Anthropology Times

Anthropologists View American Culture
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 12: 49-78 (Volume publication date October 1983)
G D Spindler, and L Spindler
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the  first page of the article. (Link)

In “Anthropologists View American Culture,” George Spindler and Louise Spindler compile, among other things,  a list of defining features instructive in understanding American culture as found across various global culture studies. I found the description of certain features helpful to my understanding of the concept of “post-racial” in America particularly as described in an article by Matt Bai concerning Nikki Haley as mentioned in a previous post. The features are as follows:

Individualism The individual is the basic unit of society. Individuals are self-reliant and compete with other individuals for success.

Conformity Everyone is expected to conform to the norms of the community or group. Conformity and equality are closely related in that equal can be translated as “the same as.”

Authority Authority, from within a hierarchy or as represented by external power or even expertise, has negative value excepting under special conditions.*

With the above in mind, I look again at Indian-American Nikki Haley winning the Republican nomination for governor in South Carolina and Matt Bai’s analysis of that victory. Bai refers to Haley as a post-racial candidate. In the opening paragraphs of the article, Ethnic Distinctions, No Longer So Distinctive, Bai seemingly describes Nikki Haley being stripped of all things Indian: not Nimrata, but Nikki; not Sikh, but Christian; and no, she doesn’t care to talk about her Indian heritage. Bai likens this transition to being released from prison, the prison of ethnic politics. I understand this characterization better now in light of conformity being key to equality. That is, if an individual conforms to the community norms, then that individual should be treated the same as others who conform. In this case the rules of conformity have changed such that skin color or ethnic heritage do not bar inclusion.

In a section titled “Individualism and Conformity: A Key Opposition,” Spindler discusses the finding that rejection of authority seems an integral part of American individualism (61-64). In Haley’s case the fact that she has broken away from certain aspects of her Indian heritage in favor of more mainstream choices, paints her simultaneously as a rebel and a conformist, as an individual and as someone who blends in well with the surrounding community. In rejecting the authority of Indian/family traditions she is able to better conform to local community norms and in the process she may appear that much more “American.” Where Bai seems to conclude that Haley’s campaign and nomination show evidence of a move away from ethnic politics, I believe they show a continuation of ethnic politics with different strategies.

I wonder now about the process by which the rules for what constitutes conformity change…

*Added September 29:  The additional “American” features listed were achievement orientation, equality, sociability, honesty, competence, optimism and work.  In particular, equality was described as follows:  Though born with different attributes and abilities, everyone stands equal before the law and should have equal opportunity to achieve, utilizing one’s individual ability and energy in a self-reliant manner.

I read  Ethnic Distinctions, No Longer So Distinctive in the Times when it was first published a couple months ago.  I’ve returned to the article several times trying to find the catch.  The article opens:

If anyone still doubted, after President Obama’s election, that candidates are no longer prisoners of their race or ethnicity, then South Carolina’s Nikki Haley offers further proof. Ms. Haley, 38, was born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa, the daughter of Indian Sikh immigrants. Now she is the Christian, Republican nominee for governor in a state with a brutal history of racial oppression.

What’s notable about Ms. Haley’s campaign, like that of Mr. Obama and other candidates, is not just that she has breached a racial and cultural barrier, but that she doesn’t feel the need — or the desire — to talk much about it.

Matt Bai goes on to write:

This blurring of racial and ethnic lines is, for the most part, deeply inspiring, the manifestation of hard-won progress.

Bai appears to celebrate the predictable result of what I’ll call the Color-Blind Ideal, this notion that one can walk into a room of people and just see people and not color (race, ethnicity).   Back in the 1990’s a  professor of mine called attention to the insidiousness of an ideal rooted in not seeing a person.  What does it mean to be color blind?  Is it not possible to SEE diversity, experience diversity, and at the same time treat people fairly and equitably?

So voters can move beyond the fact that Nikki Haley has a mildly brown hue as long as there are no other obvious connections to her Indian, Sikh ancestry and as long as she doesn’t talk about her ancestry… and this represents progress?  For me the article reads like dark comedy.   Que the eighties makeover sequence where Nimrata shortens her name to Nikki, embraces Christianity and doesn’t care much to talk about her Indian ancestry.   Is this a necessary step?  If “Nikki” can be elected today, does that make it more likely that “Nimrata” can be elected in the future?

P. S.
Many critiqued Chris Matthews for his comments following a speech by President Obama, comments that seemed born out of the color blind ideal.  Matthews said that he forgot that Obama was black for an hour and that Obama was post-racial.  (Matt Bai refers to Nikki Haley as a post-racial politician.)   Freedom Eden recaps The Daily Show’s negative critique here. The Take Away interviews David Wall Rice, assistant professor in department of psychology at Morehouse College in Atlanta, who gives a more nuanced critique:

DavidJW left the following comment at The Take Away:

As to the above comment, in the past I thought the words “skin color” included reference to a wider cultural identity. Did that meaning change over time or did I misunderstand? Is it skin color diversity (YES) but cultural diversity (No)?