Why Did Invisible Children Fail to Address the Most Important Criticism?

Yes…the Stop Kony movement ran through cyberspace faster than a mono outbreak at junior prom. Viral, indeed.

And as it pummeled through the Internet at breakneck speed, being re-blogged, re-tweeted, shared, and passed along indiscriminately by Good Samaritans and media-hungry celebrities alike, it was stopped midstream by the Kryptonite of everything instantaneous and surface – the Kryptonite of critical analysis.

Someone(s) stopped re-tweeting, re-blogging, and sharing long enough to say, “hey…let’s check this group out first. Let’s see what they’re about. Let’s check their facts. Let’s see how they use their money. Let’s seriously deconstruct both the tone and the subtleties of this video.”

And then came the flood of criticism. Apparently, Invisible Children, the non-profit organization behind the video and the digital campaign, had some serious questions to answer. Questions about their fuzzy financial practices, super hero photo shoots, glossed over information, oversimplification of a truly complex issue and their relationship to/portrayal of the Ugandan people.

In response to the criticism, Invisible Children released a statement that addressed almost all of the issues – their financial practices were sound and in compliance with 501(C)3 requirements and standards, they stated. Yes, they knew Kony was no longer in Uganda, but he had committed major atrocities and was still a powerful threat, they argued. True, much of their money went to film-making, travel, and administrative costs, but all of those activities fit well within their three-fold mission, they insisted.

Their response, resolute and self-satisfied, seemed aimed at quelling what they considered to be the most pernicious criticisms. Now that it was done, they could get back to the very critical business of making the invisible…visible.

However, Invisible Children was absolutely silent on what I think is the most critical and fundamental question raised about their efforts – the question of whether their work is shaped by and helps to perpetuate a white supremacist/colonialist attitude and approach. On this critical matter, their silence is deafening. 

I get it. White liberals who have dedicated their lives to “helping” people of color have a hard time seeing, let alone addressing, the benevolent racism that can undermine even their best intentions. How can they be racist when they want to help so badly?

What they often fail to realize is that white supremacist attitudes, mostly unconscious, can often be at the heart of these efforts. As a person who has spent a significant amount of time in community organizing, I have witnessed white consultants parachute into communities of color armed with their dissertatations and urban planning savvy, ready to identify the problems and solutions – despite the fact that they may have very little experience in the cultural space that they have just stepped into. But experience-schmexperience - they don’t have to have intimate knowledge of the community. They have degrees, credentials, and validation from institutions that assure them that they are equipped to be saviors. They’ve read books, done service-learning projects and listened to lectures. Of course, they get it.

I have seen these consultant-saviors either outright ignore or invalidate the knowledge and insight that already exists in the community… in the residents who have lived and seen the cycles come and go. I’ve witnessed the direct experience and wisdom of community leaders trumped by the good intentions of paternalism and benevolent racism.

Invisible Children’s failure to address the white supremacist critique unquestionably jeopardizes the effectiveness of their mission. How can we truly work for liberation and equality when we fail to examine and acknowledge the ways in which our social conditioning could potentially taint our cause? Social justice work necessarily involves internal reflection and the willingness to acknowledge and confront the personal demons that may stand in our way.

See, I understand that rooting out social conditioning and vigilantly deconstructing the cultural reinforcement of racism, internalized sexism, classism, ableism, and homophobia is an ON-GOING process for social justice workers. One enters into this grueling but deeply transformative work knowing that the work is never truly done. I understand how ignorant, arrogant, and pretentious it would be for me to declare that I have somehow been able to rid myself of all of these “isms.”  The only thing I can (and will) do is to continue to make this work a priority. That’s all that I ask of Invisible Children. That’s all that we can ever ask of anyone – that they continue to TRY to be free and loving human beings in a world that often makes that that extremely difficult to do.

With that being said, Invisible Children may not be ready (or even see) how their video and/or approach might propel the white savior/supremacist myth. I get that. If they don’t see it – they don’t see it. However, as long as they have been doing this work, I find it hard to imagine that they haven’t come across this concept. I have to imagine that somewhere, somebody, has questioned their authenticity, their skin, their western agenda. I imagine that they have stumbled across this accusation before.

And their silence in the face of this recent criticism reeks of denial.

But what would a response about the questions regarding paternalism and white supremacy look like?

I have tried to imagine the founders of Invisible Children as good people – people who mean well but who, like so many of us, haven’t delved into their deepest assumptions, fears, and conditioning enough. I try to imagine how they would respond in a way that authentically addressed their lack of experience in racial self-reflection AND their desire to grow in this area. In my head, their response would sound like this:

My-Wishful-Thinking- Hypothetical-Invisible-Children response:  

“As for the criticism around issues of white supremacy and our campaign, we must, with all transparency, admit that this is an issue that we can’t address right now. Theoretically, we understand that the history between people of color and white colonizers has greatly impacted the socio-global landscape. We understand that in many ways, there are many nations who are still trying to wrest themselves from under the heel of white supremacist attitudes and policies.  We understand that when white people decide that they know what’s best for people of color, that we are revealing supremacist  and disparaging attitudes about the very people we are trying to “help.” And while this makes for a softer, cuddlier, and more benevolent racism — we understand that it is still racism, nonetheless. 

What we have not done yet, is truly reflected on how our personal attitudes and approaches either contribute to or deconstruct that painful legacy. We simply need to examine ourselves more.  Of course, we can operate from a place of privilege and emphatically deny that subtle racism is present in our work. We can laugh it off and roll our eyes at the very real and valid suspicions about our motives. But we understand that to do so would make us less effective in our mission, in our desire for social equity and humanitarian change….and in our commitment to being authentic and evolving human beings. Therefore, when it comes to the criticism around THIS particular issue….the criticism of whether we are (consciously or unconsciously) exercising privilege and evoking white supremacist attitudes and strategies – we have to honestly say that prior to now, we have not been equipped, educated, or brave enough to tackle this question. But now that it has come to our attention…and because we truly care about being both an authentic organization, a true ally to people of color, and genuine human beings…we will take the time to research and reflect. Hopefully, we will emerge from the process with firm answers that will benefit the world…and ourselves.“ 

Am I asking too much?

I don’t expect the founders of Invisible Children to be perfect or to have it “all figured out” when it comes to these things. What I do expect is what I expect of anybody who makes such egalitarian claims – that they be willing to frequently mine their own hearts and psyches in order to weed out the barriers that hinder them from being what they so vehemently claim to be. I need to know that misguided as it may be, that their hearts are in the right place.

Perfection? No. Authenticity? Absolutely.

Why I Can’t Be Silent About Politicizing Beyonce

I was on Twitter recently when one of my followers tweeted about a course called Politicizing Beyonce that was being taught at Rutgers. I was floored.

“Please tell me that is NOT the name of the course,” I quickly tweeted back, hoping it was some kind of hoax.

“That’s the name of the class,” she responded matter-of-factly. I quickly logged of Twitter and ran straight to Google. And there it was. Politicizing Beyonce was all over the net. From Huffington Post and MTV.com to Bossip, everybody was talking about the concept of Politicizing Beyonce and interviewing Kevin Allred, the doctoral student and lecturer who had launched this very controversial idea.

I was pissed. In 2010, I submitted a workshop abstract to New York University’s Show and Prove Hip Hop Conference entitled, Politicizing Beyonce: Analyzing the Intersection of Race, Sex, and Representation.

As a committed feminist and founder/executive director of a youth social justice agency with a particular focus on media and pop culture analysis, I am very fascinated with Beyonce’s ability to polarize popular opinion. Whenever her name comes up in a room full of feminists, a clear divide becomes apparent. To some, Beyonce is problematic – a woman who uses her talents to perpetuate patriarchal norms and sexist definitions of womanhood. From this perspective, she symbolizes exploitation and objectification. But there are also feminists who applaud Bey as a beacon of female empowerment. These women have often pointed out Bey’s insistence on touring with her all-female band, Suga Mama. They point out the thread of empowerment that runs through a good number of her songs and the drive, talent, and intelligence that has defined her meteoric rise to top of her profession. I love Bey’s ability to set a conversation on fire like this. And it isn’t just with feminists. I see the same response with the youth I work with – and in any setting where she comes up as a topic of discussion. Beyonce is ubiquitous. Her work is layered and nuanced, and thus, she’s necessarily controversial.

My hope was that the conference would provide a great opportunity to gauge public response to Politicizing Beyonce. Thus, I submitted the following workshop abstract in May 2010:

Abstract for Politicizing Beyonce: Analyzing the Intersection of Sex, Race, and Representation

Why Beyonce? There are numerous answers to this question. The most obvious answer is that as an artist, a symbol and as a woman, Beyonce’s influence on the hip hop generation raises critical questions about sex, race, and representation. Whether she’s on our radio, television, favorite article of clothing, or movie screen, “Team Beyonce” has worked hard to etch her brand on our collective psyches and wallets.  There’s also the fact that Beyonce is a polarizing figure who elicits devotion and derision in seemingly equal measure.  As a symbol, she sits at an intriguing socio-political and cultural intersection for many women, creating shifting divisions between those who consider her a beacon of female empowerment and those who view her as a complicit tool used by the male power structure. One thing is certain, whether we love or hate her, we can’t escape her. Beyonce is nothing short of ubiquitous, which makes her the perfect subject.

Politicizing Beyonce is a multi-media journey via interactive dialogue, interviews, and performance. Through the cultural iconography of Beyonce, women scholars, performers, activists, fans, and critics explore female representation and the implications for the hip hop generation.

A few days later, I received an e-mail from the conference committee stating that the abstract had been denied. I was bummed but I had already had some misgivings about submitting a very pop-influenced idea to a hip-hop conference anyway.  While the rejection didn’t feel exactly great, I was OK with it. I was convinced that in a different medium Politicizing Beyonce was a concept that would blow up. In a collaborative effort with Ankh Media group and my husband, I began the planning stages of creating a documentary.

Artwork I created for the Politicizing Beyonce documentary.

So, when I heard that Rutgers was offering a class by the same title and with a similar concept, I immediately went into research mode. What I found was that Kevin Allred was quickly becoming a media sensation. I even had a friend call me because she had heard it on the Ricky Smiley morning show and wanted to know if it was connected to the work that I was doing. I felt years of research and planning evaporating before my eyes as I watched the story gain momentum. It felt like a death knell to the work that I had so seriously invested in. I felt anger and despair.

And I had to wonder, was this all just a crazy coincidence? The more that I considered all of the factors, coincidence seemed less and less likely. The name Politicizing Beyonce was one that I had put a lot of thought and intention into. Was it possible for someone else to come up with the same name? Absolutely. When I considered the likelihood of it, I had to consider some other factors – like the proximity of Rutgers and NYU. What were the chances of a concept being submitted to one university and then, shortly thereafter, popping up as a course at another university approximately 30 miles away?

And then there were the striking similarities between the descriptions given by Allred in his interviews and the abstract I had submitted. While his work seemed to point to a greater field of exploration – utilizing other black women writers and artists – what was striking to me was some very particular wording that was to describe the course. In an interview featured on The Boombox.com, it read:

“The course description reveals that students will explore the ‘Run the World (Girls)’ singer’s alter ego Sasha Fierce, the extent of her control over her own aesthetic and whether her racy image is a demonstration of female sexual empowerment or complicit with gender stereotypes.”

http://www.theboombox.com/2012/01/27/politicizing-beyonce-college-class/

My abstract:

“…between those who consider her (Beyonce) a beacon of female empowerment and those who view her as a complicit tool used by the male power structure.”

This congruence of factors led me to believe that this was not a “coincidence” and that I had both a personal and political responsibility to speak out about it. However, I was also aware that I had to treat this like any other area of my life – with intention, awareness, and mindfulness.

And at that point, I took some time to listen – to my head, my heart, and those closest to me. I consulted with my mother, my friends, my husband, my mentors. I meditated. I thought. I researched. And from these very meaningful conversations emerged a strategy. My first step was to contact the submission committee for the NYU conference. I wanted them to confirm that they received my submission in May 2010. They confirmed that they had and would be willing to corroborate, if need be.

I knew that my next contact had to be with Kevin Allred himself. This call was a lot less easy. I was angry but I also wanted to be fair. I could not shake the feeling that he had some kind of access to my concept – or at least my title. But I also knew that I needed to open to whatever his side of the story was. I had to allow the conversation to be guided by something more than my outrage.

After much research, I was informed that Allred could only be reached by e-mail. E-mail was not my preferred method of contact. I preferred the immediacy of telephone. I wanted to hear his voice, his tone; I wanted to listen for signs of authenticity. I wanted him to hear my voice. But e-mail was all I had. I sent Allred an e-mail sharing my concern about the possible misuse of my intellectual property. Within 20 minutes, he had responded both by e-mail and by voicemail.  In both, he was very apologetic. He assured me that he had never laid eyes on my abstract and that his use of the title was inspired by his work and discussions around gender and representation. He also indicated that the recent reports were misleading and that Politicizing Beyonce was not a current course offering at Rutgers, but that it was actually a class taught in fall of 2010.

This added another layer that made coincidence even less probable. Apparently, Allred and I had thought of the exact same title and similar concept, submitted it to two universities within very close proximity to each other, in the exact same year.

Before I called Allred back I wanted to do some fact-checking. I went to Rutgers website and accessed their 2010 catalog. Although, it verified that he had taught a class there, it did not indicate what the name of that class was nor did it have a syllabus or course description.

Given the fact that I turned in my abstract description in May 2010, I consulted with a friend of mine who is a professor at a university. I asked her how feasible it would be for a professor/lecturer to come across a concept in May, develop it, and have it available as a course offering by September. Without knowing the particulars about Rutgers’ system, she indicated that at her university, and generally speaking, it was very possible.

When I called Allred his voice was friendly, alert and somewhat cautious.  I was very candid and transparent about my initial anger, my concerns, and the feeling that my work had been stolen. But I also let him know that my goal in contacting him was not to fight, accuse, or point fingers but to rather get an understanding as to what truly happened. He stood firm by the notion that he had not had access to my work and that he thought the name choice was safe because his Google search on it had yielded no results. He was civil and apologetic. And while I couldn’t fully embrace his assertion that this was all some kind of “crazy coincidence”, I appreciated the way that we were able to respectfully dialogue about such a contentious issue.

The possibility of reinforcing one another’s work came up as an option. A class and a film are two different mediums. Allred expressed a willingness to acknowledge the work that we had been doing on the film in any future interviews he gave about the class. While we came to no clear conclusions, we did agree to put some thought into it and reconnect very shortly.While I still was not (and am not) convinced that this is some “crazy coincidence”, I was willing to explore what collaboration might look like.

Today, I came across this Allred interview: http://thefeministwire.com/2012/02/schoolin-life-teaching-beyonce-and-engaging-youth/  In it, he clearly identifies himself as the creator of the Politicizing Beyonce concept and there is absolutely no mention of my work or our conversation.

I write this blog with the best of intentions. I write this blog to challenge the system and the cultural norms that tell women (especially women of color) that silence is always the best response.

Needless, to say, I think it’s time that my side of this story is heard.

B(e)GM Artist Profile: TUNDE OLANIRAN

I’m coming to the conclusion that if you’re intuitive and observant enough – you can always tell who the artists are when you step into a room.  Creative souls are not just creative when they’re making a song or painting a picture. Their artistry, innate and authentic,  is not something that they turn on and off. It IS, literally, their existence.  And it is this delicious co-mingling of life and art that grabs our attention – that fascinates and challenges us as witnesses.

And whether they’re performing or not…there is always performance involved. Artists are ALWAYS performing, in some capacity. There is something utterly intoxicating about the way artists move in this world. How they keep you suspended in a place of anticipation – never knowing if your next moment with them will become a song. How every conversation you have with them can become a canvas. How they seem forever wedged in that that perplexing place of potentiality. How NOTHING escapes their powers of creation and re-creation. Not even you.

I’ll be the first to admit that my definition of artist is one that is loaded…and demanding. There are times when it feels like the need to be moved by an artist – as opposed to being merely impressed – is asking too much.  Sometimes, I wish I needed less. But just when I get to the point where I’m ready to throw in the towel and lower my standards, I come across an artist who won’t let me. An artist like Tunde Olaniran…

In his latest  project, The First Transgression, Tunde continues in the tradition of eroding boundaries and blending concepts/sounds in ways that have become his signature. For those who are familiar with his previous solo album and albums with his bands taste this! and Stereoluxxx, we understand that much of Tunde’s appeal as an artist is his willingness to challenge the status quo. The son of a Nigerian father and African-American mother, Tunde’s approach to music is one that you might expect from a man who grew up in 3 different countries and was exposed to a wide range of musical styles and messages – the son of activist and an immigrant. In many ways, Tunde seems built to traverse cultures and stamp out a unique brand of musical expression. He could, indeed, be described as a futurist, etching out a delightfully infectious, foreshadowing of tomorrow’s music…today.

The First Trangression contains 3 songs (with 1 remix) and is the first installment in a series of 5 EPs (the next one will be released in March 2012). The First Transgression is an intense (albeit, short) journey through enlightened lyrics layered over dark, insistent, tracks. The stark contrast between the album’s deeply philosophical themes, Tunde’s velvety voice and the gritty, lo-fi production, is sure to confuse and, possibly, irritate listeners who like their music formulaic and easily defined. Slavish devotees to corporate-pop music aside,  the album is a boon for those of us who appreciate music that not only sounds REALLY good but also forces us to grow – on multiple levels.

Whether it’s  the existentialist exploration of duality and balance on the first single, Cobra, the destructive allure of toxic relationships on User Manual, or the fighting rebellion of Tiger Balm, this EP packs a small, but mighty, punch. Its brevity acting as both a gift and a curse – the first hit that will inevitably have you coming back for more.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who recognizes the sheer genius that is Tunde Olaniran. Recently, he was featured as an Artist of the Week on MTV Iggy. One of his videos was featured on MTV.com and one of his songs can be found on the Just Wright soundtrack featuring Common and Queen Latifah. He has also performed at SXSW and has toured Europe. And it’s not just the bigwigs who are taking notice, Tunde has built a growing reputation with his fans as an electrifying performer, giving thorough attention to every aspect of his stage show from lighting, to choreography, to visuals – Tunde’s DIY ethic is a testament to the notion that passion and creativity can (and often do) trump big budget spectacle. Every time he steps on a stage, it is obvious he is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing – effortlessly, yet meticulously, stepping into the roles of  iconoclast, innovator, provocateur… artist.

What’s most exciting about Tunde and artists of his caliber is the anticipation of what’s to come. One can only imagine the terrain that Tunde will carve out for us…what boundaries he will obliterate…how he will invite his listeners into his artistic AND personal evolution in ways that will inevitably enhance our own.

Whether you love him (as I truly do) or hate him, being exposed to the magic and chaos that Tunde Olaniran brings to the musical landscape will push you to think, re-examine, and shift. You may find yourself unexpectedly falling  into sonic territories you previously avoided. You might find your worldview shifted by lyrics that promote both internal and external analysis. You might begin to see that the lines between the political, personal, psychological, cultural are not as distinct as you thought they were. Whatever the case, you will be changed. And in that way, you really can’t go wrong.

Tunde Olaniran really is a win-win situation. All the way around.

For more info about Tunde Olaniran or to purchase his music, check out the links below:

Website: www.tundeolaniran.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tunde-Olaniran/312596518944

Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/tundeolaniran

On MTV Iggy: http://www.mtviggy.com/articles/is-the-world-ready-for-tunde-olaniran/

On MTV.com: http://www.mtv.com/videos/tunde-olaniran/683353/cobra.jhtml

Wedding Vows: The Remix

When my husband and I got married, we decided to ditch the traditional wedding vows. Intent upon entering a union that was was strictly defined by our own individual and collective needs, we abandoned the oppressive and contractual language so prevalent in traditional wedding vows, and opted to go with vows that TRULY meant something to US.

Almost 2 years into our marriage, and I still think about these vows on an almost daily basis and really think the sentiment and intention expressed in these vows, is what keeps our marriage, fresh, dynamic, and full of mystery and fulfillment. They are:

1) Will you place a high premium on the bond of friendship that you have with your husband/wife, and strive to afford him/her the space and freedom necessary for him/ her to continue walking his/her individual path?

2) Will you be attentive to the spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional desires of both yourself and your wife/husband, striving always to never put the needs of one over the needs of the other, but rather working together to ensure that both parties feel honored?

3) Will you invest all of your energies into your wife/husband, forsaking all others and thus realizing the tremendous potential that a life long commitment has to offer?

4) Will you embrace your wife/husband in both her/his highest moments of self realization and in the midst of her/his darkest internal conflicts, realizing that in both paths, she/he can be born anew through the freedom of love’s unyielding yet flexible bonds?

5) Will you commit to a life long evolution of self, thus ensuring that your mutual growth will stave off stagnation and ensure continued interest, mystery, and discovery for the sake of both yourself and your husband/wife?

6) Will you utilize this union with your wife/husband as an opportunity for mutual growth and expression, taking advantage of opportunities to correct every misconception that the two of you ever had about yourselves and each other?

A Million Zeros: What Movements Can Learn From Jung

“Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens.” – Carl Jung

“To know yourself, think for yourself.” – Socrates

My last post on Beyonce and feminism created quite a buzz. The beautiful outcome of it all was that I had the opportunity to engage in some nourishing conversations with people who supported, challenged, loved, hated, and questioned my stance. Readers shared brilliant analysis, personal narratives, and suggestions for how we engage one another in this movement.

On the surface, much of the conversation seemed focused on feminism, gender expression, capitalism, and celebrity, but a persistent (and less detectable) undertone also permeated the dialogue – one that suggested that some of this debate was less about Beyonce and her feminism and more about how we navigate that very precarious and constantly shifting line between the individual and the collective.

Consider the following response to my previous post:

Sojourner: “So when we talk about every woman being able to express the full range of her being without full concern about how that expression catapults and ripples through the lives of other woman, violently violating others’ ability to express the full range of their being, the call to ‘be loving’ can neglect the violence of other people ‘just being themselves’ without ever directing their anger at anyone in particular: this is the fetish of individual liberation over interconnected liberation. i think that’s part of why so many folks enjoy the 19% clip: it gives voice to the symbolic violence of ignoring the full range of women’s experience.”

This comment (and a few others)  really got me to ruminating about that fine line between individuality and group membership. In our daily choices, from the mundane to the extraordinary, we constantly have to negotiate this space.

What does it mean when our personal expression is perceived as impeding the progress of the collective?

How do our choices affect others?

How much should we consider other people when making personal decisions?

How does our desire for group cooperation and acceptance hinder our personal evolutions?

How do we maneuver through all of the gradations that exist between the “me” and “we”?

It’s funny how my spirituality works because just as I began wading through these questions, I ran across The Undiscovered Self: The Dilemma of the Individual in Modern Society  by Carl Jung at Borders. In this small, but richly dense book, Jung asserts that much of the individual life of people in society has been subjugated by the cultural trend towards mass-mindedness and collectivism.

As an activist and a person whose personal and professional work is largely based on the values of cooperation, collaboration, and group dynamics, I bristled at what I assumed was Jung’s “anti-collective” stance.  Prior to reading the book,  I fully anticipated bumping heads with him and was pleasantly surprised when that wasn’t case.

Yes, Jung does take a somewhat antagonistic view of  the “collective”  but he’s not referring to the kind of healthy collectivism that happens when engaged, empowered, self-realized, people join together. He’s speaking to the kind of collectivism that happens when demoralized and disillusioned people band together to participate in what he refers to as  ”collective possession and mass-mindedness.”

And rather than promote the all too prevalent and  narcissistic individualism that sits on the other end of this unhealthy spectrum, Jung calls for something much more powerful. The remedy for mass-mindedness is not the selfish individualism many of us are familiar with, but a process known as “individuation” – a synthesis and harmonizing of the conscious with the unconscious.  Basically, a movement towards individual wholeness.

I was deeply moved by this book. Despite the scientific, sharp, and often sterile tone of Jung’s commentary, I could hear his heart in this work. In barreling past the surface socio-political and cultural “remedies” that have failed us time and time again, Jung chastizes us for not addressing the deepest roots of our being…the birthplace of ALL experiences – individual and collective.

For the record, Jung is not the first to advocate this radical revolution of the psyche and spirit. In fact, much of what he covers in this book (and his work, in general) is an extension and a somewhat, Westernized version of philosophies touted by people and cultures from all over the world.  In various ways, wise people have been saying this stuff for many years….any real and enduring revolution starts with a revolution of the Self.

The following passages from the book speak to the extreme importance of this undertaking:

“Most people confuse ‘self-knowledge’ with knowledge of their concious ego personalities. Anyone who had ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself…people measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts, which are for the most part hidden from them.”

“What is commonly called ‘self-knowledge’  is therefore a limited knowledge, mostly dependent on social factors.”

Essentially, what is called for is something quite profound and not for the faint of heart, the quickly deterred or the easily frightened.  Much of our personal growth, responsibility, and accountability can too often be “collectivized” to the point where it weakens both our person and the societies and institutions we participate in.  If our “self-knowledge”  is too heavily reliant upon the opinions, judgments, assessments, and philosophies of others, how do we know who we are under all of these projections?  This question is crucial, according to Jung and one that determines whether we live as liberated human beings or as manipulated pawns; vulnerable to the machinations of dictators and corrupt leaders. He asserts that the promotion of group membership, at the expense of personal development  creates the perfect conditions for the appropriation of power by both the State and the Church:

“But if the individual, overwhelmed by the sense of his own puniness and impotence, should feel that his life has lost its meaning – which, after all, is not identical with the public welfare – then he is already on the road to State slavery and without knowing it or wanting it, has become its proselyte.”

“The result, as always in such cases, is overcompensation in the form of fanaticism, which in turn is used as a weapon for stamping out the least flicker of opposition….the policy of the State is exalted to a creed, the leader or party boss becomes becomes a demigod beyond good and evil and his votaries are honored as heroes, martyrs, apostles, missionaries. There is only ONE truth and beside it no other. It is sacrosanct and above criticism. Anyone who thinks differently is a heretic, who, as we know from history, is threatened with all manner of unpleasant things.”

“But in so far as society itself is composed of de-individualized persons, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless individualists…the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator.“

“We have all seen what a well-disciplined mob can do in the hands of a mad man.”

All of this, according to Jung, is motivated by a deeply intense, yet unconscious fear that we carry inside us as human beings.  The persistent refusal to examine our own personal contents results in an externalization of our inner disturbances.  The unrealized chaos and suppressed shadows that run rampant in our psyche, take shape in the world that we  inhabit. Are we truly surprised at the perpetual state of war, resource shortages, crime, crises, and denigration of “Other” that characterizes life on this planet?  We shouldn’t be. We experience all of these forces within ourselves on any given day…at any given moment.

So as I contemplate what it means to exist as both Natasha and as a person who identifies with a number of groups, Jung’s work gives me much to chew on.  I have no definitive answers…mostly just a lot of nascent questions. What I do feel certain about is this idea that the quality of any movement or society depends on the quality of the individuals that it is comprised of.  We must be just as committed to ourselves, as individuals,  as we are to any group cause.  Otherwise, we will continue to experience these hollow, mock, revolutions where nothing really changes except who plays the role of the oppressor.  Until we are committed to re-examining the mass-minded approaches that cause us to project our  insecurities, shadows, fears, and demons on to the “Other”, we remain at an impasse- unable to muster up the love and courage that is necessary to truly create a just and healthy society.  We have to address the deep schisms and wounds that haunt all of us because, as Jung so eloquently reminds us, “even a million zeros joined together, do not add up to one.”

Imagine the intensity, the passion, the vibrancy of a movement that is made up of individuals who are fearless in their pursuits, loving in their interactions, honest in the assessments, just in their exchanges, and secure in their skin.  A movement comprised of those who are operating at their full potential with a deep level of awareness, the capacity to critically think, and the flexibility to move through the fluctuating currents of self and collective.  This is EXACTLY the type of woman I’m striving to be. This is EXACTLY the type of movement that I want to be part of…

…The kind of world I want to live in.

…And the only “revolution” that really makes any sense to me.

Why I Like My Feminism Gray…

What’s the quickest way to pick a fight?

Wear stilleto heels to a conference on Feminism.

And if you want it to really get ugly…pair said heels with skinny jeans, nail polish and copious amounts of lip gloss.

This is exactly what I did a few years ago.  As I waded through a sea of buzzcuts and flannel shirts, I could feel the eyes on me. Eyes of contempt. Eyes of lust. Eyes of confusion. I smiled and waited for the hammer to drop. I didn’t have to wait long.

About an hour into the conference, the conversation turned to the “male gaze.” For those of you who are unfamiliar with feminist lingo, male gaze is a term that was first used by feminist scholars to describe how the film industry typically adopts the point of view of heterosexual men by using camera angles and filming techniques that objectify women. Although it was a term initially applied to sexist film practices, the term now has a wider application – as it is used  to describe the focalization of women as objects on a socio-cultural level. Today, much of the female representation and imagery that we see in the media is shaped to please the male gaze.

So at this conference, one sister kept talking about how we, as women, too often defined ourselves by the standards set by men. As she spoke, she pointedly looked at me… and my shoes. Following her cue, a few other women glared at me, openly hostile. Many of the women at this particular conference were lesbian and mixed in with their hostility about my questionable feminism -was definitely a certain amount of sexual interest in my appearance. Hate and lust in equal measure. Maybe they thought I would be intimidated or would start to doubt my decision to unabashedly be myself in this space that they had carved out. I chuckled silently as a Beyonce line ran through my head. They must not know about me.

First of all, let me be clear. I am a feminist. A staunch one. I am a woman who firmly believes that women should have access to all of the rights and opportunities that are afforded to men. I do not hate men. Or anything for that matter. I love men and women. I want to see a society where all of us can be free and whole. I take my feminism seriously. So seriously in fact, that I have taken time to critically think about it. I  have not allowed anyone to impose their brand of feminism on me. Whether it’s white women who have made feminism all about the white, middle-class experience or sistas who have rejected feminism for some reactionary and equally debilitating form of  womanism that still denies full range of expression and being, I reject anything that tells me that I’m not allowed to be my whole self. I like stiletto heels and make up. I like men. I like attractive men. When I was a single woman, I liked to look at attractive men and I liked them to look at me. Does being a feminist mean that I cannot love and embrace these parts of myself?

I used to feel a deep internal conflict between who I was and what I thought my feminism should look like. But like Joan Morgan said in When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost, I’ve learned to embrace a feminism that’s not afraid to “f*&k with the gray areas.”  A feminism that lets me find peace in the understanding that my job as a feminist  human being is to constantly work on checking the “isms” within myself, while also loving the parts of me that are healthy and conducive to my growth—even if they don’t fit into someone’s pre-conceived notion of who I should be.

I now understand that every woman is a whole woman. This means that she is multi-faceted, (perhaps, contradictory), complex, and nuanced. She has many sides and has the right to express any of those sides whenever she sees fit. I experience myself as intellectual, emotional, spiritual, sexual, physical, mental, and growing. And if my understanding of feminism is correct, the ultimate goal is to create a world where women can be whatever they want to be, whenever they want to be it, without limitations imposed by gender and sexism. I think that any idea, institution, or person that tries to deny a woman this full range of expression is an enemy to feminism. Feminists…this means you! Sometimes in a misguided attempt to set up parameters, feminists create a narrower and (ironically) oppressive definition of womanhood

Check out the video below of a young lady – who goes by the name of NineteenPercent – giving her take on the new Beyonce video,  Run The World (Girls). This is EXACTLY the kind of feminism that I experienced at that conference…snarky, confrontational, biting, sarcastic, and ugly…

Now don’t get me wrong. I value critique and I don’t believe anybody is exempt from it. I also think that if you can look past the off-putting tone, NineteenPercent shares some really important information and makes some critical connections. I appreciate her and any young woman who decides to address these pressing issues. Unlike NineteenPercent, I believe Beyonce’s lyrics were not oppositional, but complementary to the points outlined in the video. I think any form of empowerment starts with an internal decision to be empowered. Beyonce’s song is just that…a creative, aesthetic, call to empowerment. NineteenPercent thinks Beyonce is a liar because she failed to speak about all of the challenges faced by women. I think Beyonce is an artist doing what artists do…creating her vision of what reality should be.

However, NinteenPercent has every right to disagree. I definitely think that a strong feminist movement must include critique of ourselves and each other. But I also firmly believe in what bell hooks, calls “loving critique.” Particularly when it’s a critique of another woman. Why is it that the women who proclaim to be pro-woman so loudly are the first ones to tear another woman down in the most brutal and humiliating fashion? Why must we enter the arena of dialogue armed with ridicule and disdain for each other? Or is it less about feminist critique and more about seizing an opportunity to attack another woman in an unconscious act of internalized sexism? Does sexy (and arguably hyper-sexed) Beyonce become more of a target because of the added influence of  jealousy and repressed sexuality? These are questions we should be willing to face with honesty and authenticity.

Now, I can completely understand the crux of Beyonce and why she is so controversial. Her expression is decidedly sexual. People observe her blonde hair and question her racial politics. When confronted with her as a woman, a brand, and an artist, questions arise about how much of her is genuine expression, how much is savvy marketing, and how much is female exploitation by male handlers. I’ve often thought about Beyonce’s relationship to corporate interests and what it means for the young women and men in my community whom I work with on a daily basis. Beyonce, just like feminism itself, is a complicated knot of fascinating and uncomfortable questions.

Let me just state for the record, that I have not always been pleased with everything that Beyonce has produced. And if given the opportunity, I would love to engage her in a conversation about all of the things I love about her body of work AND the things I take issue with. However, the tone of this hypothetical conversation would reflect the amount of respect that I have for Beyonce as both an artist and a black woman. Being able to navigate contentious points and differing perspectives is the sign of a movement that is healthy and truly progressive.

With that being said, I absolutely love Beyonce’s new song and video. I can relate to the words and performance. In so many ways, this song embodies how I experience my own feminism. Futhermore, I respect that Beyonce is Beyonce. She is not Gloria Steinem. She is not bell hooks. And she is not supposed to be. Her brand of feminism is and should be a reflection of who she is.

Thank you, Beyonce, for making a song for the women who embrace their wholeness, even in the face of ridicule and repression. For us sisters who have no qualms about marching into a feminist conference in sky high shoes and perfume. For the women who understand that feminism has a million different faces.

Who run this mutha?!?!?!?

For Colored Girls Who Have Had Enough of Racist “Science”

Take a good look at this man.

While I don’t profess to have the prophetic clairvoyance of Harold Camping, I do have a pretty keen eye for social, political and historical patterns. And I’d be willing to wager that in a few years, the man that you see above will be spoken of in the same breath as Eugen Fischer and Richard Herrnstein (author of The Bell Curve) – men who used their own tainted brand of “science” to promote their own racist agendas.

His name is Satoshi Kanazawa. He is a London-based evolutionary psychologist who recently published an article entitled, Why Black Women Are Less Attractive Than Other Women on the Psychology Today blog. When I came across this article, I honestly believed it was a joke.

And while I would be telling a lie audacious enough to land me a Congressional seat if I didn’t admit that I was hurt by this article,  my hurt isn’t the impetus for my criticism. I can deal with hurt feelings in the face of solid, scientific, fact. What struck me about this “study” was how flimsy Kanazawa’s science was.  Even with my laymen’s (and I do mean laymen’s) grasp of evolutionary psychology, the article’s assertions seemed unsupported by strong methodology. Even to my untrained eye and limited understanding,  the holes were glaring. Kanazawa presented very little that suggested that he had access to – let alone utilized – tools that could measure something as subjective as human attractiveness.

So, I did some research on Satoshi Kanazawa and found that quite a few of his peers have the same bone to pick with him. In fact, biologist PZ Myers referred to Kanazawa as the “great idiot of social science.”  Apparently, a number of his colleagues take offense at the very cavalier way that Kanazawa conducts his science , which seems to be more about building a career courting controversy and giving credence to sexist/racist/elitist ideas then it is about carrying out sound research.

In the time that it took me to do some cursory research on Kanazawa, the title of the article began morphing. Psychology Today frantically tried to clean the situation up , without sacrificing the precious site-traffic that the article was generating. So, the title was changed to “Why Black Women Are RATED Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women.”  Were these title changes merely feeble attempts to deflect criticism? We may never  know.

Kanazawa’s  ”science” involved asking a select group of people to rate “races” based on attractiveness. According to the findings, black women were found least attractive and black men were found most attractive. Kanazawa attributed this to the fact that black women were fatter and less intelligent. To further add credibility to his scientific findings, he concluded the article by stating that he wasn’t exactly sure why the experiment turned out the way it did but that “the only thing he could think of ” was that it had to do with testosterone – both black women and men have more of it. He guessed that this heightened level of testosterone made both black men and women more masculine – a trait desirable in men. Women – not so much.

I could write a whole blog on why we should be worried when an esteemed scientist and intellectual publishes something in which he uses the phrase “the only thing I can think of”…but I digress.

Now, in addition to the questionable methods that he employs,  the credibility of his research receives yet another devastating blow due to its complete omission of important socio-cultural factors that condition our ideas about beauty and attractiveness. We live in a world where the white beauty standard prevails. This standard was necessary in order to build a system of domination based on white superiority. The maintenance of this standard is just as important today to uphold the current system. And don’t get it twisted, this standard of beauty is not limited to the United States or Europe. It is a standard that has come crashing into every corner of the globe –  often on the back of colonization and conquest.

The significance of this is more than just aesthetic. It is also very political. The symbol of the white woman as the standard, is a necessary component in the maintenance of this system…a well placed cog in the machine. And it’s not just white people who believe in and adhere to this standard. Many non-whites have accepted this standard of beauty as well and perpetuate it, even at the peril of our own psyche. This is known as internalized racism and manifests even in very young children. One only has to refer to constant friction between light skinned and dark skinned blacks or the infamous Clark Doll Experiments (replicated in the news clip below) to see the devastating implications.

So, really, we don’t need Kanazawa’s science to tell us that we live in a world where ALL of us are constantly exposed to and feed off images of white beauty and that this may lead to some people rating black women as less attractive.  The fact that an evolutionary psychologist failed to make, or even acknowledge, this very important link makes me think that Kanazawa “Kim Kardashian-ed” his way up the academic and professional ladder.

What about the finding that black men are the most attractive?  Well, while it is true that the “only thing” that Kanazawa can come up with to explain this is his sketchy testosterone theory, I can come up with some other reasons that are again rooted in our historical and socio-cultural fabric. In order to justify chattel slavery and colonization, slaveholders and all those with a vested interest in slavery, had to concoct all kinds of foolishness. This included promoting the notion that black men were dangerous, over-sexualized brutes who were a threat to public safety and who would rape white women, if given the opportunity.  This representation was bolstered by stereotypes and cultural images that promoted a black male sexuality that was deviant, animalistic and predatory. It was a campaign to invoke fear. But it also, perhaps inadvertently, fueled fantasy.

And it is this dichotomy of fear/fantasy that shapes the contemporary representations of black manhood and sexuality.  Many of the current media images of black men still speak to this notion of the “black brute” – thugged out, little in the way of intellectual development but sexually virile in the extreme.  Racism creates and keeps pushing the stereotype and internalized racism accepts it and keeps perpetuating it.

The fact that we live in a world where definitions of beauty, attractiveness and sexuality are grossly distorted and skewed to fit social and political agendas means absolutely nothing in the context of this experiment, Mr. Kawazana?  Does your study speak more to the ugliness of black women or the social conditioning of your respondents? Or does it speak to your own personal biases and agendas?

In the past couple of years, I have been working hard to place the same premium on my heart as I do my head. So often, I have hid within my mind, afraid of being vulnerable and emotional in public. Naturally, this led to a unhealthy identification with the thinking function to the detriment of the feeling function.  Had I wrote this article back then, I would have stopped at the last paragraph, content in the notion that I had made my point.

But today,  it is important that I acknowledge the hurt and pain that always permeates my spirit every time I have to weather one of these attacks on black womanhood. Be it as subtle as opening beauty magazines and finding few faces that look like mine or as blatant as having to read articles that “scientifically prove” that black women are the least attractive women in the world, black women are constantly bombarded by social, cultural, and political forces that undermine our self-esteem. What is most hurtful to me is that these attacks often come from black men as well. To be a black woman in this world requires a very thick skin – one that can withstand the dual jabs of sexism AND racism. It also must come with enough fortitude to carry us through when our thick skin, too, becomes another reason for persecution (i.e. too strong, emasculating, unfeminine, etc).

And so I am speaking, first and foremost, to my sisters when I say that we must believe the truth about who we are in a world that works diligently to define us within racist and sexist contexts. We have to throw off the shackles that keep us from loving ourselves and subsequently each other. We have to KNOW ourselves fiercely in this world.

The fact that we have to reject Kanazawa’s brand of racist science is obvious. But what is equally important is that we search deep inside and root out the bits of Kanazawa that are lurking within us – the internalized racism and sexism that makes us hate our features, our hair, our skin and other women that look like us and share our experiences.

I am less concerned with changing racist men who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and more concerned with building an impenetrable understanding and appreciation of self that will ultimately allow us to prevail, in spite of the constant assault. Indeed, because of it.

That’s real science….