White Saviors and White Guilt
Political guilt, in particular the dissonant expression of it, that is talking about how guilty one feels as one commits the very guilt she claims to regret, is a subversive tactic. A strategy deployed by some to romanticize the privileges they receive and very much enjoy. Privilege is rebranded as a burden of guilt. “How terrible and unjust it is that I have inherited nothing but piles of white guilt” — a bold but barely logical rewording of the underlying power differential. What better way could anyone justify indulging in the benefits of inequality than a claim to guilt? Isn’t it enough to observe that all addicts express guilt, to realize a link between political guilt and an addiction to power?
As a subversive tactic, political guilt doesn’t only rebrand privilege, it also destabilizes this notion in itself. The guilty romancer is juxtaposed against the rest of the hegemonic group. He, by indefatigably assuming and expressing guilt, on and on, to our exhausted ears, steps outside the circle of moral questioning; He can now claim a black soul and assume a fair share of justification for his actions. He no longer shares the same identity with them and can no longer be blamed for their misdeeds. Yet he isn’t truly outside; His skin is still white. His social status remains the same. Money robbed from subordinated geographies continues to flow into his bank account.
It would be an unreasonable exaggeration to deny any authenticity behind political guilt. There could and must be truth to such feelings. Yet, it would be naïve to assume that humans can carry disinterested emotions. Emotions are triggered by the world and for it. Doesn’t the public expression of political guilt serve the underlying power dynamic? Whether truly felt or merely acted out, the public broadcasting of guilt is a tactic; Tactics are well understood for their value by those who deploy them. A confessor of political guilt might be oblivious to the mechanics of their tactic, but they understand very well the sense of comfort it brings about to their indulgent hedonism.
Guilt is immobilizing. Guilt puts a bar on action and diverts efforts into talk. Which is the choice for some. But not all. Some dare to step up and call for true change. With a dangerous caveat. The change they seek is merely a manipulation of the subjugated, that keeps their privileges afar from any critical threats. Saviours come about with “noble” desires for “making the world a better place.” Better according to whom?
“Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate” — Edward Said
The politico-moral gravity of saviours has tantalized the colonized world for centuries. While the obvious manifestation was the missionaries who pushed Jesus down the throats of colonized natives, on a larger scope, the entire colonizing machine was romanticized as saviorism. The colonizing forces in themselves were ascribed a charitable mission. To enlighten the savages was the moral responsibility of the white man while administering his politico-economic imperial affairs.
What is the common denominator between the activities of young American saviours, missionary priests, and imperial officials? Narrowmindedness, to say the least. This isn’t meant polemically, but rather descriptively. The saviour lacks any capacity to withhold reality outside their own. If one continues to look at the world from towers, one might lack the imagination to understand what the world looks like from the ground.
One of the most dangerous repercussions of saviorism is that it intensifies the pre-existing power differentials. In fact, saviorism is coextensive with subordination. For if there was no subordination, what meaning would saviorism entail? To save is to imply the need for rescue. Saviorism must not be confused with the objection to hegemony, saviorism is the very acting of such hegemonic power. One cannot claim that saviorism is only and always destructive; As Foucault makes clear, the culturally contradictory enterprise of coercion and subordination is as generative as it is destructive. The question is not whether it builds or destroys. The critical point here is the direction towards which it builds. Building an American military base on foreign soil is a generative process since it involves erecting constructions. Yet that very base intensifies the establishment’s hegemony over the globe. This direction is what raises concern rather than the mere acts of building and eroding. Similarly, a young American saviour facing the world with her dreams of how they should be and how they should act might bring about generative qualities in the people subordinated to her thesis. Yet, the concern lies in the intensification of hegemony and subjugation. It doesn’t defy logic to say that saviours are the very apparatus that establishes power over the subordinated. This is the histo-geographical machinery by which the subordinated find themselves in that position.
Why saviorism and political guilt at once? While the two tactics assume distinct attributes, their impact on emancipatory efforts is linked. Political guilt dilutes the notion of privilege. In correspondence with political guilt (especially expressed in repugnant strictness to political correctness) the privileged seem to be subordinated; due to bearing a heavy burden of guilt, or due to a proclaimed rebellious position towards his own hegemony. While a position in itself worthy of criticism, what concerns me is the unavoidable confusion arising in political discourse. Without a boundary between oppressor and oppressed, how could we sustain the political tension required for emancipation? (That is not to say I am not interested in non-political approaches; I believe that my life is a thesis for non-political ambassadorship.)
Saviours, on the other hand, oppress with the same hand with which they help, exerting immense pressure on the subjugated and herding them deeper into the hegemony of the dominating culture. The theme here is, once again, confusion. The confusion is sparked by the generative marks the saviour leaves on the bodies he torments. Another shared theme between saviorism and political guilt is the appropriation of the power struggle. As soon as the stage is set for the marginalized to rise and speak up, representatives, saviours and guilty romancers take the spotlight and render the marginalized, once again, invisible. It is as if the two tactics are tactics of demoralization claimed to be strident amendments. At best, both offer a symptomatic recovery. At worst they have consciously deployed tactics of domination.
