The Michael Eric Dyson Reader

by Michael Eric Dyson

  Malcolm’s views of nationalism changed after his encounters with revolutionaries in Africa who were “white,” however, and in his “Young Socialist” interview in By Any Means Necessary, Malcolm confessed that he “had to do a lot of thinking and reappraising” of his definition of black nationalism.67 Breitman argues that though he “had virtually stopped calling himself and the OAAU black nationalist,” because others persisted in the practice, he accepted “its continued use in discussion and debate.”68 Malcolm said in the same interview, “I haven’t been using the expression for several months.”69

  But how can Breitman then argue that Malcolm was attempting a synthesis of black nationalism and socialism if the basis for Malcolm’s continued use of the phrase “black nationalism” was apparently more convenience and habit than ideological conviction? What is apparent from my reading of Malcolm’s speeches is that his reconsideration of black nationalism occurred amid a radically shifting worldview that was being shaped by events unfolding on the international scene and by his broadened horizon of experience. His social and intellectual contact with activists and intellectuals from several African nations forced him to relinquish the narrow focus of his black nationalist practice and challenged him to consider restructuring his organizational base to reflect his broadened interests.

  If, therefore, even Malcolm’s conceptions of black nationalist strategy were undergoing profound restructuring, it is possible to say only that his revised black nationalist ideology might have accommodated socialist strategy. It is equally plausible to suggest that his nationalist beliefs might have collapsed altogether under the weight of apparent ideological contradictions introduced by his growing appreciation of class and economic factors in forming the lives of the black masses.70 For the synthesis of black nationalism and socialism that Breitman asserts Malcolm was forging to have been plausible, several interrelated processes needed to be set in motion.

  First, for such a synthesis to have occurred, a clear definition of the potential connection of black nationalism and socialism was needed. The second need was for a discussion of the ideological similarities and differences between the varieties of black nationalism and socialism to be joined. And the third need was for an explicit expression of the political, economic, and social interests that an allied black nationalism and socialism would mutually emphasize and embrace; the exploration of intellectual and political problems both would address; and an identification of the common enemies both would oppose. But given the existential and material matters that claimed his rapidly evaporating energy near the end of his life, Malcolm hardly had the wherewithal to perform such tasks.

  Breitman also maintains that Malcolm’s final period marked his maturation as “a revolutionary—increasingly anti-capitalist and pro-socialist as well as antiimperialist,” labels that Breitman acknowledges Malcolm himself never adopted.71 Breitman reads Malcolm’s two trips to Africa as a time of expansive political reeducation, when Malcolm gained insight into the progressive possibilities of socialist revolutionary practice. After his return to the United States from his second trip, Malcolm felt, Breitman says, the need to express publicly his “own anti-capitalist and pro-socialist convictions,” which had “become quite strong by this time.”72 He cites interviews and speeches Malcolm made during this period to substantiate his claim, including Malcolm’s speaking at the Audubon Ballroom on December 20, 1964, of how almost “every one of the countries that has gotten independence has devised some kind of socialist system, and this is no accident.”73

  Such a strategy, one that seeks to predict probable ideological and intellectual outcomes, may shed less light on Malcolm than is initially apparent. Breitman’s contention that Malcolm was becoming a socialist; Cleage’s that he was confused; T’shaka’s that he maintained a vigorous revolutionary black nationalist stance; and Goldman’s that he was improvising can all be proclaimed and documented with varying degrees of evidence and credibility.

  This is not to suggest that one view is as good as the next or that they are somehow interchangeable, because we are uncertain about Malcolm’s final direction. It simply suggests that the nature of Malcolm’s thought during his last year was ambiguous and that making definite judgments about his direction is impossible. In this light, trajectories say more about the ideological commitments and intellectual viewpoints of interpreters than the objective evidence evoked to substantiate claims about Malcolm’s final views. The truth is that we have only a bare-bones outline of Malcolm’s emerging worldview. In “The Harlem ‘Hate-Gang’ Scare,” contained in Malcolm X Speaks (and delivered during what Breitman says was Malcolm’s final period), Malcolm says that during his travels he

  noticed that most of the countries that had recently emerged into independence have turned away from the so-called capitalistic system in the direction of socialism. So out of curiosity, I can’t resist the temptation to do a little investigating wherever that particular philosophy happens to be in existence or an attempt is being made to bring it into existence.74

  But at the end of his speech, in reply to a question about the kind of political and economic system that Malcolm wanted, he said, “I don’t know. But I’m flexible. . . . As was stated earlier, all of the countries that are emerging today from under the shackles of colonialism are turning toward socialism.”75

  This tentativeness is characteristic of Malcolm’s speeches throughout the three collections that contain fragments of his evolving worldview, especially Malcolm X Speaks and By Any Means Necessary. Even the speeches delivered during his final period showcase a common feature: Malcolm displays sympathy for and interest in socialist philosophy without committing himself to its practice as a means of achieving liberation for African-Americans.

  Malcolm confessed in the “Young Socialist” interview, “I still would be hard pressed to give a specific definition of the overall philosophy which I think is necessary for the liberation of the black people in this country.”76 Of course, as Breitman implies, Malcolm’s self-description is not the only basis for drawing conclusions about his philosophy. But even empirical investigation fails to yield conclusive evidence of his social philosophy because it was in such radical transformation and flux.

  Malcolm was indeed improvising from the chords of an expanded black nationalist rhetoric and an embryonic socialist criticism of capitalist civilization. Although Breitman has been maligned as a latecomer seeking to foist his ideological beliefs onto Malcolm’s last days, there is precedence for Trotskyist attempts to address the problem of racism and black nationalism in the United States.77 And the venerable black historian C. L. R. James became a Marxist, in part, by reading Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution.78 Although Malcolm consistently denounced capitalism, he did not live long enough to embrace socialism.

  The weakness of such an interpretive trajectory, then, is that it tends to demand a certainty about Malcolm that is clearly unachievable. An ideological trajectory of Malcolm’s later moments is forced to bring coherence to fragments of political speech more than systematic social thought, to exaggerate moments of highly suggestive ideological gestures rather than substantive political activity, and to focus on slices of organizational breakthrough instead of the complex integrative activity envisioned for the OAAU. In the end, it is apparent that Malcolm was rapidly revising his worldview as he experienced a personal, religious, and ideological conversion that was still transpiring when he met his brutal death.

  But the thrust behind such speculation is often a focus on how Malcolm attempted to shape the cultural forces of his time through the agency of moral rhetoric, social criticism, and prophetic declaration. Just as important, but often neglected in such analyses, is an account of how Malcolm was shaped by his times, of how he was the peculiar and particular creation of black cultural forces and American social practices. Armed with such an understanding, the focus on Malcolm’s last year would be shifted away from simply determining what he said and did to determining how we should use
his example to respond to our current cultural and national crises.

  IN THE PRISON OF PRISMS: THE FUTURE OF MALCOLM’ S PAST

  The literature on Malcolm X is certain to swell with the renewed cultural interest in his life. And although the particular incarnations of the approaches I have detailed may fade from intellectual view or cultural vogue, the ideological commitments, methodological procedures, historical perspectives, cultural assumptions, religious beliefs, and philosophical presuppositions they employ will most assuredly be expressed in one form or another in future treatments of his life and thought.79

  The canonization of Malcolm will undoubtedly continue. Romantic and celebratory treatments of his social action and revolutionary rhetoric will issue forth from black intellectuals, activists, and cultural artists. This is especially true in the independent black press, where Malcolm’s memory has been heroically kept alive in books, pamphlets, and magazines, even as his presence receded from wide visibility and celebration before his recent revival. The independent black press preserves and circulates cultural beliefs, intellectual arguments, and racial wisdom among black folk away from the omniscient eye and acceptance of mainstream publishing.

  Shahrazad Ali’s controversial book, The Blackman’s Guide to Understanding the Blackwoman, for instance, sold hundreds of thousands of copies without receiving much attention from mainstream newspapers, magazines, or journals. The mainstream press often overlooked Malcolm’s contributions, but black publications like The Amsterdam News, The Afro-American, Bilalian News, and Black News scrupulously recorded his public career. The black independent press, in alliance with various black nationalist groups throughout the country that have maintained Malcolm’s heroic stature from the time of his assassination, is a crucial force in Malcolm’s ongoing celebration. Such treatments of his legacy will most likely be employed by these groups to actively resist Malcolm’s symbolic manipulation by what they understand to be the forces of cultural racism, state domination, commodification, and especially religious brainwashing that Malcolm detested and opposed.

  The enormous influence of the culture of hip-hop on black youth, coupled with the resurgence of black cultural nationalism among powerful subcultures within the African-American community, suggests that Malcolm’s heroic example will continue to be emulated and proclaimed. The stakes of hero worship are raised when considering the resurgent racism of American society and the increased personal and social desperation among the constituency for whom Malcolm eloquently argued, the black ghetto poor. Heightened racial antipathy in cultural institutions such as universities and businesses, and escalated attacks on black cultural figures, ideas, and movements, precipitate the celebration of figures who embody the strongest gestures of resistance to white racism.

  Moreover, the destructive effects of gentrification, economic crisis, and social dislocation; the expansion of corporate privilege; and the development of underground political economies—along with the violence and criminality they breed—means that Malcolm is even more a precious symbol of the self-discipline, self-esteem, and moral leadership necessary to combat the spiritual and economic corruption of poor black communities. With their efforts to situate him among the truly great in African-American history, hero worshipers’ discussion of Malcolm will be of important but limited value in critically investigating his revolutionary speech, thought, and action.

  Malcolm’s weaknesses and strengths must be rigorously examined if we are to have a richly hued picture of one of the most intriguing figures of twentiethcentury public life in the United States. Malcolm’s past is not yet settled, savaged as it has been in the embrace of unprincipled denigrators while being equally smothered in the well-meaning grip of romantic and uncritical loyalists. He deserves what every towering and seminal figure in history should receive: comprehensive and critical examination of what he said and did so that his life and thought will be useful to future generations of peoples in struggle around the globe.

  Twenty-One

  MIXED BLESSINGS: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., AND THE LESSONS OF AN AMBIGUOUS HEROISM

  Martin Luther King, Jr., is, perhaps, the greatest influence on my life outside of the mentorship of my beloved pastor, the late, great rhetorical genius, theological giant, and political mystic, the Rev. Dr. Frederick George Sampson II. I was nine years old when King was murdered in Memphis, and though I had never heard of him, his death affected me profoundly. I scrounged around for every personal recollection about him I could find, sent off for recordings of his most famous speeches, and read every article and book about him that the library contained. This chapter from Reflecting Black is among my first published attempts to wrestle with the intellectual and moral legacy, as well as the clear but complex social heroism, of a man I consider the greatest American in our nation’s history.

  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL HOLIDAY to honor the life and achievements of Martin Luther King, Jr., is a reason for critical celebration. Only the second American and the first African-American to be feted with this singular honor, the celebration of King’s birthday is an occasion of national, religious, and racial significance. It acknowledges that King was the supreme embodiment of American citizenship and political engagement, the highest manifestation of the American religious genius, and the richest expression of the multifaceted character of the black experience in America.

  On the other hand, the King birthday celebration also presents the danger of losing the challenging and uncomfortable dimensions of King’s thought and life by romanticizing his career. The nature and scope of King’s accomplishments, which center in nothing short of a specific revolution in how black people live and are perceived in American culture, inevitably invite historic embellishment and social myth. But neither a puerile romanticization of King as Safe Negro nor a caricatured mythologization of King as Great American Hero will do. King’s life was too complex, his achievements too profound, and his thinking too provocative to warrant such naive responses. We must transcend such unrealistic assessments of King and concentrate on the substantive contributions of his life and thought.

  An especially helpful and illuminating way to view King’s life and justly assess his accomplishments is through a reflection upon the ethics and politics of hero celebration. This context permits us to examine the beneficial and harmful uses to which the King holiday may be put in creating or preserving images of King that avoid disturbing history or dodge painful truth. This context also provides a healthy framework in addressing recent revelations about King’s character, including charges of plagiarism and womanizing. In this chapter, I will examine some characteristics of heroism, exploring the ways it makes sense to call King a hero, treat two central tensions that arise in asserting that King’s heroism is ambiguous, and briefly suggest that King’s birthday is indeed worth celebrating.

  In my brief examination of some characteristics of heroism, I do not intend to provide a theory of heroism or trace its varied genealogy. Rather, I will discuss heroism within the limits of existing understandings of the concept and then seek to apply them to King in analyzing the effects of hero worship on the ideals for which he gave his life.

  In his work on George Washington, cultural critic and historian Gary Wills reminds us that hero worship “is a hard assignment for many people today—one they think they cannot fulfill, or should not. Hero worship is elitist. It reduces the science of history to mere biography, if not to anecdote. It suggests that individual talent is a more important force than large economic processes. . . . The attitude of many in our time is captured by Bertolt Brecht’s Galileo, who says: ‘Unhappy the land that needs a hero.’”1 While Wills’s larger point about the suspicion of many Americans toward hero worship may be valid, explaining the diminished field of activity over which heroism is spread, it is equally true that American hero worship is presently focused in two social spheres: competitive sports and the military.

  Contemporary forms of American heroism are often displayed within the context of
sports competition, where individual or team exploits are lauded for embodying particular virtues, skills, and mastery. For example, basketball heroes are often said to embody the virtues of rigorous habits of practice, expert skills of physical dexterity, and mastery of the overall complexity of their craft necessary to perform excellently and unselfishly in a team sport.

  Military heroes, as well, figure prominently in the comparatively constricted sphere of heroism celebrated today. America’s recent war in the Gulf shows how eager Americans are for clear embodiments of American values of national patriotism, personal valor, and sacrifice for the common good. That Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell are instant heroes testifies to the peculiar hunger of many Americans for reassurance about the integrity and rightness of this country’s values and ways of life.

  Perhaps this last point clearly demonstrates a telling feature of heroism: it is intimately related to ideals felt to be worthy of support because they say something important about national self-identity. Part of the difficulty in deciding upon a genuine and truly national hero is connected to the increasing diversity of American culture. Because of the bewildering pluralization of perspectives about what it means to be an American, growing dispute about what goods are worthy of pursuit, strong disagreement about how to measure various forms of moral and social excellence, and the unraveling of a unified concept of the public good, the virtuous as well as the heroic is subject to radical revision and heated debate. Occasionally, however, a person or movement so decisively captures the nation’s imagination that a variety of Americans come to believe that their truest selves and deepest beliefs are embodied in the vision and life of that figure or movement. Such was the case for many Americans in relation to Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement.