Power, Hegemony and Racial Ideology Pre and Post

Emancipation

1

Whitney Dunlap-Fowler

5.21.13

“There is a subtle trap laid for us by words whose forms do not alter over time, for we tend to ascribe to

them with no hesitation the identity of a fixed meaning”(Guillaumin, 1995, p.37).

The visible, recognizable construction of Hegemony and Ideology can be

abstract and seemingly ambiguous at times. Understanding power, how it works

and who can attain it are all key factors necessary for understanding how

hegemonic practices are formed especially as it pertains to dominant and

subordinate groups and specifically as it was assumed in slave societies. In

evaluating these concepts, I hope to explore the conceptions of race and

racial ideology as well as the meanings associated with blackness and how

they have contributed overtime to an assumption of power by dominant groups.

Furthermore, I hope to explore how racial and cultural ideologies have

assisted with the development of hegemony both pre and post emancipation. I

will begin by presenting a detailed literature review of theories on racial

ideology and cultural hegemony. The review will also include concepts of

power and group formation and highlight the functions of dominant and

subordinate groups in society. Finally, I will review and summarize several

modes of domination and provide evidence from texts covering slave societies

both pre and post emancipation which exemplify these themes of dominations.

2

For the sake of this study, we will use Steven Lukes (2005) definition of

power. Although in Power: A Radical View, he examines three conceptual models of

power we will only focus on the first two. The first model, the one-

dimensional view, also known as the pluralist view, uses the work of Robert

Dahl as a foundation to define the concept of power: “Dahl describes his

‘intuitive idea of power’ as ‘something like this: A has power over B to the

extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’” (p.

16). In the two-dimensional view, the same Dahlian definition of power

applies, however the reach of that definition is slightly more extended.

Here, while power is still seen as A’s ability to get B do something that B

would not normally do, it is also determined by A’s ability to prevent or

limit the scope of B’s interaction and inclusion in the political processes

available for B to participate in (Lukes, 2005). Essentially, unlike the

one-dimensional view, this second model includes the possible creation of

activities and practices, consciously or unconsciously formed, designed to

limit B’s decision making abilities to the benefit of only A’s preferences

and interests (Lukes, 2005).

Racial Construction

Baker (1984) also goes into a detailed evaluation of race in the United

States. Racism, he states is a “situation where one group, believing its

somatic (including color) characteristics superior to those of another

3

group, accepts and uses these differences to justify the use of power to

dominate over, discriminate against and/or in other ways exploit or deny

equal treatment or opportunities to the group it regards as inferior” which

leads to the domination and exploitation of non-white groups (Baker, 1984 p.

64). Baker (1984) highlights the negative viewpoints of English settlers

with regard to people of color, specifically Native Americans and Blacks as

he states that they were viewed as savages and inferior people. For Native

Americans, unlike Blacks, their skin color was not a determinant for their

social position in society as Whites based the group’s inferiority instead

on their culture as Native Americans were seen as being the closest to Whites

(Baker, 1984). In the early seventeenth century, the concepts of color and

culture still existed separately (Baker, 1984). Baker (1984) notes how the

differences between Negros and Whites originally included religion, color

and culture of which he states that the initial “religious difference was

initially of greater importance than color” (p. 65). By the late seventeenth

century however, the emphasis on the words ‘Negro’ and ‘African” was reduced

as slaves were now labeled as ‘blacks’ and their conquerors, previously

self-identified as Christians, now labeled themselves as ‘English’ and

‘White’ (Baker, 1984 p. 65). Therefore, there was a transition between the

use of the words “Christian” and “Negro” to, after slavery was instituted,

the use of the words “white” and black” (Baker, 1984, p.65). By the late

seventeenth century, the color black “elicited negative images and overtones

4

of subhuman beings who were, among other things, considered ‘brutish’ and

bestial’” (Baker, 1984 p. 65). Soon, savageness was thought to be a trait

that was inherited by Blacks and Native Americas and thereby immutable and

inherently locked in to their dismal fates (Baker, 1984).

In his evaluation of racist ideology, Guillaumin (1995) also notes the use

and significance of words and labels as he states that when using words

repeatedly, an observable phenomenon occurs in which “signifieds diverge

beneath a common signifier” and overtime there is a minimal core sense that

remains constant from one period to another (Guillaumin, 1995, p.37). The

remaining core sense that lasts throughout the time period tends to “be

regarded as a guarantee of the whole of the meaning” which is the case of

“race” (Guillaumin, 1995, p.38). Originally, the definition of race amounted

only to a description of a group of people from the same family lineage and

did not have any biological references attached to it. The 20th century

definition of race however includes notions of “heredity” and “physical

characteristics’ that represent “variations within the species” and people

with “similar characteristics deriving from a common past” (Guillaumin,

1995, p.40). He notes that due to the “contamination by the modern meaning”

that it is almost impossible for most to imagine the definition of race

without thinking of any biological traits attached to it (Guillaumin, 1995

p. 41). Guillaumin (1995) demonstrates this by providing 18th century

5

definitions of pre-selected words and comparing them to their 20th century

definitions. In all instances, the 18th century definitions of Arabs, yellow

(skinned people), Jews, and Israelites had no biophysical indicators listed

in their descriptions as, for example, an Arab was listed as one who “is

from Arabia…who demands his due with extreme harshness” while a Jew was

described as “one who professes Judaism…who makes usurious loans or sells at

too high a price…very rich” (Guillaumin , 1995, p 45-46). It is actually not

until the 18th century description of the “negro” that color was listed as a

physical characteristic stating that a Negro was a “black slave employed in

colonial work. Treated like a negro, very harshly”(Guillaumin, 1995, p.46).

The use of color here Guillaumin (1995) states, is secondary as in this

definition, the word black “is the qualifier, not the determinant” which is

the word “slave” (p. 47). In todays 20th century definition of the word

“negro,” (which lists not only color but also physical characteristics such

as “wiry hair, snub, splayed nose, fat lips”), now means that one is no

longer a slave but is in fact a Black person; A negro is black, a group of

negros are black, therefore blackness becomes synonymous to a race of people

who are Black (Guillaumin, 1995). Furthermore, Guillaumin’s comparative

definition of Black from then and now reveals that in the 18th century, the

word Black was only seen as in opposition to whiteness whereas the 20th

century definition defines an entire group or race of people. Guillaumin’s

(1995) larger point is that although the meanings associated with these

6

terms have changed overtime, there was little to no outrage or notice to

these metamorphosis within the entire semantic field; this, he would argue,

is the surreptitious process of hegemony and ideology creation.

Racial Hegemony

With regard to hegemony formulation, in Howard Winant’s (1994) Hegemony &

Racial Formation, he highlights the inner-workings of racial formation theory.

Developed as a response to post war understandings of race, the theory looks

at race as a “phenomenon whose meaning is contested throughout social life”

whereas race is “both a constituent of the individual psyche and of

relationships among individuals, and an irreducible component of collective

identities and social structures” (Winant, 1994 p. 23). Like many scholars,

Winant (1994) contends that race is in fact socially and historically

constructed therefore making the process of “racial signification”

inherently discursive, variable, conflictual and contested (p. 24). The

formation of race, Winant (1994) states, stems from “elites, popular

movements, state agencies, cultural and religious organizations, and

intellectuals of all types” who develop racial projects (defined as

simultaneous interpretations, representations, or explanations of racial

dynamics with an effort to organize and distribute resources along

particular racial lines) that “interpret and reinterpret the meaning of

race”(p. 24). Racial projects act as discursive and cultural initiatives

7

attempting to racially signify on one hand and politically mobilize and

redistribute resources on the other (Winant, 1994). They draw on phenomena

that are objective or institutional and those that are subjective and

experiential (Winant, 1994). The sources of these projects, as indicated by

racial formation theory can be located in “the manipulation and

rearticulation of racial identities by their bearers, in the enunciation and

transformation of racial ‘common sense,’ and in the various subversive,

evasive, or parodic forms of racial opposition that closely resemble other

forms of subordinated and postcolonial resistance” (Winant, 1994 p. 24).

Racial hegemony, Winant (1994) was created in place of racial domination and

explicit segregationist policies. Winant (1994) notes that hegemony “gains

entrance into the ‘halls of power’ and is co-opted, ‘crosses over’ into

mainstream culture and is deprived of its critical content” (p. 29). Racial

hegemony is therefore a reincarnation of racial domination and subordination

in the form of racial projects pushed forth by government entities,

conglomerates, media organizations and culture makers (Winant, 1994). Winant

(1994) highlights racial hegemony as it pertains to politics specifically

through examining the ways of the far right and far left. With an emphasis

on the far right’s desire to continue with the subordinated conditions of

blacks throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Winant (1994) states that those

belonging to conservative groups tended to use racial terms to talk about

8

class issues which had far reaching implications as racial minority statuses

in the United States still serve as negative markers in the class formation

process because “dark skin still correlates with poverty” (Winant, 1994).

Overall, Winant (1994) believes that class position is racially assigned in

the US and that racial hegemony is being reconstituted as overall hegemony

which is ultimately controlled by on group.

Hegemony and its function within the creation of cultural and racial

ideologies and their role in ascribing group dominance or submission will

comprise the next section of analysis beginning with the viewpoints of Leo

Kuper.

Hegemony and Cultural Ideology

Through his exploration of cultural ideologies, Leo Kuper (1974) states that

ideologies of cultural difference “provide legitimation for domination and

justify racial discrimination” (p. 16). Kuper provides several examples in

which he highlights particular categories from which, according to him,

“justified” domination took place within. Beginning with the category of

politics, Kuper (1974) states that in “colonial and white settler societies”

the mission to colonize and therefore “civilize” other lands legitimized the

“monopoly of political power, exclusion from the vote” and the democratic

system ( p. 16). Economically speaking, cultural ideologies justified

“forced labor, migrant labor, low wages, exclusion from skilled labor and

9

discrimination in stipends for ministers” (Kuper, 1974 p. 16). Within living

conditions Kuper (1974) states that cultural ideologies “justified

segregation, the provision of rudimentary housing for members to the subject

race and extreme racial discrimination in amenities” (p. 16). Finally, he

ends with the categories of human freedom and religion where he states that

perceived notions of cultural inferiority justified “slavery, restraints on

freedom of movement, dual standards of justice…harsh physical punishment…

genocide, pogroms…serfdom and innumerable milder forms of hostility,

oppression and discrimination” (Kuper, 1975, p. 16).

Kuper (1975) also believed that dehumanization of a subordinate race was

also justified through ideologies of cultural difference. The most popular

form of dehumanization involved the linking of a race to animals, demons or

objects or the subordination to objects (Kuper, 1974). With regard to

chattel slavery, Kuper (1974) highlights what he calls the process of

“zombification” which, according to Haitian myth, equates to “a person from

whom one has stolen spirit and reason, and to whom is left only the force of

work” (Kuper, 1974 p. 14). Concepts of dehumanization were commonly used to

rationalize certain acts of discrimination, exclusion and denigration as

well as overcrowding and other manifestations of poverty (Kuper, 1974).

Other ideologies were created through popular theories such as evolutionism

which distinguished dominant and subordinate races at different levels in

10

which differences in learning capacity, culture and roles were used to

define each level often in favor of the dominant race (Kuper, 1974). Kuper

(1974) also challenges the prevailing narrative put forth mostly by Western

Educated scholars who label the subordinate race as eventually accepting

their designated positions in society as declared by the dominant race. He

contends that such generalizations were “based on research, limited in scope

and not highly sensitive to the indications of covert resistance” (p. 20).

In the chapter “On the Theme ‘Black is Beautiful’”, Kuper (1974) evaluates

the effects of colonization and forced adaptation of dominant cultural

ideologies by Blacks by focusing on the Black Power movement in the United

States. Huey Newton, a famous leader of the 1970’s radical group the Black

Panthers advocated for the trend of “redefinition” and urged Blacks to

define things themselves and go against the expectations of whites who

historically took this role and designated meanings to and on behalf of

Blacks (Kuper, 1974). The Black Power movement then was a deliberate act of

giving Blacks the right to define things from a Black perspective in order

to defy the categorization placed on them by Whites as “the right to define

implies the power to originate perspectives, to determine the issues and to

establish the field of confrontation” (Kuper, 1974 p. 84). Kuper (1974) uses

the work of Rene Depestre to as a reference on the idea of the colonization

of the mind as Despestre states that “one of the principal consequences of

11

colonial domination is the depersonalization of human beings” as by doing so

the colonizer “declares that colonized is not only inferior, but an object,

and his function is reduced to that of an object” (p. 88). The process of

cultural assimilation Kuper (1974) states, “renders the colonized hostile to

himself” with the consequences of such a mindset being feelings of

unworthiness and devaluation of the self (p.89). Slavery, for Depestre is a

more intense version of zombification as he identifies it as an “anti-

identity” and an accelerated form of depersonalization (Kuper, 1974 p. 89).

In sum, the process of reification and assimilation “implies the total loss

of identity, the psychological annihilation of being, a generalized

zombification”(Kuper, 1974 p.89). Subordinates are commonly forced to

comply with the process of mind colonization and undergo a process that

reinforces the denigration of their own race, the idealization of the

culture of the dominant group and the justification of dominant rule (Kuper,

1974).

Group relations (dominant vs. subordinate)

In Race Ethnicity and Power, Donald Baker (1983) examines notions of power and

domination in the 18th and 19th century by English settlers and people of

English decent. Specifically he explores the race and ethnic relations in 6

English settler or “Anglo fragmented” countries: The Unites States, Canada,

Austrailia, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia (Baker, 1983, p. 1). In

12

outlining the functionings of group identity, Baker (1983) states that the

characteristics that are assigned in group settings are attributive, meaning

that individuals and groups tend to define themselves (and are defined by

others) in terms of real or imagined characteristics such as color, physical

features, language, values, and biological and genetic traits all of which

should only be regarded as psychological processes. Competition, he states,

creates an exacerbation of these characteristics from which groups

differentiate “we” from “they” and assign positive values to themselves and

negative attributes to opposing groups (Baker, 1983). This polarization

process only is intensified through the perceived increase of threats from

either group (Baker, 1983). As noted by Kuper (1974) Baker contends that

dominant groups, will often place negative qualities on subordinate groups

and do so as a means for rationalization of domination and exploitation

(Baker, 1983). For Baker (1983), power is a primary determinant of group

relations as all groups, dominant or subordinate strive for control over the

major political, economic and social structures of society for “it is in

within these structures that power, privilege and resources are determined”

a factor that Winant (1994) would likely agree with regard to the creation

of racial hegemony (Baker, 1983 p. 25).

Guillaumin’s (1995) breakdown on groups schematics is a bit different as he

explains how the development of the “self” and “other’ paradigm helped

13

contribute to the consecration of the new meanings of race and racial

development which Baker (1983) slightly covers in his definition of group

identity formation. For Guillaumin (1995) The “auto-referential system” he

states, is centered on the self in which “all social relations between

groups are governed by the definition which those who institutionally

control power give of themselves” as they remain fixed on their own

existence which “regulates the course and the symbolism of social activity”

(Guillaumin, 1995, p. 50). In this system, value is derived from the

characteristics that are specific to the dominant group which makes the

assertion “we are different”(Guillaumin, 1995, p. 51). In the Altero-

referential system however, the focus is centered on the “other” as the

people in these societies have “no spontaneous awareness” of themselves and

“no sense of belonging to a specific group, so the group is….never referred

to as a group” (Guillaumin, 1995 p. 50). This can be seen through the

labeling of groups as Jewish or Black but not Christian or White as “being

White [or] Christian…goes without saying” (Guillaumin, 1995, p. 51).

Guillaumin (1995) states that the social discourse that has developed

overtime is no longer from the standpoint of the dominant sense of Self, but

rather towards a dominated Other which has now become the regulator deprived

of power and reduced to that of an object, instead of the producer of social

discourse. In the Altero-referential system, the assertion is made that “the

14

Others are different” as, “Race,” he states, “is no longer associated with

power, but with lack of power” (Guillaumin, 1995 p. 51).

I have now provided a thorough literature review on conceptions of race,

racial and cultural ideology, hegemony as a result of those ideologies and

the power that comes along with hegemonic ideals for the groups that these

ideologies favor. While Kuper (1983) , Guillaumin (1995) and Winant (1994)

have spoken to some degree about measures ensued by settler groups to

dominate their captives, it is necessary to have a complete, comprehensive

list of domination techniques employed in these settings in order to better

understand the implications of the power differences pre and post

emancipation. To do this, I will utilize Baker’s comprehensive breakdown of

domination and apply it to the implications of power in slave society

sections below.

Modes of Domination

Baker’s (1983) detailed list of the characteristics of several types of

dominance begins with “military and coercive dominance” typically

characterized by the strength of the military force of settler groups (p.

30). This type of dominance often took on the same pattern especially in

civilizations where indigenous groups outnumbered settlers whereas, in cases

of conflict, settlers would strategically join with indigenous allies who

would assist the settlers in their takeover/trade missions (1983). Often,

15

once the indigenous tribes were subdued and seemingly at peace with their

new situations, the settlers would rely on coercive, structural and

psychosocial means to maintain control as Baker(1983) states “defeated

groups were deprived of their weapons, their leaders or potential leaders

were removed or imprisoned; and subordinate economic and political systems

were destroyed by dispossessing the people of their land and cattle or by

isolating them on reserves where close military surveillance curtailed

organizational efforts and possible uprisings” (Baker, 1983 p. 30). The

establishment of dominance in this way often created a dependency for

subordinate groups as once the indigenous tribes’ economic system were

destroyed, their sources of food, work and other essentials for survival

would remain in the hands of the dominant groups (Baker, 1983). ‘Structural

dominance”, as described by Baker, (1983) takes several forms: economic

domination and social domination (which is comprised of additional

configurations). In an industrialized economy, resources can be restricted

to subordinate groups by the dominant group through land deprivation,

limited access to education, job or work opportunity restrictions, wage

scales to minimalize worker competitiveness and prohibition of worker

organization to ensure that lack of competition between workers and working

positions (Baker, 1983). By limiting and prohibiting all of these factors,

the dominant society is able to keep the labor skills of subordinates at an

unskilled/semi-skilled level so that they can control the economic power of

16

the subordinate groups especially when there is a surplus labor population

(Baker, 1983).

The second form, social dominance is also comprised of many phases.

Culturally speaking, Baker (1983) describes the process of monoculturalism

and multiculturalism whereas the latter is a process in which the “dominant

group accepts diversity as a principle or tolerates its presence because it

has insignificant power to eliminate other cultural forms” (p. 32).

Monoculturalism on the other hand is implemented when the “dominant group

seeks to eliminate subordinate group cultures and loyalties through the

imposition of a national culture which is normally that of the dominant

group” (Baker, 1983, p. 32). Additional ways in which subordinated groups

can suffer include the dominant group’s insistence on the lesser group to

shed its cultural characteristics (Baker, 1983). When characteristics, such

as skin color or eye color, cannot be removed or adjusted groups, such as

Whites, will instill the belief of inherent inferiority of the subordinate

groups (Baker, 1983). While in most situations, access to education by the

subordinate groups is limited, it can also be used to teach those groups the

debased condition of themselves and/or destroy their cultural ways of being

(Baker, 1984). Baker (1983) explains the process of political structural

domination which can occur in 4 distinct ways, the first being the

subordinate’s denied direct participation within the political process. This

17

form of dominance is more often found in slave societies where the “dominant

group has complete control and determines what is best for the subordinate

group” (Baker, 1984, p. 34). There is also the possibility of indirect

representation where subordinate groups can select a person or group of

persons from their own group or the dominant group to represent them and

present their cause or plea (Baker, 1984). The third form occurs when the

subordinate group has access to the public sphere but the requirements to

participate (such as education and financial assets) are so restrictive that

often access to the political process is limited for minority groups (Baker,

1984). The last form involves the full participation of the dominated group

into the political process however, because they are already a minority they

can only elect a few members to serve as they tend to be virtually powerless

in the face of legislative procedures (Baker, 1984). Baker (1984) highlights

the fact that due to their lack of power, subordinate groups can do little

to influence or protest against their conditions as their leaders can be

banned or incarcerated.

The final form of dominance Baker (1984) mentions is that of the

psychosocial nature in which he explains the functioning of 3 specific

categories: Compliance, dependency and thought control. With regard to the

first category, Baker(1984) states that typically a pleasure/pain principal

is applied through the use of “(a) deprivation, denial and punishment or of

18

(b) relief opportunities and the absence of pain and deprivation” whereas

the “immediate consequences of the dominant group are more readily

recognizable” than any other long-term rewards or effects (p. 35). Sometimes

to prevent disgruntlement dominant groups will reward or “buy off”

subordinate groups by granting the subordinate groups minor concessions or

privileges (Baker, 1984). Dependency is tied in with coping as Baker states

that often the subordinate groups’ inability to cope with their changing

situations make them vulnerable adopting the culture of their dominators as

they often have to rely on them for food, land, cattle etc (Baker, 1984).

This can also be demonstrated in other ways in which the internal coping of

the subordinate groups is so inconceivable that they rescind and ask their

dominant group members for guidance and leadership (Baker, 1984). The result

of the subordinates’ inability to cope can also take the form of

psychosocial disorganization where individuals or groups experience “high

levels of alienation, mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction and

divorce” among other factors (Baker, 1984 p. 37). Finally, suicide and

members of subordinate groups losing the will to live is the ultimate last

solution for those who cannot cope or adapt to their new situations (Baker,

1984). The last category of psychosocial dominance, thought control is also

known as “deculturation”, “brain-washing” and “emanation” as the main motive

of this type of dominance is to replace the culture and identity of

subordinate groups with that of the dominant groups (Baker, 1984). This

19

often results in the “denial of the subordinate’s separate identity…the

inculcation within the subordinate of a belief that his own culture and

identity were inferior to that of the superordinate…and…the acceptance by

the subordinate of the identity and values of the superordinate” (Baker,

1984 p. 37). In quoting Fanon (1970: 137) Baker (1984) states that a

consequence of such a process results in the slave enslaving himself by

accepting these notions and beliefs about his own inferiority (Baker, 1984).

The use of psychosocial dominance results in a decreased need for the

dominators to have to use coercive rewards or powers to control their

subordinates as they will tend to control themselves based on the

internalization of dominant norms and ideology that is often put upon them

(Baker, 1984).

Now that I have provided a summation of types of domination, I will explore

the works of three scholars in which these forms of domination can be seen

in active utilization within the works of Diana Paton, Saidiya Hartman and

Kalil Muhammad.

Hegemony, Domination and Power in Practice

In Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery and Self-making in Nineteenth-Century America, Saidyiah

Hartman (1997) explores violence and power and how it was executed in the

19th century. Specifically, she analyzes the effects of emancipation and the

“new forms of bondage” created through “proprietorial notions of the self,

20

and the pedagogical and legislative efforts aimed at transforming the

formerly enslaved into rational acquisitive, and responsible individuals”

(Hartman, 1997 p.6). Her intention is to explore the encroachments of power

that take place within the guise of reform, consent and protection (Hartman,

1997 p. 5).

In the chapter “fashioning obligation: indebted servitude and the fetters of

slavery” Hartman (1997) explores the obligatory restraints put upon newly

emancipated slaves through activation of their consciousness. She explains

how the burden of consciousness was put upon emancipated slaves in order to

facilitate a decree of required self-discipline which subsequently served to

“engender resentment toward and justify the punishment of those who fell

below ‘the threshold of responsibility’ or failed to achieve the requisite

degree of self-control” (Hartman, 1997 p. 126). This created a society of

freedmen who actively participated in community-policing measures as put

upon them by the dominant class as self-discipline and active labor

participation became qualifiers to prove them worthy of the lives lost for

their freedom. The obligation to prove themselves worth for many former

slaves translated to them being locked in an inescapable. This debt, tied

with blame constituted a “moral economy of submission and servitude and was

instrumental in the production of peonage” as it “operated to bind the

subject by compounding the service owed, augmenting the deficit through

21

interest accrued and advancing credit that extended interminably the

obligation of service” (Hartman, 1997, p. 131).

In an effort to facilitate the emancipation process, handbooks marketed

toward freedmen stipulated the need for servility and submission which were

required in order to enjoy the privileges of freedom (Hartman, 1997).

Hartman states how ex-slaves were taught that they should “joyfully” bend

their backs, “put their trust in God”, have low expectations and anticipate

as well as endure many unforeseen burdens ahead (p. 135). Failure to do so

“risked loss of honor, status, and manhood” as only “industry, diligence,

and a willingness to work, even at low wages proved one’s worthiness for

freedom” (Hartman, 1997 p, 135). Additionally, as the willingness to

continue within the labor force was for the former slave, an implication of

worthiness of freedom, so was it an indication of the degree of his faith

(Hartman, 1997). Statements like “if you don’t work, you can’t pray; for

don’t the Lord Jehovah say if we regard sin in our hearts, he won’t hear

us?” and “idleness was the ‘devils playground’” helped to transform rules of

conduct into articles of faith and provide motivation and cause for Blacks

to remain in the workforce.

Fears of slave idleness coupled with their inability to motivate themselves

to remain active participants within the labor force brought about methods

of coercion by Whites. In order to calm fears and implant a rational work

22

ethic in former slaves the process of inculcating “an acquisitive and self-

interested ethic that would motivate the formerly enslaved to be dutiful and

productive laborers” ensued with the help of freemen schools, religious

instructors, teachers, missionaries and plantation managers (Hartman, 1997

p. 128). Although manuals and handbooks were created to help outline the

appropriate, acceptable behaviors of freedmen, violence was still very much

a part of the equation as the free, autonomous ideals presented in the texts

did not necessarily reflect the true nature of the coerced labor environment

of former slaves (Hartman 1997).

After emancipation, the whip, states Hartman (1997), was never displaced. It

was in fact internalized and utilized to ensure the moral self-fashioning of

the rational subject (Hartman, 1997). By inflating the assessment of the

will, idealizing the privilege of choice and exalting liberty, in Freedmen’s

handbooks, the violence of such an exchange was accordingly masked. Ideals

of necessity were masked to former slaves in the form of rational choice in

order to provide the illusion of free will and consent. In one example from

Friendly Counsels, freedom is written as something that “acts on the mind” which

“obliges you to make a livelihood” (Hartman, 1997 p. 142). The writers then

advise the intended readers to look for work and support themselves and

their families stating that “freed people have to work, and some of them

have to work very hard even to get their bread. Some of the free colored

23

people have…a comfortable livelihood and made themselves respectable. You

can do the same, if you will the same diligence” (Hartman, 1997). Necessity,

rather than the whip, states Hartman (1997), was what compelled the black

laborer as even planters were assured that ex-slaves would soon know the

extent of their actual conditions and understand that their livelihood

depended on their willingness to conform to the standards of living expected

of them.

In the end, Hartman (1997) notes, it was the lack of available resources

that would return emancipated slaves back to the coerced labor conditions of

the plantations they sought to escape from as the “gifts of emancipation”

came in the form of hunger, withheld reparations, the failure of laws to

protect black lives and rampant white violence (p. 136). The coerced labor

conditions of ex-slaves were only made worse by laws that were created to

keep them in their subordinate positions. Mississippi Black Codes for

example were implemented with the purpose of intimidating and thereby

preventing Black laborers from leaving their positions as they stated that

if “the laborer shall quit …before the expiration of his term of service

without good cause, he shall forfeit his wages for that year up to the time

of his quitting” (Hartman, 1997 p. 145). Additional laws allowed any white

person or civil officer to arrest black laborers who quit without good cause

or they prevented laborers from signing multiple work contracts as a way to

24

keep wages low and limit employment options (Hartman, 1997). Blacks who

decided not to work, or who were without work contracts, were considered

vagrants who were leading immoral lives and therefore subject to arrest.

Vagrancy laws were soon established to prevent the proliferation of idle

black laborers by fining anyone who was out of work. If they could not pay

the fine, they were hired out to planters or put to work on public roads as

a means to pay off the fines for long periods of time. Hartman(1997) labels

this as involuntary servitude as domination in this sense was backed by the

law.

Hartman’s (1987) piece reflects many of the forms of dominance as noted by

Baker (1983) as the act of adopting dominant culture values, deculturation

and expectations of prolonged dependency on the dominant class for

livelihood were used as persuasive measures to keep newly emancipated Blacks

working in unchangeable, forced conditions. Although Hartman’s piece

slightly touches on the use of imprisonment to keep freedmen in their

subordinate conditions, Diana Paton focuses primarily on physical violence

and its use in correlation with the prison system in Jamaica.

In Diana Paton’s (2004) No Bond But the Law, she provides a chronological

depiction of the creation of the Jamaican Penal system between 1780-1870.

The detailed accounts of physical violencepre and post emancipation are a

major focus in Paton’s (2004) she claims that while emancipation signified a

25

release from slavery, the implementation of the penal system and the

regulations surrounding punishment and imprisonment of freedmen after the

proclamation were in fact still forms of bondage. Paton (2004) begins by

focusing on the use of Jamaican workhouses which initially housed slaves who

disobeyed the law or their masters. In the workhouses slaves were expected

to contribute to the labor needs of the workhouse or fear punishment by way

of flogging or, later, the highly controversial treadmill (Paton, 2004).

Overtime the workhouses would become the answer for all forms of punishment

necessary to keep slaves in line and eventually develop into a sophisticated

prison system (Paton, 2004).

Paton (2004) also explains how the period between slavery and freedom was

not as clearly demarcated as historians have typically alluded to. She uses

her findings to challenge and investigate the dominant historical narratives

which, overtime, have proclaimed an illusory, easy and uneventful transition

from slavery to emancipation (Paton, 2004). Through her findings, Paton

(2004) reveals the true, violent and coercive nature of what is described as

the period of apprenticeship, a concept put into law with the dual purpose

of assisting planters with the new loss of their slaves and slave labor, and

making sure to keep the slaves forcibly locked into the labor system (Paton,

2004). Therefore, it was quite common for newly emancipated apprentices to

find themselves locked in coerced labor situations that were similar to

26

their previous slave conditions (Paton, 2004). With emancipation came the

proliferation of prisons as well as new laws created with the intentions of

legally keeping former slaves controlled by a dominant group, within the

laws and expectations of dominant society. (Paton, 2004).

Paton’s (2004) exploration of race in her text also notes that punishment in

Jamaica only deepened the ideological nature of race as the nascent creation

of prison workhouses would eventually grow to a more modern, deliberate

system of reformation, starting with the separation of white and black

prisoners. As Planters thought of blacks as always, already degraded, they

often received unequal, heavier degrees of punishment when compared to white

prisoners (Paton, 2004). Regulations of who was to receive punishment soon

became based solely on race as she notes an 1842 article promoting the

continued need for flogging which stated that crimes were “confined to one

class of the community, who are the most base and barabarous of a savage

race” (Paton, 2005, p.141). “The black convict,” it stated, possesses “no

other feelings than the physical sensations of the beast; individuals of

this kind ought to be dealt with as brutes are, and flogged into tameness

and submission” (Paton, 2005, p. 141). Prison reformists soon adopted the

idea that the violence exerted on Blacks in the guise of reformation was

unnecessary as “no man can be forced into reformation by the infliction of

physical suffering. The subjection produced by mere force may leave the mind

27

itself full of latent resistance” (Paton, 2004 p.130). The desire to conquer

the mind of a freeman was eventually deemed much more desirable than the

physical harm placed on the body as on reformist stated “the will must be

gained” and once this is gained, the mind is “at once accessible to reason

and persuasion” (Paton, 2004 p.130). Forced solitude and hard labor then

would be the new solution for reformation, something that, due to the

conflicting nature of ideals of reformation did not last long (Paton, 2004).

In Paton’s (2004) evaluation of violence and coercion in Jamaica she

highlights the areas of domination that deal with forced working conditions

and denigration of the subordinate race and to justify violence and abuse

against particular ethnicities. Kalil Muhammad’s piece also focuses on

prisons only moreso on the creation of black criminalization post

emancipation.

Faced with a newly emancipated population of slaves, Kalil Muhammad’s (2010)

The Condemnation of Blackness, highlights the initial anxieties facing Whites as

he quotes Hinton Rowan Helper’s cautious note to the masses: “’negroes’

with their ‘crime –stained blackness’ could not rise to a plan any higher

than that of ‘base and beastlike savagery’” (Muhammad, 2010 p. 17).

Muhammad (2010) also notes that, with the abolition of slavery, the slave

problem became the negro problem as in 1884, Harvard scientist Nathaniel

Shaler wrote on what he described as the “Negro Problem” during the

28

reconstruction period which outlined the grave mistakes his ancestors made

by bringing so many Blacks to America as he labeled them as “too stupid to

see or too careless to consider anything but immediate gains”( Muhammad,

2010 p. 15). Shaler also cautioned that people remain wary of the

“peculiarities of nature which belong to the negroes as a race” because

unlike his own inheritance, “black brains stopped developing sooner, leaving

‘the negroes’ with an animal nature unaltered by the “’fruits of

civilization’” (Muhammad, 2010 p. 17). The results of such a lack of

development, he contended was that Blacks lacked self-restraint with regard

to sexual impulses, they were unable to work together for a common purpose

and had no power to delay immediate gratification and plan for the future

(Muhammad, 2010). Shaler was convinced that although Blacks were charming

and appeared to have a “present Americanized shape” that they were in fact

still very different as he warned that if one were to look at the race more

carefully one would perceive the “inner man is really as singular, as

different in motives from themselves as his outward appearance indicates”

(Muhammad, 2010 p. 18). Shaler’s overall plea to the masses to take a second

look at the idea of reconstruction and to analyze the shift to full

emancipation as one in which Blacks could never fully assimilate into

dominant culture instead of as one that implicated the sins of whites was

one of many similar pleas at the time (Muhammad, 2010). Questions about the

perceived humanity of Blacks and their access to full citizenship were being

29

asked and challenges were being made by various social scientists across the

world who also feared the implications of slavery abolishment (Muhammad,

2010). One main concern was the inherited qualities of blacks which,

scholars like Shaler, stated created inferior beings whose matriculation

into main society could be harmful to American citizens (Muhammad, 2010).

With the use of statistical data from the 1870, 1880 and 1890 US Census

reports, Muhammad (2010) explores how the new negro problem was reflected

within these reports as he notes that these would eventually replace and

reconstruct initial ideas of “racial knowledge that had been dominated by

anecdotal, hereditarian and pseudo-biological theories of race” all of which

had failed to some degree of proving the inferiority of the black race

(Muhammad, 2010 p. 20). These data points would eventually also contribute

to the formation of black criminality along with disease and intelligence as

a key measure of black inferiority. The stigma created from the shift of

provable data to statistical sets reproduced and reinforced Black racial

inferiority as the law for white criminals were upheld less stringently

(Muhammad, 2010). In fact, crime statistics were used to demonstrate the

assimilability of immigrants and the incapability of blacks to do the same

(Muhammad, 2010). The previously ostracized immigrant then, became elevated

in social status when compared to the naturally debased conditions of the

American negro (Muhammad, 2010). Education and religion for Blacks also came

30

into question as the analytical data surrounding Blacks attending church and

school showed a high number of Blacks attending both at an increasing rate

(Muhammad, 2010). However, despite this growth in attendance it did not seem

to deter the rate of crime or illegitimacy and the entire race became

accused of “going backwards” (Muhammad, 2010 p. 52).

Muhammad (2010) also reveals role black elites played in consecrating some

of the ideals gathered from the crime statistics in the 20th century as often

they themselves, having adopted the Victorian means of morality and

respectability, would invoke the language of racial uplift and the “politics

of respectability” to describe black criminality in terms of class and

culture (Muhammad, 2010 p. 10). Faced the possibility of being scrutinized

by whites as naturally biased and sympathetic to members of their own race,

Black elites often had to speak about the bad behaviors of poor blacks and

the need for them to adjust and become better, more productive citizens of

society (Muhammad, 2010). Taking this stand for some provided an opportunity

to enter the political world and possibly obtain more mobility (Muhammad,

2010).

In highlighting the turbulent role of crime and race in Philadelphia in the

early 20th century, Muhammad (2010) provides detailed accounts of racial

discrimination and mistreatment towards Blacks. Black home owners would

often suffer at the hands of their new white neighbors as they were

31

physically attacked, threatened and/or their property was destroyed

(Muhammad, 2010). In one incident, Muhammad remarks an incident that

occurred with Reginald Collender who, after he was attacked, was accused of

assaulting an officer during the attack despite the fact that he owned no

gun and no one had seen him with one. He was ultimately sentenced to serve

two to five years in prison (Muhammad, 2010). It was also very common for

policemen to be a part of the mobs of whites in which they helped disarm

blacks and limit their ability to defend themselves as policemen would

illegally enter their homes with the intent to remove any weapons they might

have (Muhammad, 2010). After doing so, the white policemen would warn Blacks

to stay indoors and that they could not protect them if a mob came to their

homes (Muhammad, 2010). In the end, the criminalization of the black race

was even more evident in Philadelphia due to white reformers’ unwillingness

to apply crime-prevention strategies in black communities, intensified

racial violence with white citizens and police officers and the militant

attitudes of middleclass blacks (Muhammad, 2010). The data, Muhammad (2010)

contends, helped to create a shift from biological notions of difference

which implicated blacks as subordinate due to biological factors, to that of

cultural notions to difference which would eventually lead to the

criminalization of black culture. In short, Muhammad (2010) notes that

“African American criminality became one of the most widely accepted bases

for justifying prejudicial thinking, discriminatory treatment and/or

32

acceptance of racial violence as an instrument of public safety” (Muhammad,

2010 p. 4).

Muhammad’s (2010) condemnation of Blackness brings to life Baker’s (1983)

military mode of domination through his focus on the role of police in the

early 20th century and their relationship with freedmen. Additionally, many

of the previously mentioned domination themes are also highlighted through

the rejection of traditional cultural ideals for that of the dominant

culture and denigration of the subordinate culture.

Conclusion

In analyzing themes of racist ideology, cultural hegemony and modes of power

and applying the works of scholars to these theories I hope to have provided

a clear, comprehensive view on how power was assumed during slavery and even

after emancipation. Further implications of the modes of dominated enforced

in slave times could certainly be examined today with regard to their impact

on the dynamics and functionings of Blacks today. Additionally, it would be

interesting to review how power is exercised today and whether or not it

functions in a different capacity than Bakers’ 1983 model.

33

Baker, Donald G. (1983). Race, ethnicity and power. London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley. Routledge & Kegan.

Guillaumin, C. (1995). Racism, sexism, power and ideology. London, New York,Canada. Routledge.

Hartman, S. V. (1997). Scenes of Subjection; Terror, slavery and self-makingin nineteenth-century America. New York. Oxford University Press.

Kuper, L. (1974). Race, class and power; Ideology and change in plural societies. London. Gerald Duckworth & Company Limited.

Lukes, S. (2005). Power a radical view; Second edition. Palgrave MacMillan.

Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of blackness: Race, crime and the making of modern urban america. London. Harvard University Press.

Paton, D. (2004). No bond but the law; punishment, race and gender in jamaican state formation, 1780-1870. Durham and London. Duke University Press.

Winant H. (1994). Racial conditions; politics theory comparisons. London, Minneapolis. University of Minnesota press.

34