This first ran on Splice Today.
_______
After the first season of Orange Is the New Black, some writers like Yasmin Nair criticized the show for its focus on, and subtle bias towards, white women, especially towards star Piper Chapman (Taylor Schilling). The second season addresses these complaints head on. In episode eight, Piper gets a furlough to visit her dying grandmother, despite the fact that many other prisoners, mostly black, have been refused furloughs to see ill loved ones. Piper becomes the (understandable) target of much resentment, and after getting angrier and angrier, she stands up in the cafeteria, apologizes on behalf of white people everywhere, tells them that even though her grandmother is white, she still loves her, and encourages her tormentors to “shut the fuck up.” After which, Suzanne (Uzo Duba), on behalf of the other inmates and (presumably) the viewing audience, throws cake at this privileged, whiny little ass. End of moral.
But in the book on which the memoir is based, Piper didn’t actually get furlough. She asked to see her grandmother die, but the state said, “no.” Piper in real life certainly was middle-class, and privileged in many ways—not many ex-prisoners go on to write famous memoirs that get turned into hit TV series. But the privilege presented on the show in episode eight, what she’s punished for, wasn’t actually a privilege she had. On the contrary, she was, in this matter, treated just like every other prisoner; with callous, bland disregard and petty authoritarian vindictiveness.
You could say that this doesn’t really matter; the dramatic point is that Piper is middle-class and white and is therefore better off than her cellmates. The incident in the cafeteria demonstrates that; why nitpick about details?
I think it’s worth nitpicking about details, though, because the moral here about Piper’s privilege is a little confused. Specifically, the show seems in many instances so eager to pull Piper down a peg, and to show that she’s privileged, that it can elide the fact that, white as she is, she’s in prison. Moreover, she’s in prison on a decade-old charge of having transported heroin. She committed a pretty low-level crime a while back, and so she’s taken away from her family and robbed of her freedom. She may be privileged in comparison to some of the people in prison with her, but compared to many viewers (and not just white ones) her life, as chronicled in the show, sucks.
This isn’t to say that race is irrelevant. But for the real Piper, racism did not allow her to go see her grandmother: racism prevented her from seeing her grandmother. Racism was used against her, not in the sense that she was discriminated against because she was white, but because the mechanisms and institutions built to police black people ended up policing her.
Racism against black people has been used as an excuse to target certain white people throughout the history of the U.S. White abolitionists who opposed slavery were subject to violence along with blacks in the Cincinnati riots of 1836. During Reconstruction, Northerners who supported black rights could be attacked and killed—The KKK killed white and black civil rights workers. Gone With the Wind gleefully recounts the murder of a Yankee official during Reconstruction who dared tell black people they could marry whites. For that matter, whites who did want to marry blacks, like Richard Loving, faced harassment and discrimination. Even beyond that, Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that politicians who’ve been associated with black causes, whether the Republican Party before the Civil War or the Democratic Party in more recent years, have been subject to racist attacks. As Coates says, “Abraham Lincoln’s light skin did not save him from a racist political attack, any more than it saved him from a racist assassination plot.”
Piper (in real life and in the TV show) wasn’t a civil rights worker or a political figure. But the fact remains that our prison system, the largest in the world, has been justified and sustained by a cultural commitment to policing people of color. As many historians have argued, the war on crime was inaugurated by politicians like Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, who argued that civil rights demonstrations and movements were leading to a breakdown of law and order, the solution for which was more cops and more prisons. The result was an ongoing rhetoric of race-baiting around crime and imprisonment, exemplified by George H.W. Bush’s notorious 1988 Willie Horton ad. That rhetoric in turn fueled a 700 percent growth in prison population between 1970 and 2005.
In 2010 blacks were incarcerated at a rate of 2207 per 100,000 people and Latinos at the rate of 966 per 100,000, as opposed to only 380 per 100,000 for whites.
Nonetheless, there are still a lot of white people in prison: white males were 32.9 percent of the prison population in 2008, as opposed to 35.4 percent black males. And a large number of those whites were in prison for the same reason as blacks—because America, in an excess of racial panic, has built a massive drug war and a massive prison system in an effort to police and control black people. America’s prison system disproportionately affects black people, through sentencing disparities for crack and other systemic biases. But the drug war machinery sometimes, almost incidentally, catches white people in its gears as well. The white rate of incarceration in the U.S., at 380 per 100,000, is still in the top 20 incarceration rates worldwide, and is twice as high as rates in England and Wales.
Since the moment it enshrined slavery in its Constitution, American authoritarianism has been built upon racism. Piper may be privileged in some ways, but at least for a while that racist authoritarianism has gotten her by the blonde locks as surely as it’s got her cellmates. Once you’ve built your prison, you can put anyone in it. Which is just one way that racism has made America less free, especially for black people, but not for them alone.
White people get very real breaks when it comes to law enforcement- as regards arrests, convictions, and sentencing. A good friend of mine who was arrested for armed robbery in her youth was released when it turned out she was pregnant. She was white. This is not a discrepancy to treat lightly.
I don’t think it should be treated lightly…but I think talking about the privilege of someone who is actually in jail for a minor drug crime 20 years ago as if that privilege is all encompassing is maybe confused. Piper is worse off than the vast majority of people watching the show.
Privilege is never absolute, as your examples show. But they are exceptions that prove the racist rule.
I think it’s wrong to see privilege as one rule. There are other kinds of privilege besides racial privilege. Piper’s white, but she’s also queer, a woman, and in prison.
My friend is a woman, is queer, and was in jail. Those factors matter, and it’s fine to point out that TV lies for lots of reasons. But race and imprisonment are not spuriously linked.
Not at all! As I say in the piece, the whole prison industrial complex is there because America hates black people. Just because it sometimes catches white people too, almost by accident, doesn’t change the fact that it’s built in the first place on racism.
Doesn’t this call into question the way people use “privilege”? It’s supposed to mean being treated more than fairly, but now it’s used to mean being treated fairly or even unfairly but not as unfairly as some people. (This didn’t occur to me until someone else pointed it out, but I can’t remember who it was.)
Some decent background reading for people interested in further study on how the American criminal justice system treats some non-Black citizens as collateral damage: Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow, by James Foreman, Jr.
That’s an interesting point Jack…I’m not really sure whether I agree or not. I need to think about it.
I might have gotten the idea from a link that you provided; I think a black female academic said it in an interview. Anyway, it seems that if you describe freedom from “stop and frisk” as a privilege (for example), you’re forfeiting the argument that it’s a constitutional right.
That all gets to whether it is more useful to describe state violence as legal or as illegal. I tend toward the former, but appreciate MLK’s points about the non-trivial nature of anti-lynching laws.
I’m not sure I follow, but I think it’s hard to find a widely accepted ethical framework from which to criticize state actions if you ignore the law. For example, Norman Finkelstein frequently attacks the BDS movement for refusing to say that Israel is a state with the same rights as any other state under international law. They justify this refusal by saying that international law isn’t sacred because many laws are very bad. But if Israel isn’t a state with a state’s rights, it doesn’t have a state’s responsibilities, either, and there’s no objective standard by which to criticize it. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are both pretty focused on the law, aren’t they?
The idea being- is it an ethical lapse to treat people of color disproportionately badly/ Yes. Is it illegal? Mostly no- it is precisely the mechanisms of law that permit and encourage violence against people of color. Of course that means that laws should change, but also that laws should not be looked to unproblematically as an ethical standard. Walter Benjamin writes about the violence that creates law, the violence that sustains it, and the violence that overturns it. It’s all about violence, which is not necessarily the only way to talk about ethics, even if it can be pragmatic and, in some instances efficacious. In other instances, not so much.
Well, I think MLK usually appealed to the value of equality and its supposedly central place in U.S. society/law, despite the Constitution’s endorsement of slavery. That ethical standard strikes me as firmer than those of Malcolm X, whose talk of black manliness seems more consistent with a might-makes-right ethic. I remember some speech in which Malcolm X expressed pride in the former Moroccan empire, which made me wonder how he could condemn the current American empire. Anyway, sorry if I’m out of my depth/talking out of my ass/derailing here.
Malcolm X was a pretty complicated guy, whose views shifted over time.
Malcolm X was an extremely important leader, despite being polarizing. He didn’t make the legislative accomplishments MLK did, but he looked at and talked about the ways in which official anti-racism would fail to help, or even work against blacks. And the current state of mass incarceration and ongoing police murders bear this out.
I just think that, like many radicals, he said smart things that rested on a shaky foundation. It’s hard to guess where his thinking would have ended up if he’d lived beyond age 39. Shortly before his death, he said, “I’m man enough to tell you that I can’t put my finger on exactly what my philosophy is now, but I’m flexible.”
Pingback: Link Farm and Open Thread: Enacted Rules Edition | Alas, a Blog