The Issue of Transracialism: How ‘black-passing’ is an issue for Haslangerian race
Since 2018, folk discussion on racial justice has found itself occupied with the phenomena of ‘blackfishing,’ or rather, the conscious decision of women of European descent, to manipulate their bodily appearance so to ‘permanently pass’ as members of African, or Latino racialized groups.[1] Such lay conversation has aimed at revealing the ‘real’ race of accused perpetrators, effectively ‘revoking’ their artificial memberships, as is the case with entertainers Ariana Grande, Rita Ora, Emma Hallberg and the Kardashian family, but also more recently, with academics, Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug.[2] Unfortunately, within critical race theory, debate over whether transracialism is an issue for Haslangerian race metaphysics has centred entirely on permanent ‘white passing.’[3] Haslanger proposes that the bodily appearance of certain racialized groups, given context, takes on evaluative significance by “marking” the individual for ‘appropriate’ correlative hierarchical treatment. Yet, if the relationship of bodily appearance and hierarchical treatment is as straight forward as Haslanger proposes, in the above cases, the individuals would experience oppression along some dimension on the basis of their new ‘black’ bodily features. Yet, they do not.
In the present essay I will argue Haslanger’s account of race fails to accommodate the phenomena of permanent ‘black passing,’ and as such, not only is her hierarchical analysis questioned, but too, whether her negation of such phenomena is in itself an issue for her analysis of the subject of racial justice.
On Haslanger’s account, category membership to a particular racialized group is based on the perceived or imagined bodily features that have been believed to be evidence of such biology, or ancestral links to a certain geographical location.[4] In other words, our historically held beliefs that assumed correlation between biology (ancestry and geographical region) and phenotypical outcomes, qua biological determinism, established an embedded socio-political reality that now ‘marks’ certain racialized groups for either privilege or subordination. The ‘geographically marked body,’ or the amalgamation of physical features, including skin colour, hair type, eye, and lip shape as well as overall physique[5], usually thought of as evidence of ancestry, together create a symbol for appropriate social stratification. As to what precise physical markers are necessary or sufficient to “count” toward category membership is apparently, a matter of context. For example, the one drop policy in the US rendered anyone with any known Black ancestral history to be considered ‘black.’ Whilst this may have been legally sufficient for category membership, I highly doubt socially, such stark distinctions held true. Afterall, it is quite common for transracial individuals to be considered ‘white’ socially despite a known Black ancestry, due to a lighter skin complexion.
To stay true to the Haslangerian theory, however, even mention of transracialism or the notion that an individual’s ‘internal’ self-identification is at odds with their social presentation distorts such a constructivist ideology of race. In fact, for Haslanger, the notion of racial misclassification is a fallacy. Considering that race is emphatically a social reality, the ‘white passing’ individual belongs to the ‘white’ racialized group in virtue of presenting a bodily appearance that marks them for ‘appropriate’ privilege. However, on this point[6], Charles Mills would object, stating that “the phenomenological difference between the consciousness of the “real” white person and the “apparent” white person is alone sufficient”[7] to denounce that the individual is not really White. Moreover, he would suggest that Haslanger’s definition is not only at odds with folk understanding, but it more pertinently overlooks racialized classificatory complexity, such as the individuals’ ancestry, as well as culture, experience, and self-identification. Whilst Mill may have a point that the metaphysical status is not as simple as Haslanger suggests, his identified ‘problem cases’ are not necessarily at odds with Haslangerian conclusions that descriptively nominate how each individual is treated socially. I believe this is due to the fact that Mill is concerned solely with ‘white passing’ transracial accounts.
And yet, why is it that transracial accounts of ‘black passing’ are ill considered within critical race theory? Potentially, it has been assumed no one would knowingly endeavour to assimilate to a subordinated race. For on Haslanger’s hierarchical account such an individual would be utterly confused about the socio-political consequences of such an act. Not only would they be relinquishing all privilege associated with their ‘natural’ and ‘born’ race but be also accepting of the subordination and oppression that comes with recognition as belonging to a Black racialized group. Moreover, acting somewhat masochistic by consciously encouraging their own negative treatment and oppression.
Therefore, not only has ‘black passing’ been rendered a non-issue for critical race theory, but it has been assumed to be the mere metaphysical reverse of ‘white passing,’ and that the intimate and necessary relationship between race and hierarchy is maintained.
However, Consider the following case of ‘black passing’:
1) An individual (S) had the bodily appearance (including skin colour, hair type, eye, and lip shape as well as overall physique) and ancestry of a privileged racialized group (PRG).
2) They have no ancestral, cultural, or past-experience linkage to a subordinated racialized group (SRG)
3) However, S sets out to “permanently pass” as SRG ‘Latino’ by altering her bodily appearance (including skin colour, hair type, eye, and lip shape as well as overall physique) to look akin to members categorised as such.
Firstly, I need to rule out the objection that potentially S, despite action towards ‘passing’ is not actually taken as SRG ‘Latino.’ In agreement with Haslanger, I believe racialisation includes ascribing a social ancestral narrative to ‘observed or imagined bodily features.’ If, for the moment we assume S has successfully replicated the bodily features presumed to be evidence of ancestral links to Latin America, in the identity statement, ‘S is actually of ‘white’ PRG ancestry’, there is something of interest and additive value, we can assume that S is in fact currently taken as Latino. Of course, this would only hold true iff considering this is a case of artificial transformation, that the public was also not aware of (1) S’s initial bodily appearance, that would have been taken as evidence of European ancestry. And furthermore, that during the process of bodily transformation there was no public awareness of (2) S’s ancestry, that could offer ambiguity to her metaphysical status.
So, now that we have clarified S is in fact taken as SRG ‘Latino,’ albeit, only on folk standards, we must establish whether S is treated as Latino. Why? For Haslanger, racial justice ought not be concerned merely with individuals who register as ‘Latino,’ but who are consequently oppressed as Latino.[8] In fact, considering such, Haslanger would designate S as Latino, iff her bodily appearance, seen as ‘passing’ evidence of ancestral links to Latin America, plays a role in her systematically hierarchical treatment (of which, in most contexts, would be one of subordination). However, with reference to the phenomena of ‘blackfishing,’ and the individuals mentioned earlier, this is hardly ever the case.[9]
In fact, the issue surrounding ‘blackfishing,’ somewhat contra to the Haslangerian assumption, is that in these cases, being taken as a person of SRG ancestry, proves beneficial to the individual, both economically and socially, in virtue of such classification. Some may argue, it only appears as though individuals benefit from being categorised as SRG. Potentially, other socially constructed categories and the privileges therein, such as gender, sexuality and religion are creating an overall social position that is overshadowing how S is being subordinated ‘along some dimension’ due to perceived membership in SRG. Afterall, Haslanger’s social race categorisation does not yield an overall social positioning. Yet, this does not explain how S benefits “in virtue of such classification.”
And this, for me, is when it becomes clear that ‘black passing’ is in no means just the mere reverse of ‘white passing,’ either metaphysically or in the moral ramifications thereof.
As, even though S successfully ‘passes’ as SRG ‘Latino,’ she is able to maintain her privilege, and is therefore according to Haslanger not really Latino. And rightfully so. Any quick Google Image search will remind us of the very recent ‘white’ bodily appearance of the individuals listed at the beginning of this paper. I am sure in seeing such images, one would hardly maintain that such individuals were really Black. But, if S is not Latino, what race is she? Surely Haslanger could not suggest that S were of PRG ‘white’. As to be counted as such on her analysis, S would need to be ‘observed or imagined’ to have the bodily appearance consistence with socially presumed features of members of European descent. As such, it follows that the only logical conclusion left for Haslanger is that these individuals are performing a contemporary version of ‘blackface.’
But, again, this does not seem correct either. Surely there is a qualifiable and ontological difference between someone who is temporarily donning black grease paint to depict a caricature of black culture and someone who is permanently altering their entire bodily appearance so to be adopted as a genuine member of an alternate racialized group.
And furthermore, I am not sure whether Haslanger would in fact agree S is partaking in ‘blackface.’ To claim such would be to admit to the complexity of S being of White race, pretending to be ‘Latino’ race. I believe that whilst Haslanger may admit her account of race does not neatly render an answer of the ‘true’ racial membership of S, she would suggest such an individual is not the intended subject of critical race theorising and meaningful political action.
However, I suggest such an individual, and furthermore, the phenomenon of ‘black passing’ ought to be considered seriously in such academic theorising. Coined ‘blackfishing’ within folk literature, surely sampling from the infamy of term, ‘catfishing,’ we can assume that there is a social issue of ‘bad faith’ or inauthenticity when people represent themselves as someone other than they ‘are’. However, for S to genuinely pass as ‘Latino,’ she has to both consciously and strategically highlight the bodily features of racial group SRG that she believes, if reproduced artificially will satisfy membership to this category. Now, whilst it may seem like an issue that such a process would rely necessarily on social norms of ‘blackness,’ and in virtue of such, is both narrow and stereotypical in scope, technically, all social construction has this essential feature. So, what is the problem? There are actually quite a few.
Firstly, I believe there is something morally questionable in reproducing subordinated racialized ‘blackness’ without the metaphysical necessity of Black people. S, while exhibiting a bodily appearance of PRG, relied upon the associated hierarchical advantage from meeting traditional standards of privilege. It is only upon having such privilege, that S would ever be able to reproduce the “markers” of SRG. Let us not forget that cosmetic surgery is not cheap. And furthermore, it is in itself a position of privilege to be able to select which physical aspects of a differing race category you would like to emulate. In altering her appearance, S, now taken as SRG ‘Latino,’ not only reifies standards of ‘blackness,’ but in being socially recognised as such, is able to fulfil legitimised conditions for recipience of racial justice bursaries. And more importantly is able to do so without being burdened by the subordinated reality of really being Latino. Surely it is of issue if an individual, in altering their appearance, is able to look racially ambiguous enough to fill diversity quotas, bring resonance to concerns of justice, albeit from a privileged position, and more importantly, alter metaphysical conditions of ‘race’ membership.
Secondly, it must be noted that societal norms are rarely created or controlled by the subordinated. S, in her altered SRG ‘Latino’ appearance, masquerades a portrayal of a privileged white-gaze of ‘blackness’ as ‘blackness.’ It is hard to not contrast the altered bodily appearances of these ‘black-passing’ individuals to the cartoonish, sexualised, and exaggerated illustrations of Sara Baartman as Venus Hottentot by Europeans in the 19th Century. In all popularised cases of ‘blackfishing’ the individual has cosmetically exaggerated ‘sexualised’ areas of their bodies, sometimes actually, to quite a comical point. If there is indeed a common thread between these two conceptualisations of ‘blackness’ by ‘white’ PRG, these individuals are surely culpable of perpetrating the racist narrative that ‘black’ women are more sexualised than their ‘white’ counterparts? Such a narrative has become quite dangerous within some U.S. communities, for example, in seeing ‘black’ women as not in need of the same level of protection as White women. Furthermore, it would follow that, since S’s success of ‘passing’ is based on recycling known and conventional tropes of ‘blackness,’ S is responsible for adding further weight to SRG racialized stereotypes.
Whether it be entertainment, or teaching, the individuals mentioned in this paper, as legitimised members of ‘Black’ or ‘Latino’ SRG, have all fiscally and professionally benefitted from being associated with the cultural products identified with such racialized groups. By no means do I believe I can immediately render such accounts as inherently immoral. Afterall, what if in some cases, these individuals increase representation and open possibilities for members of their assigned SRG? What I am arguing however, is clearly not only do such cases throw issue for Haslanger’s exclusively hierarchical metaphysics of race, especially in relation to the necessary link between taken as and treated as racialized groups, but also for whether critical race theory has distorted the notion of transracialism by not addressing ‘black passing.’ In entering more formal discourse, an intersectional analysis on why recent accounts of conscious transracialism have all taken the form of ‘white’ PRG artificially emulating the bodily appearance of ‘black’ or ‘Latino’ SRG’s, may help to better understand the metaphysics of race, and its social construction thereof.
[1] See: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/jessica-krug-rachel-dolezal-america-s-white-women-who-want-ncna1239418; https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/nepzyg/white-girls-instagram-blackface-blackfishing;
[2] Ibid.
[3] Charles Mills, ““But What Are You, Really?” The Metaphysics of Race,”” Cornell University Press, 2015.
[4] Sally Haslanger, “Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be?” Nous 34, No. 1 (2000):44.
[5] Ibid.
[6] See: Mills, ““But What Are You, Really?,” Problem Case II
[7] Ibid., 57.
[8] As well as other subordinated racialized groups
[9] See: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/jessica-krug-rachel-dolezal-america-s-white-women-who-want-ncna1239418; https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/nepzyg/white-girls-instagram-blackface-blackfishing;