Does respectability politics have a place in America’s value of harmony?

In the U.S., relying on “respectability politics” undermines the very foundation of the country’s stated reverence for diversity. Respectability politics espouses the philosophy that, to earn respect, the only route is to adopt the dominant culture’s value system and to speak in the value-language of that dominant culture. Where’s the diversity in that?

The long-standing challenge for those who are not part of the dominant culture is to balance respect for one’s “tribal” culture with respect for some forms of assimilation. President Obama, for example, tried to encourage more men in the African-American community (along with other “Black identity” individuals) to embrace the practice of keeping nuclear families intact— as an involved father and partner. Yet, he was quite vocal that one need not apologize for “being Black." Rather, one should celebrate positive cultural traditions and values (while remaining aware of the harshness of Black history).

No community or subculture should think of itself in terms of needing “self-policing” (another aspect of respectability politics). Every community should think of itself in terms of benefiting from self-improvement. There’s a huge difference here. One is oppressive and the other is empowering. Self-improvement suggests that we are in charge of our cultural and individual behavior and that we get to decide what constitutes an “improvement.”

I am sympathetic to the notion that we are all a whole lot more alike than we are different, but that does not mean that one community should spend its energy proving that it is happy to be totally aligned with the dominant culture. To be so is to, at best, stand in the shadow of that dominant culture—receiving none of the light. A social psychology in which one feels the metric is “to what degree the culture aligns with what the dominant culture says, does, and believes” sets up an unhealthy imbalance in terms of respect and appreciation. The challenge is that most (all?) dominant cultures insist on this imbalance and on using themselves as the metric for superiority.

However, any community/subculture that has an inadequate voice does well not to be outright oppositional. It’s my experience that it is not possible to find acceptance from anyone we are shouting at with a hostile epithet. Any community that wants acceptance and respect needs to embrace ways of commanding respect without alienating those who are most receptive to the right for that respect. There’s a difference between righteous indignation and in-your-face hostility. I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who has lived within the dominant White American culture my whole life. However, I pay attention to what goes on around the world. No matter what regional culture I’ve observed (e.g., Nigerian, Indian, Brazilian, French), no one is “converted” by hostile attacks.

A mature individual knows how to command respect without demanding it. And if commanding respect without demanding it works best when dealing with those who are sympathetic, that is even truer when dealing with those who are not receptive, such as many people in a dominant culture.

Respectability politics reminds us that a culture is unlikely to be embraced if it loudly negates the values and behaviors of the dominant culture. That is just a practical observation of the way that societies and individual human psychology work. It is dangerous, though, if that realization is not balanced with insistence on retaining what is beautiful and cherished in the culture that commands respect.

In the U.S., the choir must sing in harmony, never in unison. Do not ask the baritone to sing the soprano's part.

Embracing a Chance to Become Wise

My father was a very intelligent person— precocious, even in elementary school. He was also a loner, joined the U.S. Navy at the age of 17 to fight in WWII, nearly died from a war injury at the age of 19, and developed severe PTSD. And it was like that trauma prevented him from becoming wise, even though he was still incredibly intelligent. He and my mother raised three daughters. He loved his work. He was devoted to my mother. But he lacked insight into himself and his relationships with others— all of which suffered from his PTSD (a term that did not even exist when he acquired it).

When he was about 55 years old, he had a severe case of perforated ulcers (compliments of the PTSD) that almost killed him. While still recovering, he became more reflective about his life and what was actually important to him. The next year, he was diagnosed with melanoma. He had grown up at a time when the word “cancer” was barely uttered because it was so feared. He had surgery that was successful. But he was no longer able to work at the job he loved so much. The permanent damage to his health from these two medical traumas changed his life in ways that left him feeling lost. So, as he said, he had a lot of time to look at the ceiling and to think about what was truly important and about the implications for how he’d live his live.

Over the next few years, Dad became wiser about the importance of his relationships with the people he loved. His behaviors— ones we thought could never change— mellowed. He was quicker to smile at the good things, quicker to feel “emotional” in a variety of situations that previously would have simply cause him to shut down, emotionally. Sometimes, tears would well up in his eyes, just thinking about how profoundly he loved his daughters.

We don’t always talk about emotional wisdom, but it’s incredibly precious. It’s not something that you can learn by reading. It’s obviously not something you can learn simply by analysis. It comes from taking the brave step of letting yourself feel.

It took two near-death experiences for my father to realize just how highly he treasured the people he loved and to open up to feeling and expressing his love in joyous ways. That wisdom he gained by taking those first brave steps to self-awareness was worth more than all the knowledge and intellectual skills he’d developed over his life.

The Great American Hoax Hoax

Perhaps the most obvious hoax on the American people is that which claims that most news reports that oppose their beliefs are hoaxes while none of the reports that reinforce their beliefs are hoaxes. There are many examples of this phenomenon, of course. One that continues to thrive in July of 2017 regards whether news reports of a Trump-Russia connection are a hoax. Whether we are labeling these reports as humorous deceptions or malicious deceptions, there are informative news reports that present verified facts; they are not "hoaxes."

I’m not sure whether many people are amenable to changing their mind about whether the news reporting on the Trump-Russia connection is factual. It’s extremely difficult to let go of a belief that any of us have embraced. If you aren’t interested in knowing information that might question the Russian-Trump "hoax" belief, I respect that. I know I have strongly held beliefs that I’d have a hard time giving up. I believe that direct statements and observable actions by politicians tell us what these people are saying or doing; anything else is a secondary source that is likely to cherry pick “facts” or is a theory about what we don’t actually know to be true. Sometimes those primary sources are telling the truth, but all you can say about what they’ve said is “this is what they said; this is what they observably did.” I’d have a difficult time changing that belief about primary “evidence” being the best source of information! I also believe that conspiracy theories are damaging the U.S. as a nation and that the Russians are exploiting this phenomenon. At least that’s what I’ve heard a Russian operative say in a recorded interview.

I’m thinking we might want to consider what Donald Trump, Jr. has shared directly of his email messages and his personal comments rather than citing the “reprobates” at CNN, for example. To wit: He tried to collude with Russian operatives to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton but (at least as of July 15th) claims he got nothing and instead was lobbied to lift sanctions on Russia. Both activities are illegal; neither attempt by the Russian operatives was reported to the CIA at the time. Someone left that room with a folder of papers that arrived with one of the Russian operatives who attended the meeting. Who took the papers had not been confessed as of July 15th. There should be no speculation but a lot of further investigation.

President Trump is now saying that, yes, the meeting took place; yes, his son and son-in-law (and others) were eager to know what dirt the Russians had on Clinton. However, Trump, Jr. did not do anything wrong. “Opposition research” is the name of the game in politics, and Trump, Jr. didn’t realize it was illegal to deal with the Russians on this. (The Trumps are new to politics, after all, say the apologists. For the rest of us, ignorance of the law does not confer innocence.) Jared Kushner has gradually added over 100 incidents in which he met with Russians when providing his security clearance application form. The additions have come after he was given a security clearance. Reports of these situations are not hoaxes. Trump, Jr. and Kushner have acknowledged these facts. That they did not report these facts in a timely way is not proof that they did or did not know it was wrong to deceive. Knowing the intent for the deception (or oversight) is extremely difficult to prove, so jumping to conclusions about innocence or guilt about intent is not appropriate. However, it's what they did that matters.

Back to one of my beliefs: Avoid all second-hand sources, whether it’s CNN or FOX, Hannity or Maddow. Look at the collection of email exchanges that Trump, Jr. released and clearly stated are what went on (including his “I love it!” statement regarding Russians interfering with U.S. elections). Listen to what Trump, Jr. and the others who attended that meeting are saying about what transpired. Even information about who was in that meeting has been released like a slowly dripping faucet that needs a new washer. There may be more details coming, but Trump, Jr. has already made it clear that there is a “Trump-Russia thing” (to quote Trump, Sr's term).

All of the intelligence agencies in the U.S. government had independent investigations regarding whether Russia (via operatives or directly with Putin’s leadership) interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections (not just with the presidential election). All of the intelligence agencies came to similar conclusions: Russia did interfere and they know many of the situations where this took place (e.g., state elections as well as federal). It is not a hoax that Russians interfered. It is almost surely not true that all federal agencies are in collusion against Trump and, therefore, are going after an innocent Russia or an innocent member of Trump's entourage. Look for transcripts of summaries of those reports; listen to the directors’ public comments on the subject.

CNN has been accused (and found guilty) many times of rushing forward with a story that is unconfirmed in order to have a larger audience. That they pushed forward with a Trump-Russia story before we had the facts we have now would not surprise me, but the timeline suggests that CNN’s Van Jones spoke before having the facts that were revealed the week after his sidewalk comment that there was little substance to reports of the Trump, Jr. meeting with Russian operatives and less substance in Democrats’ response to what was known at that time.

Many Americans believed that those closest to Trump and his campaign would not have met directly with Russian operatives, but now know they were wrong. CNN’s Van Jones could have been post-rationalizing about his nothing-burger comment on the day after O’Keefe published his edited version of Jones’s dialogue. However, the nothing-burger comment and its post-rationalizing was made before all the factual revelations came to light. At the time of the nothing-burger comment, a lot of people thought that Liberals were attempting to light a bonfire without any wood. Jones was apparently one of those people. And, let’s face it, the Democrats are not getting out a coherent message that people are listening to.

Believing this hoax theory after the Trump entourage's confessed activities were made public is amazing, but not surprising. It’s a belief that some Americans are holding on to, though fewer since Trump, Jr's statements indicate that there’s a lot of burger in that sandwich.