Coming to Some Conclusions on the Old School Project

For the past 15 years or so, my invisible partner in crime has been Dr. Lester K. Spence. He is, professionally, what I have been on a part-time basis for the past oh say 20 years. Actually more like 25 which would be about 1984 - yeah that's about right. That is a compelled investigator into the dynamics of and prospects for black politics as a righteous participant seeking improvements to American civic life. His path has taken him through a doctorate in political science, mine through profligate writing and Socratic dialog in all sorts of computer mediated communication spaces. 

Through all my years of attending conferences and seminars and in reading dozens of books on the subjects, I have come to respect his opinion higher than just about anyone. Where I have been skeptical and challenging, he has been thorough, correcting and determined. What I know of him as a person is that he has a much bigger heart than I, and given his powerful analytical ability, he keeps it real and informed with scholarly discipline. So where I can afford to be dismissive and blithe, Spence is my antidote. He knows what's real and I think he has his fingers on the pulse of black politics with an attitude that is appropriately serious and intellectually adequate to the task. 

Since I am no longer interested in Socratic dialog here at Cobb, I have endeavored to do so at a few specific blogs. I haven't mentioned his, and I didn't expect to be there, but that was a mistake. The fact is that I will follow his work until the end. This morning he posted this matter on racial disparities in health care, and in writing my response I have come to some conclusions about all the reasons I have ever dealt with race as a compelling subject in these 25 years, and specifically those of the past six that I have written here at Cobb. 

He begins:

Now where is race in this debate? Melissa Harris-Lacewell asks this question, pointing to disparities in care (black and brown individuals and communities receive poorer care than our white breathren), in health outcomes (black and brown individuals and communities suffer more from a variety of illnesses and maladies). It’s important to note here that these differences cannot solely be reduced to class, although class is an important component. Even controlled for income and education, black life expectancy is lower, black stress levels are higher. Even controlled for class and education, black and Latinos are less likely to get quality care from doctors. But there are actually a number of frontline organizations from the Joint Center, to the Praxis Project, to the Opportunity Agenda, bringing these disparities to light and ensuring that legislation ameliorates them.

Do read the whole thing. The issues of health care are, of course, sophisticated and nuanced. But my response to the racial component does put quite a bit in perspective. 

I conclude: (with some very minor wording changes for clarity)

I think you illustrate very clearly how the dissonance on race makes the smooth edges ragged, and how a lack of an orthodox way of looking at race on any subject matter makes it impossible to achieve a neutral position in dealing with disparities. I think you appreciate how there aren't enough competent social scientists in the world to establish that orthodoxy and nothing seems to defy the oxygen sucking quality of those racial designated hitters. You also clearly see how partisans manipulate this dissonance to their advantage without regard to the moral capacity of their political opponents. Well, Sisyphus, you have adequately assessed the dimensions of your boulder. 

To repeat my angle, it is my contention that the path of integration requires a sort of social mobility that has been enabled by the acceptance of Civil Rights law. And to the extent that Americans are fluid in their identity, there should not be resistance to that social mobility. Or to put it more simply, if it's easy to sell out your race, and race is what's holding you back, then sell out. It seems to me that the integrity of the racial construct is critical for anyone, be they social science subject, majority or minority object, to satisfy the balancing of the racial formula. This integrity is at odds with the implications of racial integration. In otherwords, the actual solution which satisfies the demands of a discrete narrowing of racial gaps (ever the benchmark), requires a sort of nationalist fidelity across all parties. So long as non-white but good is not good enough, perfection by race is the enemy of good.

You see, if you teach to a standard, say high school algebra. There is no way you can suppress the benefit to people who had a headstart unless you make math teaching a zero sum game. So to constantly harp on the gap between those who *obviously* started with some combination of advantages and those who didn't is to beg the question of establishing a zero-sum game. That's the problem here and it appears to be deep and fundamental. You require a racial signifier that cannot be satisfied by achievement, only by parity. Such a standard of 'equality' is the moral equivalent of coveting thy neighbor's house.

If you could do this exclusively in the context of wars on poverty.. it might not be such an odious problem. But it cannot be denied that American poverty lies fairly lightweight when contrasted with world poverty - which relegates all of the moral agitation rather empty. It all sounds like middle class politics to me. We want to live to 84 instead of 72. What a conceit! 

I exaggerate, but the matter of poverty is key. What concerns me is whether or not the aegis of 'black' as in 'up you mighty race' establishes in any broadly accepted context, matters relating exclusively to poverty as was with King's primary agenda. But in the American reality of the majority of black Americans being middle class, how do you make 'black' issues, dysfunctional and poverty and indigence issues with moral suasion considering the existential ties to so many millions who don't suffer at the base levels of Maslow? Because if the politics of hiring legions of social scientists is not about all about alleviating objective human misery, it's nothing more or less than middle-class racial spoils politics. That's hardly fitting of anyone claiming moral authority for their project. 

I've been asking the question, 'who owns black?' for six years or so, with the premise in mind that a post-black-nationalist adjudication of flaws could redirect black American energy onto a more righteous path. But I have found blackness itself too postmodern and without a useful orthodoxy. In the end, race being a social construct, it is too subject to both regressive obstinance and clever manipulation to be useful to a moral cause, precisely because it is so politically fungible. The only absolute with regard to race is its history. With every day that passes, that history becomes larger and more immovable. It cannot be reformed. It can only be abandoned.

In some ways this is not a particularly new sort of conclusion. I'm the guy who writes a new 'the end of my blackness' essay every 4 years, only to find myself like Michael Corleone, pulled back in again. But then again, if I thought the cycle was endless, I'd be raising my kids much differently than I am. I am of the sort who expects race to be trumped and rather than studying anti-racism (which I gave up long ago) I study the trumping cards. This is not so easy, not because of what race is, per se, but because determining the appropriate context for individuals in Western society is difficult. I'll be talking about that over the next week or so with an eye out for what I'm calling Adler's Dichotomy. I've been a part of the set that asked for abandonment of 'white' identity as a solution. Now I see that black identity is equally doomed, and I see how the perpetuation of these ideas of identity can be managed and the extent to which they corrupt Christian and Western civilization. How much? Enough to merit dropping, but not as a precondition to progress.

I am Old School. That history cannot change. I inherit a great deal. But I also inherit and have cultivated a powerful sense of individuality, modernism and critical detachment. These figure large in my desire to advance myself and my family in this society and in the world.  These things about me force me to study more, think more, write more, do more than fit into prefabricated buckets of identity. To the extent that I am a writer and I experiment with my imagination, I am something of an elusive figure - it is the price I pay every time I try to describe or defend myself. And I struggle with a deep sense of isolation without the consequent satisfaction of absolute self-confidence. But that's just me and it's not about me. Or at least it wasn't as I championed and promoted the Old School. Maybe in the future it will be more about me.