent still is, it is not primarily because of the qualita
tive differences between blacks' beliefs and practices and that of
most whites but because African American culture is associated
with blacks.3 l Indeed, the mere fact that other Americans readily
R A CE , C U LT U RE , A ND P O LIT I CS 187
adopt or consume the distinctive aspects of African American cul
ture should enable us to see that it is not the intrinsic features
of black life that ground antiblack beliefs and attitudes. Neverthe
less, the slightest perception of black cultural difference (such as a
dropped -g in a gerund or a "be" where one would normally expect
an "is") can serve as a convenient excuse for antiblack prejudice in
an era when explicit expressions of racism are not generally toler
ated.
Now, historically some whites have explicitly sought the degra
dation of blacks by denying them access to education. Some whites
have also rebuffed attempts by blacks to take on what is regarded as
a white cultural identity. These were attempts to keep blacks "in
their place," subordinated to the white majority, not to absorb them
culturally. What is at issue here is not expressive culture but the cul
tivation of a repertoire of economically and politically valuable
skills. To the extent that whites possess these skills and blacks do
not, black progress toward racial equality is impeded. The sad fact
is, some whites would be quite content, some would be enthusias
tic, if blacks were to insist on remaining "different," as this would
buttress white privilege and exacerbate black disadvantage in at
least three predictable ways. First, to the extent that blacks are suc
cessfully portrayed as not meeting widely accepted standards for
college admission and employment, blacks would more easily be
excluded from highly valued positions in society. Second, because
of their relative lack of educational and social capital, some blacks
would become or remain a cheap source of labor to be discarded
when the economy is receding or when low-skilled laborers from
poor countries are recruited to do the same work for lower wages
and fewer benefits. And third, black economic disadvantage could
be rationalized by pointing to the inability or unwillingness of Afri
can Americans to conform to mainstream norms.
Some black nationalists are not, however, primarily concerned
with cultural intolerance. Instead, their main demand is that black
188 W E WHO A R E D AR K
culture b e given public and equal "recognition." They justify their
position by pointing to the fact that nonblacks often regard black
culture with disdain or as inferior to other ethnoracial cultures. But
it is hard to imagine what legitimate steps blacks could take to ex
tract the desired form of recognition from the state or their fellow
citizens. In a society that rightly treats freedom of expression as a
basic liberty, the only way to engender the wanted recognition is
through education and persuasion. The state could, and no doubt
should, require a curriculum in the public schools that includes the
teaching of the history and cultures of the society's diverse citi
zenry.32 Yet if the root cause of contempt for black culture is not a
lack of knowledge of the culture but race prejudice, then such edu
cational efforts, while perhaps welcome on other grounds, are un
likely to achieve the desired goal of equal public recognition.
The cultural nationalist could nevertheless demand that the state
impose sanctions on those who publicly express derogatory opin
ions about black culture, thereby reducing the number of unfair or
ill-informed assaults on the value of black culture that African
Americans must endure. But this, even were it justifiable and effec
tively enforced, would be insufficient. Such opinions, along with ex
plicit expressions of racism, already receive widespread unofficial
public censure under the strictures of so-called political correct
ness. Yet the shared sense among blacks that their culture is under
appreciated or wrongly devalued remains. What must be acknowl
edged here is that the desire for public recognition is not simply a
desire that nonblacks refrain from expressing their disdain for black
culture, but a desire that, as a matter of conviction, they actually
value black culture as having a worth equal to that of other ethno
racial cultural contributions. This latter goal cannot be forcibly ex
tracted from nonblacks through state action but must be achieved,
if it can be, through changing beliefs and attitudes-something
that cannot be accomplished without defeating racism and altering
the social conditions that sustain and encourage it.
RACE, C U LT U RE, A N D P O L I T I CS 189
Perhaps the demand for recognition is not so much a matter of
getting whites to respect black culture as it is of making sure that
blacks do. In that case, the politics of recognition should be under
stood as a demand that the state grant certain black corporate bod
ies authority over blacks for the purpose of perpetuating black cul
ture. The government could, for example, require black children to
attend black-controlled schools where they will learn about black
history and culture from black teachers and from a black perspec
tive. Here, "recognition" would entail two components: ( 1 ) compel
ling black kids (at least those whose parents cannot afford private
instruction) to attend black schools, and (2) no, or very limited,
government regulation of the curricula, employment practices, and
the admissions and expulsion policies of such schools. But this pro
posal faces the problems discussed in Chapter 3. To insure just
treatment of job applicants, employees, children, and parents
within this arrangement, blacks would need their own democratic
constitutional regime to regulate compulsory public education in
the black nation. Again, as I argued in Chapter 3, such a corporatist
regime is neither practical nor desirable.
Production, Distribution , and Rewards
Tenet 7 takes up the question of black exploitation. But rather than
concern itself with the exploitation of black labor as such, the com
mercial rights thesis is concerned with the exploitation of black cul
ture. Understanding the meaning of black cultural exploitation de
pends on making sense of the idea of a culture belonging to black
people, understanding the way in which a culture is exclusively or
predominantly theirs, such that an exploiter can be said to have
wrongly appropriated and used it. We found that a cultural element
could be said to belong to the culture of black people if ( 1 ) the cul
tural item is rooted in or derived from traditions initially developed
and commonly practiced (either in the past or presently) by black
people, and (2) blacks identify with each other as a distinct people,
190 WE W H O A RE DA R K
forming a ethnoracial community of descent. This makes cultural
possession a matter of cultural provenance and the communal rela
tions that exist between the originators of the culture and their de
scendants.
Tenet 7 can then be broken down into three claims about the
primacy of blacks in relation to their culture. The first requires that
blacks be the primary producers of their culture. This does not nec
essarily exclude nonblacks from participating in the culture; it only
requires that blacks be the predominant agents behind its repro
duction and development. This is about cultural control or influ
ence, not participation as such. It does not matter, in principle at
least, how many nonblacks participate in black culture or how few
blacks do, provided blacks retain primary control over how it is
practiced and extended. The point of this aspect of cultural auton
omy is to preempt the threat of cultural distortion or erosion due to
nonblack involvement in black practices. This threat has three main
sources.
The first and most obvious is antiblack race prejudice, which
leads some nonblacks, even some of good will, to view black cul
tural practices as inferior. Such prejudice could lead some, perhaps
unconsciously, to want to change black culture so that it more
closely resembles what they take to be superior cultural forms
that is, white modes of cultural expression. The second is the domi
nance of white cultural practices. Given the greater cultural capital
of whites in relation to blacks-their greater capacity to appro
priate (both symbolically and materially) so-called legitimate cul
ture-what may start out as egalitarian cultural exchange or volun
tary fusion may quickly turn into cultural dominationY The third,
and most controversial, is the alleged inability of nonblacks to fully
appreciate the meaning of black culture because they lack the key to
unlocking its peculiar significance-namely, the black experience,
the experience of navigating a racialized and antiblack social world
in a body that is indelibly marked as black. The potentially corro-
R A CE, C U LT U RE , A N D P O LITICS 191
sive effects of antiblack sentiment, white cultural hegemony, and
systematic misunderstanding can be contained, according to the
black cultural nationalist, if blacks have the power to monitor and
shape the ways in which their culture is reproduced and developed.
The second claim requires that blacks be the primary dissemina
tors of their culture, which can be understood as their having pri
mary control over the public and private circulation of the culture.
If we set aside questions about who profits from the diffusion of
black culture, the point of the present requirement would seem to
be to prevent cultural misrepresentation or perversion. But if blacks
maintain control over their cultural practices and nonblacks dis
tribute only what is culturally inauthentic-a watered down ap
propriation or pathetic imitation-then such items are not "really"
elements of black culture at all but merely some bastardization
thereof. Baraka expresses this thought with regard to the blues tra
dition:
Blues as an autonomous music had been in a sense inviolable.
There was no clear way into it, i.e., its production, not its ap
preciation, except as concomitant with what seems to me to
be the peculiar social, cultural, economic, and emotional ex
perience of a black man in America. The idea of a white blues
singer seems an even more violent contradiction of terms
than the idea of a middle-class blues singer. The materials of
blues were not available to the white American, even though
some strange circumstance might prompt him to look for
them. It was as if these materials were secret and obscure, and
blues a kind of ethno-historic rite as basic as blood.34
The worry expressed in the second subclaim of tenet 7 thus be
comes this: the uninformed or naive will mistake the fake stuff for
the real thing, coming away with a distorted view of the value of the
original or failing to recognize its black origins altogether. Viewed
this way, the concern is less with distribution than with interpreta-
192 W E W H O A R E DA R K
tion and authentication, the proper province of tenet 8 , to b e dis
cussed below.
The third claim focuses more directly on the question of cultural
exploitation, for it concerns who benefits from the production and
dissemination of black culture, especially who gains financially. It
demands that blacks be the primary beneficiaries of the production
and dissemination of their culture. To properly understand this
claim, it is important to distinguish between different ways that a
person or group might benefit from a culture. There are benefits
of intrinsic enjoyment or private consumption (use-value); there
are benefits of esteem or prestige (status-value); and there are the
financial benefits gained through the commercial use of the culture
(exchange-value) .
With respect to use-value, cultures should be shared, as Du Bois
preached over a century ago, and black culture, too, is to be experi
enced and appreciated by all. Not even the most militant black cul
tural nationalist would want blacks alone to enjoy the richness of
black cultural forms. In fact, many would argue that all peoples
would be better off if they adopted elements from black culture.
Separating the status-value of black culture from the money that is
to be made from its commodification, the benefits of prestige are
derived from people's beliefs about the worth of the culture. Black
cultural nationalists want blacks to be esteemed because black cul
tural contributions are regarded as valuable, and they want this ad
miration to be grounded in an accurate understanding of what is
distinctive and praiseworthy in the culture, not in superficial or
mistaken judgments about it. To the extent that black opinion is the
desired source of this esteem-that is to say, the mutual recognition
among blacks of the value of their shared cultural ways-blacks
could advance this goal by observing tenet 2: by their growing in
their knowledge, appreciation, and affirmation of black culture. To
the extent that nonblack opinion is the desired basis for such pres
tige, realizing the program embodied in tenet 8-blacks coming to
RAC E, C U LT U R E , A N D P O LITICS 193
be regarded as the foremost interpreters of the meaning and value
of black culture-would achieve this goal. Nonblacks would then
be obliged to defer to black judgment on the worth of a putative in
stance of black cultural expression, thereby ensuring that those who
deserve the prestige associated with black culture are the only ones
to receive it. What is at stake in tenet 7, then, is not who may le
gitimately benefit from the use-value or status-value of black cul
ture but who may legitimately gain pecuniary benefits from its
exchange-value.
We should also distinguish between the exploitation of black
(creative) labor and the exploitation of black culture. Though there
is considerable disagreement over what "exploitation" generally en
tails, most people who have given serious thought to the matter
would agree that the labor of individuals, creative or otherwise,
should not be economically exploited.35 The powerful should not
forcibly extract labor from those who are economically or other
wise disadvantaged. This way of benefiting from the labor of others
is not only unfair but arguably an insult to human dignity. When
corporations use their monopoly over productive assets to compel
aspiring but economically desperate artists to work for them exclu
sively, this is often exploitative. But the cultural nationalist who de
fends tenet 7 wants to go further. He contends that when nonblacks
use black culture for financial profit, not only is the labor power of
black artists and performers exploited, but all black people are be
ing exploited. The basis of this claim is that the traditions that en
able these artists and performers to invent marketable, expressive
culture ultimately spring from black collective creativity, from a
long-standing tradition that has been reproduced and developed
over generations.
Now, even if we allow that black cultural traditions are a re
source that belongs to blacks as a people, they are not a resource in
the same sense that land, oil, and other material assets are re
sources. The commercial appropriation or adaptation of a cultural
194 WE W H O A RE D A R K
practice by another group i s not necessarily a financial loss to the
originators of the practice, even if the cultural interlopers fail to
share the profits with the originators. The commercial use of black
culture by nonblacks does not, in itself, preclude a similar use by
blacks. Blacks would be so precluded only if they were excluded
from acquiring the necessary productive assets, financial capital,
and means of distribution needed to profit from the use of their
culture. But here the issue would be economic inequality and class
subordination, not cultural self-determination per se.
In fact, the broader distribution of elements from black culture
by non black capitalists may actually increase the demand for them,
thus allowing blacks to gain more financially from their use than
they otherwise would. Consider, for example, the commercial suc
cess of hip-hop music. Many rappers from the ghetto, given their
lack of access to capital, would not have been able to make millions
of dollars from record sales had corporate America not created a
global market for the genre. Moreover, this wide exploitation of
black culture has at times increased black access to the products of
their culture-for instance, the "race" records from the 1920s made
the blues widely available in black America.36 Furthermore, some
times taking up the cultural practices that originated with an ethnic
group that is not one's own can be a form of homage, a way of
acknowledging the value of the culture and paying tribute to its
founders. Such homage can be done with integrity and respect even
when it leads to financial gain for the outsiders.
Of course, one might worry that such use is often a misappropri
ation. That is, it might degrade the value of black culture in the eyes
of others or it might not properly acknowledge the contributions of
its original creators. Or one might contend that such commercial
popularization has the effect of "diluting" the content and style of
black expression, rendering these commodified cultural products
inauthentic. However, these concerns, as we've said, are appropri
ately considered under tenet 8, which addresses the question of
R A C E, CULTU R E , A ND P O LITICS 195
who has the authority to interpret, authenticate, and assess black culture.
The subject of all three components of tenet 7, then, is how
blacks acquire and retain control over their culture. It is not clear,
however, through what mechanisms blacks could gain and main
tain the requisite kind of control. Complete exclusivity in the realm
of culture is simply impossible. There is no way to fully control the
flow of social meanings across time and space. No system of prop
erty rights could prevent cultural diffusion across racial lines in our
modern high-tech world. Blacks might be able to prevent the U.S.
government from interfering with black culture-though, as I ar
gued earlier, this is not a serious worry anyway-but it is hard to
see how they could keep global market forces from interfering with
its development, dissemination, and consumption. Capitalists, by
their very nature, are not patriots or nationalists but are driven by
profit, whatever its ethnoracial pedigree or geographical source. In
deed, they must be primarily focused on profit or else their busi
nesses would not survive. Given the exigencies of market competi
tion, they must market their goods and operate their businesses in
whatever part of the globe that will allow their capital assets to
grow. Indeed, rnany successful capitalists have no intrinsic interest
in the qualitative features of their products and services but treat
anything that will return a profit as a commodity to be bought or
sold. The products of cultural expression are sometimes profitable
in their authentic form, even within the international market
think of how some consumers make a fetish of so-called authentic
cuisine. But sometimes such products are more profitable when
they have been altered from their original form, perhaps beyond
recognition, to suit the tastes of consumers or the current vogue.
Black capitalists in the culture industry will be subject to the same
economic forces. There is little reason to expect, then, that they will
be committed to keeping the culture pure of degrading elements
when this would threaten the profitability of their enterprises.
196 WE W H O A RE DA RK
However, even supposing there were blacks who were able and
willing to exert this kind of control over the production and sale of
black culture, we still would need to know how this could be done
democratically. The capitalist system, to put it mildly, is not known
for fostering democratic decision-making in the economic realm,
and, as I discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, there are many perils asso
ciated with trusting the black bourgeois elite to represent the inter
ests of the greater black community without some mechanism for
accountability. Ultimately, then, the plausibility of tenet 7 depends
on the soundness of the ideal of black group autonomy, either in its
national self-government formulations or its Black Power articula
tions. But as we have seen, these forms of collective autonomy are
themselves beset with difficulties and dangers.
Mysteries of Blackness and Privileges of Whiteness
Finally, we come to tenet 8, which demands that nonblacks defer to
blacks on the meaning and value of black cultural forms. This
clearly cannot mean that any nonblack person, no matter how
knowledgeable about black history and culture he or she is, must
defer to any black person, no matter how ignorant and misin
formed he or she is. Thus we might interpret the tenet as holding
that a "true" or "deep" understanding of black culture requires the
interpreter to view it from the standpoint of the black experience,
where the requisite black consciousness entails actually being black.
The suggestion here is that a nonblack person can have only a
superficial comprehension of the meaning and worth of black cul
ture. If nonblacks want to get at the profound core of black culture,
they will need to acquire it secondhand from those who are black.
Blacks get their access to black culture through direct experience, in
an unmediated form; whites get whatever access they do only infer
entially, by analogical reasoning or black testimony.
It is true that participating in black culture as one who identifies
and is publicly regarded as black will likely feel experientially dif-
R A C E , C U L T U RE, A N D P O L I T I C S 197
ferent from the way it would if one were, say, white. But does the
black experience really provide one with privileged insight into the
meaning and value of black culture? Or, more plausibly, does it sim
ply give one insight into the consciousness of black people, in par
ticular into how they experience the culture? Of course, no one can
have direct and complete access to the consciousness of others.
Imagination, empathy, concerted attention, study, and dialogue can
all help bridge the gap, yet they cannot close it completely. And if
the point is to understand how black people experience their cul
ture, then blacks have a kind of access to this knowledge that non
blacks cannot, a kind of access that philosophers call first-person
authority. If, however, the point is to understand and appreciate the
culture of black people, a culture that could exist independently of
black interpreters (though not independently of the interpretations
of its participants) , then it is far from clear that being black is a nec
essary or sufficient qualification.
The confusion here is twofold. First, there is a hasty generaliza
tion from the fact of first-person authority-which concerns how
an individual relates to the contents of his or her own subjective
consciousness-to the claim that blacks have privileged access to
their collective consciousness. Here again we find the implicit posit
ing of a black plural subject, in this case underwriting the idea of a
unique black experience that all blacks share. Although some rough
generalizations may be possible here, there is no reason to think
that blacks all experience their culture (or anything else, for that
matter) in the same way. Differences in gender, class, sexuality, age,
region, religion, values, political ideology, and many other things
will all affect an individual's experience. However, even if there were
something like a collective black experience, it would not follow
from the presumption of "first-person-plural" authority that blacks
thereby have privileged access to the meaning of black culture.37
The only way such authority could be justified is if we simply as
sume that to (really) understand and (fully) appreciate black cul-
198 WE W H O A R E D A RK
ture is to do so from the "black point of view." But this is just to beg
the question, because the possibility of non blacks fully compre
hending the richness of black culture (that is, as much as this is
possible for anyone) is precisely what is at issue.
It does seem plausible that being black gives one an advantage in
understanding black culture or, conversely, that not being black is a
handicap. Yet this is because blacks are often reluctant to accept
nonblacks into black practices as equal participants. Thus, to the
extent that blacks maintain some control over their cultural institu
tions and restrict access to participation in them, it will be easier for
blacks to come to understand and evaluate black culture for the
simple reason that they have greater freedom to enjoy and learn
about it. Accordingly, a more tenable reading of tenet 8 is that a
black person's interpretation of some putative item from black cul
ture is, all other things being equal, more authoritative than a white
person's. The justification would then be the access advantage that
is afforded by being a recognized member of the black community.
This principle of "insider advantage" is better from a theoretical
point of view but is of negligible practical significance. For while
there might be a justified prima facie presumption that a black per
son's interpretation is to be given greater weight than a nonblack's,
further information about the relevant credentials of the parties to
an interpretive dispute could easily overturn this presumption. The
problem is that, once we acknowledge the relative advantages and
disadvantages of racial group membership for interpreting black
culture, things are rarely equal in all other relevant respects-such
as sociohistorical and cultural knowledge, active participation and
engagement, and aesthetic judgment and intellectual acumen. How
much weight should the black experience be given vis-a-vis these
other relevant qualifications? I'm not sure. But whatever weight we
give it, it should not function as a trump. This means that we can
never rule out the possibility that some nonblack person will have
as much, if not more, standing as some black person to judge the
R A C E , C U LT U R E , A N D P O L I T I C S 199
meaning and value of a particular black cultural item or perfor
mance.
I would like to close this chapter by raising a final worry about
tenets 7 and 8. The problem is that such arguments can be easily
turned around to restrict the access of blacks to so-called white cul
ture and to question the standing of blacks to interpret and evalu
ate nonblack modes of cultural expression. Should blacks be de
nied the opportunity to participate in, disseminate, consume, profit
from, and assess white cultural ideas and practices? Because blacks
lack the "white experience"-the experience of living with the bod
ily badge of whiteness and the privileges that this entails-does this
disqualify them as equal participants in white cultures? Such argu
ments about the esoteric character of black cultural difference and
the fundamentally alien character of white culture could lead us
down this unfortunate path. Indeed, at a time when there is a black!
white educational achievement gap-which in the absence of af
firmative action will inevitably produce racial inequities in access to
well-paying jobs-to suggest that there is some unbridgeable cul
tural gap between blacks and whites is to play right into the hands
of those who would like to see blacks remain socially subordinate.
Moreover; those of us who believe that we have important and orig
inal things to say both within and about the Western philosophi
cal tradition should be especially concerned about the exaggerated
claims of black cultural nationalism.
The black struggle for social equality has traditionally included
the fight for each black individual to be viewed as an equal partici
pant in the multicultural mix of America. This is a legacy of the
civil rights struggle that should earnestly be kept alive, for it ex
presses a cosmopolitan ideal that is well worth striving for, though
no doubt utopian at the moment. But cultural nationalism is not a
suitable vehicle for bringing about this post-ethnoracial utopia, as
its basic tenets are plagued by a number of conceptual and norma
tive difficulties. My alternative suggestion is that blacks focus their
200 W E W H O A RE D A R K
critical analyses and political activism o n lingering racism, persis
tent forms of socioeconomic inequality, unequal educational op
portunity, and racialized urban poverty, for it is these that give rise
to unflattering and disrespectful views of black people and thus of
the cultural forms associated with them.