“On Whiteness and The Racial Imaginary” by Claudia Rankine offers valuable perspective on whiteness in writing and it’s persistence in the literary institution. Rankine brings to light whiteness and its interaction with race. While doing this, she breaks down the person of color’s experience in an white institution, and what that means for them as writers and creators.
Rankine beings by giving examples of tropes one might encounter when approaching white writers writing about race. All of these tropes are racist and ignorant in some way, and exude whiteness and privilege. Although these writers may be heartfelt and well-meaning, their way of thinking is harmful to themselves and those in reach of them, i.e. those who read their work on race. The high frequency of white writers like this adds to the alarm. The white writer’s defense of their writing is overwhelmingly narrow-minded. Their argument for writing on race and other perspectives is that imagination is a “free space” and creativity is transcendental, meaning race, social class, gender, etc are concepts that anyone can tackle because we are above them all. They believe they have the right “to imagine from the point of view of anyone I want—it is against the nature of art itself to place limits on who or what I can imagine” meaning their occupation as writers makes it so they can write about anything. Rankine provides the following argument: race is inherently a part of the imagination because our imagination is an extension of the self, which is undoubtedly attached to and affected by our experience with race. Therefore, when writers make the argument that the imaginary is not affected by race, they are wrong. She says this is not to say writers cannot write about race and from the perspectives of another, it is to ask them why they would want to inhabit that space and “what for… if and how.” Rankine also wants to ask white writers, what is the purpose of using other perspectives? What can you say now that you are using this perspective, and why would you want that idea out in the world, coming from that certain perspective? When white writers talk about the transcendence of the imaginary, they go looking outwards, to other races and lives. They do not look at themselves and their power over their imaginary and lived experiences. White writers writing on race who frequent other bodies and experiences should ask themselves why they write from such a position. If they think they have nothing interesting to add on the topic of race as a white person, they should look within themselves and get to know the bigger ideas and understandings that exist within them.
Rankine also provides insight on the way literary institutions remain in favor of a whitewashed system. They do this by asking for specific content on race from their writers of color, stifling their true perspectives and lived realities by creating a space and system that only accepts certain narratives and discussions. This kind of expectation can be hard for any writer to achieve. Not to mention the conflict and turmoil the writers must be facing about genuine voice vs. work demands. Literary communities also continue to value white writers’ feelings over the valid opinions and questions of readers of color. When people of color bring up a point in white writers’ work, the writers get offended and feel targeted, feeling that this person of color is coming from a political perspective aiming to attack them for being white. After all, despite what point is brought up against the white writers, their intentions weren’t to be offensive in any way, and thus the community rallies to support the writer. As a result, nothing worth talking about is confronted, in this case: whiteness.
This eventually leads to Rankine’s final point and goal: we have to untangle the idea of the racial imaginary that exists in all of us. Some of us have to do more work than others, but all pf us have existed up til now as consumers of a white narrative, and therefore our imagination has also been been affected. Noticing our biases and intentions is not enough, we have to work against the white narrative by following the true creativity inside of us. Ideas and concepts we might not understand but exist within us can mean something profound in someone else, or to the future world. Rankine wants us to write our truth, and to teach something. We cannot connect to everyone at once, so the goal of a universal piece is unachievable, but we can write to teach.
This text is beautifully written and only a tiny bit confusing. Rankine surely has a way with words; a topic like this would’ve been difficult to understand had it been written with an academic style, but her almost poetic, almost spiritual explanations and questions made me enjoy my time here. While reading this piece, I thought to myself many things. For one, just because you can write about something doesn’t mean you should. Another one: intent is not an excuse that can protect you, because by the time you discover the impact of your words, your audience who’ve read and digested your work have been guided to believe a certain idea that might harm themselves and/or someone else. At the end of the text I found myself reading the comments at the bottom, and the most popular one by Claudio Ferrara made me think, what would Rankine say? It’s true we wouldn’t have as many profound pieces of works if past writers had stuck to their lanes and written about themselves. Like Rankine said, our standard of good writing shouldn’t be based on the universal, it should be to teach. The pieces listed in Ferrara’s comment do that. Rankine emphasizes why white writers write from the perspective of another, why they use the racial imaginary to create. They can create without borrowing other races, genders, etc. I think Ferrara missed the point and felt called out.