Skin Bleaching, Self-Hate and Black Identity in Jamaica

Charles, Christopher A.D.

2003    Skin Bleaching, Self-Hate, and Black Identity in Jamaica. Journal of Black Studies 33(6): 711-728.

            I remember the first time I heard about skin bleaching. I (being white), grew up hearing people talking about getting a tan in order to look prettier, and that being called pasty or pale was an insult. So when I heard an Indian student talking on a panel about racial stereotypes about the popularity of skin creams and chemicals designed to make ones skin lighter, it kind of blew my mind. Over the next few years, I realized this phenomenon was not only a thing in India, but that many East Asians, especially the girls, were very concerned about not getting a tan. I was flabbergasted when a friend of mine was wearing jeans and a jacket when it was 100 degrees outside because if she didn’t she would be ugly. I’ve seen many East Asian students walking across campus with large brim hats or parasols to block the sun. I became very curious as to why my friends would rather boil in the heat than allow their skin to darken. As I thought about it, I also became more sensitive to the shade of people of varying ethnicities I see on TV, or in magazines. The actors and actresses in Bollywood films are very fair and light, while most Indian people I have met are much darker. Additionally, when looking at the faces on the packages of ethnic hair care products for African-Americans, they are all incredibly light skinned. Recently I stumbled upon a webpage that showed a regular, non photoshopped picture of African-American beauty queens such as Halle Berry and Maria Carey next to their photo on magazine covers. In the magazines, they had been photoshopped to appear at least 3 shades lighter. Why? Luckily, I found a Journal article that addresses this issue. While it is in Jamaica, I believe that many of the findings can be extrapolated to explain the skin bleaching elsewhere.

            Charles begins by begins by giving us a little bit of a background on the history of colonialism in Jamaica. Plantation style slavery was abolished in 1838, though still a colony. They gained independence from Britain in 1962. More than 90% of the population is of African descent, and the distribution is fair as far as political representation goes. However, economically, Jamaica is mostly controlled by the White, Arab, Chinese, Indian and Jewish minority. During the times of slavery, the Black slaves were conditioned to prefer British culture over their African culture. As this will do a number on the psychology of the people, there are still some serious residual effects of this being felt today in Jamaica.

            The generally accepted explanation for bleaching is that those who do it have low self-esteem. Charles doesn’t think this is the whole story. He explains that the construction of one’s identity is crucial to becoming a ‘normal’ adult. This construction typically occurs during the teenage years. There are two kinds of identity; nominal (assigned by others) and self-affirmed (how you view yourself). He then jumps to the famous doll study done in the U.S. where Black and White children were given both a Black and a White doll and asked which one was the good doll. Most Black children chose the White doll. The researchers assume that this means that the Black children hate themselves and reject ‘Blackness’ (for lack of a better word). They do NOT assume, however, that the White children that chose the Black doll hated themselves and reject ‘Whiteness’. He says that one’s opinion of oneself cannot be assumed based upon the opinion of one’s group. He shows us a handy little equation; Self-concept = personal identity + reference group orientation or; SC=PI+RGO. He is saying that one’s self-concept is altered by how one views the group, but their own feeling of self-worth is not (which I honestly do not entirely understand). I suppose it is possible to hate those in your group, but think of yourself as pretty awesome.

            He then introduces as study that was done in the late 60s/early 70s in Jamaica that illustrates how deeply rooted colonial attitudes are. A bunch of high school students were asked to rate their own importance/ status. The White students said they had more than the brown students, and the brown students said they had more than the Black and Chinese who in turn undervalued themselves.

            Jamaica is a Creole society where some have opted to stick to their traditional culture. Those that did, however, have had a tougher time succeeding and are seen as weird. Those that chose to adopt ‘Britishness’ are seen as normal Jamaicans. The result of this, he says, is Black mothers telling their kids that having African traits, such as kinky hair, is a bad thing. Children are at the minimum tacitly told that being brown is better than Black, and that White is the best. These things are the reason that skin bleaching is so popular. It is also found among (mostly) women in other nations that were previously colonized by European powers.

            The Ministry of Health in Jamaica has taken measures to prevent people from partaking. They have banned many over the counter creams, which has led to people making home-made ones using peroxide and other chemicals and spices. Dermatologists see many people with complications and side effects from these. Mostly it is women in their 20s, but there are also men and other ages.

            There is a prevailing attitude among Jamaicans that in order to succeed, one must be fair skinned. Many of the excuses for skin bleaching sounded like the excuses for crash dieting/ bulimia/ anorexia I hear in the States. Charles says that people are not doing it out of self-hate, but to keep up with trends and to fit in.

            He conducted his own mini-study consisting of 18 people. They were split into two groups; those that bleach and those that do not. They were all given the same self-esteem questionnaire, the only difference being that those who bleach were asked why. On average, the bleaching group scored a tiny bit higher than the non-bleaching group. Everyone in the bleaching group scored above the test median, and one in the non-bleaching group scored below. An admitted flaw is that most of them were teenagers, and thus may be bleaching purely to fit in instead of poor self-image. When asked why, most bleachers said it was for cosmetic/ beauty reasons including to prevent acne or give them smooth skin, some said it made them look prettier/ better. One said that they bleach because their friends were doing it. Another flaw he pointed out was that his sample was incredibly small, and that there was definitely a need for more research, but that what he found is a handy starting point.

            In the discussion section, Charles says that self-hate/ low self-esteem may definitely be a reason, but that there are additional factors too. If it is self-hate, he says; “The self-hate thesis from slavery ignores the fact that there are post slavery traumas that we all face that can cause low self-esteem” (722). Do these people hate themselves because of the society, or are they falling prey to the typical bouts of self-doubt that plague all humans?  Charles says that those that support the self-hate thesis are making the same mistake that was made during the doll study, and that whites who tan are not said to hate themselves. Lack of pride for one’s group does not necessarily indicate a lack of self-pride. It is possible that those high school students when asked to rate their importance were merely recognizing societal norms. That doesn’t mean they agree with it.

            There are White, Chinese and Indian Jamaicans that assume a Black identity and they are not said to be self-hating. He explains that racial identity exists more on a continuum, and that people move between the categories strategically, to fit in with various circles as they see fit. Jamaica is a Creole society with a mixture of backgrounds. People are utilizing this to their advantage.

            He concludes by saying that both groups in the study had very similar self-esteem ratings (the average between them only differed by 1 point). Jamaican racial identity exists on a continuum. Some individuals forge a whole, complete identity somewhere between Black and White and that they should not be confused for those who fail to forge one due to psychological scars from slavery. The key to fixing the latter group is through education. People must be taught that it is alright to exist anywhere upon that continuum.

Social Mobility in China- Francis L.K. Hsu

Hsu, Francis L.K.

1949    Social Mobility in China. American Sociological Review 14(6): 764-771.

            This is my attempt to catch up because I’m behind; I chose a short article for this week.

I must say I enjoy Hsu. He is to the point, while still being interesting to read. So without further ado…

            He starts out by clearly stating the purpose of his paper. It “…is to show that the Yin privilege notwithstanding, there is substantial evidence …that a fairly high degree of social mobility existed in Chinese society during the last thousand years” (764). The Yin privilege is where the son of an official gets a leg up into a bureaucratic position and skips the civil service exams that everyone else is subjected to.

            What Hsu did was take the district histories from 4 major districts. These histories are a sort of “Who’s Who” for a given district. They contain biographies of those from the district that have attained some level of prominence. Some were written relatively recently, while some where began hundreds of years ago. The older ones have been copied and edited several times over adding new material and new bios. Many men had their own bios, but a large number of people were famous enough to be mentioned in another man’s bio.

            Hsu analyzed and arranged the data in the records to see how many only mentioned the famous guy, and how many also mentioned relatives. In those that mention relatives, he examined how far back they go, generationally, to see how long that family was famous for. He was attempting to see how many ‘self-made men’ there were vs. those that got help from family. He considered it “continued prominence” if the grandfather and grandson were mentioned, but the father was not. If two generations were unsuccessful, it was not considered continued.

            He also took a look at the avenues to fame that were mentioned. There were four; becoming a bureaucrat, having an imperial degree, being an all-around awesome dude (upholding Confucian or other ethics), wealth through commerce, and lastly being a great artist, poet, writer or having extensive knowledge of sacred texts.

            He found that prominence that continued was less common that a self-made man. And of those where prominence continued, it was overwhelmingly only for two generations.

            In perfect Hsu style; “To sum up…With specifically defined criteria for the term prominence and a particular set of documentary material, it has been demonstrated that roughly 50 per cent of the local prominents in any district studied came from unknown origin and that roughly 80 per cent of the descendants beyond the grandson generation of the local prominents became unknown” (769).

            He also found that prominence due to bureaucracy was more likely to be inherited as compared to the other methods of success. Additionally, the path to success was narrow. Out of all the ways mentioned, the most widely cited was bureaucracy, while success due to commerce was only mentioned once out of the thousands of entries.

            Hsu concludes this article by discussing how his findings here jive with a few other studies done; one by himself, and another by a different scientist. They also match what he has witnessed personally during his life.

Religion as a Cultural System

Clifford Geertz – Religion as a Cultural System

Religion as a Cultural System. In: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Geertz, Clifford pp. 87-125. Fontana Press 1993.

            Despite the copyright for this being in the 90s, this essay of Geertz’ was written in the 1960s.

            Let me preface my summary of this article by saying that this is actually the second time I’ve read it. I still had just as much difficulty comprehending it, digesting it, and making my way through this as I did the first time. If life were a video game, I would have leveled up upon completing it. My intelligence stats would increase. That is not to say that it was not interesting or enlightening, and I actually enjoyed it more and gleaned more from it by rereading it and forcing myself to take meticulous notes.

            Geertz begins his essay by commenting on the fact that anthropologists had not created any new theories since World War II, and additionally, the theories that were in use at the time came from a limited source. He lists Durkheim, Weber, Freud and Malinowski as being the big names in thought at the time. He laments the fact that no one was looking to other fields to gain a cross-disciplinary view. He calls for a widening of theories as well as greater precision in our definitions. This, however, is not the topic of his essay. Geertz lays down his definition of what a religion is. It is as follows:

“A religion is: a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic” (90).

            He then spends the next twenty-odd pages explaining exactly, and in near excruciating detail, what he exactly means by that. He breaks up his definition into nice little sections and explains it bit by bit.

1)      “a system of symbols which acts to…”

He says that a system of symbols is merely something that conveys meaning. It is a physical, tangible object or act that signifies an abstract notion, feeling or idea.  He explains that culture patterns are unique in the world in that they are a model for and a model of the society that they come from. They are “society writ large” as the saying goes, AND they dictate how the society came to be as it is in the first place.

2)      “to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by…”

Religious activity creates or induces moods and motivations. A motivation is a longstanding characteristic of a person. Like a personality trait. Geertz says that they are NOT acts or behaviors, but it is the liability that a person will do certain things. A mood is a fleeting emotion. The difference between the two “is that motivations are “made meaningful” with reference to the conditions from which they are conceived to spring” (97). In other words, motivations cause you to do things, while things that happen to you create moods.

3)      “…by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and…”

Religion affirms that the world has an order and a sense. Humans have a difficult time coping with “a threat to our powers of conception, a suggestion that our ability to create, grasp, and use symbols may fail us” (99).  Basically, humanity got to where we are through our clever use of symbols. Without that, we are screwed. Humanity can cope with nearly everything, except chaos. Confusion, suffering and ethical paradox are problems in the world that we often times turn to religion to explain and make ok.

Confusing things, things that just don’t add up make us uncomfortable. We use religion to explain things, and when ones religion fails to account for bigger questions over a period of time, people may begin to lose faith.

 “As a religious problem, the problem of suffering is, paradoxically, not how to avoid suffering, but how to suffer, how to make of physical pain, personal loss, worldly defeat, or the helpless contemplation of others’ agony something bearable, supportable” (104). Faith gives suffering a context and a meaning. It makes the unbearable bearable.

Evil, which is often blamed for the suffering in the world, must also be accounted for. This typically occurs through the creation myth. The creation myth explains the state of the world. Religion also typically lays down a moral code, which details what must be done to avoid evil.

Religion also gives a meaning to the chaos. The old adage ‘Everything happens for a reason’ and ‘God works in mysterious ways’ spring to mind.

4)      “…and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that…”

Geertz raises the question of what it means to believe, and how do people come to that belief. He says that the aspect of belief had long been relegated to psychology and largely ignored by anthropologists. “But the problem will not go away¸ it is not “merely” psychological (nothing social is), and no anthropological theory of religion which fails to attack it is worthy of a name” (109). And so he tackles it.

Geertz says that it all begins with “a prior acceptance of authority” (109). The pain, suffering and confusion we discussed earlier are driving factors, but they are not the basis for faith. We accept authority and listen to what that source has to say to find out how and who to worship. Examples of this authority would be the Bible, a Pastor, a Shaman, or any kind of clergy person.

He then begins to explain the religious perspective. He contrasts it with other perspectives such as scientific, aesthetic and common-sense. Basically he is saying that the religious mode is what people are in the heart of the ritual, and the common-sense is what most live their daily lives in. He says that rituals are what induce and reinforce the moods and motivations.

Ritual both creates and displays the faith, and the moods and motivations that it inspires. Geertz details the Rangda and Barong tale of Bali. In a nutshell, Rangda is an evil, terrifying witch and Barong is kind of a silly dog/dragon creature. They do battle in the form of a ceremony where a man plays Rangda, and two men play Barong. He says that he has seen those playing Rangda kind of go crazy with her spirit and literally run amok to the point where they must be restrained by several others. Rangda and Barong do switch it up a little, sometimes she acts a little silly while Barong acts menacing. It is a town wide ritual and most of the town gets involved either by playing another minor witch, or by becoming entranced by her. Others get involved by caring for the entranced, or in the case of the Preists, they sprinkle those who become comatose after their trance with holy water to wake them.

The drama always ends in a draw, with Rangda fleeing. He says that the two main themes, fear and farce, and two of the main motivations and moods that pervade Bali. The fight between Rangda and Barong never end. The drama displays the beliefs and creates or justifies them. People see others becoming entranced from the spirit of Rangda, therefore it is real.

5)      “…that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”

We live in the common world, and not constantly in the religious/symbolic world. Geertz says that the shifting itself is quite interesting, despite also being ignored by anthropologists. The mode that a person is in during the middle of a ceremony is not the same mode that they are in the next day while eating lunch. During the religious act, it is as though they are in a different world. He says that the failure to realize this has caused some issues with theories. Levy-Bruhl only acknowledged the religious perspective and said that ‘primitive’ peoples live in a mystical world of spirits. Malinowski on the other hand, only dealt with the common-sense perspective, and said that their religious beliefs were practical actions that served a completely common function. They both failed to see that people use different perspectives at different times.

Religion can bend reality a bit. A Bororo man says that he is a parakeet, he is not saying that he is literally a winged creature. He means it in the mythical sense, and it is no less true for him. “In the religious, our Bororo is “really” a “parakeet,” and given the proper ritual context might well “mate” with other “parakeets” – with metaphysical ones like himself…” (121). In the common world, he is only a parakeet in the sense that his clan identifies with the parakeet as their totem. In the religious sense, he IS a parakeet, and must follow what it means to be one.

Experiences in the religious realm usually have an important impact upon the person in the common realm. This is what shapes the character and personality of a culture. He does acknowledge that a group is not uniformly affected by this. It exists in each person a little differently, and varies greatly cross-culturally.

He concludes by discussing the importance of religion to anthropologists, especially in that it is both a model for and a model of a society and it gives insight into the moods and motivations.

It also acts as a kind of schema from which to place events into a context and make sense of them. It gives a background from which to react to things.

Geertz says that studying a religion is a two part attack. First you must analyze the symbols and decipher the system of meaning. Then you must see how these relate to the social structure and the psychology of the people. He mentions that we have done the second part decently, but that we are slacking on the first stage.

Oh Geertz. Such a critical man. Kind of tough to read. But I'm very glad I did. I think I just might read another of his for my next entry.

BTW: OMG I'M SUCH A SLACKER!!!! I'M SO BEHIND. I missed a few weeks. I've been busy. Not that anyone is actually reading this. I still feel bad.