The Progressive Racist: "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"

In Charles Mills’ “Metaphysics of Race” the essentialist has not always been racist, however many racists have been essentialist in that the races are fundamentally different--extending beyond assumptions of biology to morals and ethics. This is the position of the racist, the one who deems themselves superior. However, this essentialist position is not necessarily blatantly racist by itself. It can seem logical, historically supported by systemic oppression reliant on science that was itself biased towards this position, ie anthropology is the most familiar example for me with early researchers such as Blumenbach classifying races in this essentialist fashion. (http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/early_class.html) 

  

At first glance, perhaps such tactics could seem supported by science and intellectualists--yet it is inherently racist beneath the surface. The intellectual is not automatically exempt from racist thoughts and predisposition, and this is exactly what “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” points to in a direct fashion, with the discomfort alleviated by the romantic comedy within the plot. The film confronts the “liberal” or the intellectual who claims to be progressive, who is supportive of civil rights and changes to the system in the parents of Joanna. They are depicted as upper class, and supportive--until confronted with the idea of interracial marriage in their own home. 

  

The essentialist may not believe themselves racist, may in fact believe themselves progressive, however, they define race as fundamentally different even while proclaiming equality. Reflective of the time, both Mr. and Mrs. Drayton are initially shocked, totally reliant on one another for reactions--an apparent comment on how dependent we are on our social groups to define our reactions. The film leaves Prentice’s race to be the only thing they could find objectionable, as he is a doctor who is an older man (frequently preferred for marriage at this time, and even still today it can be more acceptable to marry a man who is older and more stable with his support) and who has done enormously important work with African diseases.  

  

Not only do Joanna’s parents feel this difference exists but so do Prentice’s parents, as Prentice addresses his father with the following infamous line, “You think of yourself as a colored man, I think of myself as a man.” This addresses how a system of thought can pervade even the minds of the oppressed, so long as it seems logical and visible. Yet, Joanna and Prentice are clearly defying this easily-acceptable thought process. This line of thinking may seem logical, and even progressive, supporting the idea of equality insofar as the “separate but equal” but in reality if there is separation, there will always be unequal. There will be an internal essentialist claiming difference, and the afterthought will be a scale of superiority taught by historical oppression.  

There is difference, but it is not fundamental – it is not inherent, it is learned. It is not biological, it is cultural. Race exists, there is no colorblindness and we cannot pretend there will ever be because there will always be historical, political, cultural repercussions of race. But race cannot be defined by the essentialist version. This is what will lead to systemic oppression in the guise of progression, because as long as the essentialist asks for time to think as the Draytons ask, the march of oppression continues. Therefore, the essentialist will always in some sense be racist, continuing the system of racism by association, by false differentiation that can be used by the more outspoken, more powerful to justify systemic oppression. 

What can it say about our concept of race to take this position?