Homophobia

Periodically, we have to talk through some important in-house issues.  I don’t say this often, but specifically, this post is intended for Black people, albeit I think lots of other readers may find the subject matter interesting as well, and I think many points may apply to people who are not Black… but those aren’t my focus.

If you’re not Black, cool, you’re welcome to stay.  Just know I’m not actually talking to you, per se.

There’s much plight that comes with being Black in America.  Microaggressions.  Discrimination.  Profiling.  Prejudice.  Negative judgements about you for no other reason than simply existing and being who you are.

It’s not a cake walk.

But perhaps one of the biggest outcomes of the legacy of slavery in the United States is the economic deprivation of the Black community.  While I’m not so naïve to suggest 240+ years of unpaid labor, in addition to 90 years of institutionalized discrimination in the form of Jim Crow, fully explains why most Black families over the course of the last 60 years make consistently less than their White counterparts, we would be naïve to say there isn’t any relationship, and it’s certainly an important one.

From that though, 2 major considerations are worth noting, and they’re related to our topic.  The first is concerning religiosity.  In general, across the social sciences, psychologists, sociologists, and even economists have noted the relationship between income and religiosity, with higher income people being less religious (Christianity or otherwise).  There’s debate on that, and certainly I’m not suggesting one causes the other, nor am I saying one leads to the other, but there’s some evidence that income and religiosity are related.  Even beyond the scope of science, I think most people can see a bit of the intuition.  Higher income people have more demanding jobs and less discretionary time.  They’re also likely to be more individualistic than their low income counterparts, have an inflated sense of importance, and they’re more likely to feel self-reliant (i.e., “I can solve my own problems”).  The opposite seems to be true for lower income people.

We also know about the role religion played in slavery, so I’ll just mention that as an important aside for now.  Since Black Americans tend to be lower income, they also tend to be more religious than Americans of some other racial and ethnic groups (like White Americans, for instance).  I don’t think that idea is out of the ordinary, per se.

The second major consideration here though is the role of class, or socioeconomic status, in masculinity (as a spoiler, I’ll be talking quite a bit about masculinity today, although I realize this topic is obviously of great relevance to both men and women).  To be clear, while gender is viewed as biological and manifesting in the form of certain physiological properties, masculinity (and femininity) is entirely culturally constructed.  That is, culture determines what is and is not masculine, and admittedly, we know this is subject to some level of change over time, even in spite of fairly rigid gender roles.

An example may help.

People usually give me the side eye when I say high heeled shoes were originally intended for men, but side eye or not, it’s absolutely true.  Circa 15^th century eastern Europe, MEN wore high heels to enhance their physical stature and appear more formidable (and prior to that, it was worn for centuries by men across Western Asia).  After all, a tall man is probably more intimidating than a shorter one (see social and evolutionary psychology).  We also know, based on research, that we make important inferences about people based on physical properties, including their height.  So, it should be no surprise that taller people tend to have higher income, receive more promotions, and be perceived as leaders at work. Evolutionary psychology, too, argues more of the same: tall men are viewed as intimidating, formidable, possessing good genes, and deserving of respect.  Again, I’m not making a causal argument, I’m simply pointing out that height is associated with particular outcomes, and much of that is influenced based on how people perceive taller vs. shorter men.

In hindsight, it makes perfect sense for men to wear high heels.  It wasn’t until the 1600s or so that women began wearing high heels (at least in Europe; not sure about Western Asia).  Today, at least by Western standards, high heels are a universal symbol of femininity, not masculinity.  But if this were Eastern Europe in the 1400’s, high heels would be considered an iconic symbol of manliness.  This underscores my point: masculinity is culturally constructed, as is femininity.

In the case of poor people, Black people included, two important pressures emerge.  The first is distinctiveness.  Poor men, just like every other class of men, face important pressures to be distinctive from their female counterparts.  Men need to act like men… an “anti femininity” if you will.  So, they play sports, and drink beer, wrestle with each other… and they shun things like gardening, yoga, and the like.  This isn’t exclusive to lower class men: middle and upper class men do something similar.  The second pressure that poor men face that’s a bit unique to them as lower-income men is how best to satisfy gender roles.  By gender roles, I mean norms for what is expected of you based strictly on your gender.  We’ve had such norms for thousands of years.

But this is complicated.

It’s complicated because gender norms for men include expectations to have status and access to economic resources.  As you would imagine, higher income men satisfy this expectation easily enough.  They attend universities, they secure good jobs, they earn competitive salaries and effortlessly provide for their families.  Lower income men, on the other hand, wrestle substantially with these expectations.  Indeed, this has been well documented, both in the field of psychology and sociology.  Working class men are more likely to endorse ‘traditional’ forms of masculinity, wherein they feel the need to prove they’re a man based on what they DO.

But there’s a challenge.

Working class men aren’t afforded the luxury of demonstrating their masculinity in the form of status and economic provision.  Instead, they have a smaller range of behaviors by which they have to show their masculinity.  In fact, more recent research in psychology shows that lower class men can feel pressure to compensate for their lack of status, or economic vitality, by overindulging in other forms of masculinity: aggression, substance use (ie. drinking, smoking, etc.), sexual prowess (multiple sexual partners, unprotected sex, etc.), and indeed they do.

In some ways, it functions like a Napoleon Complex: lower income men can perceive a deficiency in their masculinity and seek to overcompensate for it.  Man, don’t you just love when science makes sense?

Importantly, none of this is deterministic: Being lower income, or Black, doesn’t mean you’ll succumb to any of these pressures, but there is a lot of research on some of the negative consequences of working-class masculinity, particularly among Black men (and Hispanic men, too, if you’re interested).  It can be a vicious and toxic cycle.

Much of this work is predicated on something known as precarious manhood or precarious masculinity.  It’s a curious concept, but in essence, the manner in which masculinity is culturally constructed means that men have to prove their manhood, and they can lose their status as a man at any point in time. Importantly, femininity, in general, doesn’t seem to operate that way.  And that idea, presumably, accounts for many of the differences in behavior that we periodically observe between men and women.  As it pertains to working class men, one potential result of precarious manhood is overindulging in masculine behaviors to make up for coming up a bit short in the bank account.

But income isn’t necessarily the only thing that can emasculate working class Black men.  Some new and interesting work in psychology shows that racism leads to push ups.  The notion of being judged, excluded, harassed, and/or discriminated against is EMASCULATING for many Black men.  The response of Black men who feel that way, in these situations, is with “push ups”… in other words, feeling discriminated against can make Black men feel the need to reassert their masculinity and prove their manhood.  Again, we can see class, gender, and discrimination interacting in unusual ways.  Maybe this is a perfect place to interject with my point, because I haven’t even gotten to that yet.

Black folks in America have faced many challenges.  Day after day, we continue to wrestle to be respected and be treated with dignity.  So, I really wrestle with the idea of homophobia within the Black community (particularly towards men).  It’s almost like a struggle within a struggle, right?  It just strikes me as really curious, problematic, and somewhat hypocritical.

Black America prides itself on wanting to call out privilege and oppression in America.

We take to the streets to protest injustice.

We urge people to acknowledge our humanity.

We plead with people not to reject us, strictly on the basis of who we are.

We remind America that, literally at every single point of its history, we’ve been on the social fringes.

We underscore how, for decades, we were seen as amusement and entertainment for White people, if for no other reason than the fact that we were Black.

How, then, do you turn around and exclude an entire group of people?  What, because of who they love?  Or who they’re attracted to?  Or because of who they want to marry?

So, let’s talk this through, because I’m having difficulty following the logic.

You don’t want to be at the bottom of society, but you don’t have any problem putting another group there, am I getting that right?  You don’t want people to use the N word, but you have no problem using homophobic slurs among your friends for your own amusement, is that correct?  It was wrong for White people to use their fear, prejudice, and hate to try and keep Black people out of their neighborhoods, and out of their schools, but now, you don’t want any gay people in your neighborhood or school, am I understanding correctly?  It was wrong for White people to disown family members because they fell in love with someone Black, but you don’t have any issue disowning, or saying you’ll disown, someone in your family who falls in love with a member of the same sex, is that the situation?

I’ll be honest, I think it’s sad.  I think it’s sad because many Black Americans have become the very thing they say they hate, and the worst part is, they can’t even see it.  They enact and appeal to the same systems of oppression, prejudice, and discrimination that they say cripple the progress of Black people in this country.

Sure, they masquerade it under the guise of religious beliefs (see Statutes if Liberty, part 1, part 2, and part 3), or hypermasculinity, but ultimately, I think it’s homophobia.  Plain and simple.

I’ll talk about how Black men perpetrate this and then I’ll get to women, too.

Honestly, I think a lot of Black men perpetrate this in the form of complicity.  Maybe you didn’t make that homophobic joke, but you laughed at it.  You didn’t make the joke, but you didn’t say it was wrong.  Again, for working class men, I think this just comes as so natural.  Even as Black people transcend various levels of socioeconomic status, that cultural conception of masculinity can be so deeply rooted, maybe we can’t get away from it… It’s the way our parents think.  It’s reflected in conversations with siblings and/or friends.  Even as your understanding of masculinity begins to change, it’s still difficult to unpack all of the negative elements that have been internalized, both past and present.  It’s easy to have a good laugh with the guys at the expense of further stigmatizing an entire social group of people… as funny as I’m sure you think it is, I’m sure White people found Black face really funny in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, too. Some of them still think it’s funny.

Benign intentions have very little to do with whether or not jokes or comments are appropriate.  And for a lot of Black men, we have little reservations about doing this because it’s both common and accepted.

But it has to stop.

Now, a word for the Black women…

Say what you will, but these ideas came from somewhere… let me paint this picture another way.  There are many, many things I think women feel the need to do because they think it makes men more interested in them.  The opposite is true as well… there are many, many things that Black men feel they need to do, because it’ll make women more interested in them.  Here’s the kicker… I think most Black women will acknowledge that these beliefs about what women are interested in or attracted to are HIGHLY EXAGERATED, but that’s actually part of my point: these beliefs Black men have about what women are attracted to aren’t entirely wrong… the beliefs are just exaggerated.

Even as a guy, I’ve personally been in situations where Black women deride Black men for being “sensitive”, or “soft”, or not meeting their definition of masculinity, and that’s usually because the man in question is perceived as feminine.  I mean, I’ve said this repeatedly, but I’ll say it again here just to drive my point home: As a heterosexual male, by Western standards, I’m not even a particularly masculine guy, and that’s something I already know and I’m completely okay with.

Masculinity is NOT the opposite of femininity (that’s a WHOLE different conversation).

I think a lot of Black women have to be honest about contributing to a broader pattern of homophobia within the Black community.  Just like Black men might believe Black women want somebody who’s financially stable (probably true), and Black men might believe Black women want someone with sexual prowess (this one, perhaps, varies from woman to woman), Black men might also believe that Black women want this macho man, and you’ve contributed to that idea every time you didn’t create an environment where Black men are allowed to demonstrate ‘feminine’ qualities (care, concern, support, sympathy, emotions, etc.) without being emasculated.

That’s a really big deal.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in a city in the US where there are, allegedly, a lot of Black men on the “down low”.  In essence, that means they’re gay but passing for straight.  It, of course, creates a lot of drama becomes sometimes women end up dating or marrying a Black man, only to find out that their boyfriend or husband has secretly been gay all along.  What I think gets left out of that conversation a lot is… as much as we might hate to admit it, there are some elements of that ‘down low’ phenomenon that are somewhat distinctive to Black culture. These men are doing that, presumably, because they anticipate such an intense ridicule, scrutiny, and rejection from their friends, family, loved ones, etc.  They would, literally, pretend to be straight, marry a woman, and have kids than potentially face the people they love and tell them, “I’ve actually become that thing that we used to crack all those jokes about.”

As a Black woman, I think you’re kidding yourself if you think, on some level, that felt pressure only comes from men.  Black women play an important role in perpetuating and reinforcing homophobia.

None of us were born being able to see all of these connections. None of us were born attuned to the plight of every single group in society. But we listen.  And we learn.  And we do better, right?

And as a community, we need to do waaaaay better in this area.

I’m not here to drag anybody.  This isn’t a hot take (i.e., I haven’t watched the Closer, or anything else by Dave Chapelle, really; I don’t really follow comedians, so it’s not particular to him).  I also realize my commentary focused mostly on men, in part because that’s a lived experience that I can speak to and also because I’m more familiar with research that relates to the topic (i.e., working class masculinity, hyper masculinity, precarious manhood, etc.).  I realize this topic has really important implications for women as well.  The bottom line is I just want to see people treated with dignity and respect.  That’s the bare minimum, and I think everyone deserves that.

Some random thoughts,

Nnamdi

The post Homophobia appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

Essay No. 7: Booze, Bacon, Bad Boys, and the ‘B’ Word

I find men to be absolutely fascinating.  Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I research and study gender.  And as a behavioral scientist, I have the exciting privilege of developing and testing scientific theories to investigate how being a man influences subsequent attitudes and behaviors (I do similar investigations for women as well, but they’re not the focus of this essay, per se).  But perhaps the most central phenomena needed to understand male behavior is understanding this peculiar thing called [Western] masculinity.

So, for context, we can start with some vocabulary.  Masculinity, generally, refers to traits and behaviors that are primarily associated with men.  Masculinity is culturally constructed, so there’s definitely some variance across contexts, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some overlap and consensus across different contexts.  Of course, I live in the US, and I’m most familiar with the US, so I’ll focus mostly on Western perspectives of masculinity.

Masculinity gives both men and women a broad description of what men ARE and equally importantly, what men ARE NOT.

Men are loud.  They are not quiet.

Men are bold.  They are not timid.

Men are fearless.  They are not fearful.

Men are tough.  They are not sensitive.

Men are dominant.  They are not submissive.

Men are leaders.  They are not followers.

Now OBVIOUSLY, these are extreme exaggerations.  But I think that’s the point… that’s how masculinity and femininity work.  They usually represent an exaggerated idea of underlying traits and behaviors.  And that idea of exaggeration isn’t entirely bad, PER SE.  Mentally, it reduces the likelihood of us mixing up men and women… because we ascribe one set of exaggerated behaviors to men (masculinity) and we ascribe a completely different set of exaggerated behaviors to women (femininity).

And based on what we know about the psychology of identity groups, we know that even when different groups are in harmony, they try to remain distinct from each other.  It’s part of how you maintain the livelihood of your group.

That doesn’t mean there’s beef… it just means groups strive to maintain some level of distinctiveness.

So, football players try and maintain distinctiveness and uniqueness from basketball players.

People in America try and be distinct and unique from people in Canada.

Doctors try and be distinct from lawyers.

And so on and so forth.

So, men try and be distinct from women, and both masculinity and femininity help to reinforce that for both groups.  And distinct, in this context, doesn’t necessarily mean better or worse or superior or inferior (although we can have that discussion another time).  Distinct simply means the groups are separate.

So, we’ll be talking plenty about masculinity today.  In fact, by the end of this, you might even be convinced that masculinity is EVERYTHING… there’s so much about manhood that’s inextricably intertwined with [Western] masculinity (frequently in ways that aren’t necessarily helpful).  But I also urge you to keep in mind that men are NOT a monolith.  Men vary in the extent to which they subscribe to traditional definitions of masculinity and gender roles, etc.  For instance, by Western standards, I’m not a particularly masculine man, and I also don’t really subscribe much to Western definitions of masculinity.  As you would imagine though, there are millions and millions of men, even around the world, who DO strive to be “masculine” and hold very traditional views of gender roles.  And there are definitely important implications of that.

For instance, the expectation that being masculine involves being a risk taker, not surprisingly, has come to influence the health and safety risks that men expose themselves to.  Even before getting into the underlying science of this, many of us can conceptualize and wrap our heads around this with our own anecdotal experience.  Men are more likely than women to smoke.  Men are more likely than women to drink.  Men are more likely than women to drink heavily.  Men are also more likely than women to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

The pattern continues, right?

Now, it is true that, on average, drugs and substance use appeal differentially to men and women.  In fact, if you’re a woman, you may actually avoid substance use because you may have concerns about being viewed as a masculine woman.  That’s a perfectly fair observation, but it’s more complicated than that.

In the psychology and sociology research on masculinity, we’re actually interested in the predictors of these health-related behaviors… we’re particularly interested in these behaviors among men, because men are far more likely to be users (and HEAVY users) of substances, illegal and otherwise.  Across many of these research studies, a relevant pattern emerges.

Men who endorse traditional norms of masculinity are more likely to be users of substances, like alcohol, cigarettes, etc.  In other words, the men who are most likely to put substances in their body that may compromise their health are the men who believe that men are supposed to be risk takers.  I mean, it makes sense, right?  For these guys, smoking cigars in the man cave, and taking 5 shots of bourbon, are just normal things that men are supposed to do.  Perhaps equally importantly, masculinity is also about being in control.  So, instead of being safe and admitting that they’re too drunk to drive, many of these gentlemen will choose instead to get behind the wheel and try and get where they’re going.

As you would imagine, the research in this area has really important health and safety implications.  It means in order for men to feel like they’re living up to the standard of being a man (i.e. masculinity), it may involve them doing things that undermine their safety and health.  It may also mean that men do things they KNOW are bad for them, but they do those things anyway, because that’s what a man is supposed to do.  Indeed, now there’s an entire field of research known as male-role stress.  The unrelenting burdens of masculinity may undermine men’s health in both expected and unexpected ways (cc: suicide and mental health across the genders).

But the health implications are broader than just drugs and safety.  There are many men who don’t use any illegal drugs and only drink in moderation.  Still, masculinity may have an influence on their health as well.

There’s been research showing that women seem to do a better job taking care of their body than men do, specifically as it pertains to health.  Not surprisingly, data in the US shows that women, on average, live to be 81, whereas men live to be 76.

As it pertains to masculinity, the gap here is twofold.

For starters, part of masculinity is being impervious to harm.  Now obviously, men aren’t actually indestructible, but masculine men may pretend that they are.  Whether we’re talking about rescuing a kitten from a tree (a heroic deed), or getting in a fight at a bar (a physical confrontation), or getting drunk when your friends come over to watch football (overindulgence), many aspects of masculinity appeal to the notion of being invincible.

Unfortunately, that’s not good for your health.  Men are NOT impervious to harm, and the body that we have is the one we’ll have every day until we die.  So, a man’s willingness to recognize that and act accordingly will directly influence his health outcomes.  It influences how regularly he goes to the physician.  It influences his willingness to heed medical advice.  It influences what he does when his body is trying to tell him that there’s something terribly wrong (i.e. when he feels pain).

So, the notion of being impervious influences how you maintain your body in terms of medical advice and access.

Relatedly though, it has similar implications for food consumption.  Yes, it is true that women are more scrutinized about their physical appearance than men are, so they may show more restraint and discipline concerning what they eat.  But the story is deeper than that, and it actually goes back to our observations on substance use: if you’ll put methamphetamine in your body, or heroin, or crack… then a triple bacon cheeseburger is NOTHING.  I mean, it’s part of how masculinity is constructed, right?  Men take risk, and they’re impervious to harm.  So, why not have a triple bacon cheeseburger every day?

To be sure, there’s research that’s been done in this area as well, by psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists.  Food isn’t gender neutral.  From a cultural perspective, some foods are viewed as more feminine (i.e. a pumpkin spice-latte) and some foods are viewed as more masculine (i.e. a triple bacon cheeseburger).  Moreover, given eating directly influences our health and weight, you could say that eating itself is a gendered activity, wherein men are expected to partake more than women.

There’s a precedent for these arguments.  For instance, throughout much of history, meat has been associated with power and privilege.  This has been the case in European, African, and Asian society, and even today, meat is among the more expensive items in grocery stores and restaurants.  Meat is a delicacy.  Moreover, historical records of civilizations around the world appear to suggests a longstanding relationship between meat and manhood.

We don’t have to go back very far in time to find examples of this.  For example, in the early 20^th century, America was actively involved in WWI.  Throughout the war, food was rationed to better support the war effort.  Civilian women went without so that men on the battlefield could eat their fill of meat.  Today, MEN… EAT… MEAT (although diets vary a bit throughout the world).  In fact, this norm in Western society is so strong, that men don’t consider a meal complete if it doesn’t include meat.

MEN… WANT… THE BACON.

But here’s the thing.  This isn’t just a preference.  It’s a norm.  And when people violate norms, there are usually penalties associated with doing so.  In this case, research has found that men who don’t eat meat (i.e. vegetarians) are considered less masculine than men that do.  I should also point out that this study was done with a sample of all WOMEN, finding that eating meat (vs. being vegetarian) makes you sexy.  In general, I would expect men to show a similar pattern, viewing vegetarian men as less masculine.

If that’s true though, men may eat LESS vegetables and MORE meat, just to avoid being viewed as a unmasculine.

Less broccoli.

More bacon.

And to the extent that diets really high (low) in red meat (vegetables) may undermine your health, it may mean masculinity has struck men yet again.  Here, too, we see more health consequences.

Now, one relevant question you may have at this point is, “What’s all the fuss among men with being viewed as masculine?  WHY IS THAT SO IMPORTANT?”

Well, we’ve touched on it a little bit already.  Keep in mind that masculinity is culturally constructed, and culture pertains to norms.  And norms exist to set scripts for behavior.  Deviating from those norms means your behavior is atypical, and atypical behavior is penalized… that’s true across the board in society (although people of greater privilege usually have more flexibility with norm violation).  In other words, satisfying norms means “good things” happen and deviating from norms means “bad things” happen.

There are many examples of that, but we actually mentioned one of the most important one’s already.  In the study I mentioned previously on attraction, men who ate meat were perceived as sexier than men who are vegetarian.  To be sure, this wasn’t simply a matter of correlation.  As they statistically tested for various mechanisms, they found strong evidence that masculinity attributions drove their effects.  In other words, vegetarian men were perceived as less masculine than men who were not vegetarian (men who ate meat AND vegetables), and the decrease in masculinity resulted in being perceived as less sexy.

This motivates an important question… is there any legitimacy to the idea that nice guys finish last?  Do women have a preference for these macho men, even when they’re really nice guys that may be less macho?

Well, kinda.

There’s research in mating psychology that uses a sociobiological, or evolutionary, logic to better understand who people are attracted to and why.  As you may be able to surmise, they incorporate helpful insights from biology to understand human sexual behavior.

This field of work started in the late 1980’s, and it’s created quite the stir since.  I think when you write research papers about sexual behavior, biology, and evolution, it has the potential to be very contentious.  Part of the reason why is those fields, separately and collectively, have been used to support oppressive and perverted arguments in the past about underrepresented groups in society (i.e., women are biologically inferior to men, Black people have an uncontrollable sex drive). As a result, we always want to exercise discretion in how we interpret results for this kind of work.

So, what does mating psychology tell us about bad boys and nice guys?  I can be really technical and specific, but the findings are generally as follows: when women are thinking of short-term mating motives (i.e., a one night stand, a casual sexual experience, etc.), there’s evidence that they prefer bad boys over nice guys.  As you would expect, for LONG-TERM mating motives (i.e., future husband), we observe the exact opposite pattern (so yes, there are circumstances where women prefer bad boys, but that isn’t necessarily all the time).  Additionally, women’s sex drive may influence how they perceive bad boys: during periods of high (vs. low) sex drive, there’s evidence women are more likely to see a bad boy as having potential to be suitable long term partners, i.e. good boyfriends, good husbands or good dads.

Now remember, I told you this field has the potential to be quite contentious at times, and maybe now you can see why I said that.  But taking a step back, I’ll be honest, I think the findings are somewhat intuitive.  I mean think about it, right?  For instance, imagine if I told you that when men are in a period of high sex drive, they might prefer the stripper to the nice, pretty girl on their volleyball team that they already have great chemistry with.  For most of us, we wouldn’t find that super surprising.  As a guy, I can UNEQUIVOCALLY tell you that when I’m feeling a high level of sexual arousal, I’m more prone to think and behave in ways that may be at odds with my better judgement.  That’s why I think with my brain and not with my penis.  Because otherwise, I might make a very different set of decisions, right?

These mating psychologists have basically found evidence that when women are in a period of high sex drive, it may influence what men they find most attractive (i.e., bad boys vs. nice guys), and it also may influence how they perceive bad boys (i.e., “I think he’d be faithful if he was with a good woman”).  I don’t say that to be deterministic: every woman is not the same, and obviously there’s a lot of variation from person to person, but there is some evidence that this pattern exists.

Practically, that means that even though Western masculinity has MANY problematic elements, if you’re a bad boy, you may feel there’s some pay off when it comes to the dating market.  After all, being a bad boy is pretty pertinent to masculinity, which could be appealing to some women: Bad boys need to be dominant.  They have to be able to fend off threats and be fearless in doing so.  They also need to be respected, otherwise, people will continue to threaten them on an ongoing basis.  So, even though Western masculinity IS problematic on many levels, some men may feel adhering to it is worthwhile because it improves their dating prospects (i.e., women come find them when they want a one night stand, and sometimes even for serious relationships).

But while we’re on this topic of sex, relationships, and bad boys, how do men handle those situations where a woman thwarts their advances?  Think about it.  Men are supposed to be dominant, and sure, and successful.  I mean, getting rejected by a woman doesn’t really seem to fit very well into how we culturally construct masculinity, even though we know that rejection is a normal part of romantic interactions between heterosexual men and women.

So, here’s how it works.  Identity represents important dimensions of who we are as people.  Periodically, we have experiences that serve to undermine our social standing within a social identity group.  You can think of these as “identity threats”.  In our case, a man being rejected by a woman is a particular kind of identity threat: a masculinity threat.

Now, when a man’s masculinity is threatened, he has to regain it.  There are different ways to do so, but generally, they involve (1) elevating/reestablishing his own social standing, (2) reducing other people’s social standing, (3) or doing both.

Enter the ‘B’ word.

See, this is part of the issue with Western masculinity.  You can’t be masculine and be unsuccessful.  You can’t be masculine and be rejected.  You can’t be masculine and not be desired by women.  So, now you have this awkward situation where men feel like their masculinity is threatened when a woman declines their advances, whereas rejection is really just a normal part of putting yourself out there with different people.

Now, one thing I haven’t touched on but I’ll do here is emotions.  Because of Western masculinity, men are pretty limited in the emotions they’re permitted to display.  They can show anger and that’s really kind of it.  Emotion is a curious thing to think about from a gendered perspective.  When we think about the gender research on emotions, one thing we know is that when bad things happen to people, they demonstrate one of two emotions: anger or sadness.  People generally get angry about things they feel like they have control over and they get sad about things they feel like they don’t.  That’s one reason why anger is an approach emotion, that leads people to action, and sadness is not.

So, if a family member dies, you may get SAD about that, but if someone catches an attitude with you at work, you may get ANGRY about that.  The latter is something you may feel like you can control, but the former is something you may just feel the need to accept.  Importantly, we know being in control is a masculine characteristic.  Not surprisingly, anger is a more normative response for men than it is women, whereas sadness is a more normative response for women than men.

But, the very fact that a man gets angry when his advances are declined tells us something important.  It means he thinks that he can control whether or not women are receptive to him.  If he got sad instead of angry, he’d basically be signaling the opposite: “I can’t control whether or not women are receptive to me, and that’s why I’m sad”.  The idea that a man may feel he has control over outcomes like these in his social life, of course, is a manifestation and reflection of patriarchy.  And the ‘B’ word largely reinforces that.  It’s a gendered insult, intended to degrade the woman and elevate his status as a man.  So, if she declines his advances, he may buffer the masculinity threat by using gendered insults to elevate his own social standing while reducing hers.

Suffice to say, manhood, particularly Western masculinity, is very complex… and there are many, many aspects of it that are borderline, if not outright, toxic.  But it’s also fascinating to think about and fascinating to study.

Let me know what you’re thinking about masculinity, especially if you have thoughts on Booze, Bacon, Bad Boys, or the ‘B’ word.

Some random thoughts,

Nnamdi

The post Essay No. 7: Booze, Bacon, Bad Boys, & the ‘B’ Word appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

Yahweh, the Creator

For, let’s say, 95% of my life, I didn’t really think of myself as a creative person. From a social psychology perspective, we like to think of this thing called self-concept, right?  And your self-concept represents how you see yourself.  And that’s obviously influenced by lots of things, like various socialization processes, and meaningful life experiences, and other things, but basically, your self-concept represents how YOU see YOURSELF.  It’s your inner man, or inner woman, or inner person.  It’s who YOU think YOU are.

And for most of my life, my self-concept didn’t really have anything to do with being creative.  I’ve mentioned this previously, but my initial exposure to the arts actually began in 8^th grade. I got involved with the youth group at my church, and from there, I fell into theatre.  And as it turns out, I was actually pretty good, and I performed in various capacities for 4 or 5 years (although I hate calling it performing, because I don’t like to think of things I do for God as a performance, but you get the idea).

And THEN, something… happened.

I got to college.

And when I got to college, I really had to figure out who I was.  And that’s a deep, existential type of question, but I think college is a place where you ask yourself deep, existential questions.  I’m out of my parents’ house. I’m out of this tiny town that I grew up in. I’m surrounded every day with thousands of other students. And I also think, as a Christian, you’re also keenly aware that most of the people around you don’t really share your views. I mean, to be fair, that was true in high school, too, but I think the difference with college was now you could do whatever you want and your parents can’t really stop you.  So, I was CHOOSING to be a follower of Christ, and I was also keenly aware that my views were different from lots of other people, because they were choosing to be someone else.

So, I had to decide really quickly who am I and what’s my life going to be about. And I spent A LOT of time thinking about faith and spirituality during that time, and as a result, I learned two things. First, I think college taught me that I’m a fairly reserved person; I’m probably more introverted than extroverted.  There’s something about being around thousands of strangers all the time that, overwhelmingly, brings that to your attention. Now, don’t be confused: I have great communication skills, and in fact, I would describe myself as an exceptional communicator.  I also know how to put myself in social situations where I’ll fair better, but if I’m honest with you, interacting with lots and lots of people can be draining for me.

So, sure, I’m a little bit more reserved.

Now, the other thing I learned was that, apparently, I’m a really thoughtful person.  And that’s two-fold, right?  The first part of that is, I think a lot… I don’t know, that’s just who I am.  So, if you think a lot, you’re more likely to be a thoughtful or insightful person, because you’ve spent more time thinking about things.  But the other piece of that was the insights I derived based on that thinking. When you’re a child, or when you’re young, you just assume that everybody thinks about things from your perspective… and as you get older, you slowly realize that’s not really the case.  I think when I was in college, I just assumed that everybody thinks exactly the way I do.  And over time, I slowly realized, that wasn’t really true.

There were dozens of times where I would casually share things in a conversation with a friend, and they would be like, “Oh my gosh, that’s so insightful.” And I would think to myself, “Is it?  I just assumed everybody thought that.”  I mean, don’t get me wrong, I knew I was smart, but it took me a few years of college to realize that I was making connections that other people weren’t always making.

So, based on that, my self-concept started to change.  I mean, it seemed like I was this insightful dude… so, maybe I should try writing… maybe it’ll get some traction.  And it’s interesting, because I didn’t really do much performing on stage anymore… instead, I started writing skits and scripts, because the way I saw myself started to change a little bit.  It wasn’t a bad thing… it just kind of happened.  So, I actually started writing some skits and scripts for performances.  They were all pretty short, but I really enjoyed writing them.

But as I progressed through college, again, something… happened.  I decided on my fields of study, and I selected finance and economics. And, as you may or may not know, these are quantitative fields of study, and they involve quite a bit of numbers, and formulas, and math.  And I think the way I viewed myself started to change, yet again.

People who work with numbers are logical, and rational, and analytical, and structured problem solvers.  And obviously, in some ways, these represent stereotypes, but obviously I wanted to take my career seriously, so I just assumed this was who I was going to be.  So, my self-concept changed yet again.  Now, I’m this analytical problem solver.  And as I bought into that idea more and more, I didn’t really nurture that creative spirit very much, because I didn’t really see myself in that way.

To be fair, there’s good reason why that happened, although it definitely shouldn’t have. Far too often in society, when we think of various things, a mental image comes to mind.  Our brain is hard wired in that way; it’s part of how we organize information in ways that’s useful for us.

So, when we think of entrepreneurs, a particular mental image comes to mind.

When we think of missionaries, a particular mental image comes to mind.

When we think of doctors or lawyers, a particular mental image comes to mind.

When we think of engineers, a particular mental image comes to mind.

 When we think of presidents, or politicians, or orphans, or high school dropouts, or anything else under the sun, there’s a mental image that immediately starts to take shape in our mind.

That is both a good and not so good thing.  That phenomenon helps our brain to organize information so it’s more useful and accessible to use.  On the other hand, it creates a more rigid pattern of thinking, right?  We tend to restrict ourselves to these mental schemas that our mind produces, and we tend not to venture beyond those mental images very much, because it becomes harder for our brain to organize the information it has.

So, once I graduated from college, and began working in Corporate America, that kind of persisted.

When I thought about “creative” people, there were 2 categories of people my mind would come up with.

In category 1, you had people like Beyonce and Drake.  These are people who are committed to their craft and clearly have a God-given talent.  Their level of brilliance is so undeniable, that you recognize it immediately.  They are exceptionally gifted.  So, those are literally, like, the top 1% of creative people.

And then in category 2, you have people that are consumed by their love for their own art, or the arts in general, it can be a tad difficult to connect with them.  So, maybe someone like Lady Gaga’s a great example.  Phenomenal artist… a little bit out there, but she’s an artist, so that’s not unusual or out of the ordinary.  But here’s the thing: I didn’t really see myself as fitting in either of those categories or mental schemas. So, I erroneously assumed I must not be a creative person.  I didn’t view myself in that way.  It wasn’t my self-concept.  I didn’t see myself as fitting the mental image I had.

Many years later, I started to realize that many of these mental images I found myself referencing so frequently were absolutely absurd.  2017 rolled around… and by that point, I’d been a Christian for a number of years… I was starting a PhD program… I was on a journey with my Black identity, so I had that going in the background, too… there was a lot going on beneath the surface, and I just felt I didn’t have an outlet for any of it.  I hadn’t really written anything in years, but I felt myself aching and yearning to write… there were so many thoughts… so many ideas… so many questions… so many feelings… like, seriously, I couldn’t turn my brain off.  I just felt like things were bubbling over inside of me, and I didn’t really have anywhere to put it.  I didn’t have a space.  I didn’t have an outlet.  I didn’t have a medium.  I didn’t have any designated opportunities to exercise my creative expression in a way that I found fulfilling.

So, I started blogging… and I wrestled with it at the time, for many of the same reasons that I described earlier.  I didn’t think of myself as a blogger.  I just didn’t see myself as creative in that way.  But I did it, and it’s working out really well.  And podcasting really was the same, right?  I didn’t really think of myself as a podcaster… I just didn’t see myself in that way; it wasn’t part of my self-concept.  But I’m doing that, too, and it’s been really fruitful.

So, I feel like what I’m describing is a journey that I’ve been on concerning how I view myself (that’s my self-concept) and a journey in how I see and think about creativity.  And both of those things have fundamentally influenced and shaped how I see God, and I’ll share with you how.

God is creative.  I’m made in God’s image.  I have the capacity to create.

So, let’s unpack each of those.

We’re going to get existential for a second, but try and stay with me.

Think about it.  God is the only being that’s existed since the beginning of time.  God.  Literally.  Created.  EVERYTHING.  All of it.  Every single thing in creation.  Now, that’s mind blowing for lots of reasons.  One reason why is God had a working blueprint for all of existence.  The stars, and the planets, and galaxies, and the universe… ALL OF IT… and the laws of physics that tie it all together in ways that we don’t even fully comprehend or understand.  Somehow.  Someway.  God, in His BRILLIANCE… in His ingenuity… in His creative genius… He came up with all of it.  And we can’t even begin to wrap our head around that, we probably never will.

Another reason why creation appeals to God’s creativity is the ONLY creative inspiration that God had was Himself.  That’s it.  That was His only creative inspiration.  The Bible says in the book of John (1:1-3), in the beginning was the word.  And all things were made through God.  We see the exact same account in Genesis chapter 1, which walks us through creation.  The original description of the Earth (vs. 2) is that it was shapeless and void.  And then, in verses 3-24, we see Him make the Earth what it is.  So, we see His creativity described in a 3 step process.

First, there was nothing.  Only God was in existence.

Then, there was something.  But it lacked shape.  It lacked form.  It lacked order.  It simply existed… that’s it.

And finally, we see Him bring His creative vision to life over six days.  He gave His creation shape, and form, and order.  Just like that.

The reason why this is noteworthy is because nothing like this will ever happen again for the remainder of existence.  People who create draw inspiration from what’s around them.  A conversation they had with a family member… something funny they saw on TV… another artist that they really like and enjoy… in theory, it’s impossible to create in isolation by virtue of the fact that we exist.  Seriously.  You can’t do that.  Whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not, everything you create for the remainder of your life is partially inspired by experiencing the wonder of God’s creation: existence.

When you start a business, you think of other businesses.  That doesn’t mean your business will look the same as there’s, but you know what a business is because someone else created a business first.

When you create a recipe, you think of other recipes.

When you plan a wedding, you think of other weddings.

When you plan a party, you think of other parties.

When you write a poem, or song, or picture, or jewelry, or clothing, or whatever, you think of other people’s creations.  We don’t just create out of thin air.

Not so with God.  The Bible says there was nothing.  And then… God flexed #Godsplan.  And just like that, we had everything.  And it’s a synergistic combination of complexity, and mind blowing beauty.

Like have you really thought about how complex humans are.  Seriously.  For most other living organisms in existence, they have a very simple blueprint for their life: self-preservation & reproduction.  In other words, most other living organisms have the life goals of reproducing (that’s sexual or asexual) and trying to stay alive.  A very simple existence.

But for humans, we have this thing called self-actualization, and it makes us distinct from every other organism in existence.  We have feelings, and emotions, and thoughts, and ideas, and we desire truth, and the pursuit of happiness, whatever the heck that means.  We desire individuality, and self expression, and we seek answers to questions like who are we, and why are we here, and what’s our true purpose, is there really a creator, and all this other stuff.

And that’s just the psychological things, right?  Anatomically and physiologically, humans are REMARKABLY complex.  I mean, I haven’t had a ton of courses in the natural sciences, but the musculoskeletal system, and even the nervous system, are mind blowing.  Like, seriously, who comes up with this?  It’s absolutely fascinating.  The design of the human body?  It’s absolutely insane.

Yahweh, our creator, is absolutely brilliant.

His creative brilliance is absolutely limitless.  And it’s undeniable.  Yahweh is a creator.  Everything we have is because of Him… in one moment, we had nothing.  But His creative vision gave us everything.

So, that’s the first point.  God is creative.  But here’s the thing: the Bible says I’m made in His image (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:1-2; Genesis 9:6).  And I love to stress that point, because God is a creator, but humans are the ONLY thing in all of creation that the Bible explicitly describes as being made in the image of God.  Maybe that’s why we’re so deep and so complex, because we’re made in the image of God.

But if the Bible says that I’m made in God’s image, that means I’m a creator, too.  It’s true.  100%.  God is a creative genius, so that means that I can be creative, too.  And here’s the thing… that doesn’t depend on your choice of profession… that doesn’t depend on what you majored in while you were in school… honestly, it doesn’t even matter how you see yourself.  Because Christianity isn’t necessarily about how you see yourself, it’s about learning to see yourself the way that God sees you.  So, if the Bible tells me that I’m made in His image, that means He made me with the capacity to create.  That doesn’t mean I’m creating galaxies and universes, because obviously that’s not the case, but we have opportunities every single day to show our artistic or creative brilliance.  You may not be super interested in seizing those opportunities, or learning how to build the capacity for creative thinking, or engaging with novel or “outside-of-the-box” ideas, but that’s absolutely 100% something that you’re capable of doing.

I don’t think we’re all equally gifted at that.  And I think some of us excel at it more than others.  But if you want to create… then go create.  You’re a creative genius.  It’s in your DNA.  And that’s not a testament to how amazing or awesome you are… quite the contrary.  That’s a testament to how amazing, and thoughtful, Yahweh, our creator, is.

Just some random thoughts while I’m creating.

Nnamdi

The post Yahweh, the Creator appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

Brilliance

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s just a special connection you have with other PhD students.  I imagine there’s a similar notion for those studying medicine, law, dentistry, pharmacy, etc.  There’s a mutual understanding of the rigor of the program, similar gripes over research, a bonding over the emotional and psychological distress of coursework, and/or the horror stories of the dissertation.  As much as I feel that connection with other PhD students, there’s an even deeper sense of connection I have with other doctoral students that are men and women of faith.  Beyond everything I just described, there’s the spiritual commonality we share as well.  Indeed, 70 to 80 hours of reading, writing, research, and schoolwork a week can take a spiritual toll, and it’s definitely not for the faint of heart.

As you can imagine, then, I was pretty enthused when I had the opportunity May 2018 to reconnect briefly with a sister in Christ in Philly, completing a PhD in Education.  Like many people who I hadn’t seen in awhile, she asked me how school was going, and like many people I hadn’t seen in awhile, I told her I was getting absolutely DRAGGED.  And it showed, too.  I was 25 pounds lighter.  And I imagine I didn’t look like my usual self.  Everybody kept asking about it; in so many words, I was told I looked sick on many occasions.  I had a short conversation with my friend, but it was uplifting.  Over three years later, I still remember the scripture she directed me towards.  It was Daniel 1:17.

Let’s start with some context.

The book of Daniel opens with Judah’s captivity in Babylon.  In short, the Southern Kingdom of the Jews, Judah, was attacked, and defeated, by the Babylonians.  As was common practice at the time, the Babylonians took the Jews back with them to Babylon as captives.  King Nebuchadnezzar must have been an enterprising man, because he decides to start a leadership development program, three years in length.  His plan is to take the best and brightest of the Jews, bring them to his palace, and develop them as leaders (there was definitely an element of indoctrination, too, but we don’t have time to get into that).  Following completion of the King’s leadership development program, these men would assume prominent roles of influence all across Babylon, even though they’re Jewish and they really should be in more of a minor role, as street merchants for instance.

Maybe I’ll pause here.

I like the book of Daniel for a lot of different reasons, but let me be clear in saying the following: the first chapter of the book of Daniel, for sure, parallels my current life in many different ways.  King Nebuchadnezzar decides he’s going to roll out this intensive leadership development program.  It doesn’t sound that different from a PhD.  The king’s program is 3 years in length, whereas a PhD program is 4 to 8 years, depending on your discipline, your dissertation, and how good your advisor is.  The King’s program had education as the primary focus, teaching them literature, language, and more.  A PhD program will have you reading 300 pages a week and socialize you to speak, think, and interact the way academics in your field do.  Finally, all of this is paid for, presumably, by the king, who has a vested interest in training future leaders.  In a PhD program, your tuition, in full, is generally paid for by the university (albeit this may not be the case, if the program has less funding).  Additionally, in my case, they pay for dental, vision, and medical insurance, in addition to all of my student fees.  In fact, the only school related thing I’ve paid for since starting my PhD is on-campus parking (~$600 per year).  Literally, at the close of 5 years, God willing, I’ll have a PhD, and the only thing I’ll have paid for is to park my car on campus.  Finally, the program is in residence.  As far as I can tell, all participants of the program would live in the King’s quarters, in the same way all PhD students relocate to the university they’ll be studying at.

Yes, it would seem Nebuchadnezzar’s program isn’t that different from an advanced degree of some kind.

It takes me back to when I was applying to my current university.  Like Nebuchadnezzar, the Dean of the PhD program wanted the best and the brightest.  After accepting me, during my visit to the program, the dean told me, “We received ‘REDACTED NUMBER HERE’ applications this year, and you’re one of our top three candidates.”  Much like Nebuchadnezzar, they saw something in me that made them want to bring me to the “palace”.  In fact, they were willing to invest in feeding me and educating me for the next 5 years.  They felt that good about me as a student.  There’s much that could be said about this, but maybe I’ll primarily highlight 2 observations.  I appreciate Shondrika for encouraging me with these thoughts, during our very, very short conversation.  Much of what comes next was inspired by her uplifting words to me.

“Everyday of your program, you need to pray for people to see something in you.”

The irony of my entire recruiting experience is that I was recruited as one of the top applicants to the program, but my performance in year 1 was probably the worst of all the students that came in my year.  Literally, I was at the bottom of my class in every sense of the word.  I think the only leg up I had was that English was my first language, which wasn’t true for most of my classmates.  But other than having exceptional English, I was skunking it up.  Now for context, my particular experience was highly circumstantial.  Most people will perform at an average level doing most things, because, by definition, that’s what the average represents:  it’s an expected value.  But as much as we may hate the idea, we’ll all have situations where our performance is lackluster, and we’ll all have stretches of our career where our best performance is only average.  I think this is exactly why Shondrika’s comment was so profound.

People can still see something in you, even when there’s not much to see at that particular moment in time.    

If you look at Daniel 1:4, we get a rough idea of what the king was looking for.  People without blemish.  Good appearance (whatever that means… I suppose if you’re a leader, it helps if you’re nice to look at?).  Skillful in all types of wisdom.  Endowed with knowledge and understanding.  Competent enough to stand before the king.  I think this criteria is intuitive enough.  What we don’t gather from this passage, though, is how King Nebuchadnezzar went about assessing any of this.  Did he administer an exam?  Was there an interview of some sort?  Maybe he sent them to the psychics for a palm reading (that probably wouldn’t have been out of the ordinary).  Or MAYBE, King Nebuchadnezzar just trusted his gut.  Maybe Daniel, and his friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego), were selected because they simply had the favor of God.

It wouldn’t be the craziest thing I’ve ever heard of.

A PhD program is hard to finish without support.  You need an advisor who believes in you, as a student and a researcher.  You need faculty members who believe in the merit of your work.  You need a dean who believes you’re going to graduate from that program and elevate its prestige with all the amazing things you’ll do professionally.  You need a department that believes that the program, as a whole, is BETTER because you accepted an offer to study there.  You need people to see something in you.  Once people lose faith in you, you’re in a really, really tough spot.  If people don’t see anything in you, they cut their losses and stop investing.

People HAVE to see something in you.

I appreciate Shondrika directing me to this text because she was reminding me, even though I was skunking it up, all I needed was for faculty members to continue to believe in me.  It’s kind of like that accomplished quarterback in college football who gets drafted to the NFL, and he throws an interception his very first play of the game.  And after that, in the next possession, he gets sacked and fumbles the ball.  And after that, in the next possession, he gets a 3 and out.  Admittedly, it’s not unusual to have a tough transition to the NFL.  That’s true for lots of college quarterbacks, even the ones that were EXCEPTIONAL at the college level.  But what you need are coaches who continue to believe that drafting you as a quarterback was, 100%, the right decision.  Even if your first few possessions suck.

I know what you’re thinking.

It’s entirely possible that your performance has been nothing like mine.  Maybe you’ve been exceptional since day 1.  Spotless performance.  Rave reviews from everyone you work with.  That’s great, but it’s not that simple.  Even if you’re performing exceptionally well, it doesn’t matter if people don’t see you as performing exceptionally well.  Think about the glass ceiling, right?  The glass ceiling has been studied across the social sciences, in psychology, sociology, and management, broadly.  Women get into these occupations, do otherwise exceptional work, but they don’t advance to managerial roles.  How do we make sense of such a peculiar paradox?  There are many, many reasons why, but one explanation is people don’t see women as leaders, even when they perform at an exceptionally high level at their work.  We usually have a particular vision in our head of what a leader looks like, and it may not include people who are women.

The Bamboo Ceiling works very similarly to the glass ceiling.  Again, this has been an area of research as well, both in social psychology as well as organizational behavior.  Asian immigrants come to the US, perform exceptionally well in school, frequently earn more than one degree, do an awesome job at work, but for whatever reason, they’re overrepresented in lower levels of organizations and underrepresented in management.  One of the reasons why is because, unfortunately, we usually don’t see Asian Americans as leaders, even when they perform at a really high level at work.  Again, we usually have a particular vision in our head of what a leader looks like (and maybe sounds like), and it may not include people who are Asian.

I think the implication is simple.  When I say, “pray for people to see something in you,” that isn’t just a prayer for when you’re underperforming or skunking it up.  You could actually be doing a stellar job.  In fact, I hope you are.  But if people don’t see something in you, it actually doesn’t matter how well you’re performing.  Period.

People have to see something in you.  Thanks for that, Shondrika.  She gave me one other nugget, too.

“Pray to be brilliant.”

On the surface, that may sound a little bit pretentious, but I don’t think that’s true at all.  If you look at verse 17 of chapter 1 (which is what Shondrika told me to do), the Bible actually says God gave Daniel and his friends learning and skill in all literature and wisdom.  Hey, sounds good to me.  A PhD is a very thoughtful exercise.  You have to think.  You have to think long and you have to think hard and you have to think a lot.  And then you write about all the things you’re thinking, and then people tell you all the reasons why what you think doesn’t make any sense, and then you do it all over again.

And you do that for 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or maybe even 9 years.  And once you graduate, you get a job as a Professor, where you do the exact same thing.  The difference will be you’re paid a salary, to compensate you for all your hard thinking, and you’re teaching other students how to think, too.

Again, I hope this doesn’t sound pretentious, but you need a lot of intellectual horse power in order for this to work.  There are days when I don’t even want to show up for school because I feel like I don’t have the mental capacity to perform.  And if I can’t think in this line of work, I might as well not even show up.  I have to be really thoughtful in order to do this… not even kidding.

It’s hard.  It’s definitely doable.  But it’s hard.

So, there’s good news and bad news.  The good news is I absolutely, 100%, believe that I’m brilliant.  I do.  I think you have to, really, otherwise you run the risk of not being able to perform in this line of work.  You have to believe that you’re brilliant.  The good news is I, 100%, believe that I’m brilliant.  The bad news is I’m not always brilliant.  I think most of the world subscribes to intelligence (or brilliance) as a trait.  You understand what I mean by trait, right?  For instance, think of personality traits.  Our personality traits represent who we are, but more importantly, one of the things that make personality traits personality traits is that they don’t really change much over time.  And obviously there’s a combination of nature and nurture, but we do believe that personality traits are relatively stable traits and they don’t necessarily change all that much over time, certainly not in our adulthood.

I think a lot of people tend to think about brilliance the same way: some people are just really brilliant.  I mean, they got the juice.  End of story.  And if you don’t have the juice, you just don’t have it.  I do think there’s some truth to that.  I think some people are very gifted and adept at learning.  They think in very thoughtful, creative, and profound ways.  They soak up information and interpret it incredibly well.  They’re just really talented in that regard.

Sure, I think that’s true to some extent.

But I much more strongly think of brilliance as a system of thinking and behavior.

I need to be thoughtful.

I need to have insight.

I need to identify puzzles.

I should see paradoxes that may go unnoticed by others.

I need to make connections that others haven’t been able to make, previously.

I need to be articulate.

I should be able to beautifully express my observations, in both written and oral communication.

I need to be daring.

I need to be profound.

I need to radically take on challenges, arguments, and explanations that others dismiss as too ambitious.

I need to be brilliant.  TODAY and EVERY day.

In that sense, I liken brilliance to creativity.  You may be a creative person, but that certainly doesn’t mean that everything you do is creative.  In truth, some things you do are probably a lot more creative than others.  We may also, erroneously, assume that if everything you do is creative, that must mean you’re a creative person, but if a creative person stops producing creative things, are they still creative?  Hmmm.  So, maybe it’s better to think of creativity as what we do, rather than who we are.

I make an almost identical argument for brilliance.  It’s not about who we are.  It’s about what we do.  In that sense, almost anybody has the capacity to be brilliant.  It’s not exclusive to people with lots of degrees, or an education at an Ivy League school, etc.  It’s also not specific to people of a particular racial or ethnic group or gender, although this has certainly been a heated point of discussion in the past (a discussion that’s beyond the scope of what we focus on here).  It goes without saying, sociohistorically, brilliance has been associated with some groups of people more than others, chiefly white men (and there’s some research that supports that, too).  But I’m committed to the notion that brilliance is what we DO.  It’s simply a system of thinking and behavior.  And if I can reproduce that on a consistent basis, people may assume that means I’m brilliant, but in actuality, all I’m doing is reproducing a system of thinking and behaving, every single day.

Here’s the kicker, though.

I need God to help me do that.  If you look at Daniel 1:17, it says Daniel’s learning, skill, and wisdom came from God.  God enabled him to be brilliant.  Without that divinely inspired brilliance, I’m not sure how things would have worked out for Daniel and his friends.  So, in my case, it’s not like God gifted me with brilliance 28 years ago and now I never have to worry about brilliance ever again.

On the contrary, I need God to enable me to be brilliant.  Day in and day out.  He’s the only one that can make this work.

With Him, I can be insightful, and creative, and daring, and provocative, and articulate, and thoughtful, and radical, and expressive, and profound, and function at a very high intellectual capacity, but without Him, reproducing this system of thinking and behaving, consistently, is somewhat of a stretch.

Yes, I believe I’m brilliant, but not because of who I am or where I go to school or what I research.  I’m brilliant because God enables me to be brilliant.  My prayer, then, is for Him to allow for me to be brilliant on a consistent basis.  Otherwise, operating in this line of work is going to be rather difficult.

There’s lots of other interesting nuggets in Daniel, but I think this notion of brilliance from God, and being spiritually minded in an unspiritual environment (read Daniel 1:8-16), are the themes that resonate with me the most.

I appreciate Shondrika sharing some great insight with me in a very, very short conversation.  If you don’t have some spiritually minded professionals in your network to chop it up with and get support from when you’re skunking it up, you’re missing out.  You gotta get that, IMMEDIATELY.  Only God knows where I would be without it.

I appreciate people like Mia.  People like Octavia.  People like Ty Ty.  Or Amanda.  Or Gabby.  All PhD students, trying to walk with God in this crazy academic journey.

Feel free to weigh in.

Nnamdi

The post Brilliance appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

The Black Sheep

People are different!  There are 8 billion people in the world today, and as many as 100 BILLION that have ever existed, and no two people are identical.  But one cool thing about humanity is that in spite of all of our differences, we do share certain similarities.  We share certain needs.

Needs are not suggestions.  Needs are not recommendations.  Needs are things that we require.  Scientists have called these needs human motives, because they’re so central to understanding and explaining human behavior.  These human motives are so strong that when they aren’t met, our health starts to atrophy.  Our health literally starts to decline, because we have important and basic human needs that aren’t being met.

There are a number of human motives, but as a social scientist, I tend to take a lot more interest in the social and psychological ones.  I’ll focus on two here.

In the late 90’s, social psychologists started to give more attention to a framework for human behavior known as Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT).  This work was largely pioneered by Marilynn Brewer, who was trying to make sense of a paradox.  Her theory on optimal distinctiveness focuses on 2 human motives, Affiliation and Distinctiveness… the issue is, those human motives don’t go super well together.

Affiliation is exactly what it sounds like.  We have a fundamental human need to establish human relationships and connect with others, so that we feel a sense of community and feel like we belong.  When we don’t have that opportunity to affiliate, or when we feel like we don’t belong, or when our social relationships suffer, our health starts to decline, and there’s evidence to support that.  As I’ve stated elsewhere, contrary to the popular lone wolf or lone ranger metaphor, humans need social interaction to survive.  We need to affiliate.  We need relationships.  We need to feel accepted and we need to feel like we belong.

But we also have this other human motive, distinctiveness, wherein throughout our lives, we strive to be distinct from other people.  I mean think about it, right… nobody goes through life saying, “I want to be identical in every way to the other 8 billion people on the face of the planet.”  That would be weird, right?  That would probably be a personality disorder.  Instead, we want to have some level of uniqueness.  Fortunately, this isn’t an insurmountable task.  Who we are is a complex array of all the things that our reflected through our very existence: our ideas, our attitudes, our personality, our hobbies, our taste in music, our career aspirations, our religion, our experiences, our EVERYTHING.  So, we already ARE different… distinctiveness is merely about expressing that so it’s explicit, easily observable, and known to others.  And much like affiliation, people have to satisfy their need for distinctiveness.  We need to be able to express who we are.  When we don’t, our health begins to atrophy… and again, there’s research evidence that overwhelmingly supports this.  We need to feel like we’re being true to ourselves.

ODT has proven most useful as a theory to understand behavior within groups, as this is a setting where the motives for affiliation and distinctiveness may be particularly in conflict.  An example may help.

Let’s say you work at an accounting firm with other finance and accounting professionals.  Obviously, this is a professional setting, so you try and do your best to fit in so you won’t be excluded.  But sometimes you do and say things just to fit in and you end up feeling like you’re not actually being true to yourself.  When you are true to yourself though, and you say and do things that reflect that, you notice you get weird looks sometimes.

Doesn’t sound fun, right?  But this kind of thing is all too common.  Not surprisingly, this theory can be used to understand behavior in all kinds of groups.

A group of friends.

A nuclear or extended family.

A work team.

Classmates at a school, college, or university.

Sports teams.

Literally, any kind of group you want; across the board, we face these competing needs of affiliating or assimilating so we feel like we belong, and being our true and authentic selves, so we feel unique.

As you would imagine, in most situations in groups, we strike a balance between these two needs: we decide how much we’ll assimilate, while also trying to be true to who we are.  We do desire to be seen as a member of the group, but we also want to be our authentic selves.  That is natural, healthy, and completely to be expected.

But here’s where things get interesting.

Because we know affiliation and distinctiveness are fundamental human motives, we can use this to better understand how to build inclusive spaces so people get their needs met.  We know that people desire to feel like they belong and connect with others.  We also know that people desire to be authentic, distinct, and true to themselves.  So inclusive spaces, therefore, are places where people feel like they can connect and belong to others, without sacrificing who they are as a person for the sake of being accepted.

That’s what we learn from Optimal Distinctiveness Theory.  Isn’t science super cool?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the context of Christianity, because I don’t really think we do this super well.  And if you follow my work, you probably notice that I make this point again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again… but I’ll make that point yet again here today and use ODT as a way of illustrating that a bit… and we can do that, because churches represent communities of people, so ODT is a useful framework to make sense of some patterns of human behavior.

When you become a part of a group, any group, there’s an expectation to conform to norms.  That’s true for churches, just like it’s true for fraternities and sororities, just like it’s true for tech companies in Silicon Valley.  Groups have norms and you’re encouraged to follow them.  In the case of a religion though, these norms are frequently reflected in the form of religious views, and religious adherents are expected to have attitudes and behaviors that reflect that.  That’s a fair expectation.

“We expect you to show compassion for the poor and needy.”

“We expect you to be abstinent until marriage… that means people who are not married shouldn’t be sexually active.”

“We expect you to honor your parents.”

“We expect you to forgive other people, because we know that God forgave you.”

You get the idea.  This isn’t specific to Christianity; every religious group has norms, reflected in religious beliefs, that members are expected to follow.  I mean, that’s one of the things that makes a religion a religion vs. just a book club.

But I’m a bit concerned, and have been for some time, to be completely honest.  I think I’m concerned because, although we generally have good intentions, some of these expectations are starting to backfire, in really spectacular ways.

One implication of that, I think, is that even though we like to tell people that Christianity is for all people, realistically, we have congregations that are intended for a subset of people that are willing to follow specific norms.  And sure, other people can attend, but our churches are intended for a subset of people that are willing to conform to specific norms.

I’ll illustrate with an example that I’ve used previously, but you could do a similar exercise for any identity that you think is fitting.

I am a Black, Christian Scientist.

It’s a very complex identity for me to understand, and I don’t think I ever really will completely wrap my head around it… I think it’ll be a life long journey, but I think so much of who I am is reflected in that: I am a BLACK, CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST.

It’s interesting though because in my experience, American Christianity doesn’t really want to engage with my Blackness.  And American Christianity doesn’t seem to care to engage with me as a scientist, either.  What that means practically, in my case, is I feel pressure to leave those identities, important identities, at the door when I come to church… because I feel like they won’t be accepted.  What’s really interesting about that is, I know what needs to be done in order to be accepted.  All I have to do is suppress my Black identity and/or suppress my scientist identity.  If I do those things, assimilation and belonging become really easy.  Then the only parts of me that are left are the parts of me that are really easy for the church to accept… the parts of me that are really easy for the church to engage with.

The Blackness, and the Science, though… they’re kind of iffy about that.

But here’s my thesis: you can’t have an inclusive congregation if you’re not willing to accept your members in their totality.  In the case of American Christianity, I fear there’s a lot more emphasis on conforming, and assimilating, than being the men and women that God called for us to be, in full.

I’ll illustrate using my example, starting with the Blackness.  But I’ve made these points a number of times previously, so I’ll only mention them in passing before hitting on the science piece.

I think the last 18 months or so in the United States are a perfect example of what’s been said in various ways for a long, long time.

There are two Americas.

There’s the America where you fear for your life if you have a run in with law enforcement, and there’s the America where police brutality doesn’t even exist.

There’s the America where people tell you your hair is unprofessional because of how it NATURALLY grows out of your scalp, and there’s the America where, “I don’t see race”.

There’s the America where storming the United States capitol is an act of insurrection and there’s the America where storming the United States capitol is an act of patriotism.

There’s the America where Black History Month is an opportunity for you to learn things that you may not otherwise learn the other 11 months of the year (because American history is super White-washed), and there’s the America where Black History month is Black people trying to make White people feel bad about slavery.

There’s the America where the country’s brightest days are in the future, and there’s the America where the country’s brightest days are in its past.

There’s the America where diversity is a signature staple that makes this country unique and special, and there’s the America where diversity is just an inconvenient burden expected of White people because of Black people.

You get the picture.  We can do this all day.  Seriously.

What we don’t talk about enough though is, because America is a tale of two cities, Christianity in America is a tale of two churches.

I want to be clear: I take ZERO delight in saying that.  But I don’t think it’s false.  And I don’t say that to spur division in any way, shape, or form, I say that to illustrate a point: Black Christians and White Christians in America live in two different worlds, even if we attend the same congregations.  To say anything otherwise, to me, would fall far short of the reality of race relations in this country.  And I think frequently, because we live in two different worlds, we can perceive the same church very, very differently.  So, as you share your platitudes about how diverse, progressive, and inclusive the congregation is, there’s a chance I don’t necessarily share those views.  If I’m honest, there’s lots of evidence that White Americans aren’t great at identifying prejudice and racism when they see it, so it’s not really surprising that we may differ in how we perceive the diversity climate of a congregation.  And it’s interesting because the more I hear those diversity platitudes, the more I can feel weird for not sharing those sentiments… it’s almost like I can feel that there’s something wrong with ME because I don’t really feel the same way about the congregation that my White brothers and sisters in Christ do.

It’s a Black Sheep phenomenon (a play on words).  I’m part of the flock (John 10:11-16; John 21:15), but I’m also Black, so yes, that influences my experience at church.  As much as churches seem disinterested in engaging with Blackness, I don’t think you’ll have much success building inclusive churches if you have great difficulty accepting people in their entirety, vs. just the aspects of them you feel are most convenient to work with.

One of the really key features of Blackness is the looming possibility of threat.  And it can emerge at any given moment.  People in America are threatened simply by the existence of Black people.  True story… they’ll LITERALLY call the police on us because we look “suspicious”… just for existing.  It’s an interesting experience.  So, Black people, like other minority groups, seek cues in our environment that signal that we’re in a safe space (these are call identity safety cues, or diversity cues, depending on the situation, and there’s lots of research on this).  So, for example, gay people don’t just walk around telling the world that they’re gay, because something bad can happen to them.  Somebody might beat them up.  Or throw a brick through their car window.  Or make a mean joke.  And so on and so forth.  In a similar way, when you’re Black, you don’t just walk around flaunting your Blackness… something bad could happen to you.  One of the things you do is you look for cues in your environment that signal that you’re in a safe space and you’ll be accepted for who you are.

You don’t have to worry about being mistreated here.

It’s sad because when churches show an unwillingness to engage with Blackness, lots of Black people interpret that as, “You need to be someone else in order to exist here.”  I mean, sure, they didn’t explicitly say that, but that’s what signals are for… you send a message without actually sending a message.

So, there you have it.  I’m a Black sheep.  Now, let’s talk about this science thing, because that’s part of my Black sheep experience, too.

I’m a Black, Christian scientist… and periodically, I can feel out of place in the church as a scientist as well.  I think one of the big reasons why is sometimes we try and rationalize or explain things that we see in the Bible, but sometimes we use explanations that don’t really mesh well with science… at all.

I’ll give you an example, a common one I should add.  But keep in mind, it’s just an example for illustrative purposes.

“Don’t have sex before marriage, because if you do, x, y, and z will happen.”

To me, it would be WAAAAY easier, and more straight forward, to say “Don’t have sex before marriage, because the Bible says that isn’t pleasing to God.”

It could really be that simple.  That’s not a scientific argument, and it also doesn’t need to be, because you’re making a statement about a religious text and what it says about a particular topic.  It’s very straight forward.

Instead, we make these arguments about sex that sound really good, but sometimes, there’s a lot of scientific research that says the exact opposite.

And I love illustrating this point with topics like sex, or sexuality, or sexual orientation, or gender, or race, or discrimination, because these are all topics where the church has opinions and has been quite vocal about them… these are also all topics where we have DECADES of scientific research, by brilliant minds around the world… and sometimes, they don’t really support the point that the church is trying to make.

Just keep it really simple and stick to the Bible.  Seriously.

Here’s why I say that.

I’m a scientist.  And I read a lot.  And study a lot.  And work really hard to be in this profession.  What we do is investigate research questions that enrich our understanding of the world, and we work together as experts to do that.  As we learn exciting new things, we share what we know with the world.  That’s why most research happens at universities.  Universities are places of learning and discovery, so as scientists learn new things, they publish a research paper, or they write a book, or update their course material (or design a new course entirely), and so on and so forth.

It’s soooooooo much easier to say, “Live this lifestyle because the Bible says it’s pleasing to God.”  So, in the context of our sex example, it would be, “Wait until marriage, because the Bible says that’s pleasing to God.”  But a lot of times, we want our ideas and opinions to carry more weight.  We want to be more influential.  So, we come up with some logic concerning all the good things that come from waiting or the bad things that come from not waiting… but that’s a slippery slope.  Because now you’re talking about science.  And if you’re saying things that aren’t consistent with what people who are experts in their field of study think, or even scientific claims that we know are just flat out wrong, that’s called misinformation.  And we need to be really, REALLY careful with that.

And if I’m honest, in those moments, it can seem like you’re more interested in influencing and controlling behavior than you are in just being honest with people.

Now, I want to be clear.  There are lots of people who don’t feel religion and science go together, but I’m not necessarily one of those people.  Like I said, I’m a Christian scientist.  So, I believe that Christianity and science can coexist, and I even think there are lots of times where they complement each other in cool ways (although that isn’t always the case).  But if I’m honest, I think this is one of the reasons why a lot of scientists don’t really look favorably on Christianity… people devote their careers to developing their expertise in a field, and sharing things that they feel help people to enrich their daily lives… so, it can seem undermining, and unflattering, when we share things at church that are just flat out misleading, if not outright incorrect.

So, yes, as a scientist, I can wrestle with that.  Church is a relatively controlled environment… and it can seem there’s more interest in influencing or controlling behavior than there is in telling people the truth about sex, or sexuality, or race, or race relations, or history, or gender, or whatever.  And to me, at times, it can very much come off as disingenuous.

I want to be clear.  That’s something that every Christian should care about.  Because what inevitably happens is 10, 15, 20 years down the road, people (Christian and otherwise) discover that they learned a lot of things at church that weren’t entirely true… or the church withheld information from them because they didn’t really want to engage with that information… and people get REALLY upset about that, because they feel like they’ve been misled or lied to… and sometimes it really messes with their faith.  So, yeah, I think this is something that every Christian needs to care about.  And when you have scientists that are in your congregations, you should probably be trying to leverage that expertise rather than avoiding engaging with it because you find it inconvenient.

As a Black Christian Scientist, I know that I have beliefs that are really different than a lot of people I go to church with.

Yes, a Black sheep.

But I think over the last year or so, I’ve really learned to lean into that.  I think the big reason why is, I’m of the school of thought that church is a place where lots of people wrestle with pressure to conform and be something that they’re not.

People are saying and doing things that they don’t even believe in, simply because they don’t want to be judged for not doing them.  To me, that’s no way to live your faith.  And we won’t build inclusive churches by only accepting the aspects of people that are easiest for the church to engage with.  You have to accept the whole person.  That doesn’t necessarily mean you compromise on your religious beliefs, but you have to create an environment where people can be who they think God called for them to be.  The whole person.  All of them.  That’s great for them.  And it’s great for the church.  Everybody wins.

I think because of that, I’ve been really interested in being myself but also doing so in a very visible and vocal way.  It works a little something like this.  Groups vary concerning how strong the norms are.  When norms are really strict, that means norms are “tight”.  When norms are relaxed, that means norms are “loose”.  When norms are tight, people conform and assimilate way more, because being yourself is risky… it could result in rejection (think of an interview).  When norms are loose, people don’t feel as much pressure to conform or assimilate, because being yourself isn’t as risky… you don’t have to worry as much about rejection (think of a game night with your friends).

Every moment at church, or as a Christian, when I’m not being myself, I’m contributing to really tight norms.  Literally.  When I choose not to be myself as a Christian, I make a bad situation worse, because I’m creating more pressure to conform by choosing not to be myself.  The norms for behavior become really tight.  And when norms are tight, that means other people conform, too, because they don’t see anyone deviating from the norm.  It’s riskier to be yourself and riskier to be different, so the cycle perpetuates.  The other thing that happens is people outside the church see that the norms are really tight, and they may feel they won’t be accepted, they can’t be themselves, etc.  So, not only does this effect the innerworkings of the church, but it also probably effects people’s interest in becoming a part of it, too.

On the other hand, when I choose not to assimilate, instead opting to be my authentic self, I’m being the change that I want to see.  I’m helping the church learn to accept the whole person.  In my case, that means being more inclusive of both Blackness and science, which I think helps the church to be SOOOOOO much better.  Is it uncomfortable for me on some level?  Sure.  Can it be scary?  Yeah.  Do I make mistakes?  Absolutely.  But I believe that God called for me to be a Christian, while still being true to the depth and breadth of the person He created me to be.

How you feel about that is up to you.

Talk to me if you’ve ever felt like a Black sheep at church…

Nnamdi

The post The Black Sheep appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

The Mahogany Tower April 2021 Spotlight: Onyi Anosike

A live interview with my favorite [future] OBGYN. Chopping it up about boarding school, being a woman of color in medicine, and that one random time she worked as a butler.

The post SPOTLIGHT: Onyi Anosike appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

The Mahogany Tower March 2021 Spotlight: George Smith

I’ve had the privilege of participating in many, MANY professional development programs over the course of my career.  My junior year, I participated in one of the most highly esteemed leadership development programs for underrepresented minority students across the country: Management Leadership for Tomorrow (Shoutout to Career Prep ’13!). In my 2012 – 2013 academic year, I met some of the most promising future professionals of color across the US, and in the ~8 years since, I’ve had the honor of privilege of seeing many of their careers unfold before my eyes.

George Smith was one of my CP cohort peers (CP stands for Career Prep, not colored people, in case you were wondering).  He’s been up to some pretty sensational things in the last 8 years, so I reached out to him about doing a spotlight, and he was THRILLED about the opportunity.  He didn’t disappoint.  Ladies and gentlemen, George Smith.

ACADEMIC BIO

Juris Doctorate, Columbia Law School

Master of Business Administration, Columbia University Graduate Business School

Bachelor’s of Arts in English, Georgetown University

Q: You mentioned that you got involved pretty early on with summer programs for high school students.  Can you talk about how those helped to shape you and your interests?

I was the kid in middle/high school that did all of those “leadership” programs that one would get in the mail.  I saw a gap in my learning (academically and socially) from the schools that I attended at the time and sought to supplement my development experience. 

Specifically, I did People to People, Lead For America, National Youth Leadership Forum, and Junior State of America programming.  Through these organizations, I gained opportunities to expand my cultural horizons through international travel, learn and engage government and civic service as a professional manifestation of public service, be introduced to the legal profession, and meet peers who were remarkably gifted and driven.  These opportunities exposed me to a greater sense of what reality could be for me that expanded beyond the limitations of my Black, suburban experience in Houston, TX.

Q: One of those summer programs you did in high school was at Georgetown.  When you got to Georgetown as an undergrad, you said they had a particular philosophy on education that you found helpful.  Can you share about that?

Yep. I did a JSA summer program that was like a week during the summer in Austin at the University of Texas, and from that program I gained a “scholarship” to do the month-long Georgetown program later that summer. It was great, life-changing. It was my second time in DC (first time was through People to People at Barack Obama’s inauguration) and my first time spending significant time on a college campus.  Learning on Georgetown’s campus—the atmosphere, resources, people, and overall experience—not only substantively increased my intellectual capacity (one of my ACT scores went up 10 points), but also made Georgetown my #1, which I evidently was able to successfully articulate in my college apps.

But to your question, Georgetown is fundamentally and foundationally a liberal arts institution.  On top of that, I was a student of “the College” (of Arts and Sciences) which most strongly houses the University’s liberal arts identity. I like to explain Georgetown’s academic philosophy through the anecdote of my first meeting with my academic advisor where we began discussion of my four-year plan.  At Georgetown, in the College, you come in undeclared and cannot declare a major until your sophomore year. As a freshman going into the meeting, of course my biggest concern was what my major would be and secondly how I would structure my academic experience based off of that decision. I will never forget what my academic advisor told me in that meeting.  He said, “George, this is what I like to tell my students.  The word ‘major’ is an adjective, and the noun to which it modifies is ‘interest.’ Therefore, one’s major is nothing but an indicator of what a student was interested in at that stage of his/her life. Nothing more, nothing less.”  He urged me to take whatever classes interested me and encouraged me in my sophomore year to reflect on the classes that I would have taken by then.  The goal was to identify the classes that I enjoyed and the ones that I did well in (read: made As). Then I was supposed to select a major/degree plan through which I could take those types of classes. He said that through this major, whatever it would be, I would engage the material more deeply, learn more about myself (e.g. what makes me tick and why, what questions/issues I was most passionate about, etc.), and develop a very strong foundation.  From that foundation, I would be able to identify future opportunities—academic, professional, and personal—that would better align with me and find a greater sense of personal success.

Now, as a Black kid from Houston, TX, with parents from country towns in Louisiana who went to a southern HBCU in the 80s (shout out to The Illustrious Southern University and A&M College!), this advice shook me.  It was inherently different from the collegiate strategy—the base mindset and disposition towards education—that I grew up with. At first, I was confused and resisted.  However, after realizing/being real with myself that I (i) loathed the academic experience of the government major, (ii) didn’t want to transfer to the School of Foreign Service, (iii) enjoyed my English classes and made A’s (no minus), (iv) wanted to go to grad school anyway, and (v) was in a tier of academic institution that no one in my family before me had ever experienced, I let go and let God.  I gave into it, I leaned into it, and—Praise!—it worked out exactly like my academic advisor said it would.

Q:  Now, you studied English at Georgetown, but you actually ended up having A LOT of business experience, even before graduating.  In some ways, you probably weren’t the ‘traditional’ liberal arts student.  What helped you make that transition?

A couple of things. (1) I was blessed to go to Georgetown.  From my experience, even today, Georgetown is the most “pre-professional” undergraduate institution in the country and likely the world (and I’m not being hyperbolic). At Georgetown, your identity in large part was based on the leadership position you held on campus and what internships you did over the summers and semesters.  Everyone was a President or VP of something and everyone had very impressive internships.  I’m fairly certain it had something to do with being in DC and how the locality—being an epicenter of both US and international politics as well as one of the most powerful cities in the world—informed how we engaged our personal and professional development.

(2) Reflecting over my life, I guess you can say that I’ve always been opportunistic.  My default seems to have always been to seek out opportunities that might add some sort of value, apply to any and all of those opportunities, and then filter on the backend, that is accept or reject the opportunity. That, and I’ve always been big on listening to those older than me and learning from their experiences (both successes and mistakes). This is kind of how all those trips in middle school and high school happened and also how I landed in business. As a freshman, a lot of the Black and Brown upperclass student leaders who ran campus, had good grades, and secured dope jobs for after graduation did this program called Management Leadership for Tomorrow (MLT). It’s a diversity pipeline program that coaches college juniors through corporate recruiting, equipping them with skills to secure summer internships and full-time jobs. Though I was not into business at all as a freshman, I decided to apply my sophomore year after hearing just about every upperclass(wo)man I dearly respected talked about how the program changed their life (if they did it) or how they wished they had done the program. I got in and my life has never been the same. In fact, nearly every job I’ve had since undergrad has come to me somehow through my connection to MLT.

Q: MLT obviously was great for providing you access to really great professional opportunities.  But for you, it also sounds like you got a lot of social and emotional support throughout the years, too, yeah?

Bro, YES! MLT is life! (You know this too. We met as classmates in the program after all—shout out to CP’13!) God put MLT in my life at a very critical inflection point in my development.  I was a junior  who had completed internships with the Mayor of Houston, TX, the Department of Justice in DC, and the State Department in Accra, Ghana, but I had no idea what I was going to do professionally. I knew I wanted to go to law school, but I also had a lot of mentors who told me to work first and I decided to heed their advice. Further, having just returned from my fall semester abroad, I was in a state of severe reverse culture shock while taking 16 credits full of all the hard and boring classes I refused to take into senior year. Life sucked, and I was despondent.  I had lost my fire, and I was about to embrace a complacent mentality whereby I was just going to rest on the reputation of Georgetown and falsely hope everything was going to be alright. Then I went to my first seminar in April (I missed the first two because I was abroad) and met my class.  MLT was the first time I had been surrounded by a critical mass of Black and Brown people my age who were incredibly intelligent, credentialed, and driven. I was surrounded by authors, business owners, investment banking interns, and app developers who all were hungry to eat and get this bag. Further, they were all LIT. My fire was reignited.

The people that I met in my MLT cohort as well as those that I’ve met from other cohorts and from other MLT programs (they’re also famous for their MBA Prep program, which I didn’t do) are some of the closest people in my life.  These were the people I travelled the world with my senior year of college and (and continue to do so) post-college. These are the future aunts, uncles, and godparents to my children. These are the people I turned to when my mom got sick and I decided to move home to support her and my younger sister.  They not only kept me accountable, not letting me forget about my grad school and career aspirations, but they also held me up emotionally and spiritually. When life became too much and I didn’t think I was going to make it through, they were there encouraging me. When I couldn’t pray for myself, these people petitioned the Throne and interceded on my behalf. I am alive today because of them.  I am successful because of them. I am who I am today because of them. My MLT family. Period.

Q: You’ve worked on Wall Street at Goldman Sachs, and in Silicon Valley at LinkedIn.  Looking at your resume on paper, it’s easy to assume you’ve always been a rising star.  But you’ve had some very real setbacks, too.  Can you share about some of those?

Look, lol, “Life for me ain’t been no crystal stair.” I got laid off after working two years at Goldman Sachs.  I got let go from LinkedIn after the company was acquired by Microsoft and I came clean to my manager about my family situation (i.e. my mom’s health issues). Both of these happened in the same year. It hit very, very hard.  I was the straight A student in primary and secondary school, the high school valedictorian, a cum laude graduate of Georgetown University.  So, when I didn’t achieve what the world defines as success for the corporate professional, i.e. one who’s THE top performer at a job that is interesting, fulfilling, and provides opportunities to save the world, it hurt. I felt hopeless for a minute.

But I learned some things though.  The most important is probably this: I have to be in a job that stimulates my intellect and exercised a skill set that I want to develop.  Neither my job at Goldman or LinkedIn did that for me. Yes, I developed skills and learned how to work hard, but when I looked to my left, right, and above me at those organizations, I didn’t want to be like any of the people that I worked with, especially the senior folks.

Q: Interestingly, you’ve worked at some of America’s most prestigious firms, but in many ways, you didn’t necessarily vibe that much with the work you were doing.  Can you talk more about law and how that’s always been something that’s been on your mind and heart?

On the one hand, I believe that parents have a prophetic capability over their children. They watch and observe these human beings from the time they are born (before even developing a consciousness) and through their individual maturation. Thus, they can likely sometimes predict and/or draw connections between who these people may become and what they might be good at.  For me, my parents—in just watching me do me—always told me I was going to be a lawyer.

On the other hand, I have yet to meet a lawyer who I haven’t admired just by virtue of how they think.  I’ve always yearned for that skill set and eventually resolved that I needed it (and therefore needed to go to law school) to reach a sense of professional and academic fulfillment.

Q: Earlier when we talked, you emphasized the importance of being opportunistic, scrappy, and resilient.  Why are those so important, particularly for underrepresented minorities?

From a U.S. perspective, this is a country that was not created, designed, or structured—conceptually or legally—with us in mind as equal stakeholders. The barriers are stiff and the ceilings are formidable. To survive and to succeed, we have to seek out every potential opportunity that has a potential value proposition for our individual circumstances.  We have to fight to secure them because, more often than not, those disseminating the majority of these opportunities don’t have us in mind when thinking about their ideal candidate. And, when we’re knocked down, because we will get knocked down, we have to get up stronger than before. As an African American, the descendant of enslaved people in this country, I am a child of those who refused to die. My ancestors had it a lot worse than I did, they accomplished a lot more than I ever will, and, on top of all of that, they prayed for me to live the life I am living today. I can’t give up. I can’t quit. Nor can any of us.

From an international perspective, the same applies, just in a different iteration (e.g. swap out enslavement for colonialization and you get comparable contexts and modern day systemic problems).

Q: It sounds like you’ve had mentors at every step of your professional journey.  Why do you think it’s harder for a lot of people to seek input, guidance, or advice?

Lack of humility and trust. Folks don’t like to feel that they’re out of control, and they don’t want to take the risk relying on others they do not know. Additionally, people who are type-A have a psychosis where they just “know” they’re right about just about everything and can do just about anything. For me, I grew up in a tradition where I was forced to sit at the feet of elders who then poured wisdom into me.  In a sense, I’ve been conditioned to seek advice and mentorship. It has and continues to serve me well.

Q: With a degree in both law and business, your professional opportunities are limitless.  Do you have a sense of what you’re interested in doing when you finish at Columbia?

Haha, let’s pray they are. From a business perspective, I’m very interested in the Private Equity/VC/Alternative Investing space(s). From a legal perspective, I really like the business development and client relationship management function of the attorney.  Given this, the plan is to go to a Big Law firm after graduating and work in a corporate transactional practice group that service private equity clients.  I love the idea of becoming a partner of a global law firm.  However, I am trying to develop some semblance of an investment skill set to keep the door open on moving into the business.

Q: It sounds like you have a philosophy on capital that inspires you to succeed and give back to your community.  Care to share more?

Sure. Like I said before, I was interested in government work as the professional manifestation of service. I grew up in a household where service to the community was part of our DNA, and I resolved to make that a central part of my career. So, I went to Georgetown, did a bunch of government internships, then landed into MLT and started working in business.  At first, I thought that my finance internship would just be a line on my resume to diversify my work experience.  However, I realized that, even though I hated my job, I appreciated the people I worked and hung out with in the private sector.  They thought differently than me.  They were procedural, process-oriented, value-driven from a pragmatic standpoint.  As someone who was very theoretical and idealistic, I was drawn to the space and wanted to learn from it.  So, I decided to immerse myself in finance in the interim before law school/grad school.

In my time working in the private sector, I adopted that practical and procedural mindset, and in doing so I began to value efficiency and results very highly.  Working in the finance industry was also the first time I was in proximity to so much money, wealth, and capital. I remember having a conversation with a mentor about this, how I was conflicted because I saw value in this industry but hated it and wanted to go back to government so I could change the world.  She told me: “George, answer this question: How are you going to save the world if you don’t have any money?”  What she made me see and soon realize is that just about every major changemaker (definitely in contemporary times) was either rich/wealthy or had access to vast amounts of capital by which they were able to affect change.  Politicians, business executives, heads of nonprofits, even some community organizers all had access to money.

At this stage in my life, my focus has shifted from a career in government to a career in the private sector.  My goal is to amass as much capital as possible such that I can invest it, create a culture of wealth in my family—one that I, and by extension the community descended from the American enslaved, were legally, socially, and culturally prohibited from attaining.  In addition to investing, I seek to deploy this capital directly into the communities I seek to serve.  My issue with government work is that it is too high level, too theoretical.  It’s a lot of guess and check work.  The president proposes a policy, the legislature then tears it a part to the point it barely represents the initial proposal, then they make it into an Act of Congress, and then we have to wait 5-10 years to see whether or not this policy actually works in practice.  That’s not fulfilling to me and it’s too risky for me. I want to provide capital and access directly to those of my community, and I want to be able to gauge its effectiveness early on so I can pivot or iterate, if needed, to maximize value in their lives.

Essentially, don’t give into this narrative that as a Black or Brown person, the only way you can do good in the world is by being broke and demonstrating in the streets non-violently.  I need to think more energetically on this, but I have a theory that the reason many of us default to that path/belief is due, again, to systemic White (economic) racism and how it continues to try to keep us from amassing property, which is central to American citizenship and freedom in this country.

Q: Any advice for underrepresented students that are aspiring law or MBA students?

To the extent possible, work first. It’s going to help you contextualize career opportunities and experiences post-grad school. You’re going to mature more and better appreciate grad school.

Going back to grad school is a personal decision that isn’t really necessary (except for a few instances). Don’t just do it because either everyone else is doing it. Also, don’t not do it because others aren’t convinced.  It has to make since to you.

Seek out those who have similar backgrounds to you (affinity, school, career path, etc.) and get advice/perspectives from as many people as you can.  After the initial conversation, follow up with those that you really like periodically giving them updates on your life and decisions. That’s typically the first step in how I get people to be my mentors.  And mentorship will help you make sense of your path.

Don’t overthink it.  It’s not that hard to apply.  Just do it. (If you need help, set an arbitrary deadline that makes sense to you and adhere to it). Also, know that the hardest part is getting in; you will finish.

Do MLT MBA Prep and SEO Law. (If you’re in undergrad, apply to their undergrad programs.)

For those getting an MBA and interested in a career in finance, take a look at the Toigo MBA Fellowship.

The post SPOTLIGHT: George Smith appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

Is God Masculine?

I do a lot of research on gender.  So, I think about gender A LOT.  I think about it from a social identity perspective.  But I also think about it a lot from a cultural perspective, because we know masculinity and femininity are culturally constructed (i.e. society decides what’s masculine vs. feminine).  And as it turns out, March is Women’s month, so I’ve been thinking about gender even more than I usually do.  And I guess that kind of led me to our topic for today.

There are over 50 references in the Bible to God as our Father (probably MUCH more than that if I did a more organized search).  We also know that God came to Earth in the form of a man (John 20:31; Matthew 26:63-64; 2 Peter 1:17-18), and we also know that the church is described as the bride (not the groom) of Christ.  Both the incarnation of Christ, as well as the imagery of the “bride” of Christ, strongly support and appeal to the notion of God as a paternal figure.  Although there are people who strongly disagree with that abridged train of logic, in general, most people who identify as Christians (and even people who identify as non-Christians) would echo these observations… myself included.

Here’s my question.  Is God masculine?

Now, on the surface, you may think of this question as absolutely absurd.  But I would disagree, especially as a social scientist.  The reason is simple: Throughout history, people have used the nature of God to justify the oppression of groups that, for whatever reason, are perceived as further from His likeness.  I’ll illustrate that with an example from the past and an example from the present.  During the 1600’s, European explorers sailed across the Atlantic, landed on the shores of Africa, and they told the people they met there that people from Africa are more like Satan because their skin is darker and people from Europe are more like God because their skin is lighter.

Subtle, but they’re appealing to the nature of God.

“God is light.” (1 John 1:5)

“I have lighter skin.”

“Therefore, I’m more like God.”

At the time, the European explorers felt like that logic made perfect sense.  Today, of course, we would describe that as a perverted train of logic.  To be explicit, this type of logic was very much used to advance White supremacy, so it’s consistent with my earlier point that the nature of God can be used to oppress groups that are perceived as further from His likeness.

But this isn’t about just a “one-off” example from the past.  How we think about God’s nature also influences things today, too.

For instance, in his groundbreaking research on “God as a White Man”, Dr. Peter Roberts investigated how mental schemas of God influence how we view other people.  In his work, he conducted 7 experiments with over 1,600 subjects across the US.  He found evidence that, irrespective of race or gender, people who had a mental image of God as a White man viewed White men as better suited for leadership positions than other people in society.  In other words, the mental image that we have of God influences who we think will be a good leader, and that has profound implications far beyond the context of religion, Christianity or otherwise.  In case you’re interested, he also found evidence that children in America start to visualize God as a White man as early as 7 years old… that’s WILD for so many reasons.

I understand those examples are a bit polarizing, but trust me, it doesn’t have to be that dramatic.  There’s research on the psychology of religion that shows that Christians who think of God as benevolent are more likely to be prosocial, helpful, and volunteer to support members of religious outgroups in a time of need (for instance, Muslims).  On the other hand, that same body of research suggests that Christians who see God as authoritarian do the exact opposite.  In other words, compared to Christians that view God as benevolent, they are LESS likely to be helpful to non-Christian religious groups (like Muslims, for instance).  Importantly, we know God is both helpful, AND an authority figure, but it seems like Christians’ perceptions about the nature of God (i.e. authoritarian vs. benevolent) actually influenced their attitudes and behaviors in fairly meaningful ways… even to the extent of deciding whether or not to help religious out group members when they were in a time of need.

Well, that certainly doesn’t reflect very well of Christianity.

Suffice to say, this isn’t a trivial question.  What we think about God’s nature, and how we think about God’s nature matter.

So, I’ll return to my question.  Is God masculine?

Well, it’s complicated.

Masculinity refers to both traits and behaviors that are iconic and signature of men.  But as I mentioned before, masculinity is culturally constructed.  That is, society… PEOPLE… determine what is and is not masculine.  When something is culturally constructed, it doesn’t exist in a rigid system like the laws of nature.  Something being culturally constructed means that, more or less, it was created by people and can be changed by people.  So, as you can imagine, even though the notion of masculinity is perhaps as old as mankind itself, that doesn’t mean the criteria for masculinity has been the same at every point of history.

Times change… and to some degree, culture, including masculinity, reflects that on some level.

But there’s more.

The fact that masculinity is culturally constructed means that it varies, slightly, depending on the cultural context in question.  For instance, there’s research showing that working-class men and upper-class men construct masculinity in slightly different ways.  Whereas upper-class men tend to construct masculinity more based on education, income, professional achievement, etc., not surprisingly, working-class men have a great deal of difficulty fitting those definitions of masculinity.  Instead, working-class men tend to take a more “macho-man” approach, where they emphasize physical strength and endurance, being excellent at handy work, and yes, even sexual prowess.  Obviously, there’s lots of nuance with this, but psychologists and sociologists who study masculinity generally have similar findings in this particular respect.

But that isn’t exactly my focus for today.  I’m actually more interested in what I describe next, Western constructions of masculinity.

There’s only a limited body of research on what I describe next, but not surprisingly, how people think about masculinity varies depending on the part of the world they’re in.  In Western nations, masculinity and femininity are thought to be opposite extremes of the same spectrum.  That is, you can be masculine, or feminine, but you can’t be both, because they’re opposites.

There’s overwhelming evidence of this.

If it helps you to be convinced, when we do research with men on masculinity and [male] gender roles, there’s an entire section of the scale that we use that measures something that we call “anti-femininity”.  It’s literally just 5 or 6 questions where we ask men about the extent to which they avoid “feminine” traits and behaviors.  And without fail, we’ve found that men’s responses on that “anti-femininity” scale is a predictor of ALL KINDS OF THINGS… everything from alcohol use to displays of physical aggression.

But I digress.  Back to Western (vs. non-Western) constructions of masculinity.

More recently, there’s been evidence that men in other parts of the world may not see masculinity as including anti-femininity. Specifically, studies using samples of men in Southeast Asia suggests that highly respected men are seen as possessing both masculine and feminine attributes.  In the US, on some level, this would be considered pretty out of the ordinary.  But other studies on masculinity and femininity in Southeast Asia provide a similar story: whereas masculinity and femininity were perceived as negatively correlated among men in the US, studies using men in Southeast Asia haven’t been able to replicate this pattern.  In other words, there’s evidence that men in Southeast Asia saw masculinity and femininity as completely independent of one another… femininity didn’t have anything to do with masculinity, or the lack thereof.

This is an interesting idea.

In such a case, a man could be emotional and stable.

Restrained and dominant.

Gentle and fierce.

If you’re not catching my point, I’m saying that men could show traits and behaviors that, historically, have been associated with women.  More importantly, this wouldn’t undermine their status as a man in any way, although for men in most Western nations, we wouldn’t’ really observe that pattern (see my earlier notes on Anti-femininity).

But back to our question: Is God masculine?

The answer is complicated, because it’s both “yes” and “no”.  Remember, masculinity is culturally constructed.  Using a Western definition of masculinity, it is impossible for God to be masculine.  I’ll say that again for emphasis, if a Western definition for masculinity is used, it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be masculine.  The Western definition of masculinity includes anti-femininity, which is a general aversion or avoidance of feminine traits and behaviors.

Compassion is not considered a masculine trait or behavior.

Empathy is not considered a masculine trait or behavior.

Concern for the poor, or widows, or children… same story, right?

Forgiveness.

Mercy.

Take your pick.

God possesses many, MANY attributes that would not fit the Western definition of masculinity, and because part of Western masculinity is the absence or avoidance of feminine traits, the ONLY way that God can be masculine is if you fundamentally change the nature of who God is.  In other words, you ignore all the things I just listed and you, instead, focus only on the authoritarian aspects of God (you can see my notes on Authoritarian God vs. Benevolent God from earlier).

The only way that it would be possible for God to be masculine is if we use a conceptualization of masculinity that appears to be more common in Southeast Asia.  In such a case, a paternal figure could possess both masculine and feminine characteristics simultaneously… in that sense though, that would mean that God isn’t more masculine than He is feminine or vice versa, because that would suggests that there are some attributes of God’s nature (i.e. mercy) that are somehow emphasized more than OTHER aspects of God’s nature (i.e. judgement).  And from what I can tell, there isn’t really a strong Biblical case for that.

God has lots of different attributes, and those things in their totality, collectively, represent who God is… but it’s not like some of those are necessarily more important than others.

But hypothetically, if there was one that was, maybe it’d be love.  After all, the Bible says you can some up all the commandments with just two: Love God, and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40).  If we take that angle, the “is God masculine?” question largely depends on how loving your neighbor is happening.  If loving your neighbor involves a heroic act, like dying on a cross (John 3:16), maybe that would be considered more masculine.  But if loving your neighbor involves an act of service, like washing feet (John 13:1-17; Luke 7:36-50), maybe that would be considered more feminine.

All that to say, yes, God is masculine if we pivot from a Western definition, but even then, only sort of, because He’s just as feminine as He is masculine…

To me, that’s where I’ve landed.  Even though God is described as this paternal figure, and there are countless metaphors and themes in the scriptures that appeal to His paternal nature, His nature is a perfect balance of what we would culturally perceive as both feminine and masculine traits and behaviors.

I find this to be consistent with scriptures that tell us we’re made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:1-2; Genesis 9:6).  It would probably be a little unusual to say that every person, man AND woman, throughout the course of human existence was made in the image of God, BUT, God is more masculine than He is feminine.  If people are made in the image of God (and we should note that humans are the ONLY thing in creation described as being made in the image of God), then to me, that means both men and women reflect who He is, but more importantly, they both equally reflect who He is.  The “masculine” aspects of His nature are not more or less prominent or important than the “feminine” ones, and I use these terms loosely, based on the discussion we’ve been having throughout.  I don’t think that takes away from God being described as a paternal figure in the scriptures, but as far as His nature is concerned, his qualities are accurately described by both “feminine” and “masculine” traits.  You would fundamentally taking away from His nature to focus exclusively on one at the expense of the other.  He’s both.

You may see this entire exercise as trivial, but again, I would beg to disagree.

HOW WE SEE GOD MATTERS.

I still have a lot of thoughts, but let me just try and focus on my major takeaway… and I’m talking to guys on this one.  Gentlemen… you cannot fully reflect the nature of God if you’re subscribing to Western definitions of masculinity.  Seriously.  It is LITERALLY impossible to do that, because they’re fundamentally incompatible with one another.  We already talked about this… part of Western masculinity is an avoidance of “feminine” traits and behaviors.  And if that’s how you see being a man, there are a lot of aspects of God’s nature, and God’s character, that you’ll NEVER understand, much less be able to actually live out.  Based on what we know about Jesus, it’s unlikely he would have measured up to Western definitions of masculinity… and yet… he’s the greatest man to ever live and sets the standard for all of us.

If I’m honest, I think Christian women have made waaay more progress on this than we have, for reasons I don’t even have time to get into right now.  We’re the ones having difficulty getting deep and connecting with God’s more compassionate, empathetic, sensitive side.

But I think there’s plenty to learn from the things we touched on here.  How we think about masculinity probably has a big influence on how we see God and how we live out the faith.  And as I’ve said a number of times already here, God isn’t masculine by Western definitions…

Leave yourself room to feel.

Get in touch with your emotions.

Learn how to connect and empathize with others, particularly those you’re close to or people who are suffering.

Figure out how to show you love people in a way that goes beyond paying a bill or spending money.

Dig deep.

Femininity is not the enemy of masculinity, nor is it the opposite.  This, in part, reflects a toxic and problematic system of thinking… dare I say toxic masculinity.  But we can save that for another day.

Some random thoughts,

Nnamdi

The post Is God Masculine? appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

Colorblind, Christian Courtship (pt. 2 of 2)

So, I’ll just pick up where I left off in part 1. I’m not ignorant to the fact that this topic is an ambitious undertaking.  You can, literally, write books on interracial dating, and indeed, many have.  The slant of looking at this phenomenon in the church is a bit more unique, perhaps distinguishing it from other conversations on the topic.  As I mentioned before, the church is considered by many to be this utopian environment that’s insulated from many of the vices of the world (you can see my series on “Un-ideal church ideals” for more on that: part 1, part 2, or part 3).  On the other hand, we don’t have to go back very far in American, or global, history to see many such instances where the church has noticeably missed the mark on race relations.

Consequentially, in light of this paradox, people may have really different ideas concerning the social processes that may be at work as courting and dating takes place in church.

I always, always try my best to be thoughtful.  My personal opinion?  Even though we have the Holy Spirit, and we’re trying to live like Jesus, on our very, very best day, Christians are still just… human.  And as a behavioral scientist, and an emerging expert on human behavior, I suspect our behavior at church isn’t as insulated from the world’s vices as we’d like to think… in fact, I’ll even share a few experiences here where interactions in the church can actually look worse than those in the world.

Colorblindness as a diversity ideology is already pretty complex on its own.  In essence, it makes the following point: because of all the other things people tend to have in common, racial or ethnic differences between people are so trivial that they’re not worth thinking or talking about.  In truth, this can be done with benign or malicious intentions, but let’s just assume the former, because we’re talking about dating other people of faith.  Let’s assume people want to be helpful, supportive, and are trying to love us in a righteous way.

Here’s a question for you:  If something is really important to someone, how do you think they feel when you tell them it isn’t important?

Let’s even step out of the context of race for a second… you have a friend that’s an artist.  And from their conversations with you, you can gather that they enjoy celebrating art, and connecting with other artists, and they see that as an important aspect of who they are.  To them, it’s part of their identity… it’s one of the many things that God included as He made this person who they are.  It’s obviously not the most important thing… but it’s one of many things about themselves that they love and celebrate.

And you walk up to that person, and you tell them to their face, “Personally, I don’t think being an artist is important in any way.”  Or maybe you say something along the lines of, “Whether you’re an artist or not, we all basically have the same experiences.”  Or maybe you say, “Instead of talking about art, let’s just focus on what we have in common.”

I like this example because, I think most of us would agree these are all kind of cringe-worthy moments.  It’s like something off of a television show, right?  I think most of us understand, forget whether or not art is important to you… you know it’s important to your friend.  For them, they see that as a huge part of who they are.  And in a relationship (romantic or otherwise), you try and show you value the person by acknowledging things that they value.  I mean, you could keep having conversations like this with your friend, but after awhile, they’ll probably start to feel like you’re rejecting a pretty big aspect of who they are as a person.  Aside from being a bit painful, that can also feel disrespectful.

I imagine they would feel like, “This is a really big aspect of who I am, and not only are you resistant to accepting that, but you’re also actively trying to convince me that this IS NOT a big aspect of who I am.”

Yup.  It’s cringe-worthy indeed.

As you’ve probably gathered, I’m using this as a metaphor for why colorblindness doesn’t effectively promote inclusivity in congregations (or in general, really).  If you’re under the impression that you’ll make people feel welcome by telling them that benign things that they love about themselves are completely unimportant to you, and you don’t think they’re worthy of acknowledging, I think you’re a bit naïve and misguided as to how relationships work, romantic or otherwise.  Yet and still, I see people talk about being colorblind, even in the context of dating, and talking about it as if it’ll help promote better loving people of different racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.

At best, it’s a very, very risky strategy to communicate that you want them to feel safe with you, in spite of cultural differences.  At worst, you’ll tell someone that you take a colorblind approach to dating, and they’ll interpret that as, “I won’t be able to deeply share about my identity with this person, or their friends, because there are many aspects of who I am that they don’t believe to be important.”

Like I said… it’s a risky strategy… especially if you’re actually trying to communicate that you’re open minded and you’re not racist.  For a lot of people, you actually ended up doing the opposite.

Speaking of racism, I’ll share something here that I’ve said elsewhere… and I’ll admit, it’s something I should probably try and do a little bit of a better job at.

I don’t really talk about racism with White people I don’t have a close relationship with.  And going to church with someone doesn’t necessarily constitute a “close” relationship.

True story.  If you know me, you know that I don’t really like inconveniencing people.  And my personal experience is that White people don’t really want to talk about racism… it’s an inconvenience to you, and honestly, I don’t like to be an inconvenience.  And you would think it would be different sometimes with White people that you attend church with, but that’s not always true.  So, yeah, I generally don’t talk about racism with White people I’m not close with.  The exception is if they bring it up, because if you bring it up, it means you’re showing some interest in talking about it.  But if you don’t bring it up, I don’t want to assume you’re interested in talking about racism, because you may not even believe racism exist.  And if I don’t have a close relationship with you, I don’t really know.

To be sure, THE PATTERN I DESCRIBED ISN’T SPECIFIC TO THE TOPIC OF RACE RELATIONS.

Gay people are a lot more likely to talk about homophobia when they’re with gay friends, probably because they feel safer to do so.  Homophobia, or heteronormative ideals, are waaaaay easier to see when you’re negatively affected by them.  You don’t really have concerns about people telling you you’re crazy, or you’re imagining things, or being angry with you for sharing your lived experiences with homophobia.  Talking about it with other gay people, without a doubt, probably makes gay people feel much safer.

Women are a lot more likely to talk about sexism with other women, probably because they feel safer to do so.  Sexism is waaaaaay easier to see when you’re negatively affected by it.  You don’t really have concerns about people telling you you’re crazy, or you’re imagining things, or being angry with you for sharing your lived experiences with sexism.  Talking about it with other women, without a doubt, probably makes women people feel much safer.

This is true, too, for race relations.  It’s a topic that comes up quite often with my non-White friends, but when I’m with White people I don’t know, I won’t bring it up.  I mean, I’ll make a remark if they bring it up, but I’m not bringing it up, because I don’t want to inconvenience you by talking about a topic that you don’t even believe exists.  In fact, if I’m being honest with you, there are lots of situations where I felt more comfortable talking about racism with White people that I don’t go to church with, because a lot of White people I do go to church with believe that racism doesn’t exist and doesn’t affect Christian ministry.  So, yeah, it’s kind of like talking about aliens with people who don’t believe in UFO’s.

Why would I put myself in that situation?

In order for people to feel like they can talk about unique or distinctive experiences they’ve had, or even highly personal stories that resulted in them feeling sad, angry, hurt, scared, etc., they have to feel psychological safety.  They have to feel safe with YOU.

I think a lot of times Christians talk about being colorblind in the context of dating to try and create that safe space.

In practice though, that’s usually not how things are interpreted.  Most racial minorities hear that in the context of dating and think, “Oh, I can’t share my unique, or distinctive, racial or ethnic experiences with this person, because they believe that most people in America all have similar experiences.”

I won’t beat a dead horse.  Suffice to say that promoting colorblindness as a perspective on dating is unflattering and doesn’t necessarily make people feel safe, particularly if they strongly identify with their racial or ethnic background.

It’s interesting though, because I can’t help but feel that, particularly for Black people, celebrating your history and culture is perceived as a disinterest in interracial dating.

Let me be unequivocally clear: I desire to be with the woman that God desires for me to be with.  Period.  God knows me better than ANYBODY, so I feel comfortable entrusting Him with that, because God’s not going to set me up with a woman that I’ll have a miserable life with.  Seriously.  I’m completely open to God’s plan:  Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, American, Nigerian, whatever.  After lots and LOTS of different dates, I can earnestly say who you are on the inside is WAAAAY more important to me than your race or ethnicity.  In spite of that though, I can’t help but feel that lots of people probably would have assumed otherwise.

So, let’s talk about that.

I think for much of American History, to be pro-Black was viewed as synonymous with being anti-White.  A lot of that has to do with the fact that historically, and even presently, lots of White Americans view racism as a zero-sum game (i.e. White people can only win if Black people lose).  To be sure, this isn’t just a thought or opinion, there’s a lot of research in psychology and sociology on intergroup relations that provides strong evidence for this pattern of thinking.

Admittedly, there were aspects of American history where race relations was, indeed, a zero-sum game.

Black people could only be freed as slaves if White people gave up their slaves.

Black people gaining voting power meant White people were losing voting power.

Admittedly though, much of that was specific to an era in history where Black people didn’t even have the basic rights entitled to American citizens.  There are many aspects of modern-day race relations that do NOT represent a zero-sum game, although research suggests that White Americans tend to view it in that way (i.e. natural hair discrimination is a great example of something that is NOT zero sum).

So, I think with being pro-Black in the US today, lots of White Americans might assume that I only want to date Black women, and they may also assume I’m especially opposed to dating a White woman.

Principally, neither of those things are true.

What I will say though that could be helpful here is this: I’m very open-minded about who I date, but I do want to date someone who is racially conscious (see Money, Marriage, Misogyny and Melanin for more on that).  By racially conscious, I don’t think that means we have to share all the same views on all the same things.  Quite the contrary: I actually want and expect my wife to have her own opinions about things (i.e. marriage is a partnership, and there are many occasions where diversity of perspective is helpful).  When I say racially conscious, I simply mean she’s aware of how racial and ethnic differences may shape our lived experiences as people in important ways.

If I’m being completely honest with you, I know [way] more non-White women that are racially conscious than I do White women.  This is understandable, although still a little bit strange.  If you asked about sexism, many White women could give you story after story and name friends, family, and others who’ve been affected.  For whatever reason though, it’s difficult for White women to imagine exclusion, rejection, mistreatment, and prejudice taking place in America on the basis of race/ethnicity, rather than gender.

But those are 2 sides of the same coin.  Inequality manifests in MANY different ways.

Sexism.

Racism.

Colorism.

Ableism.

Classism.

Ageism.

The list goes on.  So, if you can imagine inequality manifesting on 1 identity dimension… certainly it’s not a stretch to think that it may manifests on other identity dimensions, too, right?

But in general, when we’re afforded the benefits of inequality, we don’t always recognize it.  That’s true for me as a man with sexism just like it’s true for White women and racism.  A lot of times, we don’t notice inequality until in starts to INCONVENIENCE our lives.  When we benefit from it, we may not even notice.

Barring an act of God, I don’t really have interest in dating ANY woman that isn’t racially conscious.  However, since I’ve found this set of attitudes and beliefs to be most common among White women (and research generally supports that idea, too; White Americans are less likely than racial minorities to believe racism exists), it means I don’t see those romantic relationships as particularly likely for me.  But that has everything to do with being racially conscious and nothing to do with being White… I wouldn’t connect well with a Black woman who isn’t racially conscious, either.  Being Black won’t make me more interested in someone, and being not Black won’t make me less interested in someone.  I can’t say that for being racially conscious though.  It absolutely makes me less interested.  We can still connect…I just don’t want to date you.

To me, an unwillingness, or disinterest, in being racially conscious is really unflattering… it comes off as a very naïve ignorance that can have really destructive consequences, in interpersonal relationships and otherwise.

Maybe an example would help.

I’m Nigerian.  And most of my family lives in Nigeria.

I was born in the US.

I grew up in a household where my dad was a doctor and my mom was a nurse.

We had 4 different cars growing up, and my parents bought each of us a car in high school.

I went to a 4-year university, on an academic scholarship, and my dad paid the remainder of my school fees so I could graduate debt free.

I graduated and subsequently worked a job where I was making close to 6 figures and I was only 24.

And now, I’m currently enrolled in a PhD program, fully funded, at one of the most prestigious universities in the country.

So, think about what I shared for a bit…

Can you imagine what it would be like if I just assumed all of my family in Nigeria, or everybody in the entire world, just got through life with access to all the same resources and opportunities that I did?

Wouldn’t that be unflattering?

Wouldn’t that be offputting?

Wouldn’t that be unattractive?

Can you imagine being in a relationship with someone that was that naïve about how the world works?  “We’re all basically the same!”

To me, it’s an enormous turn off.  It doesn’t even matter what your racial group is, that level of ignorance is an enormous turn off, not to mention really harmful and destructive.

There’s one other thing that I’ll touch on, because this is starting to run a bit long.

We know that America is segregated… I’ve spoken about this on many, many occasions.  But this segregation also influences interracial dating in ways that most people generally don’t give a lot of thought to.

I’ve taken a ton of interest in residential segregation, urban housing, the sociology of finance, and other topics in sociology that influence where people live and who’s in their neighborhood (see Race and Place: part 1, part 2, and part 3 for more on that).  One thing that sociologists that are versed in American history regularly mention is the extent of residential segregation, specifically for Black Americans.  Now we all know that White neighborhoods are mostly White.  Asian neighborhoods are mostly Asian.  And Hispanic neighborhoods are mostly Hispanic.  But Black neighborhoods are filled to the brim with almost EXCLUSIVELY Black people.  In other words, Black people represent 13% of the US population, but in the handful of communities that DO have Black people, almost ALL of those Black people live in the exact same neighborhood.

Black neighborhoods are OVERWHELMINGLY… just… Black (see Convicts, Capital, Collusion, and Cashflow for more on that).

That means 2 big things.

NUMBER 1: If you’re not Black, if you avoid those neighborhoods, you’ll never really live or interact with Black people, and certainly not with mostly Black people.

NUMBER 2: If you ARE Black, if you never leave or get out of those neighborhoods, you will interact ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY with other Black people.

If you’re wondering how this came to be, this old post may be helpful.  But to summarize, this isn’t a coincidence… America has DECADES of discriminatory lending that took place in the 20^th century, and even today, and those things largely shape and influence the demographic composition of Black neighborhoods… also, during the Jim Crow era, it made discrimination against Black people a lot easier when all the Black people lived in the same part of the city.  From fire bombs to underfunded schools, oppressing Black people was easier when they were all in one place.

But as you would imagine, this, too, has important implications for interracial dating.  Everybody wants to connect well with the person they date.  Black, White, straight, gay, men, women, whatever.  We all want to connect well with our partner.

But because of racism and discrimination, Black people have been soooooo isolated throughout American history, past and present, that a lot of Americans feel like they can’t connect or relate to Black people.

This has been supported by research.

I’ll talk briefly about 4 different kinds of isolation: psychological, political, structural, and geospatial.

Psychological is exactly what it sounds like.  In psychology, we use the term psychological distance.  Psychological distance is another way of measuring how similar we feel to someone… it represents the cognitive distance, in our brain, between ourselves and someone else.

When psychologists ask Americans to rate similarities to different groups in the US, findings show that compared to other groups, most nonblack Americans feel a great deal of psychological distance with Black people…

Part of that is understandable.  Because of the isolation, Black Americans have fairly distinct experiences in America (i.e. The OTHER America), unique ways of communicating and interacting, etc.  But if we’re talking about interracial dating, this does have the potential to pose as a challenge.

There’s also political isolation.  It’s exactly what it sounds like.  Political scientists note that forming alliances and coalitions is very important for American politics.  You have to find groups that you have common ground with and work together to get things done.  But researchers have also keenly noted that Black neighborhoods are SOOOOO isolated that their political views are really different than other groups in America.

Ordinarily, when people advocate for something for a neighborhood, or town, or city, or suburb, that thing tends to impact everyone in the community… the White people, the Black people, the Asian people, the Hispanic people, the Native American people, etc.  But Black neighborhoods are so isolated, things they want from the government usually only effect Black people, because there aren’t many people of other racial groups in those neighborhoods.  Practically, this makes it very difficult to find people of other racial groups that share political interests.  Honestly, lots of people just don’t understand because they’re not from those communities and have never been to those communities.

Again, political leanings are important for dating, too.  If you feel like your partner has unusual political views, that usually isn’t a green light.  But the political leanings of a lot of Black Americans may be hard to understand for people who aren’t Black.

There’s also structural isolation.  Institutional racism is definitely a thing for racial minorities in the US, but the way America has weaponized the government to oppress Black people throughout American history is somewhat of a distinctive experience from other racial minorities.

Education.

Healthcare.

Finance.

Housing.

Law Enforcement.

Criminal Justice.

Science.

Religion.

The list goes on.  Our experience with institutions of influence in this country is a bit unique, and mostly bad (190 years of a 244 year history).  If that hasn’t been your experience, again, you may find that very, very hard to connect or relate to.

Finally, there’s geospatial isolation.  It’s exactly what it sounds like.  You can’t fall in love with a person that you’ve never met (I guess you can, with technology), and you can’t meet them if you’re never in their neighborhood and they’re never in yours.

Based on sociohistorical context concerning race relations in America, there are lots of Americans that avoid Black neighborhoods, and lots of Black Americans avoid non-Black neighborhoods.  It really is that simple.

I can go on, but I think I’ve made my point.  There are complex psychological and sociological processes that influence interracial dating.  Yes, at church, too.  So, we’ll need to be a lot more thoughtful about that.  Cookie cutter interpretations generally don’t work well for complex things (so, no, interracial relationships aren’t necessarily a good measure of diversity climate).  Race relations, including interracial dating, is a pretty layered and complex phenomenon.  So, let’s just try and be thoughtful.

There are lots of things I didn’t have time to highlight, but feel free to weigh in.

Nnamdi

The post Colorblind, Christian Courtship (pt. 2 of 2) appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.

Colorblind, Christian Courtship (pt. 1 of 2)

I try and write about seasonal things when I can.  We had MLK day last month.  And this month, we have Black History month and Valentine’s Day.  So, I thought I would do a series on interracial dating, specifically in the church.  But you know me, I like alliteration… so, I call it Colorblind, Christian Courtship.  Honestly, I think it’s long overdue.  In general, being a follower of ANY religion provides opportunities to marry other people of all racial backgrounds from that faith tradition.  That’s true, but churches in America don’t really have a good track record of race relations (i.e. slavery, White Supremacy, Segregation, etc.), and I fear they’re misinterpreting what interracial relationships in their congregations mean, assuming they mean anything at all (I concede they may not).

In my experience, most churches that have some level of racial diversity are quite proud of it.  Indeed, in light of the fact that most American churches are fairly [racially] homogenous, it IS quite the accomplishment to break that trend on some level.  To leaders in these congregations, interracial marriages and romantic relationships are resounding proof that racism is an artifact of the past (Woah, wait a minute, buddy!).  If it manifests in the present, it manifests outside the walls of the church.  Within the church, on the other hand, God’s people can exist in a colorblind utopia where ethnic/racial background is of very little importance.  Race/Ethnicity doesn’t influence how we see or treat each other, and it doesn’t really influence how Christians see, engage, or participate in the world at large.

In general, this represents a colorblind diversity ideology, and I talk elsewhere, here, here, and here, about how that undermines the inclusion goals that most churches say they’re committed to.

But I’ll get to my thesis.

I’m concerned this colorblind ideology contributes to some grossly distorted ideas of what interracial relationships may signal in congregations.  Admittedly, we can boil this down to an ignorance of the topic of race relations.  I think people, myself included, misinterpret things when they’re not thinking deeply and critically about it.  To be sure, I don’t think these individuals have malicious intentions, per se… at least not most of them.  I just think people aren’t being particularly thoughtful, and in this case, I think it may lead to sweeping conclusions that aren’t really warranted based on the pattern of interracial dating (assuming there is one).

Fortunately though, we have science to help us figure all this out.  We’ll need a few different areas of research.  From the dating perspective, we’ll need some of the work in the psychology of intimate relationships (sociologists and economists also study assortative mating, but I’ll lean primarily on psych work on dating).  Importantly though, to understand interracial dating, we’ll also need to leverage the research in social psychology on race relations.  Personally, I find it a little bit strange that the psych research on race relations has progressed pretty independently of the research on dating, but that probably speaks to the notion that most people see these as separate topics when, in fact, they’re related in important ways.

There’s been a unique framework that’s been emerging to study Race by Sex identities in the field of psychology: gendered race.  The theory goes a little something like this.  It’s no surprise that there are stereotypes associated with racial identities.  There’s also no surprise that there are stereotypes associated with gender identities.  But gendered race as a framework makes the unique point that race-related stereotype content isn’t gender neutral.  For instance, Black Americans are stereotyped as being loud, aggressive, physically imposing, dominant, and even dangerous.  If you notice though, the traits I listed are viewed by society as more appropriate and common for men (vs. women).

In other words, Black Americans have MASCULINE stereotype content.

Similarly, Asian Americans are usually stereotyped as being submissive, quiet, and small/weak.  Again, you may notice that these traits are viewed by society as more appropriate and common for women (vs. men).

In other words, Asian Americans have FEMININE stereotype content.

Remember: we’re talking about stereotypes.  I never said Black Americans are more masculine than other Americans or Asian Americans are more feminine than other Americans.  These are stereotypes.  Stereotypes are exaggerated beliefs about a particular group of people, whether positive or negative.  And in the case of Black (Asian) Americans, the content of this stereotype tends to be mostly masculine (feminine).

In case you’re wondering, there’s a huge piece on culture, too, that I don’t have time to get into, but it’s true that some cultures may be viewed as more masculine vs. feminine as well, and that has implications for gendered race, too.

In short though, based on the theory of gendered race, both gender and race play an important role in how we perceive people and the level of femininity and masculinity that we ascribe to them.  It’s hardly a novel concept for most people that gender influences how feminine/masculine that we’re perceived to be, but in the mid 90’s or so, most social scientists were surprised to hear that race played an important role in this process, too.

Specifically, for MEN, the research in gendered race shows the following:

Black men are perceived as extremely masculine, because they’re MEN, and the stereotype content for being Black is masculine.

Asian American men are perceived as extremely unmasculine (read feminine), because they’re MEN, but the stereotype content for being Asian is feminine.

White men, generally, fall in the middle… they’re perceived as more masculine than Asian men but less masculine than Black men.

The research findings also show the corollary for women:

Asian women are perceived as extremely feminine, because they’re WOMEN, and the stereotype content for being Asian is feminine.

Black women are viewed as extremely unfeminine (read masculine), because they’re WOMEN, but the stereotype content for being Black is masculine.

White women, generally, fall in the middle… they’re viewed as more feminine than Black women but less feminine than Asian women.

Unfortunately, the gendered race literature hasn’t investigated other racial groups, albeit I have some thoughts on what this may mean in other contexts (i.e. Hispanic Americans).

But if you’re particularly astute on this topic, then you’re probably already making some downstream connections: If heterosexual men (women) prefer a feminine (masculine) partner, does gendered race influence interracial dating?  And the answer is a resounding YES.  Although to the best of my knowledge this hasn’t been tested among non-White Americans, the theory has been used to investigate interracial dating among White Americans.  Specifically, the researchers found that White men were significantly more likely to date an Asian woman than a Black woman, and White women were significantly more likely to date a Black man than an Asian man.

To be sure, this wasn’t simply a matter of correlation.  They followed by investigating the mechanism (i.e. what explains the pattern found). 

The researchers found that “preference for masculinity” drove their results.  Specifically, White men with a lower preference for masculinity (read higher femininity) in their partners adjusted their dating related behavior accordingly.  White women did the same: those who preferred more masculine partners adjusted their dating behavior.

So, one implication of that evidence is, YES, interracial dating IS on the rise… but there’s also evidence that stereotypes still play a particularly important role in interracial dating.

To me, that’s probably one of the more compelling pieces of evidence, although there’s certainly other evidence, collectively, that suggests more of the same.  I’ll preface this by saying that what follows represents a synthesis of a larger body of evidence across different programs of research in different fields.

For the last 200+ years, sociologists have been studying various forms of structural inequality.  That’s kind of what you do if you’re a sociologist… you study inequality… that’s, like, 40% of the field.

You may study it in healthcare.

Or you might study it in education.

Or you might study it in policy.

Or you might study it in organizations, or finance, or neighborhoods, or whatever… inequality is a very important topic in sociology.  You care about the outcomes of inequality… but you also care about the antecedents of inequality.  What things PREDICT inequality?

Consequentially, one of the things sociologists have argued is this notion of racial hierarchy.  In other words, at this point, it’s not a revolutionary idea that America tends to be White-centric, favoring things that are White over things that are non-White.  This has been demonstrated numerous times across different fields in the social sciences.  But many sociologists believe there’s an added layer to that: there’s a racial hierarchy.  Not all racial/ethnic groups in society are viewed positively (or positively at all, really).  I think that’s certainly implied with language surrounding Asian immigrants as the “model minority”.  Asian Americans are viewed as hard working, industrious, great at math and science, and having generally high aptitude (again, remember, these are stereotypes, albeit these are “positive” stereotypes rather than “negative” ones).  Many Americans have similar thoughts about Jews as well.

Sociologists believe that this racial hierarchy contributes to stratification in American society.  In general, White Americans (and other White passing racial minorities) are at the top, followed by Asian Americans, followed by Hispanic Americans, and Black Americans at the very bottom (I realize there are other racial/ethnic groups, but I want to stay true to the research in this area).

The question is, “If I’ve received implicit signals over the course of a 20, 30, or even 40-year lifetime that people of various racial/ethnic groups vary in their social standing, does it influence who I’m attracted to and who I’m most interested in dating?”

I think social scientists, across various fields of study, would answer with a resounding, “YES.”

Lots of American Christians though seem convinced otherwise.  I think, for the most part, they’re well intended… but I also think the confidence is grossly misguided.

That’s like if I tell a woman, “I know sexism is real, and it’s played a big role throughout history, but it doesn’t influence ANY of MY attitudes or behaviors in any way, shape, or form.”

I don’t know for sure, but I can’t help but imagine a lot of women would find my overconfidence a bit concerning… like, if I’m that confident that sexism doesn’t affect my behavior in any way, shape, or form, it’s almost like that’s an indication that I’m not all that read on the topic… because anybody who’s well informed on the topic, even women, will tell you the effects are really wide spread and you literally spend a lifetime trying to unpack it… you think one thing about women, but everyday, you’re confronted with a really different reality in society… so, you can DESIRE to be equitable but still find yourself falling prey to various biases.

That’s how I tend to feel about people who are convinced that race, ethnicity, etc., doesn’t influence who they’re attracted to or pursue romantic relationships with in any way, shape, or form: Even if you are well read, if you honestly believe something as complex as how you see the world and people in it isn’t shaped or influenced by external forces as powerful as White supremacy, colorism, discrimination, prejudice, etc., then I can’t help but feel there’s still a big disconnect.

I want to be clear: I’m not here to beat up on other people.  I’ve had my own journey with this, and it’s an ongoing process.

Elsewhere, you may recall me describing how, as a Nigerian immigrant, I was strongly encouraged throughout my youth to date and marry a Nigerian woman… if not a Nigerian woman, at least an African woman, they would say.  That had some important downstream consequences.

The first big consequence was I was actually pretty put off from the idea of dating a Nigerian or African woman (this was several years ago; I’ve come around since).  I don’t like feeling controlled.  I don’t like feeling like my decisions are being made by others.  The more I felt expected and encouraged to date a Nigerian (or African) woman, the more resistant I became to the idea.

For me, this rejection was an act of rebellion.  So, based on that rebellion, you may have seen me in an interracial relationship and assumed I’m this progressive, multicultural person, but in actuality, I was just rebelling against this expectation to have an African partner.

But it gets really deep really quick.

You may also recall me talking about my journey with my heritage and culture over the course of my life.  I grew up hating being Nigerian.  I was teased all the time about my name.  I was teased about my accent (or lack thereof).  I was teased about food, culture, and literally anything and everything else, because I was African.

So, you may think that this mistreatment would have driven me to want to be with an African woman… I mean, surely an African woman would understand me, right?  Ironically, it had the opposite effect.  I had such a disdain for my culture, I actually wanted to distance myself from it as much as I could.  Not surprisingly, that influenced who I saw myself marrying down the road.

I, literally, hated where I came from.

Why would I permanently hitch myself to a culture that’s done nothing but gotten me teased and ridiculed, I thought to myself.  What I ACTUALLY need to do is ASSIMILATE.

Coincidentally, this is consistent with research in psychology on intergroup relations.  This is a body of work that studies prejudice and discrimination, and one of the arguments that they make is that many racial minorities elect to assimilate to avoid being “othered” in society.  By assimilate, I simply mean they suppress their racial/ethnic identity to draw less attention to themselves and be accepted by the dominant group, White Americans.

So, in my case, that meant that all I had to do is (1) marry a White woman or (2) marry a racial minority that had better social standing than an African woman (an Asian woman, for instance).

Again, although this hasn’t been studied in the context of romantic relationships, my impressions as I discuss with my friends who are 1^st generation immigrants generally support the idea.

It seems that a lot of immigrant parents expect their children to either (1) marry someone from their own culture, or (2) to marry someone White.  The former is generally preferred, and it ensures that your children will always remember where they come from.  The latter, however, seems to be an implication of racial hierarchy.  It’s really strange, but for a lot of immigrant parents in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, etc., it’s almost like the tell-tale sign of being a true American is if your son or daughter marries someone White.  Admittedly, as an immigrant, that’s one of your biggest dreams: You want to be accepted by White people.  You want their approval.  You want their respect.  You want them to view you as a peer.  You want them to see you as one of their own, rather than being seen as a “foreigner”.

All of these are consistent with the argument on assimilation.  It also means that interracial relationships don’t emerge purely at random, especially if there are influences in the background that have been implicitly, or explicitly, shaping who we should be with throughout our past (and perhaps present).

But it’s interesting though, because not only was I encouraged to date women of a particular racial/ethnic background when I was young, but I was also actively discouraged from dating women of particular racial/ethnic backgrounds.

I’ll be honest with you: I grew up in a household that had some anti-Black sentiment.  Straight up.

I don’t think that’ll come as a shock to any Black people, but I’m sure that’ll come as a shock to a lot of White people (and maybe some non-Black people, too).  For a lot of you, Black Panther was your first inside look at the Black community.  Although I could say much here about the film and how it pertains to anti-Black sentiment, I’ll sum it up with the following: African and Caribbean people know where they come from, and because Black Americans don’t, many in the former groups frown on those in the latter group.  It’s complex, and wrong, and I’m oversimplifying it, but I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t have some anti-Black sentiment in my household growing up.

I did.

If you’re going to date someone who’s not African, you at least need to date someone with culture, they would say.  They also mentioned some other things about Black people that I’m not going to put here.  The implication was quite simple: don’t date Black women.  It was both implicit and explicit, and it was quite vivid.  I’m a grown man and I still remember.

If I experienced all of this in a Nigerian household, I know for a fact it happens in other households.  Looking back on it, it definitely makes me sad.

As I came into my adulthood and I formed my own opinions about the person I wanted to be and how I wanted to view/treat people, I had to unpack a lot of anti-Black sentiment.  And this is coming from someone who grew up in a mostly Black town and had mostly Black friends… you can be friends with someone and still see them as less then.  That’s a whole different conversation, and I don’t even have time to get into that.

What’s most interesting about ALL of this is I’ve had a lot of things throughout my youth that would have spurred me to pursue interracial relationships, FOR ALL OF THE WRONG REASONS.  And it’s interesting, because all of these ministers could use me as an example of how progressive their ministry is, or how I’m a great example of how to be “colorblind” when dating, and all this other stuff… and they may never stop for a second and ask the most obvious question: is interracial dating a good measure of the racial climate, or racial inclusivity, of a church congregation?

I think most social scientists, and even lots of people who aren’t social scientists, would answer that question with a resounding, “NO.”

For whatever reason though, lots of ministers haven’t gotten the memo.

Perhaps one of the most strange, unusual, and dare I say perverted aspects of all of this is what I describe next.  Maybe this is just my general impression, but I feel like there’s this notion in the church that we need these people in interracial relationships to lead our diversity and inclusion efforts.  Because these are people who “see both sides”.  These are the people who have “conquered” their racial biases, or have at least made substantial progress in doing so.  Never mind everything that I just shared indicating that people may end up in interracial relationships for LOTS of different reasons, including but not limited to White supremacy, stereotypes, prejudice, self-hate, rebellion, etc.

Again, I feel like this is a very ignorant pattern of thinking.  And I feel like it’s particularly dangerous considering that the people who identify most strongly with their racial or ethnic group tend not to be the people who end up in interracial relationships anyway.  In other words, you may be getting a subset of racial minorities that are in interracial relationships and don’t identify with all the lived experiences of their peers who ended up dating someone of the same racial background.

Again, I think using people in interracial relationships to champion D&I efforts is a bad idea for lots of different reasons.

There are so many other things on this topic that I’d like to mention that I clearly don’t have time/space for here.

I didn’t mention anything on colorism, but one of the artifacts of White supremacy is that lighter complexion skin is perceived as more attractive than darker complexion skin.  This is a GLOBAL phenomenon, and realistically, it means lighter complexion people have more opportunities for interracial dating (and dating in general) than darker complexion people.  Moreover, although colorism is a global phenomenon that effects both men and women, it disadvantages women more than it does men.

I also didn’t say anything about how people can fetishize and romanticize interracial dating, like it’s a popular restaurant and the entire world needs to know that you’ve been (or want to go).  Again, I think people can step into this with some weird motives… I also think people can use interracial dating as a means of virtue signaling, but that’s a whole different conversation.

I also didn’t talk about how America generally celebrates culture, but Black culture is stigmatized and devalued because of racial hierarchy and anti-Black sentiment.  Hair is viewed negatively.  Speech is viewed negatively.  Even being into Black culture can be viewed negatively.  Again, this has downstream consequences for interracial dating, especially if you identify strongly as a Black man or woman, disciple or otherwise.

There is A LOT to unpack, and this is really just grazing the surface.  To be clear, I don’t have any qualms with anyone who’s in interracial relationships.  That’s awesome.  I’m happy for you.  Seriously.

My entire point with this piece was simply as follows: interracial relationships in a church aren’t really a great measure of inclusivity, racial equity, diversity climate, etc.  I literally cringe when I see it being used as such.  We gotta stop that, for real for real.

Your friendly neighborhood scientist,

Nnamdi

The post Colorblind, Christian Courtship (pt. 1 of 2) appeared first on The Mahogany Tower.