Race: Is the White Face of Christ the Proper Normative Standard?

Over the next few months, I will be posting several entries investigating the relationship between Race, Continental thought, and Theology.  My humble hope in writing these posts is to provoke thought in ways that allow for rethinking the/a Race issue(s).  These entries, these vignettes, shall investigate Race through a variety of perspectives and approaches rather than in any systematic way.  On the front end, let it be known that I think of Race as a social construction.  At the same time, I acknowledge that Race does produce real effects for our lives.  We have an experience of Race.  In other words, even though Race is not biologically real (as discrete natural categories of human difference), it is real in so far as this idea helps shape the world in which we live and in the manner in which we live it.  Race cannot be ignored.  This vignette will focus on (racist) structures of power based on racial sameness rather than racial difference.

 

“White men consider themselves superior to black men.”[i]  Following this, Fanon claims that, in return, black men try to prove themselves as equal.  Equal to what, to whom?  They prove themselves as equal to white men, equal according to the standard of whiteness.  Whiteness becomes the apex of power and, as such, regulates our understanding of (racist) racial categories.  The black man becomes equal to the white man but within the white man’s world and according to the white man’s rules.  Speaking of power and the effects of colonization, Sartre claims that “racism is ingrained in actions, institutions, and in the nature of the colonist methods of production and exchange.”[ii]  This ingrained racism remains today in so far as white privilege lingers on, allowing for the myth of the white standard to be perpetuated.

 

No doubt, the experience of Race and racism is much more complex than Fanon presents here. Even so, the structure of power keeps distinct whiteness on the one hand and all other races on the other.  (This two-hand metaphor may need modification.)  This is the racial binary that “transform[s] human populations into ‘white’ and ‘nonwhite’ men.”[iii]  Deleuze and Guattari offer something unique to this understanding of the binary.  The structure of power that normalizes whiteness does so by determining “degrees of deviance in relation to the White-Man face.”[iv]  In other words, racial categories are not marked by excluding one race from another; rather, racial distinctiveness is understood in so far as one deviates from the white standard.  Those who are nonwhite—this expression even perpetuates the white norm—exist on rays stretching away from the focal point of whiteness.

 

So, what are we to make of the “White-Man face” according to Deleuze and Guattari?  Foucault once claimed in a lecture, “History is the discourse of power.”[v]  Today, our history is marked the dominance of the white norm.  The White-Man face permeates our “Western” world.  Is this a particular face?  Is it a paradigm?  Perhaps the White-Man face is the face of Christ, “your average ordinary White Man."  (Jamie alludes to this when he mentions kitsch in his last post.)  Think of all the images of Christ, usually images of a blonde and blue-eyed carpenter, you have seen throughout your life.  While Christians want to elevate Christ as the normative standard for humanity, they are forced to express the Son of God as a white man (not as a 1st c. Palestinian Jew).  In order for the power structure of white dominance to remain stable, even Christ cannot deviate from the white norm.  To have a Jewish Christ or a Black Christ or a Yellow Christ or a Red Christ would be to have a deviant Son of God. 

 

Perhaps this deviance is productive.  It may be the case that understanding Christ in nonwhite terms would be of benefit to “the Church.”  Christians who express Christ in ways other than the standard might develop new approaches to orthodoxy and orthopraxis.  How might “the Church” manifest itself differently if there was no standard of whiteness?  It would help many sects of Christianity to relinquish their obsession for a homogeneous religion that plays to the advantage of white normativity.  Likewise, many Christians may be challenged to let go of the myth of hegemony.  How much would our religious practices change if we were to embrace Christ’s deviance?

---

[i] Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, 10.

[ii] Jean-Paul Sartre, Introduction to Albert Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized, xxiv.

[iii] Charles Mills, The Racial Contract, 13.

[iv] Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 178.

[v] Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 68.

Comments

[Jeremy]

So are you suggesting a re-engagement with black liberation theology?

[Mark William Westmoreland]

Jeremy,

I'm simply raising a concern about how the white image of Christ acts as the norm. How does this affect others who are not white? Is something of Christ diminished or hidden by this White-Man Face?

I'm not suggesting any particular (re-)engagement. Although, BLT would be one approach among many. My reference to Fanon was for genealogical purposes. The Race discussion(s) in the U.S. typically emphasizes the Black/White binary. There are now many Race theorists, such as Linda Alcoff, who question this binary's function. For one reason, it relatively ignores other races. Also, it keeps the illusion of a binary of equality. This is the type of binary of which Mills, Foucault, and Deleuze are critical.

Instead of White to one side and Black to the other, or White on the left and NonWhite on the right, what is being suggested here is that the binary is one of deviance. Whiteness is the epicenter (binary point one); whereas, others are mapped on to various distances away from the center (binary point two). The structure of power provides the illusion that all may share in the center, that all may be the/a norm. However, as Mills (and Caroal Pateman in regard to sexuality) points out, this illusion is a tool by which the values of those in the center remain the privileged values, those living in the center remain the privileged ones. This may even be the case in so far as some deviations are criminalized. (See Foucault's D&P and SMBD and George Yancy's Black Bodies, White Gazes.)

[dave]

Interesting post Mark. I'm looking forward to future ones.

Do you plan to engage with J. Cameron Carter's recent book?

[Mark William Westmoreland]

Hi Dave,

I'm not sure if I'll discuss Carter's new text since I have not had a chance to get a copy of just yet. When Princeton announced its cfp regarding Carter's book, people were quick to point it out to me, perhaps assuming that it would be up my alley. I'd like to read it; and, if I do, then I'll certainly incorporate it into the discussion. -MWW

[David Sohn]

Race is an interesting topic because as you've stated at the beginning, it is a social construct and not a biological category. Race is the meaning we give to the skin tone. It is similar to the relationship of money and paper. The paper itself is not money, but since we represent the paper as money, it becomes money. But if this analogy holds, then I'm not sure how much of a difference changing the skin tone of Jesus will be. We might reassign the meaning of money from paper to something else, let's say, leaves. But money as a meaning and social construct still exists just as powerfully.

Although there is a correlation in the case of race between the construct and the biological category, we can imagine that the construct comes to encapsulate darker skin tones. If I am not mistaken, this has happened in American history: Italian and Jewish Americans (some olive-complexioned) have not always been considered white; but as the meaning of whiteness changed, they became white. I have even read some researched hypothesis predictions that Asian-Americans and Latinos will come to be white.

My main point: if race is a social construct distinct from biological categories, then changing the biological category will not seriously undermine the social construct.

[David Sohn]

It would also be interesting in what sense Deleuze means, "the white-man face." Maybe he meant it metaphorically. If he is aware that race is social construct, its unlikely that the criteria for whiteness is the biological face. By "white-man's face" he may have been describing a particular way of thinking, socio-economic status, ways of being in the world--all of which are constructs themselves, not biological categories; such that, as a Korean-American, I become white if I inhabit the western ways of thinking and acting, and any ways of thinking and acting differently are considered deviant by varying degrees to the standard. The point here is that I become more white by inhabiting social constructs, not biological categories. This is why it is common for high school students to call a minority who acts and talks a certain way, white.

What would changing the face of Jesus do if our Asian Jesus still lived in the suburbs and played golf on the weekends? I suspect it would be more effective to change Jesus' ways-of-being more than his skin tone.

[Mark W. Westmoreland]

David,

Yes, although Race is socially constructed, it does have some connection to various phenotypes, particularly skin color. At the same time, Race far exceeds just skin color. If we look into the historical development, we see that Race matched onto a variety of human identity categories, e.g., geography in Bernier, skin color in Blumenbach and Kant, culture in Herder and Hegel, and so on.

I don't think I would follow the money/paper analogy. For one, Race conditions human identity much more than money (as paper, coin, or electronic) conditions us. The following is generalizing...Often, it is difficult for many people to fully understand the racialization process by which identity becomes intimately tied to Race. This difficulty, to be honest, usually is on the part of those already within the parameters of the whiteness. As the fish doesn't think anything about swimming in water, the white person rarely lives in ackowledgement of a white body. However, those deemed "deviant" most asssuredly experience their lives in regard to Race. Their bodies are exposed, under the white gaze (of white persons or institutions), as marker of this deviation and relegates them to the margins (outside or on the fringes of the norm).

You have pointed out an interesting development in the U.S. in regards to the "becoming-white" of various non-whites. While some see this as a sign of progress for race relations, others argue that this is still oppressive because it retains the root(s) of the problem. Without changes the systemic structure which allows for racial oppression, we do not gain any ground. The U.S. method of assimilation is one in which only the symptoms are being treated in so far as the U.S. has a history of trying to make every one of us white.

"The Church" has played into this by revealing and privileging the White-Man Face of Christ. On one hand, those who are white may find it difficult to see how this castes non-whites as deviant. On the other, non-whites are continually being "told" that they are deviant, that they fail to be like Christ, that they are somewhat inferior, etc.

[Mark W. Westmoreland]

David,

Thanks for the second post. I had not read it when I began writing my initial response. Deleuze's discussion is found in "Ch.7 Year Zero: Faciality" in A THOUSAND PLATEAUS. Yes, I think you can extend faciality to include a whole network of conections, threads, machines, processes, [fill in Deleuzian/Guattarian term]. D&G are literally referring to faciality but also to the web of associations with the face.

The examples of Asian-Americans seems to fit with what many of my AsAm friends say. Again, the U.S. is a tricky context because the black/white binary has been so active in American history. While other non-whites have been oppressed at various times in U.S. history, no group has suffered more by individual, group, systemic, and even systematic acts of racism than AfAm.

Yes, your illutration of the suburban, golfer, Asian Jesus seems correct in so far as it would shock white people. However, I don't think whites would feel oppressed in any way by this change. Furthermore, because the societal norm is whiteness, Jesus would be viewed as deviant. An Asian Jesus would be "heretical" in a sense.

I agree that one becomes white by practicing certain social norms of whiteness rather than adopting white skin. Even so, this is still continuing the notion of whiteness as normative. Hence, the problem continues. By incorporating so many under the banner of whiteness, many Americans feels as if the county is post-racial. In reality, it is far from it.

[Mark W. Westmoreland]

One more thing...I'm not suggesting that simply changing the face of Christ will be satisfactory. Perhaps there is a need to change the very structure and practices of "the (white) Church." There is a good chance that certain practices have negative effects on a multitude of non-whites.

[David Sohn]

Mark,

I appreciate that you are discussing these issues. I think I agree with your intuitions and the gist of what you are saying. And I'm glad you've written your third response to my comments because it responds precisely to my main point: that changing the biological face of Christ is not sufficient for undermining whiteness. I agree that it is a way to make a statement; a way to deconstruct the belief that Christ MUST be white (because he simply wasn't.)

However, I would go one step further to argue that if we do not undermine the actual practices and structures which make whiteness a dehumanizing force in our society, simply changing the face of Christ will not do much (I think you agree with me here); and it may even give the illusion that a problem has been fixed when the deeper problem remains unresolved.

I believe the deeper problem of race in any context, whether American, Pre-WWII Germany, or China is one of oppressive power structures. The skin color, culture, sex or religion are arbitrary signs that those in power utilize to manipulate and oppress others. But since these signs are arbitrary, to go from one arbitrary sign to another does not get at the root problem (as you say), which is the overall oppressive structures.

One way to understand this last point is to examine the issue of sexism in the corporate world. Let's assume for a moment that a particular corporation is responsible for unethical environmental and employment practices. Now let's also assume that in it's history, only males have been CEO's, although many women are qualified for the job. Sexism is undoubtedly at play. But what real difference would be made, and this is the main point, if instead of a man, a women became the CEO. Same job, same environmental and employment practices, but different sex. My intuition is that a rather superficial solution, in proportion to the unethical structures of the corporation, is offered.

Likewise, changing the face of Jesus from white to black, or whatever else, seems to be a rather superficial solution in proportion to the more fundamental problem of racism: that of oppressive power structures. You can still have the oppressive power structures with a black Jesus or, I dare say, a back president.

To be clear, I don't think that you ever said that changing Jesus' face was the only change necessary. I am not disagreeing with your blog so much as I am raising concerns about a reading of it which emphasizes skin color over deeper, more fundamental solutions to racism.

[chuck.kim]

i think obama is a great example for this discussion. it was a powerful moment when he was elected president... that in fact, a black face and body is able to hold a position of high power in our society. it is a symbolic moment in history. but i feel that it is just a moment. there is a large catholic seminary in detroit that has a glowing white jesus near its entrance. during the detroit rebellion in the 60s... the inner-city erupted and took control of the city for a moment. in that moment... that same jesus was painted black in the face, hands and feet. this was a powerful moment where people symbolically reclaimed a religion that had become subservient to the white power structure. but again, it was a moment.

the problem i feel we possess today... is how to not find ourselves stuck within the ideological movements that have been sparked from those moments. they are powerful... and they serve as a beautiful, artistic force to reroute the thoughts of oppressed groups. but i feel that we have a tendency, like most philosophical movements, to piece these moments into a system of thought that is static, not dynamic.

we have all agreed that race is a social construct... they are perceived categories of division that we have used to separate and control... like dave pointed out, whiteness has done the same to italians, the irish, jews, etc. the real question i feel that we are all hitting at in some shape or form... is the issue of power... and how people in power use it to control the masses.

that said, jesus as black, yellow, red, etc... it's a revolutionary moment. systematizing such a moment, i feel, misses the point of what we are striving for. jesus was jesus not because he was a poor mediterranean peasant with a browned skin tone... jesus was jesus because of the way he lived, taught and channeled his way of being.

deconstructing the race of our western-constructed jesus is a step to reclaiming who he was historically... and what he means timelessly. but it is a step. what if jesus was born in a barn in eastern europe? or what if koreans was the privileged norm in the world? we'd have the same issue.

examining and critiquing the way power works in the world... now that, i feel, is some other shit.

[Mark W. Westmoreland]

Thanks David,

I think we're on the same page. I was never suggesting that the only (or best) solution was to simply change the skin color of Jesus. But, I do think it is good for us to acknowledge that even our images of Christ can be oppressive. Because this can be oppressive, I would not say that it is merely superficial. Many black philospohers of race, George Yancy for example, are explicit that this is not simply trivial.

I was just raising this a departure point for us to discuss possible in ways in which (white) Christianity may be oppressive to nonwhites. In order to diagnose to root of this oppression, which is far beyond the portrayals of Christ as white, will take much reflection on the part of "the church." So yes I agree, solutions must go beyond a mere phenotypic change in our portrayals.

[Mark W. Westmoreland]

Chuck,

Thanks for the response. Oh yes, power is certainly in the center of all this. Since I'm in a hurry, I'll just point readers to the work of Foucault. Much of what you have said connects with Foucault's lectures at the College de France, many of which are now appearing in English. I suggest looking there for discussions of the relationship between power and race.