Rejecting Respectability Politics

Estimated Reading Time: 16 minutes

If you read our first post, you know that our desire in this endeavor is to broaden the narrative of our nation to include voices that have been erased. The varied experiences and perceptions of the excluded continue to be discredited, ignored, or silenced even today. Before delving deeper into specific examples that will expand our understanding of our country's past and how it informs our present, we want to lay some more foundational groundwork for hearing from the marginalized. We must reject respectability politics if we are to honor the humanity of those on the margins.

If you aren’t familiar with respectability politics, Wikipedia defines the concept as "attempts by marginalized groups to police their own members and show their social values as being continuous and compatible with mainstream values rather than challenging the mainstream for what they see as its failure to accept difference."

In the context of the United States of America, even those who bear the name Christian have participated in the perpetuation and support of respectability politics. We have heard on numerous occasions in Christian circles a demand for people who want to be treated with respect to speak English, conform to standards regarding clothing determined by the majority culture, style their hair to be deemed more employable according to the principles determined by the mainstream voices, be men to hold a position of authority inside and outside of the church, be white in order to have a dominant role in the systems and institutions of our nation, and adhere to Christian values even if the other people are not Christians. Lives that do not fit what is considered the norm have less value as a result of respectability politics. We ourselves have been guilty of voicing some of these views in the past, and for this we lament and repent, striving to do better by the power of the Spirit to show honor to everyone.

Respectability politics is nothing new. In his book Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, Ibram X. Kendi dedicates a chapter to what he refers to as “uplift suasion.” The excerpts below are from Carlos Lozada’s book review of Stamped from the Beginning.

“So many prominent Americans, many of whom we celebrate for their progressive ideas and activism, many of whom had very good intentions, subscribed to assimilationist thinking that has also served up racist beliefs about Black inferiority,” Kendi writes. They did so by promoting freedom but forgetting equality; by placing the burden of combating racism on black shoulders, not white ones; by implicitly accepting notions of inferiority, no matter how righteous their indignation; by conflating anti-racist claims and racist fears in an effort to claim a moralizing middle ground.

The battles over race in America would be fierce but simple if they pitted only racists against anti-racists, segregation against freedom. However, Kendi also calls out the assimilationists — those who seek to combat racial disparity but find blame in both the oppressed and the oppressors and, in the author’s view, are complicit in racism’s endurance and evolution.

Perhaps no concept comes in for greater grief in Stamped from the Beginning than what Kendi calls “uplift suasion” — the notion that white people could be persuaded away from racist views if they only saw black people working to lift themselves up from their lowly station. In other words, Kendi explains, the task of ending white racism falls to black people.

The problem with uplift suasion, Kendi writes, is that while negative portrayals of black Americans reinforce racist views, positive ones don’t weaken them — they are simply dismissed as exceptions, as “Extraordinary Negroes.” (The Cosby Show was a classic case, Kendi contends, with its attempt to “redeem the Black family in the eyes of White America.”)

Note that racial discrimination precedes its intellectual rationale. It is comforting, in a way, to believe that ignorance and hatred produce racist ideas and, in turn, racist actions; if so, greater education and understanding could break the cycle. But this progression is “largely ahistorical,” Kendi writes. Discriminatory actions, wrought by self-interest, come first. Then racist ideas are developed to justify them, and they spread. Hate and ignorance are symptoms, he argues, not causes. By the late 20th century, prejudice was less overt — “law and order” or “war on drugs” or “tough on crime” became the preferred organizing principles — but the arc of history bent in the same direction.

“Fooled by racist ideas,” Kendi admits, “I did not fully realize that the only thing wrong with Black people is that we think something is wrong with Black people.”

In her review of Stamped from the Beginning, Sadiah Qureshi wrote “as the book shows, uplift suasion places the burden of overcoming oppression solely on black people without dismantling institutionalised racism, such as in the education and prison systems. Meanwhile, anyone who does beat the odds is seen as extraordinary, not as evidence of broader potential under equal circumstances.”

The sentiments surrounding respectability politics, or uplift suasion as written by Kendi, wreak of extreme nationalism, racism, sexism, and even outright hatred in some instances towards those who do not meet the requirements set by the majority culture, which is white people in our country. Those opinions are not Christianity, do not reflect the compassion of Christ, discount the image of God in all people, and dishonor the name of the One who manifests beauty through diversity. The majority culture and those with the most power and privilege label their desires for behavior, attire, language, culture, and beauty as superior. Respectability politics is a sin of partiality against those who don’t adhere to the “superior” way of life. We must repent if we have been guilty of treating people unequally because of any characteristic.

Let’s examine the sin of partiality further by turning to the book of James.

My brothers and sisters, do not show favoritism as you hold on to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if someone comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and a poor person dressed in filthy clothes also comes in, if you look with favor on the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Sit here in a good place,” and yet you say to the poor person, “Stand over there,” or “Sit here on the floor by my footstool,” haven’t you made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Didn’t God choose the poor in this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? Yet you have dishonored the poor. Don’t the rich oppress you and drag you into court? Don’t they blaspheme the good name that was invoked over you? Indeed, if you fulfill the royal law prescribed in the Scripture, Love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing well. If, however, you show favoritism, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the entire law, and yet stumbles at one point, is guilty of breaking it all. -- James 2:1-10 (CSB)

These verses advocate treating all people with equal dignity, value, and worth, regardless of socioeconomic status. These verses are not, however, urging God’s people to be “money blind.” In the context of the passage written by James, those reading could likely see differences between the rich and the poor. James warns against giving preferential treatment to the wealthy because of their economic privilege. Though we should not treat people differently by altering the amount of dignity we demonstrate based on financial affluence, we should interact with people based on socioeconomic status in a sensitive manner. For example, we should be considerate of the poor in the midst of the assembly of God and not flaunt our money or speak in a way that could be construed as boasting about our possessions. We should exercise spiritual maturity, wisdom, and discernment in our interactions with people based on their amount of accumulated wealth but be careful not to let the differences in our thoughtful interactions turn into a difference in treatment.

Now, we can apply the same principle against the sin of partiality towards the wealthy to other characteristics. Just as we shouldn’t be “money blind” because that could cause unintentional damage, we shouldn't be “color blind.” If you are white, you have most likely learned to operate as one who is “color blind.” This approach is faulty, though, because we obviously can see that there are differences in skin tones. Under the “color blind” ideology, we may feel shame for “seeing” color or we may say we are color blind in an attempt to communicate that we don’t interact with people differently based on skin color, thinking that is the right method since it is all we know. We misconstrue the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior’s desire for his children to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin as a call to be color blind. He was not asking people to pretend like his children are white or to pretend like they don’t see the darker skin tones. White people in our nation have seen the danger of judging people by the color of their skin, so we wrongly assume that if we simply ignore the color of their skin and only focus on their character then we will be safe. Instead, we can and should see and celebrate differences, letting the differences inform our interactions. Seeing darker skin colors without assigning preconceived notions to those with darker skin and without treating them with less worth than someone with lighter skin is an approach that leads to giving God greater glory.

Further, Paul became all things to all people, which meant he had to educate himself about the history and culture of people without giving preference to those who were part of the majority culture or those who had the most power, privilege, or possessions. His love for fellow Jews was deep, but he was appointed to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. He had to know how to speak to and about various people in different ways while still treating people with equal dignity, value, and worth, regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status. Paul was informed in his interactions to relate to people differently without providing preferential treatment to anyone. Even Jesus interacted with people differently based on characteristics while valuing people equally. His harshest interactions were with the religious leaders, and His hardest words to heed were spoken to the privileged who would not give up their privilege to follow Him and have true life. It may have looked like Jesus was elevating the oppressed and marginalized above those with the most power, privilege, and possessions, but He was simply treating all people with equal dignity, value, and worth.

People should not have to assimilate in the United States of America for Christians to treat them with dignity, value, and worth. People should not have to speak English to be treated with respect. Walking with pants sagging or donning clothing that is not preferred by the majority culture does not mean that the wearer is inferior in any way. A criminal record, or lack thereof, is not indicative of the value of a life. Achieving higher education and a 4.0 GPA don’t give more worth to a person. In the words of Micah Bournes in his song “Kissed” featuring Lucee, “Ain’t no merit in talkin’ proper. Hair ain’t good ‘cause it’s straight and longer. Name ain’t bad because it’s complex. I bet Beyoncé got teased at recess.” There should be no characteristic we use for determining the value of a fellow image bearer’s life, and we should not treat any fellow image bearer in a way that does not communicate equal dignity, value, and worth. This is not how God treats us; therefore, it is not how we should treat others. Sadly, though, for centuries and even today in our nation, we do set a standard that people must adhere to and those who veer from what we have deemed as “superior” are labeled and treated as inferior in overt and covert ways. Implicit and explicit means of demeaning others are employed in our country every day.

One example of how the majority white culture in our context continues to devalue the beauty of diversity and defame the God who created diversity is by the standard of what is considered “normal” for hair. In The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley, Malcolm X pointed out examples of doing everything the majority white culture had set as the standard and still being despised. He detailed his experience of having his hair chemically altered to look more like the hair of white people. The hairstyle was called the conk, and from the 1920s to the 1960s, African-American men chemically straightened their hair with a relaxer. This process resulted in Malcolm X’s scalp being burned, and it had to be repeated, resulting in continually inflicting harm on himself in an attempt to be accepted by white people. Though this process is less painful today, African Americans and other people of color still feel the pressure to change their hair from the way God made it to be accepted by the majority white culture.

Standards of beauty must change because all women are image bearers of God. Every woman could struggle as a result of ever changing standards of beauty, but one thing that has not changed in our country is that the mainstream, and even Christians, have perpetuated the lies for centuries that lighter skin is more beautiful and that “natural” hair for women of color is not good. Women of color may be sexualized or objectified but that is not the same as being seen as a beautiful bearer of the Imago Dei. A woman of color feels the crushing weight of the standard of beauty being a white woman with fair skin, straight hair, thinner lips, etc. She knows that this is not who she is, and she should not feel less beautiful for how she bears the image of God. We reject these lies because all people are image bearers. We refuse to entertain the notion that people are more attractive if they are white or almost white. We don’t assign greater purity as the pigmentation of skin lightens.

Another example in our country is the treatment of and beliefs about Indigenous people, historically and currently. Becky Little wrote about boarding schools. She explained, “As part of this federal push for assimilation, boarding schools forbid Native American children from using their own languages and names, as well as from practicing their religion and culture. They were given new Anglo-American names, clothes, and haircuts, and told they must abandon their way of life because it was inferior to white people’s.” How much of this mindset lingers today toward Indigenous people? How do we view other marginalized groups or those who don’t assimilate to the culture of the white majority in our country right now?

Some more recent examples of respectability politics concern the flag and anthem of our nation. People do not have to pledge allegiance to our flag, stand for our flag, or be a citizen of our country for us to value them. We know many people think that kneeling during the anthem shows disrespect for the flag or veterans, thus it seems to them like the protesters are not valuing things that are important to many people in our country. Valuing a life and speaking about someone in a way that communicates honor are not contingent upon that person agreeing with us, holding in high regard the same issues we do, or esteeming what we esteem. A recent example of people being defamed because of this is our president using profane and derogatory language to refer to the athletes who knelt to protest police brutality (not the police). People do not have to pledge allegiance to our country, love our country, or even have a good opinion of our country to be Christians. People can question our nation because of the sins our nation has committed and still love Christ, cherish the gospel, and treasure the Scriptures. To think that people have to love this nation in order to be Christians adds to the gospel and is dangerous because of the Pharisaical nature of this ideology.

We also must be cautious to not let someone who adheres to a different religion or no religion at all be despised in our eyes for failing to conform to Christianity. We must treat all people with dignity, value, and worth. Christians should be leading the way in showing honor to all (1 Peter 2:17). This doesn't mean we have to agree with everyone but the ways we interact with others should affirm the Imago Dei in them. It is also worth noting that we can be angry while speaking the truth and still be doing it in love if our anger is righteously directed toward sin because we are told in Ephesians 4:26 “Be angry and do not sin.” The Church should be a place that is truly welcoming to all, but we exclude many people by our words and actions, or lack of words and actions.

Upholding respectability politics requires nothing of us in rejecting any nationalistic, racist, sexist, or otherwise damaging ideologies and beliefs and instead puts the pressure onto those not conforming to assimilate in order to persuade us to value them. In Hebrews 12:15, we are commanded to “See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God.” People are certainly failing to obtain the grace of God due to our continual legacy of focusing on external and sinless preferential and manmade standards. We pride ourselves on being a just and equitable society, yet any time equality has been achieved, there has been much resistance from the mainstream. Even now, as marginalized groups speak out, their voices are quickly dismissed and silenced. If we are not actively working to dismantle oppressive systems and beliefs, confront lies and replace them with truth, demonstrate a valuing of all lives, and ensure that no one fails to obtain the grace of God, then we are not as just and equitable a society as we would have the world believe.

Respectability politics must be rejected as applied to any marginalized group. We were taught that our country is a melting pot where a new and richer culture is created as people of various ethnicities come together. We have recently heard this myth exposed and explained as our nation being more like a salad where each individual culture maintains its shape and distinct qualities rather than mixing. The majority culture has little interest in learning from other cultures and truly celebrating diversity because we don’t think other cultures have anything of significance to teach us.

Rejecting respectability politics means rejecting racism, sexism, classism, and every other –ism as the standard by which the majority culture deems people worthy of respect if they would simply conform. We can see from history and our present reality that this simply is not true. A marginalized person lifting himself or herself up and conforming to what is seen as acceptable by the majority will still be seen as an "exceptional" member of a marginalized group and not fully accepted by the majority as a peer.

Will we be “charitably curious” about people who do not fit into the mainstream mold? Will we seek to build bridges and dispense the grace of God? Or will we continue refusing to love and value people if they don’t hold to the same preferences as us or look like us?

(Resources are linked below.)

Sermons

Racial Harmony – Pastor Matt Chandler

#WokeChurch – Dr./Pastor Eric Mason (9/26/2016)

#WokeChurch: Jesus on Justice – Dr./Pastor Eric Mason (10/02/2016)

#WokeChurch: It’s Time for the Church to Do Something – Dr./Pastor Eric Mason (10/09/2016)

#WokeChurch: Lamentations 3:1-18 – Dr./Pastor Eric Mason (10/23/2016)

Videos to View 

What Afro-Latinos Want You to Know 

The Loving Generation

Recommended Reading
Articles

“Dispose of Respectability Politics” by Ally Henny 

“This Is How We Lost to the White Man: The Audacity of Bill Cosby’s Black Conservatism” by Ta-Nehisi Coates 

“The Racism of Good Intentions” by Carlos Lozada

“The Definition, Danger, and Disease of Respectability Politics, Explained” by Damon Young

“Stamped from the Beginning Charts the Uncomfortable History of American Racism” by Sadiah Qureshi

“The Asian American Awakening: That Moment when You Realize that You’re Not White” by Connie Zhou 

“How Boarding Schools Tried to ‘Kill the Indian’ through Assimilation” by Becky Little 

“American Indian Boarding Schools Haunt Many” 

“Decolonized Discipleship” by Ekemini Uwan 

“The Legacy of Malcolm X: Why his Vision Lives on in Barack Obama” by Ta-Nehisi Coates 

Articles about the topic of respectability politics

Books
Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X. Kendi (There is a chapter on uplift suasion)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson

Podcasts (for your listening pleasure and discomfort)
Truth Table’s Classroom: Respectability Politics Reimagined 

Embodied Blackness: Crowns of Glory 

Embodied Blackness: Objectification 

Embodied Blackness: Colorism 

Embodied Blackness: Colorism Part 2 

Latino USA: Whose Country ‘Tis of Thee? 

Seeing White Series 

Music (that may make you uncomfortable)

“Kissed” by Micah Bournes (featuring Lucee) 

“All Hands on Deck” by Micah Bournes (featuring Izzi Ray, Jackie Miclau, Liz Vice, and Lucee) 

“A Hill Worth Dying On” by Micah Bournes (featuring Beth May)

“Freakshow” by Micah Bournes (featuring Kevin and Anya Looper)