Overturning Humanism
The subjects of the three previous dispatches — the frames of radical everydayness, abolition, and decolonization — together constitute what I have come to call the framework of “neoprimitivism”.
This week’s dispatch contextualizes the framework of neoprimitivism in my own education and experience as a student of the humanities — having found that humanism serves as an apology for white supremacy, capitalism, and colonialism, I constructed the framework of “neoprimitivism” as an antidote to humanism.
The story that I want to tell here today is the story of how and why it is that courses in the humanities taught at American schools, colleges, and universities tend to motivate some groups of American students and demotivate others. To be more specific, I want to tell the story of how and why courses in the humanities tend to motivate White American and European Males and their imitators, and the story of how and why these courses demotivate non-Whites and non-Males who refuse to imitate White American and European Males.
This story is not a new story. It has been told many times before, and my telling of this story is very much inspired by and indebted to previous tellings.
Nearly a century ago, in the early 1930s, Carter G. Woodson wrote in The Mis-Education of the Negro:
The same educational process which inspires and stimulates the oppressor with the thought that he is everything and has accomplished everything worthwhile, depresses and crushes at the same time the spark of genius in the Negro by making him feel that his race does not amount to much and never will measure up to the standards of other peoples… Negroes are taught to admire the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin, and the Teuton and to despise the African… The thought of the inferiority of the Negro is drilled into him in almost every book that he studies. It is strange then that the friends of truth… have not risen up against the present propaganda in the school… This crusade is much more important that the anti-lynching movement — because there would be no lynching if it did not start in the classroom. Why not exploit, enslave or exterminate a class that everybody is taught to regard as inferior.
Following Woodson, here is Sylvia Wynter from the book Do Not Call Us Negroes, written in the 1990s, reflecting upon the education that I, myself, endured during my childhood and young adulthood:
The representation of Afro (Black) inferiority and Euro (White) superiority that Woodson has identified are not mere “slights” against the “special interests” of Black Americans which can be rectified by either the “equal time” or “equal glory” approach.
Adding a few more Black individuals would not be any more effective than the attempts of the lay intelligentsia of 14th and 15th century Europe to apply their “fallen reason” unaided by theology to overcome the doctrine of the infallibility of the Divine Truth of Clergy.
Nothing less than the cultural-intellectual revolution of humanism and the “entire upheaval of the Renaissance” could free them of those prescriptive modes.
Equally, it will take the emancipation of our present mainstream mode of social knowledge [...] in order to rid ourselves of the stubborn persistence of the representations which Woodson found 60 years ago.
Woodson and Wynter’s writings speak loudly and clearly to me, for I was one of those students depressed and crushed by what I learned in courses in the humanities at American schools, colleges, and universities. The courses that I took in the history of art, philosophy, and science primarily served to teach me the “truth” of America's race, class, and gender hierarchies. I was taught that the White American and European Male historical continuum was the world’s primary and defining historical continuum, and I was taught that all other historical continua were secondary add-ons and supplements. The histories of non-Whites and non-Males were either marginalized for being matters of “special interest” or they were reduced to histories of being “discovered” by and then assimilated into the history of White American and European Males.
In being taught how White American and European Males “discovered” and learned to embrace the humanity non-Whites and non-Males, I was essentially being taught that the accomplishments of non-Whites and non-Males did not belong to them but, rather, that these accomplishments belonged to the White American and European Males who “discovered” the humanity in them. This is to say, in other words, that I was being taught that my own accomplishments would never be my own but would always belong to White American and European Males, to whom I had to appeal and entreat to recognize my humanity. “Equal time” and “equal glory” may be given to the accomplishments of non-Whites and non-Males, but White American and European Males maintained the privilege of defining what does and doesn’t count as a real accomplishment. It follows that non-Whites and non-Males who want their accomplishments to be recognized by history must do, make, say, and think in a manner that compliments and complements the accomplishments of White American and European Males.
For instance, I was taught that the accomplishments of African sculptors belonged to the European avant-gardes who discovered and incorporated aspects of African sculpture into the European tradition, and I was taught that the accomplishments of Black American blues and jazz musicians were proven by the irresistible appeal of their music to White American and European audiences. What African sculpture meant for African sculptors and what blues and jazz meant for Black American musicians was a matter of secondary importance. The matter of primary importance was that African sculptures and Black American blues and jazz had an impact on White American and European history. The lesson to be drawn for me as a young Black person aspiring to do creative work was that, in order to accomplish anything of historical merit, I had to create work that appealed to and invited appropriation by White Americans and Europeans.
At some point early on in my life, I decided for myself that I would not bid for universality by creating work that appealed to White Americans and Europeans. That being said, however, in and through refusing to appeal to White Americans and Europeans, I also wanted to reject the racial identity that had been imposed upon me by White American and Europeans. This is to say, in other words, I had also decided for myself that I would not create work that took my being “Black” for granted.
To this end, I embarked upon a series of philosophical investigations in order to decide to whom I would appeal and how I would appeal to them. My published books are documents of these philosophical investigations. First, in my Triptych, I wondered how I might become what I am, and I documented my endeavors to dispense with the identities imposed upon me and to (re-)create myself otherwise. Next, in Other Related Matters, I wondered how I might relate to others, and I documented my search for a way to appeal to others who, like me, sought to dispense with the identities imposed upon them and to (re-)create themselves otherwise.
Building on the philosophical investigations documented in these books, my two most recent projects, my Four Essays on Reparations and the (De-/Re-)Constructing Worlds project, are my attempts to contribute to the cultural-intellectual revolution that Sylvia Wynter called for in the above quoted passage: the cultural-intellectual revolution against the stubborn persistence of White supremacist, colonialist, and capitalist modes of social knowledge.
The cultural-intellectual revolution of humanism against the Divine Truth of the Clergy, which Wynter cited as her informative anecdote, took the form of a revival and renewal of ways of knowing that belonged to classical civilizations — the expansive, militaristic, slave-holding, and coin-circulating agrarian empires of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Similarly but differently, I believe that the cultural-intellectual revolution against white supremacy, colonialism, and capitalism — the revolution that I have taken to calling neoprimitivism — will assume the form of a revival and renewal of ways of knowing belonging to those who have been called “uncivilized” peoples by White Americans and Europeans — indigenous hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists, and pastoralists.
The cultural-intellectual revolution of neoprimitivism, as I conceive of it, is the overturning of humanism. The fundamental assumption of humanism is that Man triumphs over nature because Man is possessed of higher senses and reasons. Ay, and the humanist project is all about celebrating Man’s higher senses and reasons and his triumphs over nature. The White American and European Man who has conquered and overcome nature with his science and industry is the apotheosis of Man according to humanism, and non-Whites and non-Males are goaded by humanism to prove their humanity by demonstrating that they too are willing and able to use science and industry to conquer and overcome nature.
Humanism deems “primitive” all those peoples who resist the goad and who refuse to use science and industry to conquer and overcome nature. This is to say, in other words, that humanism deems “primitive” all those peoples who would persist in deferring to nature instead of dominating nature like Real Men, like White Men. Ay, and because they persist in deferring nature, “primitive” peoples are, like nature, ripe for conquest by Real Men, for conquest by White Men and their imitators. It follows that, from a humanist perspective, those peoples who use science and industry to conquer other peoples are to be considered more advanced and less primitive, while those peoples who are conquered are to be considered underdeveloped and more primitive.
The cultural-intellectual revolution of neoprimitivism, the overturning of humanism, would champion those who resist the temptation to conquer and overcome nature and who instead persist in deferring to nature. The humanist will no doubt argue that neoprimitivism, thusly conceived, is the denial of human freedom: for the humanist believes that Man can only be free after having conquered and overcome nature. The neoprimitivist response to this argument is that limiting "human freedom" means (re-)gaining the freedom of nature, what the Japanese philosopher and aesthete Soetsu Yanagi would call (re-)gaining “freedomless freedom”. Conversely, when nature is conquered and overcome, the "human freedom" that one gains thereby is what Yanagi called a “free freedomlessness”.
Writing about the manufacture of kasuri (絣) cloth, Yanagi writes marvelously of the freedom of nature:
In one sense, it can be said that the fact that the pattern edges don’t align perfectly is due to human ineptitude, to a lack of mastery of the technique. In another sense, given that the result is the same regardless of who undertakes the task, it can be said that some deeper process is at work, that this nonalignment is an inevitable natural outcome, that the smudging and rubbing of kasuri is nature taking its course. That is, the kasuri effect is a technique originating in nature, not a human manipulation.
This is strikingly similar to the blurring effect that occurs in calligraphy as a result of natural processes, not as an intentional human augmentation. Interestingly, the fact that this adds immensely to the beauty of calligraphy evinces the power of nature as opposed to human contrivance. Consequently, if one were to try intentionally to produce this effect, the result would, conversely, be unnatural and result in a loss of beauty, the upshot of going against nature.
[...] Human restriction is nature’s freedom; this is the essence of kasuri, its origin. To understand this truth more fully, think of the artist who in unshackled, unrestrained freedom creates a pictorial design. Some good pictures will result from this endeavour, but also a great many that are unsightly. Since humans are imperfect beings, they cannot wholly escape from committing mistakes. However, let’s look at the state of standard kasuri. To my way of thinking, the case is entirely the opposite of the above: as long as kasuri adheres to standard procedure, almost nothing is produced that is positively ugly. Why should this be? The reason lies in the fact that many of the techniques involved are carried out under the aegis of nature, leaving little room for human error.
What Yanagi calls the "aegis of nature" in the quoted passage is what scientists like to call "random error" or "noise", and what Yanagi calls "human error" is what scientists like to call "systematic error" or "bias". It follows that, speaking scientifically, we may say that humanism, the affirmation of “free fredomlessness”, is about reducing noise by introducing bias, "making Man the measure of all things". Ay, and we may say neoprimitivism, the affirmation of “freedomless freedom”, is about reducing bias by welcoming noise, "letting nature to do its thing".
Taking things one step further, we may say that the humanist maintains that White Americans and Europeans are the apotheosis of Man because White Americans and Europeans have excelled most at biasing the world in their favor. Indeed, this is essentially what I was taught in my humanities courses. I was taught that to be human one must make oneself the measure of all things, and I was taught that the White Man was the exemplar of the human in this regard because, in and through conquest and the imposition of capitalism and colonialism, the White Man has excelled most at making himself the measure of all things. Thus, to become human was to become more like the White Man in one of two different senses: either (i) by measuring up to the White Man or (ii) by following the White Man's example and endeavoring to make oneself the measure of all things.
Alas, there are oppressed peoples who have fallen into humanisms trap. Some have taken to writing “separate but equal” histories (e.g., Black histories, Women’s histories, and Indigenous histories) that strive to prove either that they can measure up to the White Man or that they can displace the White Man as the measure of all things. In doing so, these oppressed peoples have written histories that uphold the White Man’s definition of human history, maintaining the White Man’s privileged place in human history as he who defined human history.
The overturning of humanism, the cultural-intellectual revolution of neoprimitivism encourages us to radically differ from the White Man by radically deferring to nature. As opposed to measuring up to the White Man and as opposed to displacing the White Man as the measure of all things, the neoprimitivist invites nature to make increasingly more noise and to increasingly vary the measures of things. From a neoprimitivist perspective, the more noise that one is able to welcome, the more that one has accomplished. This is to say, in other words, that accomplishment does not mean signaling oneself out from the noise (which is what the White Man has done in constructing himself and his history). Instead, much to the contrary, accomplishment means adding one's own signal to the noise in such a way that one's own signal becomes part and parcel of the noise and the noise becomes part and parcel of one's own signal.
To this end, the neoprimitivist aims to (re-)construct confluent genealogies and to deconstruct “separate but equal” histories. Instead of constructing a separate Black history, Women’s history, or Indigenous history that stands in opposition to the White Man’s history, the neoprimitivist aims to (re-)construct queer and creole genealogies in and through which many different histories become confused and no one history can be clearly signaled out from the noise. From a neoprimitivist perspective, it is a badge of honor to be told by a White European philosopher that one belongs to a people without a definite history of their own. Indeed, the neoprimitivist ought to reply to the White European philosopher, “If we have our way, soon enough your people will no longer have a definite history of their own to lord over others, and we will all be better off for it.”
