Mills Curry Liberal Rights Racial Justice Critique

A) Discuss how for Mills a critique of liberal (freedom/equality) and formal/legal (“de jure”) rights and justice must include the “cultural” and “somatic” aspects of race/racism to make clear how difficult it is to establish a real (universal) humanism. Next, discuss how Curry’s accounts of sexual violence against black men and boys -in the present (police/civil) and historically (during slavery) - further develops his critique of “progressive” categories (embraced by “intellectuals”, not “radicals”), which though advocating for rights/values, may cover/miss or, worse, reinforce political and social vulnerabilities and violence. And, consider how Curry’s conclusion that we must relativize “western man” connects to Mills “metaphysical” point that white supremacy is a “bipolar system” that has splintered liberal rights.

This question requires carefully parsing the multiple critiques of race, rights, and systemic violence propounded by Charles Mills and Roderick Curry. The core argument thar emerges from this parsing revolves around how liberal conceptions of rights and justice ignore or otherwise fail to capture the lived experiences of racialized subjects, particularly non-white individuals, by remaining at the level of formal, legal abstractions. For instance, Mills, in his critique of liberal notions of freedom, equality, and formal (or “de jure”) rights and justice, argues that these frameworks frequently fail to take into account the deeply entrenched cultural and somatic dimensions of race and racism, which are essential to understanding the challenges of achieving genuine universal humanism.

Indeed, one of the harsh realities of the human condition is the fact that everyone views the world through a unique, individual lens that is inescapably shaped by the prevailing zeitgeist which is invariably influenced by the racial ideologies that manifest in societal norms and values. In sum, although establishing a universal humanism represents a laudable and enlightened goal, the process itself is hampered by the disparities in worldviews between mainstream society and its marginalized populations.

Given the significant disproportionate percentages of whites versus non-whites in recent American history, it is little wonder that the prevailing zeitgeist has also largely failed to take into account non-white experiences and values compared to their white counterparts. While this situation is changing as the demographic makeup of the nation also continues to change, racist ideologies die hard – if at all – and it is reasonable to suggest that the transition from de jure to de facto civil rights will require far more than just a facelift but rather changes to fundamental aspects of American society, including its institutions as well as the manner in which these issues are discussed in public forums.

In this regard, Mills maintains that any legitimate analysis of liberal rights must also take into account the cultural and somatic aspects of racism. In other words, developing an informed understanding concerning racism and its adverse effects requires both an examination of institutionalized racism as well as considering the empirical observations and lived experiences of non-white people in a traditionally white dominated society. In this context, Mills advises that, “White supremacy is the term that has traditionally been used to denote the domination of whites over non-whites” (369).

In addition, by including the somatic aspects of racism, Mills also makes the point that oppression in any race-dominated society extends far beyond disenfranchisement from rights but includes the deleterious effects that such lived racism has on minorities. These negative effects may not be readily discernible, Mills maintains, but they are nevertheless powerful forces that have shaped American society in the past and are likely to continue to do so unless and until aa legitimate universal humanism is achieved. Likewise, Curry extends this critique of liberal rights and justice in pursuit of a universal humanism. For example, by focusing on sexual violence against Black men and boys, Curry suggests that this critique is inexorably clouded in ways that actually perpetuate rather than diminish racially based systemic violence, thereby making bodies in marginalized populations vulnerable.

This seemingly counterintuitive outcome can be attributed to the numerous ways that modern narratives about historic violence against enslaved Blacks, for instance, the very categories meant to protect can simultaneously expose marginalized populations to violence by failing to recognize the specificity of their lived experiences in a white supremacist society. Certainly, these are complex issues that require more than a casual analysis, and Mills and Curry both make the point that previous efforts have fallen short of what is truly needed to effect meaningful change in American society.

In sum, the connection between Mills and Curry can be found in their shared objective of relativizing “western man,” a radical critique that reveals how liberal universalist claims are actually rooted in white supremacist logics. Moreover, Mills’ conceptualization of white supremacy as a “bipolar system” indicates that liberal rights are not neutral but are rather structured by racial hierarchies, with universal human rights being a language that simultaneously promises inclusion while maintaining systemic exclusion. This argument means that the very language of rights is not a neutral tool for liberation, but a mechanism that can reinforce the very violence it claims to oppose.

Consider how Hector Tobar’s research and interviews into the meaning/import of “Latino” (or Hispanic) identity in the U.S. can show both: a) the “cultural imperial” pressures and policies that lead to the identity construction here (and thus the need for critique/rejection of certain public and cultural elements); b) the potential for differing groups/individuals to come to embrace or reframe their location in relation to “American Imperialism” in a positive, creative, “cultural revolutionary” ways. {Note the concepts/comparisons in Young “Scaling of Bodies” used here}

To his credit, Hector Tobar presents the results of a truly ambitious study of Latino identity in the United States in his article, “Home Country: What Does it Mean to be Latino?” The author, a Guatemalan-American writer, traveled through Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and New York, in his investigation, encountering diverse Latino communities and perspectives. One of the main themes to emerge from Tobar’s research was just how different the people who are termed “Latino” are, even within their own communities. In this regard, Tobar points out that in New York’s Spanish Harlem, for example, “El Barrio is home now to a Latin American community composed of people with roots in the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Guatemala, and many other countries; for some, Latino best captures this ever-increasing diversity.”

Interestingly, Tobar adds that the term “Hispanic” is frequently heard just as often in many parts of the country as “Latino,” suggesting that the terminology is less important than the focus on the profound diversity of these communities. In addition, Tobar also notes that many individuals prefer more specific cultural labels such as Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican over the broader term “Latino.” Notwithstanding these differences in views about Latino-based appellations, the author ultimately argues that what unites Latino people is their shared experience of displacement, resilience, and resistance to cultural erasure.

Despite the differences in the narratives he analyzes, Tobar also makes the point that Latino identity is not a monolithic, static concept, but rather a dynamic process of ongoing negotiation that is constantly shaped by external pressures and internal resistances that are inherent in the Latino population. Throughout his journey, Tobar discovered that, like “white” or “black,” the term “Latino” is far from monolithic, and rather subsumes people of all ilk with vastly different backgrounds, political views, and experiences. For instance, Tobar emphasizes that, “We are brown, black, white, indigenous, European, and African; some of us speak Spanish and some of us don’t. But all of us have roots in the upheavals set in motion by American imperialism.”

From Tobar’s perspective, then, the “cultural imperial” manifest through systemic mechanisms like linguistic suppression, educational policies that marginalize Spanish and Latino cultural narratives in insidious ways as well as creating economic structures that limit social mobility. Further, Tabor argues that the dominant cultural representations that frequently reduce Latino experiences to stereotypical narratives are not only counterproductive, they conceal the realities that permeate American society for these marginalized populations. In other words, these social forces work to construct a prescribed identity that serves the interests of the dominant Anglo-American cultural framework while simultaneously attempting to render Latino populations manageable within existing power structures.