Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: activism, college, conscious hip hop, education, hip hop
Almost three years ago to the day, I began my college education as an incoming student enrolled in the Penn Center for Africana Studies Summer Institute for Pre-freshmen. At the time I fit the prototype of a black (male) campus activist, a la Dap from School Daze. I rocked a large afro (with the black fist pick), cycled through a wardrobe of Afrocentric-themed t-shirts, and armed myself with an already substantial library of literature by revolutionary black authors. My penchant for the writings of Malcolm X and relentless pursuit of social justice causes earned me the title “socially conscious brother” from a group of upperclassmen, a distinction that quickly set me on a path toward campus leadership positions and an interest in academia.
As a burgeoning emcee and avowed “hip hop head,” I emphasized my affinity for the “conscious” and “underground” subgenres, celebrating the potential hip hop music held as a source of cultural expression and political resistance. Admittedly, in my high school years, I was the brother who would chastise fans of popular acts like Dipset while singing the praises of dead prez. Now three years later, though, I’ve traded in the afro for a caesar, the 2XL t-shirts are down to a large, and I equally appreciate the intricate lyrics of Jay Electronica, the personal complexity of Lil’ Wayne, and the performative energy of Soulja Boy. Not coincidentally, recent years have seen the lines between mainstream and underground, conscious and street, become blurred. Mychal Smith’s recent blog contribution, “Talib Kweli and The Demise of the Conscious Rapper”—which denounces Kweli’s choice to collaborate with the noticeably less socially aware Gucci Maine—and Kweli’s incisive response, exemplify to this trend. To briefly summarize, Smith outlines a number of not-so-conscious slips by purportedly conscious rappers, while Kweli conditionally rejects the conscious label, readily accepting the contradictions inherent in all artists—or individuals for that matter.
I can easily identify with the debate they raise, both as a fan of hip hop music and a bearer of the “conscious” tag. While I agree with Kweli’s critiques, I believe Smith correctly observes that the 90’s and early 2000’s conscious aesthetic is fundamentally different in 2010. To think that emo-hipster emcees Kid Cudi and Drake are even suggested as “conscious” alternatives to the familiar hood tropes of Gucci and the Clipse is proof that the worlds of hip hop and black America are shifting significantly. If Kweli’s collaboration marks the demise of the conscious rapper, does it mark the end of the socially conscious brother (or sister) as well?
Though my individual passion for social justice remains—yes, even in the absence of the Huey Freeman afro—it bears noting that “conscious brothers” have become an endangered species of sorts. Whereas black alumni from the 90’s recall community led discussions of seminal texts in the black literary canon, some of my black mentors are shocked to learn that few students read outside of their assigned coursework, and former mainstays like Cheikh Anta Diop’s The African Origin of Civilization, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and Toni Morrison’s Beloved are largely absent from the black campus consciousness.
I by no means think this is true of all campuses nationwide, but Penn is nonetheless representative of comparable PWI’s. While Ivy League students of color are expected to represent the pinnacle of educational success in our respective communities, we too are distancing ourselves from those very communities, as the gap between the haves and have-nots widens. In the age of Obama, it seems, few aspire to be the “conscious brother” on campus. While this signals a certain air of progress, it also means that we are growing less historically informed and socially engaged.
Like Kweli, I have come to see the contradictions and limitations inherent in the “socially conscious brother,” a label that implies a masculinist and heteronormative understanding of black leadership. In my college years, (thanks to black women peers and mentors) I have sought to continually reflect on my black male privilege, a privilege that granted me many of the opportunities I received. However, as post-“conscious” moment gains momentum, I don’t see brothers embarking on the same journey to understand their potential as allies in the struggle for women’s and queer liberation. Instead, the demise of the conscious brother aesthetic appears to indicate a moment of widespread apathy among the privileged few that reach the promised land of our country’s elite institutions. In the absence of “conscious” iconography, are we truly viewing the demise of campus social consciousness as well?
As a college student mentor in the Ase Academy, an African-centered Saturday enrichment program for middle and high school students in the Philadelphia area, I often discuss the contemporary significance of “African-centered” education with my colleagues. While I don’t plan on retiring the conscious t-shirts anytime soon, I realize that younger brothers are more likely to opt for skinny jeans and a skateboard. Regardless of their fashion choices, I have witnessed time and time again the impact of educating young black men and women in African Diasporic history, something lacking in public high schools and Ivy League social circles alike. So is the socially conscious brother a thing of the past, or is he being rebranded?
16 Comments so far
Leave a comment
“I have sought to continually reflect on my black male privilege, a privilege that granted me many of the opportunities I received.”
You destroyed a perfectly good Blog Post with the idiocy of that statement. Thanks for the Trackback
Comment by The Blogger July 23, 2010 @ 3:03 pmThanks for the comment and your earlier post on the black literary canon that touches on a number of the issues I address here.
I assume you reject the idea of “black male privilege” based on the sustained oppression of black men such as ourselves, but would you concede that the “conscious” archetype is one explicitly gendered and often (unfortunately? mistakenly?) linked to masculinist notions of black leadership?
As a college student, I was availed a certain status based on my black MALE conscious identity, one that sisters weren’t privy too. Black women far outnumber us at schools across the country, but that doesn’t mean the campus dynamic isn’t favorable to the brothers who make it there.
Whether we are discussing the gender politics of the black community on campus or the sexual assault of black women at the hands of brothers (Aishah Simmons’ film No!: The Rape Documentary gives unprecedented voice to this issue) I believe that it’s clear a black male privilege exists, even if it does not display the uniformity of its white male counterpart.
I can understand if you disagree with the rhetorical use of “privilege,” but I hope my explanation at least clarifies why that section of the post was necessary.
Comment by rjobson July 23, 2010 @ 3:36 pmThe simple answer to your question is no. I’ve debated and debunked this Black Male Privilege canard in front of the very “scholars” who trafficked in it. The mere suggestion of it is so vile to me that I’m loathe to rehash the debate again. I’ll have to go back to my twitter archives to seek the discussion out.
Comment by The Blogger July 23, 2010 @ 7:45 pmBlack male suicide his increased 200% in the last 30 years eclipsing any other gender/race demographic. Cease pushing the Black Male privilege idiocy, seriously.
Comment by The Blogger July 23, 2010 @ 7:47 pmAll I would ask for from someone who rejects the idea of black male privilege is an alternative framework to explain the sustained assault of black women, physically and emotionally, by those who proclaim to be their brothers. Generations of men have failed their female counterparts, something we see equally from Friedrich Engels (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State) and Alice Walker (The Color Purple). I can debate the rhetorical use of “privilege” but I won’t debate rape apologism.
Regarding the suicide stats, I assume you mean the rate of increase outpaces other demographics. The statistics here (http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#2005) show that white men still far outpace all others in rates of suicide. Unless you think this disproves white privilege, I don’t see what it offers to your argument. There is a mental health crisis in our community, and what likely affects the rate of black male suicide (as opposed to black women) is our collective refusal to accept black men as emotional beings. The gender binary we enact in this process illustrates exactly how patriarchy hurts black women AND men. It’s not an uncomplicated issue, but an issue exists nonetheless, regardless of the label you use to describe it.
Comment by Ryan J July 23, 2010 @ 8:11 pmRe: the non-existence of black male privilege – I agree with you Ryan. I think when we think of “the power to oppress” and “being oppressed” as concepts with no overlap, we run into these sorts of misunderstandings. “Privilege” denotes, among many other things, the power to oppress another group and/or some structural advantage (i.e. – economic, political, societal, cultural, etc.) over another group. It is certainly possible for a group with privilege to still be at risk for/experience several forms of oppression.
No one is saying that black men aren’t oppressed in certain ways–privilege doesn’t necessarily denote an exclusion from any and all forms of oppression. The concept of black male privilege simply acknowledges the structural advantages that black males do have, in order to recognize and prevent forms of oppression that may result–largely amongst communities of black women. It’s near-sighted and pretty androcentric to view such interrogations of privilege as simply an “attack” on the black male–it’s not JUST about the black male. It IS, more importantly, about the communities that suffer as a direct result of said privilege.
This is not a new debate. It stems back to the Civil Rights and Black Power movements in the 60s and 70s and is at the center of several older and more contemporary black feminist movements. I’d argue that leaving these less acknowledged forms of privilege unrecognized are equally as damaging (if not more) as turning a blind eye to any other, more frequently cited form of privilege.
Comment by Petal July 23, 2010 @ 11:09 pmOn another note, something I thought about while reading your post (though pretty off-topic):
I’m glad you raised the question you did in the last sentence of your post and I’m not exactly sure how I would answer it—but I am glad you raised the term “rebranded”. I think another really interesting aspect of this discussion is the commercialization of the “socially conscious brother”. This category, after its first few popularly successful proponents, did, in fact, become a brand, and there are those who began assuming it for more commercial purposes. Like any new, different, popular movement–with time, there are those who tend to forego awareness of its historical and societal significance, and privilege its aesthetic appeal. (i.e. – the conscious t-shirts, etc.) Granted, the appeal of its aesthetic IS in part wrapped up in the fact that it has political significance–but there are those who rock the shirts and know that they’re political, but couldn’t point to the origins of the “socially conscious brother” or tell you in very great detail the set of interventions that the movement was intent on making.
Take, for instance, the hipster. I’ve read articles citing contemporary hipsters as the “dead end of Western civilization” (lmao). Now while I don’t necessarily disagree at times, there is something to be said about the fact that there are those(hipsters included) who don’t know where the hipster movement began or why. Sure, they know it’s about “resistance”, and “subversion” and “redefinition” but so are, to an extent, most alternative subcultures (i.e. – beatnik, bohemian, mod, punk, even ppl like hardliners) So, why and how does hipsterdom specifically serve their purposes? Probably because it seems to be, in some places, what’s hot in the streets right now.
While the spheres of hipsterdom and the “socially conscious brother” are worlds apart in some ways, I think the adoption of these movements as primarily aesthetic rather than deeply political and ideological does much to contribute to the expansion and evolution (for better or worse) of these categories.
To be fair, though, we also have to point to the hand that corporate plays in all this. Places like Urban Outfitters and Jimmy Jazz, for example, certainly play their part in commercializing and advertising these movements that often intend to resist the machine that these companies are also part of.
In the end, I’m wondering–how much (if at all) does a perceived commercialization and aestheticization(?) of the “conscious brother” (probably intertwined with our existence in a different political moment) have to do with his scarcity?
Amazing post–enjoyed it a lot!
Comment by Petal July 23, 2010 @ 11:42 pmThe rate of White Male suicide has been consistently higher than all races and genders since those statistics have been recorded. Hence, they are not correlative nor diminishing of White Male Privilege to point out those stats especially when looking at such numbers during Jim Crow when White men where the epitome of the beneficiaries of White male privilege. Their suicide rates where still higher.
The rapid increase in Black Male suicide in the period when Black men have been perceived to have the most agency is a minor indicator that Black Male Privilege is a fallacy because that increase in agency should have a commensurate increase in quality of life, as opposed to diminution. (See incarceration and socio-economic decline of Black men)
Furthermore, none of the manifestations of sexism or misogyny you discuss are endemic of only Blacks. There is nothing “Black” about those pathologies. They happen in larger degree among poor men then rich men also. So is there a “Poor male privilege” because men at a lower socio-economic demographic exhibit sexism and violent misogyny in larger number? I think not.
White Privilege transfers to all aspects and spaces in society at home and abroad because it is married to the reality of White Supremacy. A white man can go to Africa, Asia, and Saudi Arabia and be able to transact commerce and gain access easier than even some indigenous males of those lands at a similar class as himself. What Black male privilege works in China and Saudi Arabia that provides that international network of security buttressed by White Supremacy? NONE. In fact, Black Maleness is only advantageous when compared only to Black femaleness in a slowly diminishing number of examples. What about the case with Latinos, Asians, and Germans. Is there German male and Latino male privilege as well as Black Male privilege because they exhibit sexist and misogynistic pathologies? No, that’s idiocy. What all these men benefit from is the way PATRIARCHY manifests in their respective societies attenuated to their respective cultures and ethnicities. Black patriarchy manifests itself different than White Patriarchy. But they are all Patriarchy. Your concern is with how Patriarchy manifests in the Black Community or “Black Patriarchy” if you will. Which is both a realty and international because it exists in Africa, Haiti, and France. Black Male Privilege fails as a concept because its progenitor White Male Privilege is not only manifested upon White Women, it is influential to all humanity via its correlative White Supremacy.
Comment by The Blogger July 24, 2010 @ 1:03 amYes, you’re correct, all men hold a privileged position in a patriarchal society. However, the point of discussing a distinctive “black male privilege” is to note that it does not manifest itself in the same fashion as white male privilege, as you note here. The problem arises when individuals reject the role of patriarchy in the black community altogether solely because of the racial oppression we encounter.
To discuss black male privilege in this fashion has nothing to do with pathology, and I would warn against applying that line of thinking to Germans or Latinos (or anyone else for that matter). I don’t equate a discussion of black male privilege with Birth of a Nation. I am not conjuring stereotypes of hypersexualized, sexually insatiable black men. I am simply acknowledging that we hold gender privilege that is not erased by our racial oppression. Just as Peggy McIntosh famously wrote of the “invisible knapsack” of white privilege, black men are privileged in numerous respects vis-a-vis black women. Black women are subjected to street harassment and sexual assault, and often instigated by brothers like us. We don’t have to worry about the possibility of either when we step onto the street as straight black men. That is textbook privilege, and what the current conversation surrounding black male privilege seeks to address.
Point being, you are concerned primarily with the rhetorical use of “privilege” vs. “patriarchy” based on what you say above. Personally, I am less concerned with etymology and more concerned with the corporeal realities that result from patriarchy within the black community, from which black women bear physical and mental scars. As black men we have been scarred by white supremacy, but to dismiss our complicity in the struggles of black women has consequences that extend far beyond this conversation.
Clearly you’ve given this a lot of thought and have a strong opinion on this aspect of my post and the concept of black male privilege. All in all, this conversation is worthy of multiple blog entries, and I hope to continue the debate here or on your blog in the future.
Comment by Ryan J July 24, 2010 @ 5:15 am“In the age of Obama, it seems, few aspire to be the “conscious brother” on campus. While this signals a certain air of progress, it also means that we are growing less historically informed and socially engaged.”
Something about this statement really strikes me as wrong. Are you basing it purely upon your experience (an ivy league one) or have you heard from non-ive leaguers about the disappearance of the “conscious brother” on campuses?
Comment by TKOEd July 24, 2010 @ 6:13 amI specifically take issue with the last part of that statement, but I’m also not in college. I assume you know your peers better than I. As I stated, I’m wondering if this is an ivy league experience.
Comment by TKOEd July 24, 2010 @ 6:15 amOurs is a society organized by and for men. ~Adrienne Rich.
Thank you for taking the time to write this piece. I appreciate this space.
There are a couple of things that I want to share before I respond to statement made by The Blogger.
Oppression, like the hood, looks different on the context + location.
In talking about the privileges that Black men have by simply being born men are live and direct. In a society organized by and for men, men being privileged is natural.
The question is how do these privileges look in our day to day lives and what is politically at stake if we ignore them?
Furthermore, none of the manifestations of sexism or misogyny you discuss are endemic of only Blacks. There is nothing “Black” about those pathologies. They happen in larger degree among poor men then rich men also. So is there a “Poor male privilege” because men at a lower socio-economic demographic exhibit sexism and violent misogyny in larger number? I think not.
=====
I see that you are doing a class critique here, but it is important that we keep it even
Are you saying that Black male privilege impacts low income and affluent men differently?
Why is this distinction relevant?
Affluent Black men and low income Black men both benefit from being men in a society that privileges the masculine over feminine.
~R
Comment by Renina July 24, 2010 @ 6:26 am#ummhmm
Words and language matter. Especially in the social sciences. I have already disabused the idiotic notion of “Black Male Privilege” by demonstrating that its ideological progenitor, White Privilege or White Male Privilege is UBIQUITOUS AND UNIVERSAL IN ITS SOCIAL BENEFIT TO WHITES AND WHITE MEN. There is no benefit of Black life whether male of female that offers a ubiquitous social benefit to Black people. Blackness in America and the world is SADLY a SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE OF WHITE SUPREMACY and it operation System known as RACISM. This language is crucial and important if not only for the reason that IF A WHITE ACADEMIC TRIED TO POSTULATE A THEORY THAT BLACK MEN POSSESSED A SOCIETAL PRIVILEGE EVEN OVER MERELY BLACK WOMEN, BLACK FOLK WOULD BE OUTRAGED. This notion is an imbecilic canard created by Black male sensitivity pimps posing as scholars who have a perverted desire to have Black men apologize for their masculinity as if in itself Black masculinity is undesirable. This is a dangerous and noxious trend by those entrenched in liberal ivory towers of academia desiring to implement a hyper feminist social consciousness on Black Men in America. Luckily their are still some of us still smart enough to see through this trash passing as scholarship. There is nothing Black about sexism, domestic violence, and misogyny. It is a product of the global reality of Patriarchy. Is patriarchy in its application in society oppressive of women? Without a doubt, and its oppressive manifestations should be attacked and deconstructed, especially in its forms within already vulnerable societies like those of African Americans. But to suggest any notion of a “Black Male Privilege” even if a mere rhetorical slip of the tongue is both ahistorical and sheer folly. When did Black Male Privilege in America begin? On the slave ships in Africa that bought Blacks here where the number of Black men outnumbered Black women sometimes 8 to 1? On the slave plantation where the physiological and intellectual castration of Black men was a linchpin of maintaining White Supremacy? Or was it during Jim Crow when Black men were being lynched with impunity throughout America? No it must be a product of the age of Obama. Such utter nonsense.
Comment by The Blogger July 24, 2010 @ 11:45 amWords and language DO matter. So, let’s talk semantics:
1) First, I’m not sure why you cite white male privilege as the ideological “progenitor” of black male privilege–implying that white male privilege is the source from which all other sorts of privilege are derived and are considered in relation. Sure, I can sort of see your point if you’re referring specifically to the US in a contemporary context. But believe it or not, the world has not always been Eurocentric and dominated by networks of white hegemony. Sure, perhaps we can consider a notion like this if we were speaking strictly in colonial and postcolonial contexts (although even in these contexts, your statement would be problematic). The world is a complex network of ideologies and societies, so if you’re going to speak of “progenitors”, not only must you give yourself geographical, temporal, ethnic, etc. parameters, you must be sure that the two concepts are linked in a way that one can be derived from the other, so as to have a “progenitorial” relationship. Like Ryan previously mentioned, Black male privilege and white male privilege manifest themselves very differently, so how exactly are you establishing the “progenitorial” link between the two?
2)You say “White privilege OR White male privilege”. These two are not coterminous, and therefore, not interchangeable. As you yourself have acknowledged, the privileges accorded to someone who is white and NOT gendered male (i.e. – female, transgender, gender ambiguous, etc.) are entirely different to those accorded to the white male.
3) “ubiquitous and universal” – As I mentioned before, the world is a complex network of ideologies and societies. How are you measuring a privilege that is ubiquitous and universal? And who is it that has it exactly? White males? That category would include white males that are not heterosexual (i.e. – homosexual/bisexual, etc.), white males that experience disability (physical, mental, etc.), poor white males, white males that identify with various alternative subcultures (i.e. – goth, punk, mod, etc.) etc. Do all these categories of white males enjoy the privilege you’re referencing? Are you measuring this privilege by their ability to “be able to transact commerce and gain access easier than even some indigenous males of those lands at a similar class as himself” as you’ve mentioned previously?
Well, in response to that, I can tell you this much–if you send a white, heterosexual, upper class, christian, English-speaking American (dressed in any acceptable US summer garb), physically & mentally able man to the central mosque in Touba, Senegal, he would be turned away before he even reached the gates. By this example alone, white men as a diverse group do NOT have ubiquitous and universal privilege by the standard you have established. Unless, of course, Touba, Senegal (and certainly many other similar sites in the world) are suddenly no longer on the map?
I think you do a dangerous thing by citing a distinctly Western (largely American even) framework as indicative of what’s going on elsewhere in the world. Your delineation of who enjoys this ubiquitous privilege, where this privilege is enjoyed, and how this privilege is manifested lacks specificity. That is, if words and language matter as much as you say.
4) “Black male sensitivity pimps” – I’m sorry, I’m just not sure who or what that is. Clarification?
5) “a perverted desire to have Black men apologize for their masculinity” – It’s pretty myopic to think that the end goal of this discussion is to have black men apologize for their masculinity. Like I’ve noted before, the center of a discussion such as “black male privilege” should not be simply black males. It should be the communities who are affected by this privilege. I would even critique the implications of the term “black male privilege” when considering, for example, that black males who do not identify as heterosexual are similarly violently affected by a black male heterosexual privilege. This conversation is NOT about breaking down black men. It’s about building up communities negatively affected by the privilege of another group.
6) “This is a dangerous and noxious trend by those entrenched in liberal ivory towers of academia desiring to implement a hyper feminist social consciousness on Black Men in America” – I think you do all participants in the discussion, including yourself, a great disservice when you say this. First, those who recognize “black male privilege” as a viable concept are not limited to people who attend “liberal ivory tower institutions”, and not all those who attend these institutions accept the idea.
We are all intellectual equals in the quest, through academia, to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone and by dismissing an idea because you perceive that it comes from an “liberal ivory tower” institution does the conversation and yourself a great injustice.
Everyone here has shown the utmost respect for your ideas, despite the fact that you have referenced Ryan’s arguments as “idiocy”, “trash passing as scholarship”, “utter nonsense”, “ahistorical”, and “sheer folly”, among other things. Some of your responses, even, have reflected a marked failure to carefully read through and respond to the contributions of all commentators in this discussion. The way you’ve approached this discussion is symptomatic, rather, of YOUR desires to implement an agenda on black males in America and an aversion to having a debate that may be productive for all those involved without being disrespectful. Unless YOU believe there’s a hierarchy of thought between those who attend “liberal ivory tower” institutions (however you’ve chosen to define that phrase) and those who don’t, it’s unproductive to delineate thought in that way. Thought is thought, and academia is academia, no one voice is more important than the other, no matter where it’s been trained.
I could go on and on, Blogger, and I welcome any responses or critiques you have of my arguments. But I will say this: Don’t continue this conversation unless you’re ready to come correct, with respect and without condescension.
Comment by Petal July 24, 2010 @ 2:44 pmYou inspired me to write a Blog About this subject: The Black Male Privilege Canard: http://open.salon.com/blog/thought_merchant/2010/07/24/the_black_male_privilege_canard
Comment by The Blogger July 24, 2010 @ 1:12 pmIt’s interesting that none of the commenters have offered the “Black Privileges Checklist” for examination. The list was inspired, no doubt, by Peggy McIntosh’s lauded essay “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” as well as Barry Deutsch’s The Male Privilege Checklist.
The author concedes that some of the points apply to all men, but there are more than a few that resonate with the black male experience:
5. I will be taken more seriously as a political leader than black women.
8. I can be a part of a black liberation organization like the Black Panther Party where an “out” rapist Eldridge Cleaver can assume leadership position.
78. My “strength” as a man is never connected with the failure of the black family, whereas the strength of black women is routinely associated with the failure of the black family.
80. Chances are I will be defined as a “good man” by things I do not do as much as what I do. If I don’t beat, cheat, or lie, then I am a considered a “good man”. In comparison, women are rarely defined as “good women” based on what they do not do.
84. In the Black Church Tradition, most of the theology has a male point of view. For example, most will assume that the man is the head of household.
I think rather than simply denying or affirming the concept of Black Male Privilege, we might do better to interrogate these identified incarnations of BMP.
Comment by mightydougla July 24, 2010 @ 2:44 pm