AS THE University grapples with the recent outbreak of racial intolerance, we are confronted with conundrum upon conundrum. We want to combat wrongdoing based on group identity. Yet, we find ourselves pushing back on the basis of group identity. We want to restrict the liberties of racists. Yet, we find ourselves also undermining the cornerstone of multiculturalism: the freedom to associate on the basis of race. While no one has yet reconciled these puzzles, it is important to point them out nonetheless so that we do not rush into simplistic responses.
Racial slurs have such a powerful effect for speakers and listeners alike because they denigrate the individual. It is one thing to call someone an obscenity. It evokes a much stronger reaction, however, to apply the same obscenity to an entire racial group. While one might be tempted to say that the latter is more injurious because it is libelous to the group, this begs the question of why any individual should be more hurt by an insult directed at his group than at himself.
We are particularly offended by group insults because they assault our basic notion that every person should be viewed as an individual and judged on the basis of his or her own merits. As for the racist, we are also offended because we believe that no one is entitled to feel superior on the basis of membership in a particular group.
Despite this universal presumption favoring individualism, the responses to racism seem inevitably to come from groups. Rightfully outraged reactions always seem to be articulated on behalf of "the black community," "the gay community," or some other such community.
The inability to respond to racism as individuals is an unfortunate irony. It is impossible to ever eradicate hate and resentment from the repertoire of human emotion. The most we can do is to avoid adding fuel to the fire by channeling these emotions away from group identities. After all, no society in history has ever experienced genocide or practiced segregation in the name of individualism. Yet, we invariably respond to racial attacks by reasserting the racial identities that fuel such attacks, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle.
Some will object that this is essentially blaming the victim, and that the burden lies with the racists to be tolerant of other racial identities. However, this presumption of group identity contradicts our abovementioned premise of individual sovereignty. We cannot have our individualism cake when responding to racism and eat our group identity cake at all other times.
In any event, to surrender our own unique qualities and personalities for the stereotypes of the group seems like the ultimate act of self-hatred and subservience. This brings up, indirectly, a second point. In the wake of every racial incident, someone will inevitably suggest that hate speech be prohibited under the University's honor code. This proposal is difficult to ignore because of its emotional appeal.
The French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau famously stated that mankind must be "forced to be free." Rousseau's theory is proven by our tendency to lapse into group identities despite our strong preference for individualism. Because individuals are not truly free when they are controlled by groupthink, perhaps we could force people to be free by banning one form of groupthink: racism.
However, we could ban racism no more than we could ban racialism (i.e. the commitment to racial identities). The paradox of a "free" society is that we allow people the right to choose not to be free. Thus, whether people choose to be unfree by expressing their allegiance or contempt for a particular race, we would not countenance the suppression of unfreedom either by law or by force.
In the end, the most promising, but also the most difficult way out of this conundrum is to promote freedom by minimizing our servitude to racial identities in our daily lives. With persuasion and example as our only weapons, this may take a lifetime, if not many lifetimes, to achieve, given the millennia head start that racism and racialism have enjoyed. But the only way that we can ever coexist peacefully in a pluralistic society is to respect one another as individuals.
Eric Wang's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ewang@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 3 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 4 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
