Baldwin and Yancy on the meaning of white "innocence"
-
Yancy emphasizes the “innocence” of the white boy’s finger that Fanon mentions in Black Skin, White Masks not to absolve the action or minimize its weight, but to highlight the power of white ignorance. “Innocence” in this context does not necessarily mean free of guilt, but refers instead to the unexamined positionality of whiteness. We often hear white people excuse instances of past racism by saying that they were simply young and unaware of what they were doing. While they may be “innocent” in that sense, their actions nonetheless take a “phenomenological or lived toll” (Yancy 3) on bodies of colour, or specifically black bodies in the case of Fanon. Their intentions do not mitigate the consequences.
Furthermore, Yancy explains that the white boy pointing at Fanon is undergoing “white subject formation” as he acts, which is “fundamentally linked to” the black body that he fears (Yancy 3). “Innocence”, then, can also refer to the imagined state of purity that white people believe themselves to exist in– one with a reasonable distance not just to racism but to racialized bodies themselves. Though, as Baldwin tells his nephew, “it is the innocence which constitutes the crime” (Baldwin 20). When white people believe themselves to be “innocent” and feel no need to reflect on their whiteness, they will inevitably perpetuate racism.
One aspect of Yancy’s “Look, a white!” is to challenge this perceived neutrality of the white body and make the previously invisible fact of whiteness visible, just as people of colour have to confront whiteness in their everyday lives (Ahmed, as cited in Yancy, 7). Baldwin remarks on the necessity of forcing them “to see themselves as they are”, which he urges his nephew to do (Baldwin 24). They both remark on the inevitable trouble that confrontation tends to cause the white person, however. Yancy gets the impression from many of his white students that they would rather unlearn what he taught them because they become uncomfortable once they are forced to reckon with the fact that they are “inextricably bound to the historical legacy of the ‘workings of race’” (Yancy 9). Baldwin describes this awareness as “the loss of their identity” (Baldwin 23). With sympathy, he talks of ignorance as a dooming force that, unless confronted, will not only trap people of colour, but themselves as well.
-
In response to Saarah’s discussion post, I would like to start first off by saying that I strongly agree with her definition of “innocence” that she presents in the context of Yancy’s Look, a White, such that the white boy’s pointing finger is a reflection of ignorance and not an absence of guilt. Additionally, Yancy argues that the white boy is experiencing “white subject formation”, which I understand to be the active and ongoing development of his views, prejudices, and fundamentally his sense of identity in relation to the black Other (3). In this context, the white boy pointing at him is nothing without Fanon’s black body as he, and his white identity, are “fundamentally linked to the object he fears and dreads”, as Fanon is considered something to be looked at in opposition to this “innocent” white boy (Yancy, 3). The white child is therefore not innocent of racial prejudice due to an absence of guilt since he is “learning”, in an active sense, “the power of racial speech” and “the power of racial gesturing” (Yancy, 3).
Similarly to Yancy, in his letter to his nephew James, in which he advises him on how to navigate a white world without believing the stereotypes that will inevitably be imposed on him throughout his life, Baldwin speaks of the “innocence” of his “countrymen”, suggesting that they are absolved of any wrongdoing due to their ignorance (18). I like how Saarah describes this, although in reference to Yancy (but I think it still applies), in the sense of the white body having a perceived neutrality; they are seen as the norm, whereas anything Other is a threat to their white identity, while simultaneously being a sort of vehicle in the solidification of whiteness. This “innocence” and purity of the white man justifies their racism, and acts as a disguise for the continued perpetuation of racist tendencies. By calling it “innocence” rather than ignorance, it could be detrimental to the hope of any sort of progress or change since white people will not be inclined to check their biases or prejudices as they will continue believe themselves to be innocent.
As with last week's readings, I find that this “process…where the white embodied subject is intimately linked to the black embodied subject” ties very closely with Muñoz’s surrounding disidentification and the notion of white as “lack”, or that white identity is nothing without people of colour (Yancy, 3). Without the Other (people of colour), white people are nothing; their culture and identity is solidified through the existence of the Other and the contrast that it presents. The belief that “black men are inferior to white men” supports the positionality of white people in society and highlights that, in order for the white man to be something, the black man must be irrational or a “peculiar thing”, drawing from the white man’s perceived neutrality (Baldwin, 22)(Yancy, 1). Baldwin comments that “the danger, in the minds of most white Americans, is the loss of their identities”, implying that, by viewing black Americans as equal to them, white people are putting their identities at risk (23). They are only who they are in stark contrast with black people, so by calling their supposed innocence out for what it really is (igorance), in turn the validity and certainty of their position in society is undermined and their sense of identity becomes threatened.
-
Thank you for your comment, Safiya. I think you make a great connection with Muñoz's idea of disidentification. Your point that "their culture and identity is solidified through the existence of the Other ..." reminds me very much of what Said was saying in Orientalism as well.