"CONVERSATIONS" at The Institute for Research in African-American Studies

I said my Fridays would be occupied by this series. This is the third one I've attended

Professor Jonathan Kahn (who is still bugging over being called "Professor") shared a work in progress of his called "W.E.B. DuBois & the Discourse of Sacrifice." He's looking at two aspects of DuBois' writing: the fiction wherein lynched Black folks are symbolic Christ figures, and his stuff exhorting Black folks to sacrifice (his word, and apparently the one most of academia has settled on) for the sake of the Black community.

This was interesting because he (and, it would seem, much of academia) is trying to understand DuBois' intent by examining the words he left behind, all the while recognizing that DuBois was working the symbolism, riding it toward a goal that was other than the mainstream's. This is useful; for instance Professor Kahn pointed out that lynching was a deep and important part of the American ritual and actually instantiated a deep religious impulse (and at this very point I would LOVE to see the physical image you have of the good professor).

This never occurred to me because my fundamental approach is to start on the inside, at the human core of it all, and work my way out to the specific forms under observation. I, like everyone else, have a blind spot for those things I don't see in myself. It's good to have someone adjust the rear view mirror for you on occasion.

Anyway, we have different starting points, Professor Kahn and I. I kept thinking "Yeah I understand that, I just wouldn't approach it that way." But I did agree with a lot of his conclusions. And I was able to give a suggestion about an open issue that was the reason his presentation is a work in progress so I feel like we broke even and both came out the better for it.

Two weeks until the next conversation.

Posted by Prometheus 6 on October 15, 2004 - 3:34pm :: Race and Identity
 
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Did you get a sense that Prof. Kahn meant that lynching was related to religious impulses because it was, as Orlando Patterson has persuasively argued, a form of human sacrifice?

Posted by  PTCruiser on October 16, 2004 - 8:52am.

He stated it directly, supported it by inference and acknowleged Orlando Patterson as the source of the idea.

For the record, his open issue was cause by the dual meaning of the word "sacrifice." He was working a connection between sacrificing as in "slash the ox's throat and burn it because the smell doth please the gods" and "I'm not going to buy that thing because my cousin needs help." When I pointed that out…that Black folks weren't sacrificing they were helping to insure others would be around to help them when they inevitably needed help…Prof. Gregory suggested "gift sharing" as an alternate term. It's MUCH close and has an accepted academic meaning.

I also found out I'm a conjure man.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on October 16, 2004 - 9:11am.

I think I lost the narrative thread here. I don't understand the connecton that Khan is trying to create between the actions of those who participated in the lynchings and those who were lynched or threatened with lynching. Is there a sentence that you left out of your response to me? I think I missed something.

Posted by  PTCruiser on October 16, 2004 - 9:27am.

The fact that Du Bois used the word "sacrifice" for both gestures made folks (and I'm not limiting this to the professor) try to understand why the "same concept" was used in each instance. Du Bois's internal consistency…which was not reduced by his various changes in approach because each approach was toward the same goal and he was honest enough to discard that which didn't work…suggests purpose behind his choice of words.

Professor Kahn fell into the same trap that plagues the political conversation: mistaking the word for the thing. This is a general problem, as I see it. And it gets worse when you have to shoehorn your ideas into a specialist vocabulary. I get to challenge it because I know the subject but NOT the specialist vocabulary

I'm being a lot nicer to Professor Kahn than I normally would be to someone who gets one of my heroes wrong for several reasons, primary of which is he knew there was a problem with the formulation. It was one reason he decided to pre-present the paper. He was looking for suggestions from current students on possible resolutions. The ability to look at your own understanding and admit it's just not hanging together gets you much respect from me.

Once he understands that words don't so much contain meaning as point to it he'll be on the way.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on October 16, 2004 - 11:22am.

Okay! I got it. Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure that Prof. Kahn appreciated an opportunity to think aloud about some issues that were vexing him. It shows that his gears are turning and that he has some integrity.

"Once he understands that words don't so much contain meaning as point to it he'll be on the way."

This is a slippery problem. Sometimes I think Wittengenstein, for example, got on top of it and then at other times I'm not so sure.

Posted by  PTCruiser on October 16, 2004 - 7:06pm.

I've been working on a way to teach that, not just explain it. Computer graphics with words.

On the one hand, I'd lose my argumentative advantage over those that actually pick it up. On the other hand, we wouldn't be arguing very much.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on October 16, 2004 - 8:25pm.