America is evading meaningful debate surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The whole country is talking about a few decontextualized snippets of potentially offensive and inflammatory remarks and whether or not Barack Obama subscribes to such views. However, we should be talking about Wright’s wider interpretation of this country as needing fundamental change. This interpretation is not unique to Wright’s Black Liberation Theology. Instead, it is shared by millions of people of many different races, religions, genders, ages, sexualities, socio-economic classes, and even political affiliations. But most of America is evading this fact, thus avoiding any truly meaningful debate about America’s past, present, and future. Such evasion distorts our ability to openly discuss and presumably improve our society.
Many critics frame Wright’s Black Liberation Theology as reverse racism, Black supremacy, anti-Americanism, class resentment, and hatefulness. These remarks grossly distort the Reverend’s views and, more importantly, ignore the hermeneutical principles of his theology. These hermeneutical principles were clarified by Wright during his PBS interview with Bill Moyers (April 25, 2008), his NAACP presentation in Detroit (April 27, 2008), and his National Press Club presentation (April 28, 2008). Hermeneutics, as the study of interpretation, argues that every human being has a different interpretation of the world. This is not to say that everything is relative and thus meaningless. Instead, our individual standpoints affect our worldviews. Each of us is uniquely positioned — but never determined — by our social, cultural, political, economic, religious, racial, sexual, and even physical standpoints. My positioning in the world affects my interpretation of the world. While I can potentially change my standpoint, I can never forgo a standpoint. I forever stand in relationship to the world. This relationship produces an interpretation that is then shared with, and perhaps explained to and even defended before, other human beings. This interpretive principle is addressed by Reverend Wright when he discusses his religious tradition, the tradition of the Black Church, the Black Liberation Theology tradition, the differences among people’s social positions, and the fact that different people see the world through different lenses.
These hermeneutical principles actually align with the American experience of democratic governance: Because each of us sees the world differently, we are called to critically debate policies, structures, institutions, and ways of life. Democratic discussion is about laying our interpretations on the table and deciding which views are most appropriate for today’s purposes. Reverend Wright laid his interpretation on the table and invited dialogue and even ferocious debate. Most people balked at the challenge and chose, instead, to yell, shout, misrepresent, name call, and smear. These responses are not democratic, dialogical, or even argumentative. These responses are examples of emotionally charged mob think.
Wright’s Black Liberation Theology is an interpretation of the world grounded in his experience of being a Black pastor in America. His interpretation is further fleshed out by decades of research, reading, thinking, debate, discussion, and reflection upon himself and his society. We should also acknowledge that Wright holds two master’s degrees, a doctoral degree, and speaks five different languages. Thus, to say that his interpretation is ignorant is simply foolish. Wright is a smart man who has consciously sought to widen, deepen, and most of all justify his interpretation of both the world and America. Reverend Wright’s interpretation thus deserves honest discussion, debate, and analysis. Yes, Wright has made some controversial and potentially offensive statements. But just about any statement can be deemed controversial or offensive when divorced from the larger context. In this case, that larger context is Wright’s overall worldview. That worldview must be considered when addressing Wright’s statements about the events of 9/11, U.S. power structures, social inequalities, and the possibility of the government’s social engineering of Black communities. Our worldviews inform our reasoning processes and thus precede and exceed our isolated comments. Ignoring this fact allows people to render Wright’s statements unreasonable and dismissible. However, when contextualized within his worldview, his statements are very reasonable and worthy of debate. He’s basically saying that American history is filled with unsavory acts and because of that we must hold accountable our politicians, our government, our media, and most of all ourselves and each other.
The majority of Americans are ignoring all of this, focusing, instead, upon decontextualized sound bites. What began as an inquiry into the Wright-Obama relationship has turned into mass avoidance: People are shying from the possibility that Reverend Wright might actually be raising important points about America. But why this avoidance? Why are we ignoring the possibility that Wright’s comments are worthy of debate?
This avoidance plays out on at least three levels — the mass media, Barack Obama, and the American people. At the first level, the media have pretty much created and undoubtedly exacerbated this situation. There’s no doubt that the media have systematically avoided any true engagement with Wright’s ideas. Perhaps media pundits and guest commentators are simply unfamiliar with hermeneutical principles and the importance of contextualizing comments within an individual’s overall worldview. That’s possible, but it’s hard to believe. As mentioned above, Reverend Wright has already addressed the relationship between Black Liberation Theology and interpretation. The media ignored his explanation, period. And generally speaking, media pundits and commentators are intelligent, well trained, and quite familiar with the complexities of statements and contexts. For instance, Bill O’Reilly of FOX News, Lou Dobbs of CNN, and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, combine for three bachelor’s degrees, three master’s degrees, twelve books, numerous awards, in-depth Whitehouse experience, and decades of journalistic knowledge. There’s little chance that they are incapable of understanding—or are unfamiliar with — the hermeneutical principles addressed in this essay. Instead, they ignore and thus delegitimize Wright’s wider interpretation of America.
At the second level, Barack Obama addressed the nation on April 29th, one day after Wright’s National Press Club presentation. Obama unequivocally denounced Reverend Wright, pointing out that Wright’s comments about U.S. involvement with AIDS, about Minister Louis Farrakhan being one of the great voices of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and about U.S. wartime efforts being the same as terrorism are ridiculous and saddening. In one sense, Obama had to make such comments. His campaign would effectively end if he did not. But, taking him for his word, Obama may very well be offended by Wright’s views. That’s fine. But even Obama misrepresented Wright’s words and like above, ignored Wright’s overall worldview. A more accurate account would acknowledge and contextualize what Wright actually said. The following three paragraphs attempt to do that.
For example, Wright said that the U.S. government is capable of injecting AIDS into the Black community. That capability is not just about technological know-how, but about motivation and intent. This statement seems ridiculous at first, but it becomes more possible once we acknowledge, for instance, the history of the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” This study was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932-1972. The government basically tracked the health digression of poor black men infected with syphilis, never informing the men of the nature of their disease and even preventing them from getting alternative and perhaps life saving treatment. The government wanted to see what would happen when syphilis when unchecked. Such an “altruistic” intention brought undo suffering upon completely innocent people. This study is a well-documented historical fact that lends a layer of credibility to the idea that the government is capable of injecting AIDS into the Black community. Yes, it’s a crazy idea, but it is possible.
Likewise, Wright said that Louis Farrakhan is one of the great voices because he is influential within the Black community. When Farrakhan speaks, people listen. Farrakhan is thus important and influential regardless if we agree with him or not. Wright never said that he likes Farrakhan or that he agrees with the Minister’s views. Wright did say, though, that “Farrakhan is not my enemy.” This strategically worded statement suggests that Wright and Farrakhan are political associates for the purpose of advancing the Black community. That’s very different than being personal friends.
Lastly, Wright said that we cannot do terrorism onto others and not expect it to come back onto us. Here, Wright is referring to America’s history of foreign policy, which includes the nuclear bombing of Japan, the embittered Vietnam War, the two-sidedness of the Iran-Contra scandal, the Reagan Administration’s backing of the El Salvadorian government’s atrocities, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Wright’s references are not equating the U.S. government and the likes of al Qaeda. He’s simply stating a basic truism that others treat you the way you treat them. U.S. foreign policy has been quite brutal in many cases. That brutality is bound to come back on us, and it unfortunately did with the events of 9/11. This in no way blames the 9/11 victims, but rather, acknowledges the possible consequences of America’s past (and present) policies. The C.I.A. even has an official term for this: it’s called blowback.
At the last level of this three-tiered analysis, we get the American people. Generally speaking, average Americans are taking their cues from the two sources above (the media and Obama) and repeating the sound bites: that Reverend Wright is a racist; that he’s stuck in the 1960s; that he’s hateful; and that he has nothing important to say. Such comments are problematic since many people have not even seen the entirety of Wright’s interview with Bill Moyers or his NAACP or National Press Club presentations. But of course many people did, and even these folks concentrate on isolated comments while ignoring the wider context of Wright’s ideas. This suggests that people want to focus on the sensationalized and condemnable sound bites. But why would we want to do this? Because it allows us to delegitimize, dismiss, and basically avoid the implications of Wright’s worldview.
This process of avoidance is somewhat sensible since Wright’s worldview directly challenges commonly held American presumptions. For example, many Americans believe that America has always been and will always be inherently benevolent; that capitalism is an honest competition occurring upon an equal playing field; that race and class are minor speed bumps to an individual’s social mobility; that racism is a personal rather than social, cultural, and historical problem; that U.S. governments occasionally falter but are generally altruistic; and that religion is about personal salvation rather than social and political liberation. These presumptions formulate a worldview common to the average America citizen. Reverend Wright’s presumptions formulate a different worldview. We thus have a clash of interpretations. But this clash is going unacknowledged as if there is only one correct or at least one legitimate interpretation of “America.” Reverend Wright is then easily labeled an out of touch, unpatriotic fanatic. This simply spotlights the problem: America is evading any clash of interpretations.
A truly democratic nation seeking to improve itself would invite debate and discussion between these and other competing worldviews, allowing the best interpretation to shine through. The “best interpretation” would be accurate, well-grounded, justified, explained in detail, capable of withstanding intellectual interrogation, and capable of accounting for as many issues as possible. I believe that Reverend Wright’s interpretation meets these criteria. I say this as a White, male, non-theistic heterosexual who is 33 years younger than Wright. I am not Black, Christian, or from the “older generation.” But I do believe America needs changing and I do believe in true democratic debate. Such issues are absent from the national scene. The criteria for evaluating the “best interpretation” are rarely if ever seen within our nation: not within the corporate media’s profit-seeking infotainment glitz and glam; not within the branding of presidential campaigns; and not within everyday conversations, radio call-ins, heated email exchanges, online arguments, or blog posts. It’s almost as if present day America must ignore these criteria, debates, and hermeneutical principles. Acknowledging let alone applying such principles could threaten the very foundation of American society. If people start questioning their interpretation of America, they may just realize that America is due for some serious change. That realization often creates cognitive dissonance, political confusion, and existential anxiety. It is thus easier to evade meaningful debate and to linger within superficial and misplaced shouting matches. Reverend Wright has become the poster child for (misplaced) anti-Americanism when in fact he should be the center piece of self-reflection, democratic discussion, and critical exchange. Embracing these principles is the unspoken call of any true democracy.