Is the NBA Lockout About Race?

[image error]













Is the NBA Lockout About Race? byDavid J. Leonard | NewBlackMan
Ithought I would write a follow-up to my piece, "BillSimmons and the Bell Curve: The 'limited intellectual capital' of the NBA'sPlayers" which has elicited a significant reaction.   It should be clear from the outset,I am not interested in conversations about individuals, intention, ormotivation.  To paraphrase thealways-brilliant Jay Smooth, the conversations should focus around what hasbeen said, what has been done, and what all of this means in a larger contextrather than the individual actors. The discussion needs to be about how ideology, narrative, and framesoperate within these larger discussions. 
Oneof the common responses to Bill Simmons'commentary and more specifically the criticism directed at me forreflecting on the racial meaning in those comments has been that Simmons wastalking about all NBA players, not just those who are black.  Given the racial demographics of theleague and the racial signifiers associated with basketball, it is hard toaccept the idea that "NBA player" isn't a mere code for blackness.  In other words, blackness andbasketball become inextricably connected within the dominant imagination, akinto KathrynRussell-Brown's idea of the criminal blackman.  Just as the "criminal Blackman" exists as contained identitywithin the dominant white imagination, the blackballer functions in similarways. 
Theprocess of both essentializing and bifurcating the black baller is evident inthe very distinct ways that the white racial frame conceives of both white andblack players, playing upon ideas of intelligence and athleticism.  Whereas the blackballer is imagined as athletic,naturally gifted, and physically superior, white basketball players arecelebrated for their intelligence, work ethic, and team orientation.  In Am I Black Enough for You , Todd Boydidentifies a dialectical relationship between racialization and styles of playwhere whiteness represents a "textbook or formal" style basketball, whichoperates in opposition "street or vernacular" styles of hooping that areconnected to blackness within the collective consciousness.   In both styles of play, notionsof intelligence, mental toughness, and mental agility are centrally in play. 
Asecond and widely circulated denunciation against those critical voices has beenour lack of fairness or the double standards of this portion of thediscourse.  Whereas I honed in onSimmons' comments, little has been made about those of Jason Whitlock (BryantGumbel has been the at the center of media commentary).  Lets be clear: the comments of JasonWhitlock, irrespective of intent, are worthy of criticism in that his recentcommentary plays upon and reinforces dominant narratives and frames about raceand blackness.  Looking at his comments,alongside with those of Simmons, further illustrates the ways in whichideologies are circulated, and how commentaries such of these cannot beunderstood outside of these larger contexts.
Abelief in the superiority of white intelligence has been commonplace withinAmerican history.  This remains thecase today.  In one earlierstudy (during 1990s; see here for anothersource) about the persistence of racial stereotypes, the author found thefollowing:
More thanhalf the survey respondents rated African Americans as less intelligent than whites.Fifty-seven percent of non-African Americans rated African Americans as lessintelligent than whites and thirty percent of African Americans themselvesrated African Americans as less intelligent than whites. Sixty-two percent ofthe entire sample rated African Americans as lazier than whites and more thanthree out of four survey respondents said that African Americans are moreinclined than whites to prefer welfare over work.
Ina 2010 study about race and politics, researchersat the University of Washington found that stereotypes about blacks as itrelates to intelligence, work ethic, and trust-worthiness remain prominent. Anotherrecent study about race, politics, and stereotypes found that while therehas been slight progress in terms of the rejection of longstanding prejudices,they remain constant within the national discourse. 
Thesestudies point to the power of the white racial frame and the persistence ofracial realist arguments.  TimWise describes this line of thinking in the following way:  The primary arguments made by the so-called racial"realists" are as follows:
1.    Race is a scientifically valid category of human difference;2.   Racial differences are not only real but meaningfullyconnected at the biological and/or genetic level with important human traits,most notably, intelligence;3. Intelligence is measurable using standardized IQ batteriesand other mechanisms;4.   Blacks are generally less intelligent than whites andAsians, and this is due to biological and/or genetic differences between theraces.
Flowingfrom these premises, the racial "realists" argue that social policy should takethese "truths" into account. This means that we should cease all efforts tocreate greater social or economic equity between the races, since they areinherently unequal in their abilities. It also means that personal biases onthe basis of these truths — even those that perpetuate deep racial inequitiesin the society — are not unfair or unjust but rational. It is rational, forinstance, for employers to favor white job applicants for high-level jobs,since they are more likely to possess the talents necessary to do those jobswell. So, in this sense, discrimination should not be prohibited. It should betolerated, and seen as a logical choice given the science of racial difference.And certainly we should not take racial disparities in income, wealth,occupational status, or educational outcomes to suggest the presence of racism;rather, these gaps merely reflect the persistent human inequalities that clusteralong racial lines.
AsI read the comments of Simmons, Whitlock and countless others, I am unable todisconnect my reading from this larger social, ideological, and politicalcontext.   The largerdiscourse exists inside the words, in the interpretations, in the meaning, inthe reception, and in the larger ramifications.   It is within this larger context that I read JasonWhitlock's "Playersneed to stick to their day jobs"
Referringto the "foolishness of basketball players" and players as "a group of spoiled,entitled, delusional kids who learned boardroom manners from watching episodesof "The Apprentice?," Whitlock concludes that the players are out theirleague.   Arguing that theplayers are not victims of racism or David Stern's "plantation mentality"(reference to Bryant Gumbel's recent comments), he offers the following:
But theseNBA players are not victims during this lockout. Not of David Stern.
They'revictims of their own immaturity, stupidity and delusion. They have the wherewithaland resources to stand toe to toe with commissioner Stern, but they are improperlyusing and undermining their power. Gumbel's commentary on HBO's "RealSports" won't help them realize and effectively utilize their power. Itwill assist the players in curling up in a fetal position and playing thevictim.
That's whatwe, African-Americans, do all too often in the aftermath of the civil-rights movement.We have no real understanding of the effort, courage and disciplined strategyMartin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and their supporters used to win thefreedoms we now take for granted.
Herewe see that Whitlock's criticism of these "silly players," "a bunch of kidswith sycophant publicists and groupies," who are acting "stupid" is rooted incriticism of African American youth. By contextualizing the NBA lockout within a larger discourse of thehip-hop generation betraying the struggles, sacrifices, and the politics ofrespectability, Whitlock links this discussion to a wider discourse.  Playing upon hegemonic ideas regardingthe American Dream, hard work, and disciplinarity, Whitlock's comments also resonatewith larger narratives about meritocracy and bootstraps ideology.  Writing about sports as a powerfulinstitution for mythmaking about the American Dream, C.Richard King and Charles Springwood argue that:
Thecommonsense notions of the self-made man, and the American dream work againstpersonal and collective engagement with the materiality of racialdifference.  Individuals, effort,and ability to obscure the conditions and effects of racial hierarchy . ...  These life histories map outopposite itineraries, success, superstardom, and the American Dream juxtaposed withfailure, obscurity, and a societal nightmare.  They individual, they assert, makes his or her fortune basedon his or her effort and ability. The system is open, fostering upward mobility for individuals withtalent, character, and DISCIPLINE (my emphasis) (2001, pp. 31-32, p. 34).
Inother words, the riches, fame, and "the game" itself of the NBA are availableto the players, even during this lockout. What precludes the fulfillment of the American Dream is the "character"and lack of "discipline" of the players during the labor negotiations.  While blame can be spread around, inthe end, it is the players' fault.
Whitlock,unlike much of the media punditry, offers a level of honestly here, makingclear that public discussions of NBA players or the NBA is indeed a publicdebate about blackness.
Anotherstriking aspect of Whitlock's column rests with his effort to invoke themetaphor of "the animal kingdom," describing the NBA lockout as a battle betweentwo distinct species.  He writes:
We ignore thelaws of the jungle that we live in.
Racism,classism, sexism, power imbalances, etc. aren't going away. They've been here sincethe beginning of time. They're part of our flawed nature. No different from alion's nature to prey upon zebras, buffalos and wildebeest.
Have youever seen zebras hold a news conference on "Animal Kingdom" demanding thatlions quit attacking zebras? No. Zebras train their young in ways to avoidlions and other predators.
Assuch, the NBA players are conceived as Zebras who are subjected to the rulesand laws of nature. 
Dictated bythe laws of nature, David Stern (Whitlock ostensibly erases the owners from thediscussion here), as the lion, will be the aggressor with the players.  Rather than "complain" and try tobattle the lion (David Stern), the Zebras (the players) need to realize thatthey are incapable of defeating the more powerful, fierce, and fit King of theNBA jungle.  They must retreat andallow their lion to face-off with David Stern. 
Theinvoking of this rhetoric is striking in its imagination of the players and thecommissioner as two distinct species with predetermined qualities,characteristics, and skills. Zebras and lions don't acquire their skills and place in the junglehierarchy because of their own actions or training, but because of nature. 
Itis difficult to ignore the large racial implications of Whitlock's discussionof the "animal kingdom" given the ways in which biology anddifferences-grounded-in-nature have been central to racial discourse throughhistory.    
Intwo recent episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher (oneincluding Toure, who also discusses the matter), Bill Maher spoke about howthe denial of racism has become the new form of racism.  The race denial card is the mostpowerful and widely circulated in the deck, evident by the fact that I assomeone who merely tried to reflect on the racial meaning and implications wasblamed for infusing, interjecting, and otherwise playing the "race card" (isdenying race also playing the race card?)
"Racism"functioning as the denial of racism is nothing new (see Bonilla-Silva's Racism without Racist s) and so often works in conjunctionwith cultural racism.  According toBonilla-Silva, "Cultural racism is a frame that relies on culturally-basedarguments" (2003, p. 28).  According to BenCarrington and Mary McDonald, "cultural racism posits that althoughdifferent ethnic groups or 'races' may not exist in a hierarchical biologicalrelationship, they are nevertheless culturally distinct, each group having theirown incompatible lifestyles, customs and ways of seeing the world" (2001, p.1).  Likewise Nancy Spencer describescultural racism as being "predicated on an understanding of culture as a wholeway," which "has implications for racism in sport" (2004, p. 121).    While we can see both the "denial of racism" or the dismissalof the significance or race and cultural racism in its operation, we also seethe powerful ways the biological notions of difference continues to operatewithin this context. 
Thelockout illustrates the powerful ways that the black NBA player isconceptualized, imagined, and represented as a "'bad boy Black athlete" (Collins2005, p. 153), defined by being "overly physical, out of control, prone toviolence, driven by instinct, and hypersexual"; the white racial frameubiquitously imagines NBA black ballers as "unruly and disrespectful," "inherentlydangerous" and "in need of civilizing" (Ferber 2007, p. 20).  Whether focusing on "intelligence," "levelsof education," "maturity" and "disciplinarity," the NBA lockout discourse is areminder of the powerful ways that the white "gaze" subjects blackness to "theprison of prior expectation" (Williams1997, p. 74).
***
David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of CriticalCulture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He isthe author of Screens Fade to Black:Contemporary African American Cinema and the forthcoming After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop(SUNY Press). Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackMan and blogs @ No Tsuris.