Introducing The Racialicious Read Along! Kenji Yoshino’s Covering
by Latoya Peterson
I’m starting to love air travel. It is really the only time where I actually have to disengage from the internet, which becomes time to read actual books.
On this trip, I packed Kenji Yoshino’s Covering, a book I had been intending to read for quite some time. In Yoshino’s gut-wrenching combination of memoir and legal study, he brings a lost concept back into the lexicon to allow us to use new language when discussing issues of race and assimilation. The term he uses is called covering.
“Covering” is sociologist Erving Goffman’s term for how we try to “tone down” stigmatized identities, even when those identities are known to the world. In my work, I describe four axes along which individuals can cover: appearance, affiliation, activism, and association.
Appearance concerns how an individual physically presents himself to the world. Affiliation concerns his cultural identifications. Activism concerns how much he politicizes his identity. Association concerns his choice of fellow travelers — spouses, friends, colleagues.
So a person with an X identity can cover by making sure he doesn’t look like a stereotypical X, disaffiliating himself from X culture, not engaging in activism about X causes, and distancing himself from other Xs. It’s probably easier to see how this works in concrete cases. Those can be found below.
But why do we cover?
As Yoshino explains in his introduction:
Everyone covers. To cover is to tone down a disfavored identity to fit into the mainstream. In our increasingly diverse society, all of us are outside the mainstream in some way. Nonetheless, being deemed mainstream is still often a necessity of social life. For this reason, every reader of this book has covered, whether consciously or not, and sometimes at significant personal cost. [...]
I recognize the value of assimilation, which is often necessary to fluid social interactions, to peaceful coexistence, and even to the dialogue through which difference is valued. For that reason, this is no simple screed against conformity. What I urge here is that we approach the renaissance of assimilation in this country critically. We must be willing to see the dark side of assimilation, and specifically of covering, which is the most widespread form of assimilation required of us today.
Covering is a hidden assualt on our civil rights. We have not been able to see it as such because it has swaddled itself in the benign language of assimilation. But if we look closely, we will see that covering is the way many groups are held back today. The reason racial minorities are pressured to “act white” is because of white supremacy. The reason women are told to downplay their child care responsibilities in the workplace is because of patriarchy. And the reason gays are asked not to “flaunt” is because of homophobia. So long as such covering demands persist, American civil rights will not have completed its work.
Over the next few weeks, we will discuss in depth the ideas posed in Yoshino’s book.
Ideas on format or requests on specific sections are welcome.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Barbara wrote:
I look forward to your series. I bought this book a while back, I think the last time you talked about it here (I think …) and haven’t been able to do more than read the intro. Thanks for the excuse to read it for real.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 10:49 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@LDP
Hm.
I have some concerns about this–and I am not sure how to articulate them without getting too academic…
I haven’t read Covering but I have read Goffman’s landmark Stigma, from which he draws his central idea. Erving Goffman published Stigma in 1963, before the social revolution and popular challenges to entrenched social identities in the United States began to erupt. And–significantly– before the influence of Post Structuralism irrevocably changed the way theories like his are employed. Sociology, along with Anthropology and a handful of other capital D Disciplines with 19th century pedigrees, had their underlying philosophical assumptions rigorously re-examined by post structuralist theorists starting in the 70s in the US. But you don’t have to read Foucault (et al) to be influenced by their theories. They changed the way we think about social identities by destabilizing their meanings… and the idea of ‘meaning’ itself.
In the decades since Goffman wrote Stigma a generation of gay men and lesbians enthusiastically embraced the formerly pejorative “Queer” and “Dyke”, women celebrated “Bitch” and “Girl” and hip hop culture employed “Nigga” as a term of pride and affection. Whether or not we completely cosign the long term effects of these linguistic projects or not, they happened and were influential. And that is the opposite of Goffman’s “covering”.
As I said, I haven’t read the Yoshino’s book but looking over his website made me uncomfortable. He is an eminent legal scholar, not a sociologist. And it seems as if he is basing his argument on an essentialized view of social identities–one that Sociology itself no longer employs. I am wary of arguments that employ “Acting White” or “Acting straight” as ways to (in Goffman’s terms) “present the self” without questioning their inherent instability. “White” and, I’d argue “Straight”are majority social constructions that are not monolithic, and in fact vary a great deal regionally and over time.
So… what about the black guys who like wearing dockers and listening to NPR? Are they “acting white”? Are the black women who straighten their hair “covering”? What about gay couples who are fighting for the right to marry? To adopt? Are they “covering” by incorporating models invented by straight people? What about “Femme” lesbians? Black nerds? Queer athletes? This is a path that, unless trod carefully, 1) leads to essentialist views of social identities 2) reinforces such outmoded concepts as “authenticity” and 3) disregards the transgressive potential of imitating and/or participating in the mainstream.
As part of an immigrant family I am acutely aware of the sacrifices you make to integrate with the larger culture. But I am also aware that the terms under which this happens have changed drastically since my grandparents came to America. The requirements for participation are not fixed, but shift, as do responses to them.
I’m not trying to pee in the pool here. I just hope as the discussion moves forward we can keep questioning these premises.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 1:07 pm ¶
hola wrote:
Covering here is a manifestation of a very troubling phenomenon I have had to witness at every single work place I’ve been in. I’m hispanic, and the most of the few Hispanic or Black people working in non-support staff positions at every job I’ve ever had seemed to be in an endless performance, making sure their white coworkers know they are not like “those” stereotypical POCs burdened with a million negative qualifiers. I’ve hated to join my fellow POC co-workers after hours or during the work day and have to listen to them draw up a straw man embodying all the stereotypical minority traits maligned by mainstream white culture, all the while listing the many ways in which they, as well-educated, gainfully employed, upwardly mobile individuals, are just not like that. It’s almost comical to see people testify their loathing of reggaeton and rice and beans while singing the praises of traditional American junk food and the musical stylings of the Dave Matthews Band. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so disturbing. This is also the close relative of “see what the (usually WOC) secretary wears, do the opposite” advice I have been given on two separate occassions by other WOC as a way to make myself stand out at work and make my coworkers and clients know that I was in a position of power and not in a support role. Despite of how successful these strategies might be, they are deeply disturbing and betray a great deal of class anxiety. If you are spending your day placating your white coworker’s concerns by letting them know that you are not like “those” people, aren’t you supporting negative stereotypes of POC’s held by mainstream white culture? Doesn’t that affect you negatively at the end? It is a zero sum game. You’re building up your professional bona fides by throwing your fellow POC’s under the bus in an attempt to distance yourself from those negative stereotypes. It’s a vicious circle, and it definitely shows how we can be complicit in our own oppression in very small but significant ways.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 4:13 pm ¶
hola wrote:
“So… what about the black guys who like wearing dockers and listening to NPR? Are they “acting white”? Are the black women who straighten their hair “covering”? What about gay couples who are fighting for the right to marry? To adopt? Are they “covering” by incorporating models invented by straight people? What about “Femme” lesbians? Black nerds? Queer athletes? This is a path that, unless trod carefully, 1) leads to essentialist views of social identities 2) reinforces such outmoded concepts as “authenticity” and 3) disregards the transgressive potential of imitating and/or participating in the mainstream.”
This is the other side of the coin. Essentialist notions of what POC’s are supposed to be in terms of their appearance, behaviour and cultural tastes can also serve to cast aspersions on those who fail to conform to such stereotypes. Questions of authenticity always come up when discussion marginalized identities among peopel of color. This is why non-POC’s cannot even begin to experience the suffocating amounts of bullshit POC’s have to manage on an everyday basis. Are you an Asian college dropout? A white Dominican? A Latina who doesn’t dance? An Ivy League educated Black man from an upper class family? Too bad, you’ve committed the crime of existing outside the straitjacket of racial stereotypes and your very existence will be challenged by all non like minded people you meet. Sometimes it seems like life would be much easier if I didn’t buck stereotypes by merely existing. The tyranny of externally created stereotypes make sure you get it from both sides: I’ve already fallen into a cliche, but basically you are damned if you do conform to stereotypes, and you are damned if you don’t. Either way, navigating White or “mainstream” perceptions and reactions to your character are a routine part of living as a POC in the US.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 4:24 pm ¶
A.G. wrote:
Covering……I think I have a problem with that term and the ideology behind it. In any culture, all over the world, one will find the need to assimilate into whatever society, in order to work, and contribute effectively. Right now, I am in Europe. I am learning Italian. I am obeying their laws and learning about their culture so that I can eventually create a normal supportive environment. I am an immigrant now. Do I feel any less American? No! Do I feel any less of a person of color? No. So whats the problem with assimilation?
Now, in America I was not an immigrant. My bloodline is in the fabric of that country. In my opinion, the only thing I had to do was get an education, present myself well; well groomed, standard English, and know my profession. What was I covering? “Blackness” define it. Do you mean blackness as in the late Arthur Ashe or Beyonce?
I think when you start accusing people of covering, it is implied that they have a “dominant traditional culture.” The feeling I get is similar to not being able to identify with the characters of Goodtimes, or different strokes, as a child. However, there are people who project a stereotyped culture on my person, and that is not allowed.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 4:53 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Workplace “covering” is akin to being in the closet. You try to hide or at least minimize traits that don’t match up with the social standard of success, traits that don’t have any relationship with ability to do the job. The essential definition of “covering” requires that the trait being “covered” is not a bona fide work requirement.
The whole “good hair” bit is based on the feeling that straight hair is better for your career because straight hair looks more “white”. And yes, plenty of employers will use an applicant’s perfectly groomed dreds or braids for a proxy excuse not to hire – “not professional enough”, etc.
Women avoid any reference to their children, people with “southern accents” try to soften the accent when looking for management positions in the rest of the country – in general, people try to imitate the upper class white man in environments where white men are dominant in management.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 8:42 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
“in general, people try to imitate the upper class white man in environments where white men are dominant in management.”
Agreed, I don’t think covering is foreign to anyone (even white males, I warrant).
That said, there are degrees, and race is undeniably a serious factor – as the comments above have articulated very well.
I am thinking that it’s important to remember these things are additive, not independent. So for example, a woman of color might not only avoid mentioning her children and worry about ‘professional hair,’ but in addition is worrying about whether she acts like ethnic stereotypes or whether she’s betraying some kind of ethnic heritage, and on and on.
So the cumulative effect of all those pressures is pretty significant.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 10:31 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
I do believe there is some significance and legitimacy to covering. You try to make it a point to disassociate yourself from stereotypical notions, or at least just assumptions, because honestly, it is painful for a PoC to be judged without precedence or merit. When I am in the workplace I want you to know who I am as a contributor; I don’t want you to label me and place me in whatever frivolous category you please to make yourself feel better. When I am at a social gathering with new people, I don’t want to say something and be able to just read the looks in people’s eyes: “Oh, so she’s one of those(insert stereotype/non stereotype combination here).” So there is a real reason why people choose to actively make minute alterations, so to speak, not to fit in, but to avoid a potentially stressful situation- though admittedly, the effort it would take to cover could wind up being just as stressful.
I sort of equate the concept of covering with code-switching. They both involve turning on or turning off certain aspects of oneself in order to make a necessary gain. But that’s for another time.
I suppose we could start with the idea of And covering itself. Is it even a credible concept? Then of course, you get the examples of covering, which goes further into the who/what/when/where/why aspects of it. Thanks for posting, Latoya, I’m definitely gonna stop by the library this week and have a look around for it.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 10:43 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
I’d cosign with Joseph and ashlynn. I get really, really uncomfortable when anyone posits essentialized identities — and this tends to happen a lot even among people who are ostensibly anti-racist.
I realize that to a certain extent it is unavoidable. But it seems to me sort of limiting at the same time, and doesn’t reflect that relations between ethnic groups can be very fluid.
Y’know, an interesting study, or post, would be if there’s anyone who can talk about this kind of thing outside an American context.
That is, I’d be interested to know how this kind of stuff manifests in say, Russia, where there really isn’t any way to tell that someone isn’t Russian unless they speak. (’Experts’ to the contrary, Russians have such a wide range of ‘looks’ that it’s nigh impossible to ID someone visually).
At the same time, even though everyone looks the same, identity there is much more important in a lot of ways. After all, we never had open ethnic warfare here a la Yugoslavia or Chechnya. Yet in Yugoslavia people even married each other and for a long time what religion you were didn’t matter.
(Yes, I am aware that there have been attacks on black towns, but there’s a vast difference between that and what went on over there).
i bring this up because it might offer an interesting comparison and might shed some light on whether he is on the right track. (And I am a big fan of comparative studies).
Posted 13 Aug 2009 at 7:06 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
*sigh*
So many issues from folks who haven’t read the book.
I’m not going to address concerns now as they dive into big chunks of what we are planning, but Yoshino takes the original term and puts it in a modern context. He also coins “reverse covering” to talk about the pressures received from those in a minority group to resist traits ascribed to the majority.
He covers a lot of ground in his books, dealing with homosexuality, race, gender, and ability in a very fluid and nuanced way.
So relax. We haven’t even started yet.
Fuck.
Posted 13 Aug 2009 at 9:19 am ¶
ashlynn wrote:
@Latoya,
Whoops. Chalk it up to excitement? At least you can guarantee that it will make for a good post.
Posted 13 Aug 2009 at 6:15 pm ¶
Samia wrote:
I can’t wait to learn more, Latoya! I was not at all familiar with this term until I saw it here. Covering should be a part of every discussion about the Asian model minority stereotypes. I am happy to hear that Yoshino approaches the idea in a nuanced way.
Gosh, I’m excited. It’s so weird to find out there’s a word, an actual concept, for something you know you’ve been doing your whole life. I’m going to have to pick this one up sometime soon!
Posted 14 Aug 2009 at 6:22 pm ¶
Julia Su. wrote:
I haven’t read Covering but I have read Goffman’s landmark Stigma, from which he draws his central idea.
I would suggest you actually read the book before coming to conclusions about how Yoshino builds on (and tweaks) Goffman’s thesis.
Posted 14 Aug 2009 at 10:40 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Julia Su
I would suggest that you re-read my comment, which you clearly didn’t understand. My concern was not directed at Yoshino’s book but rather at Latoya’s description of it. Her clarification #10 was much appreciated but if her original post had included those points I wouldn’t have spoken up.
Posted 15 Aug 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶
Thomas Mckenzie wrote:
Read the book. Actually used it for a paper in my Soc Theory class. Can’t wait to get your take.
Posted 16 Aug 2009 at 9:13 pm ¶