Mark Sanford
(R-South Carolina), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Eliot
Spitzer (D-former NY Attorney General and Governor) and Charles Ramsey. "Flawed"
men according to some, but the first three have publicly begged for forgiveness
and have reclaimed or are trying to reclaim their place in society. Ramsey,
although doing what we typically celebrate as a good deed, cannot be seen as a
hero as his prior acts seem to shadow his current behavior. His past is his
current story. Consider that Sanford was recently reelected after lying about
his extra-marital affair and allegations of stalking his ex-wife. Anthony
Weiner, after publicly acknowledging his personal flaws that led to his
sexting and eventual removal from public office, is now running for mayor of
NY. Eliot Spitzer, who left office after his involvement with a prostitute was
brought to light, is indicating that he will again run for public office. Charles
Ramsey helped to rescue three women who had been abducted and held against
their will for years. But he is abusive. Some might argue that the sins of the
men are different. After all, the three white men “cheated” on their spouses
and as such this is a personal matter that has no implication for how they
conduct their public lives. The larger question I have is how are such
decisions made? Who or what determines that the past should stay in the past
and that some of us can be redeemed and others can not?
The stories of
these men speak to how the intersection of maleness and race functions in
American society. It shows how society determines who is worthy to be
celebrated and who is worthy of forgiveness.
Sanford,
Spitzer, and Weiner, three White men, have come forward and declared their
sins. The public confession of sins and asking for forgiveness appears to have
become a norm in American society in general and particularly so for elected
officials and other public figures.
The model
appears to be:
1. Deny
2. Confess, while
crying or looking forlorn (one has to have the right mix of contrition)
3. Confess sin as a
means of (re)claiming public standing while promising that you know what’s
best for the rest of us and/or that you truly understood why you did what
you did (you have been pained as a result of your actions and have learned from this pain).
While the
actions of these men have stirred conversation about the act of publicly asking for forgiveness, many have not looked at this process through a lens of
race and class. This path to redemption does not seem available to Black men,
regardless of social class. For some reason, Black men are unworthy of
forgiveness. Part of it has to do with which behaviors become “normalized” and
for which populations.
Let’s look,
briefly, at the issue of sex scandals. Tiger Woods cheated on his wife. He like
other men avoided, denied (to some extent), admitted, and asked for
forgiveness. Some refused to forgive him. The sincerity of his apology was
often discussed among media pundits. Yes, he continues to play golf, but his
stature, in the eyes of some, remains tainted. Tom Brady and his “baby mama”
drama has not received the same salacious coverage in comparison to others. He
remains the darling of many. Michael
Vic, who was convicted and served time for running a dog-fighting ring, also
followed the above script. Some argued that he should be hanged for his
transgressions. Ben Roethlisberger, the
quarterback for Pittsburg Steelers, was accused of sexual assault (on more than
one occasion). He remains a darling for many football fans. Spitzer, after
resigning, was offered a gig on CNN, he became an adjunct faculty member at City
College, and he wrote a number of books. Now he’s running for political office
Sanford, as I mentioned earlier was recently reelected. Weiner, after comparing
himself to the likes of Nelson Mandela, has found himself to be clearly ready
to assume political leadership in NY.
Not all sex scandals, and sins, are responded to in the same manner. Some folk are
given pardons and others’ regardless of how they engage the public apology
process seem not to be able to access forgiveness.
The Charles
Ramsey case is slightly different from the other three in the sense that he was
not directly involved in a sex scandal. Charles Ramsey, after helping to rescue
three women who had been kidnapped and held hostage for a decade, cannot access
the narrative of “hero” because he cannot be forgiven for his prior sins. The
media, following the rescue of the women, informed the public of Ramsey’s prior
charges of domestic abuse. It was almost to suggest that this man had no
redeemable qualities, he was not worthy of forgiveness and as such his actions
could not be celebrated (no I'm not condoning inter-partner violence).
Maleness, and its intersection with
whiteness, affords some men access to particular narratives and tropes of
goodness that are not afforded to other men. Discussions on forgiveness and redemption
of Sanford and his colleagues tend to ignore the types of regulative governance that
facilitates who can be redeemed.
As Ronald
Jackson (2006, 51) argues, “American popular culture is fascinated with the
game of charades so much that it is has produced its own complex White
solipsistic versions, one of which centers around the varied iterations of the
racialized body”. Such solipsism results in inscribing the Black male body with
narratives such as sexual excess and violent depravity. This is at the core as to why
Black men are not deemed as redeemable and why mainstream America cannot
celebrate/recognize their current behaviors, regardless of their past. It also explains
why White men, with similar past, can be redeemed. Goodness is inscribed onto
their bodies. Newt Gingrich implicitly used this narrative when he argued that
his philandering was simply the result of his youth and therefore he should be
forgiven. This was a 30 plus year old man who had cheated on his wife. He like
so many of his colleagues make the claim--I made an error, but because I am
intrinsically a good man—read White man—you can trust me regardless of my past.
Beyond the
ideology of white solipsism, the denial of redemption also results from some
not being able to see Black bodies as a site of pain. Trawalter, Hoffman and Waytz,
in their study on racial bias in perceptions of others’ pain, show that “people assume that, relative to Whites, Blacks feel less
pain because they have faced more hardship.” Although they focus on health and
medicine, I argue that their findings are informative for helping to understand
why Black men cannot be redeemed. One must feel pain, emotional pain, in order
to ask for forgiveness. If Black men are some how impervious to pain and
suffering then it would stand to argue that they can never move beyond their prior
“bad” acts. They are unable to do such because they cannot recognize and feel
the pain associated with misbehaving.
This
is why Mr. Charles Ramsey cannot be celebrated. He is not able to wrench and
purge the “evil” within. It also helps us to understand why Trayvon Martin was
held responsible for his own death. Simply put, Black men can never be redeemed
in the eyes of some.
