Progressive Separatism Beyond The White Gaze
By Neil Gonsalves | Are identity based policies or universalist principles the path to a better future, you decide
Written by Neil Gonsalves for Seeking Veritas on Substack
On Feb. 17 2023, the National Arts Centre (NAC) hosted its first-ever “Black Out” night at Ottawa’s Babs Asper Theatre, with a black-only performance of Is God Is, by playwright Aleshea Harris, about two black sisters.
“Black Out” is a movement that started in 2019 with the Broadway comedy Slave Play by playwright Jeremy O. Harris. According to the movement’s website, “A BLACK OUT is the purposeful creation of an environment in which an all-Black-identifying audience can experience and discuss an event in the performing arts, film, athletic, and cultural spaces – free from the white gaze.” - In his opening remarks for Slave Play, Harris encouraged “the audiences to laugh, talk back and to be full participants in the experience of his play.”
The white gaze is a term popularized by critically acclaimed writer Toni Morrison. When describing how it operates, Morrison said that it’s this idea that “[Black] lives have no meaning and no depth without the white gaze.” In the simplest terms, the white gaze can be conceptualized as the assumed white reader. When writers craft stories, the assumed white (and often cisgender, heterosexual, male) audience that they are writing for and to is the white gaze in action. The white gaze can be expanded to mean the ways in which whiteness dominates how we think and operate within society. Being encouraged to adhere to white-centered norms and standards is one of the ways that the white gaze operates. - (Forbes - Dec 28-2021)
The National Arts Centre was accused of planning a racially segregated show and faced media and community backlash as a result. In response the NAC released a statement emphasizing that their intention was to create a special evening for the black community but would operate on an honour system of self identification. They emphasized that no one would actually be barred from entering but they wanted the event to be true to the spirit of other “Black Out” events.
The decision to not enforce the entry intention may have been legally prudent rather than moralistic or principled, as it would have served to mitigate or minimize potential legal action. Any potential legal challenge risked the possibility of finding its way to the Supreme Court of Canada where a ruling against it would be a major setback for the progressive separatism movement currently on the rise across North America.
Progressive separatism is an ideology that posits individuals are not much more than part of a group, either privileged or oppressed. It advocates for identity based policies as a means of addressing historical inequities.
The strategy to not legally prevent access but rather let social pressure create alienation is actually one of the recommendations on the Black Out movement’s website. On the front page of the website they ask and answer the questions, “How did you make it clear that the performance was for Black-identifying individuals? And how is this legally accomplished?” The advice they offer is as follows:
Keep the performances private, and by invitation-only.
Take tickets off-sale, and make them only available for purchase using a special code.
Send the code to select organizations that support the cause.
Do not actively or officially prevent, preclude, or turn away anybody from attending the BLACK OUT performances.
The last point is interesting and was either adopted or also naturally arrived at by the NAC. By not actively denying anyone entry they are arguably skirting Charter rights guaranteed to all Canadians. It may be fair to suggest that they were however coming perniciously close to the line.
Being a person who doesn’t self identify as black, I cannot speak to the perceived social and cultural value of the initiative. I’m not certain if the majority of the black community support such initiatives, or necessarily agrees that the encouragement to participate in the play by talking back to the performers makes the experience more authentically black, as Jeremy O. Harris appears to imply. If I had to guess, I would think that age demographics would be highly predictive indicator about which side of the issue people would fall on.
The premise of the “Black Out” movement shares ideological similarities with Affinity Groups that are increasingly more common in society today. Advocates of Affinity Groups argue that they are not segregationist but rather a place where white people can “reckon with their Whiteness” and non-white people can “take care of themselves and one another…in the absence of Whiteness.”
Opponents of the ideology supporting Affinity Groups tend to ground their opposition in theories such as Gordon Allport’s “contact hypothesis” which argues that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced if members of the groups interact with each other. The argument suggests that affinity groups create fertile grounds for affinity bias, the unconscious gravitation toward people similar to ourselves. Affinity bias could result in reinforcing in-group opinions and cultural beliefs. The lack of diversity could create an echo chamber in which people get limited to their own worldview, making them less empathetic.
While the contact hypothesis has been studied most often in the context of racial prejudice, researchers have found that contact was able to reduce prejudice against members of a variety of marginalized groups.
In his book ‘The Identity Trap’ Yascha Mounk argues that universalism is currently being undermined in the name of “progressive separatism”. Mounk argues that telling people to continually focus on their identities, and prioritizes difference exacerbates divisions. He argues that “it is self-defeating to embrace the divisiveness of identity separatism and to somehow expect the age-old problems of in-group tribalism not to emerge with predictably devastating impacts on vulnerable minorities”
With the social temperature and tensions turned up it is hard to engage in rational discussion about such things, leaving people trapped in their own echo chambers searching for answers. Inevitably, apathy and self defeat become the likely outcome where no common ground can be found. Apathy is possibly the most unfortunate outcome on issues that many feel so passionate about.
Regardless of whether you believe identity based policies or universalist principles are the path to a better future, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that we need to work together because talking past each other is going to get us nowhere.
About the author: Neil Gonsalves is an Indian-born Canadian immigrant who grew up in Dubai, U.A.E. and moved to Canada in 1995. He is an Ontario college educator, a TEDx speaker, an author and columnist, a recreational dog trainer and an advocate for new immigrant integration and viewpoint diversity.
Sankarsingh-Gonsalves Productions 2024
Notes:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6735929
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/12/28/understanding-the-white-gaze-and-how-it-impacts-your-workplace/?sh=4bdccdc34cd6
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/national-arts-centre-black-only-theatregoers
https://www.michigandaily.com/michigan-in-color/not-made-for-your-consumption/
How a new identity-focused ideology has trapped the left and undermined social justice
"With the social temperature and tensions turned up it is hard to engage in rational discussion about such things" I love how this piece invites such discussion without upping the tension or throwing fuel on a fire that could easily burn out of control. I appreciate how it demonstrates raising an issue for consideration without defaulting to automatic acquiescence (which implies there can't be thoughtful critique) or immediate dismissal (which conveys disrespect and leaves no room for fruitful dialogue.)
Along with age impacting how people view the issue, I also think it might be viewed as inconvenient, impractical, and perhaps unpalatable to those in interracial relationships/families (and even interracial friendships, e.g.: a Black-identifying potential attendee whose go-to theatre buddy isn't Black.)
I love the balanced tone of this article. Many people like to think that there’s always only ONE solution to every problem when in fact there are usually multiple solutions. The more complex a problem the more likely there are multiple alternatives to solving it.
Race relations is such a problem. Black people feel the need to take back their power and some see protecting the time they spend together as a community as once such thing. Given their collective history can one blame them? The challenge arises when this time becomes so protected that it begins to resemble the very thing Black people fought against for so long - racial segregation. It is such a fine line to walk and there are pitfalls on either side - but there needs to be balance and that can only happen when we are solving the problem together.
Brilliant work!!!