The Family Flamboyant: Race Politics, Queer Families, Jewish Lives

Chapter One. Whitens Whites, Keeps Colors Bright: Jewish Families Queering the Race Project

Chapter One Whitens Whites, Keeps Colors Bright Jewish Families Queering the Race Project Part I Identity and the Library of Congress My daughter Paris is two-years-old. She stands in front of the hallway mirror gazing at herself, finding herself, questioning, exploring, discovering . My daughter Paris is two years old and she stands in front of the hallway mirror repeating a new phrase she has learned: “Jewish girl.” “Paris is a Jewish girl.” What does she see this time when she gazes and says “Jewish girl” that she may not have seen on a previous occasion? What image of herself is being created with these new words to accompany her constantly changing reflection? What could she possibly be thinking the phrase “Jewish girl” means? What does it mean for/to/ about her? I am her mother. I say, “Paris is Jewish.” She repeats: “Paris Jewish.” She asks about other members of our family, “Toni Jewish?” Toni is her younger sister, then about eight-months-old. I say “Yes, Toni is Jewish.” She asks further, “Imma Jewish?” I answer “Yes, Imma is Jewish.” She asks, “Ché Jewish?” I answer, “Ché is Jewish.” Ché is our nine pound, short-haired dachshund. We hope that Ché Guevara is honored, not appalled. Paris knows that Ché is different from 17 18 The Family Flamboyant the other members of her family. She knows that Ché is a dog. But what are boundaries and groups? When is some one or thing in or out, with or not with? When Paris asks, “Ché Jewish?”, I figure it can’t hurt to say yes. What have I done? Does all of this not yet have meaning for her anyway so it doesn’t really matter what I’m saying? Am I being inclusive? Can a dog be Jewish? Have I avoided a more difficult issue by not including the possibility of a different repetition of the new phrase she is learning with the word Jewish in it? What are the implications of an alternative answer on my part?: “No, Ché is not Jewish.” Would that be any more meaningful, any more true, any more descriptive than leaving Paris with her current pattern of repetition? “Paris Jewish.” “Toni Jewish.” “Momma Jewish.” “Ché Jewish.” With regard to the humans, Paris hasn’t asked about anyone who isn’t Jewish, so I have not yet said to her, “No, . . . is not Jewish.” We take as a given, from the social constructionist point of view, that the creation of any identity is made possible by the processes of separating phenomena , people, body parts, land masses, etc. and with it the exclusion and marking as “other” of some to make the subject identity. If this is a given from social and political philosophy, how does it work in the raising of children? In my example, how does the suggestion of an identity that does not yet have a “not” work in the creation of identity? I look forward to a time when my children will ask if “so and so” is Jewish, and we will explain that she is not. I am not afraid of claiming identity and acknowledging boundaries. In contrast to a common insight which people seem to suppose is a criticism, to have a group likely does suggest that there are limits. What the critique does not take into account is that identifying (an even somewhat bounded group) also suggests expansiveness , because it means that there are other groups. I’m glad “my group” isn’t the only group out there. (Oy, if it were . . .) To identify does not only mean you negate others, it also means you recognize others. It does not only mean you recognize them in order to place them as your nonexistent negations (where you are the single referent), it means that you can also be recognizing that others exist and that we are different.1 This is also an affirmation. Perhaps it is common for majority or dominant groups to identify through the creation of an other which is marked as inferior. But it may also be common for minority and nondominant groups to identify as part of a process of recognizing difference where hegemonic modes often homogenize. Further, perhaps we can see—against the grain of the common critique which negates the power differential between dominant and nondominant groups and thus their potential philosophical and political differences—that to identify can entail (1) acknowledging differences, and (2) do so with...