Thread by @SamiraNadkarni

A particularly cruel and unnecessary part of the recent racist set of events re: the book review of The Bright Ages is that many people have assumed Dr MRO ~brought it on herself by "seeking clout" i.e. speaking about her experience. It's misreading hypervisibility as power.

Misreading hypervisibility this way presumes that presence equals acceptance (it does not), that there can be no white norm if this presence exists (uh, wrong), and that hypervisibility equals power and this power will inevitably be misused (visbility is not the same as power).

Black women in particular across a wide variety of fields have discussed the abusive dynamics of hypervisibility and the misogynoir that often results as a consequence. Their presence is allowed in white and/or cis male dominant spaces only so long as they go along with this norm

The moment they seek disruption or to speak to their experience, they undercut what their in/visibility is meant to accord: largesse on the part of those in power for allowing their presence, and a presumption that they are 'uncultured' for a lack of loyalty.

A sense begins to arise that Dr MRO is "always making it about race" because this is seen as a marked event. Her other interests become unmarked or less visible and any time this discussion is raised by her it's presumed she's "at it again", etc. It's textbook hypervisibility.

It's worth pointing out that backlash isn't just because this is her field of expertise, that she has lived experience, that she's willing to speak to both of these, but also that it's viewed as a "betrayal" of allies in the gith against white supremacy - because they're ~trying.

In the timeless words of Imani Barbarin, “White people never miss an opportunity to remind you that their solidarity with you is optional […] If you’re not nice while asking for it, they have the option to tap out. >

Racism for them is a special interest; racism for you is your life.” The alienation of white allies/ powerful POC allies themselves aligned with whiteness is part of the 'betrayal' of niceness. It's all "Shouldn't she have been nicer if they're trying?" Think about it.

The assumption here is that by creating visibility she has more power than anyone else involved despite how untrue this is in terms of the most basic of conditions: institutional access, comfort within these spaces, ability to NOT be a target, ability to not experience misogynoir

The presumption is that by not being diplomatic enough, she's not making allies "the right way" or hurting the fight for antiracism; but presumably the fight for antiracism involves everyone being very nice while subversive racism is carried out because at least they're trying?

And of course the presumption is that she's acted cruelly towards allies because 'kindness' was expected, but this is a particularly weaponised kindness because it relies on silencing, on a recognition of owed loyalty, upon the assertion of never airing dirty laundry.

All of these modes and norms are, by the way, inherently patriarchal and linked to white supremacist familial modes of intimacy. The assertion that she should have done this 'another way' implies that there were more ~cultured~ ways to go about this. Look at tone. Recognise it?

God knows I do. This is what hypervisibility is: we're constantly asserting that medieval studies is immensely awash in white supremacy but the assumption is that ~good feminist people~ have no unlearning to do because how could this taint have touched them? They are unaffected.

Hell the fucking no. We're all affected and complicit. An immense part of this process should have been looking into editorial systems, and it should have been considering that if a largely white echo chamber didn't see a problem, MAYBE THAT WAS ITS OWN PROBLEM.

Dr MRO is not the first WOC academic to experience hypervisibility but it is a fact that Black women in academia experience worse versions of it because of how deeply embedded misogynoir is in our cultures - academic and social. And make no mistake - she is Black.

You can recognise hypervisibility playing out because it always begins with "she's so brave" and moves to "hers is an important voice" but then veers towards "yet another fight" and ends up at "too much effort/ drama."

Because addressing racism stops at one event, amirite?

To speak to it, to trace events where one has called attention to abuse, is to be giving oneself airs, to have abandoned humbleness, to be bigging oneself up at the expense of 'victims' of being called out.

I'm asking you to look at this narrative & see it for white supremacy.

But of course to not speak to it or point to it or acknowledge it - as one is inevitably expected to do - is to have it erased as soon as we return to status quo. Then it becomes, yet again, about starting from the beginning because the WORK of visibilising it is erased.

And I want to be super clear: the work of visbilising something is NOT the work of addressing it. It is not even a beginning. It is simply showing someone a wound and having them exclaim over it. Nothing has been done yet to treat it, heal it, or allow it to rest.

In the powerful words of Azeezat Johnson, “There is a particularly perverse fascination with “seeing” and “exposing” the violences that people experience, with little focus on actually tending to those wounds once they’ve been exposed.”

Tending wounds from racist abuse is ABSENT

In work I've written, I've built on Sara Ahmed's theorisation of complaint pride, which says ": “Complaint pride takes the form of statements about wanting to learn from complaints; complaint pride is expressed as being willing to listen. >

I wonder if a fantasy of an open ear might operate in a similar way to a fantasy of an open door, as if anyone can get in when in fact they cannot.” I've pointed out that "in order to create conditions under which those with power can “listen” is to repeatedly and visibly show >

how I was harmed, how I am harmed, how I will be harmed. It creates me as merely a voice of marginalised abjection, and to do so in ways that create this abjection as violent enough to necessitate response. >

It is a particularly pointed cruelty that in order to seek redress and hold such statements accountable, I am tasked with constantly deferring the very possibility of healing."
When I say I recognise what's happening here, I really fucking do. Antiracist academics of colour do.

This is not about me but I would be lying if I said watching what happened with Dr MRO wasn't pressing on a wound, still unhealed, because this is the status quo in academia. Allies will remain until they feel this is too repetitive, too much effort, takes far too much energy.

There is a constant sense of having to both, perform being okay while also acknowledging not being okay. This, again, is not healing. It is not even the vicinity of it. And there is always the sense of being measured & weighed, to know you'll be dropped once you're too much work.

Aside from the reading in this list (if you haven't read it yet, you should all be reading The Fire Now: amazon.co.uk/Fire-Now-Anti-…), you can also see further reading recs in this thread:

https://twitter.com/SamiraNadkarni/status/1520841040403566600

I am immensely tired because I honestly expected a lot better from many academics who, if nothing else, I expected more from that a condescending 'yet another drama, must be Tuesday' sort of statement because these are the same people talking about the daily toll of racism.

In a field like medievalism where you've quite literally noted the dearth of scholars of colour, what does this say to the few that are there? What does this say to young scholars coming in? Naming racism is drama? Stand back, don't let this sort of thing touch your career?

I hope anyone reading this thinks REALLY carefully on who the statements in that previous tweet serves and what it enables. I hope you all spend time thinking & parsing & HURTING with how easy it is to fall into white supremacy because it's not 'drama' (i.e. the "right" culture).

I am so incredibly angry all over again at academia as a whole. Fucking grow a spine and learn that listening beneath anger to hurt is an actual part of antiracism and put your back into a long term plan for healing, or get out of the fucking way of anyone doing the work.

Now I'm going to go scrub my kitchen from top to bottom because I need to do something to burn off this anger. Absolutely ridiculous that this has had to be pointed out at all.

Having spent the night thinking on it, I'm fairly sure this tweet is ableist. 'Spinelessness' has been associated with lacking moral 'uprightness' which my gut says draws on ableist frameworks. I'm sorry for using it & won't be doing so going forward. >

https://twitter.com/SamiraNadkarni/status/1521530310386753538?t=UBYcmn9iokCt-p9p36mAzw&s=19

I should have said "Fucking learn that listening beneath anger to hurt is an actual part of antiracism and commit to a long term plan for healing, or get out of the fucking way of anyone doing the work." That gets my point across and is closer to what I intended.

#BrightAgesSoWhite