Question 1
Sep 13th, 2007 by sallen
What are the “obvious” and “natural” beliefs or associations (i.e. so-called truths) at work in the definitions of “black” and “white” read by Malcolm X in the scene we watched?
-
About
Culture, Context, and Composition
Class blog and wiki for CCC
There are 7 Posts and 54 Comments so far. Categories
-
Uncategorized
-
Meta
Powered by FireStats
obviously, there are extreme negative connotations implied when the word “black” is used, opposed to the positive associations with the word “white.” But these truths were produced by some dominant powerhouse, presumably some rich, old white land owning MAN, but werent these “truths” also given to us too? arent the words given and produced both implying socialization? although these words have been constructed socially by someone a long time ago.. they also have been ingrained and taught to us with these negative or positive baggage from a child.
In relation to the Belsey atricle I think the Malcom X except we wathced shows that there is a little overlap between structuralism and Elbow’s expressivist. The words that Malcolm and his buddy look up were created out of society but that was during a time of social turmoil so a lot of what malcolm was reading and understanding was symobilcally assigned by him and his cause. He was essentially going to manipulate the “white man’s” words as a means of better his beliefs. So isn’t that a bit of both?
The obvious beliefs were the complete differences marked by the two definitions. Black was associated with darkness, wicked, evil doing, and gloomy things soiled with dirt. White on the other hand was pure, innocent, and free of blemishs (immaculate). Is this the actual truth? I think maybe in terms of color they are, but not as people. These so called “definitions” seem rude, however, this is the literal meaning. What else are we supposed to define black and white as?
Although the distinctions of white and black being good and evil, respectively, seem natural to us, it is a completely arbitrary definition. Not only are the meanings of these words not connected to any objective reality, but Saussure would claim that the words themselves have no connection to anything other than our mental representation of their meanings. The idea that white is innocent and black is evil is a product of society. Even though these connotations were not formed around skin color, they are harmful implications when it comes to the issue of race, especially being so dualistic as “innocent” versus “dangerous.”
In Malcolm X, when he was reading the dictionary definitions of white and black the “obvious” and “natural” beliefs or associations he came across were obviously generalizations. White was given the definition of pure, without a blemish, innocent and without evil intent, and the opposite of black. This is ironic since during this time period the white and black interaction was not a pleasant one at all. Malcolm X assumed a white person wrote the dictionary because of the social stereotype that was written out in those definitions.
The largest obvious belief is that the dictionary definitions are truth. We are assuming that the dictionary is correct. That being the case, black is bad and white is good.
I think the “obvious” or “natural” beliefs associated with “black” and “white” in our society are aptly portrayed in Malcolm X’s reading of the Webster’s dictionary definitions. In actuality, a color cannot be “hostile” or “honest.” Society has given human traits to colors only to signify beliefs about a group of people. If the dictionary was written by a white racist, his definition of “black” as the color is going to reflect his feelings on the group he identifies as “black” people. But on the other hand, if a black racist wrote the dictionary, would his definition of “white” be fair and just towards “white” people? Likely not. Distinctive groups of people have created beliefs about each other, and sometimes opposing, group. The “obvious” beliefs and associations from each group have found their way into our mainstream society, unfortunately with a dominant group emerging.
One part of the definition of “white” as seen in the Malcolm X clip, is “the color of pure snow”, which may appear to be a sort of “obvious” definition. However the other definitions that are mentioned such as “innocent”, “pure”, “honest”, and “well-meaning” are clearly “natural” definitions that have been severely tainted by the authors who chose to write that particular definition. Even the modifying word “pure” in front of snow is not an “internally consistent” word used by everyone to mean the same thing. It is in effect placing a sort of moral meaning onto a a word whose most basic meaning should exclude morality altogether.
In the Malcolm X scene we just watched in class, it is obvious to note that the language/definitions documented in the dictionary were clearly socialized constructions. Meaning making is always social according to Belsey, so what might be “obvious” or “natural” to the white man writing these definitions is going to be extremely different from the perception Malcolm X is going to receive from the language. Malcolm and his inmate friend, are obviously and righteously offended by the exclusive and racial binary drawn between the two definitions “white” vs. “black.” Where as the term “white” was defined as things such as: pure, innocent, honorable and square-dealing, blatantly contrasts to the definition of “black”, which was described as soiled, dismal, wicked, and forbidding. Because in this social context and specific time period, there were in fact, obvious racism between whites and blacks, that was considered socially acceptable and the “norm” to many. Obviously in this particular scene, both black men are outraged by the language and overt discrimination that resides behind each defintion.
The obvious and natural beliefs of “black” and “white” are that one is better than the other. One is evil while the other is pure. One promotes the concept of darkness and disgrace, while the other brings about feelings or sensations of purity and innocence. The truths are based on the assumptions of one social class, which makes these truths particular. They are not, necessarily, a wholly accepted universal truth.
In the movie Malcolm X, the two main characters were able to find definitions to the terms “black” and “white” in a library dictionary.
In the movie, the dictionary defines “black” as: darkness, gloomy, dirty, forbidding, wicked, and even disgraceful. Just because something is black doesn’t mean it embodies this same associations.
In the same dictionary “white” is defined as: pure, opposite of black, innocent, without evil intent, and honest. The same theory applies to this definition. Just because something is white doesn’t mean it represent these listed words.
Obvious beliefs are that black represents dark and evil, whereas white is soft, beautiful and pure.
It was obvious by the defintions located in the dictionary that it was written by a white, high-society individual who wanted to get his own views expressed in his literature. These views represent society at that time.
To the question of Malcolm X (or anyone for that matter) using the language of the majority (those in a position of power) to overcome that majority…
In (post)structuralism, one might argue that there’s no “outside” of the system (the system of language or of society, of ideology or of discourse). To fight oppression, we must fight within the confines, within the structures, that are already in place, already working. As such, the individual is located within those structures; s/he cannot transcend them and fight from the “outside.”
How is this different from the voice theory we’ve studied in Elbow’s work?
I think that the definitions were really interesting. It’s pretty intense to think about how the connotations of words are formed. Language really infiltrates our opinions and view of society. I think the amelioration of words is also proof of the arbitrary nature of language. In the article Belsey gives an example of ‘nice’ but words change a lot, fall in and out of fashion. Not only can words improve in meaning, but like the many different definitions ‘black’ has, the definitions of words can expand to be applied to be applied to other things. Also, People make up new words all the time. If these definitions were inherent and natural they would be changeing all the time. But Why are some new words accepted and others not? Why do people change their use of a word?
The question of opposition comes into play when trying to figure out how to fight with the “structures already in place.” To overcome, to fight the majority creates opposition. It creates the stigma of black verses white. With no “outside” the system, every one becomes the majority. For post-structuralism no individual can break away. For Elbow this is problematic. To have a true voice and to find one’s self it is essential to break away from that “norm.” Elbow would argue that to grow and develop one must leave the majority and find the individual. When dealing with oppression, the way to succeed and get past the natural beliefs/associations is to break away and redefine everything for oneself.
Dictionaries are supposed to be prescriptive, simply recording the language as it is used in society. Would post-structuralist theorists argue that if a dictionary changed a definition before the usage of the word changed in society, then society would adapt and use the word that way?
From Heather:
I found this question to be very interesting and at the same time very intriguing. I personally think the answer is “yes.” I believe post- structuralist would strongly bicker over how a word’s definition was adopted and also examine how societal-views affect that definition. Post- structuralist believe that we as a society experience only limited aspects of the world and because of that we form falsehoods that affect our every day thinking and beliefs. This would definably account for a word’s definition being construed.
Like smaloney said, it is very important to Elbow to be able to break away from the “norm”. People cannot tap into the power they need to fight a system unless they can break out of that system and find their real voice. In finding his real voice, for example, Malcolm X would have to be able to move beyond the “obvious” and “natural” restrictions placed upon him and his language by society. Only then would he, as the minority, be able to overcome the majority. It is different from (post)structuralism in that Elbow requires his followers to figure out how to work outside of the system which (post)structuralists would restrict them to.