The Dominant Culture

I've found it interesting to read the comments in response to Master's post about the invitation made by the Obama inauguration planning team to Rick Warren. Clearly, there is a perspective, that is pretty widely shared, that Rick Warren is just a guy whose opinion differs from ours, and that he is of course entitled to that opinion -- and really no one should judge him harshly. People both here, and in the wider culture seem to have real trouble with those who would point to Warren and those who believe as he does, and use the label, "bigot." I am just fascinated.

Merriam-Webster defines "bigot" as a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. I suppose we would quibble about whether Warren is obstinate or intolerant or treats gays and women and those with a scientific world view with hatred, but here he is -- judge for yourself:







Actually, as I read about and listen to the various snippets of comments that Warren has made, I am increasingly convinced that he is so sure of his own cultural status and role that he is utterly blind to the potential that his views might be wrong. It is not an unusual thing for those who are part of a dominant culture to see their own ways of doing things as "superior" to all the others that they might encounter. Anthropologists are familiar with this issue, and work to be careful about making culturally biased assumptions as they encounter different societies and customs. Much of the historical injustice in the world can be traced to this phenomenon. Here's an anthropological cautionary note on the subject:

Dominant culture -- Whereas traditional societies can be characterized by a high consistency of cultural traits and customs, modern societies are often a conglomeration of different, often competing, cultures and subcultures. In such a situation of diversity, a dominant culture is one that is able, through economic or political power, to impose its values, language, and ways of behaving on a subordinate culture or cultures. This may be achieved through legal or political suppression of other sets of values and patterns of behaviour, or by monopolizing the media of communication.


The problem is that for most of us, the culture in which we are raised and trained simply looks more "right" to us than everything else. It takes real awareness and openess to understand the value of another culture. That insulated cultural viewpoint is so ingrained that we scarcely notice it most of the time. Thus it is that, until very recently, most of us bought and used "flesh colored" band-aids, and never ever considered that they are only "flesh-colored" if you are caucasian. For all those of any other racial group, band-aids were nowhere near flesh-colored. Today, Johnson & Johnson markets a band-aid that they call "Perfect Blend," but it has been nearly 100 years since the first band-aid came to market. Progess comes slowly.


The current battle for marriage equality for GLBT people reflects, in significant ways, the long battle to end the application of miscegenation laws in this country. Laws prohibiting miscegenation in the United States date back as early as 1661 and were common in many states until 1967. That year, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Loving v. Virginia, concluding that Virginia’s miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.

The first recorded interracial marriage in North American history took place between John Rolfe and Pocahontas in 1614. In colonial Jamestown, the first biracial Americans were the children of white-black, white-Indian, and black-Indian unions. By the time of the American Revolution, somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 people of “mixed” heritage resided in the colonies. There was some serious thought that it would be appropriate and beneficial to encourage the practice of interracial marriage. Among the advocates were president Thomas Jefferson, and American patriot Patrick Henry, who proposed that intermarriage between whites and Indians be encouraged through the use of tax incentives and cash stipends. Despite this, interracial unions were not well accepted in the colonies and, in many cases, were made illegal. The idea that Africans and their descendants were not only different from, but inferior to the English was prevalent. Increased immigration at the turn of the twentieth century generated discourse on the question of race. Theodore Roosevelt, repeatedly expressed his belief that the Irish were of an inferior race, that Asians should not be allowed to enter the U.S., and that Jews had “not yet gotten far enough away from their centuries of oppression and degradation” to become a physically strong race. In 1924 Congress passed the Immigration Act, a series of strict anti-immigration laws calling for the severe restriction of “inferior” races from southern and eastern Europe. As late as the 1950s, almost half of the states had miscegenation laws. While the original statutes were directed wholly against black-white unions, the legislation had extended to unions between whites and Mongolians, Malayans, Mulattos, and Native Americans.

During the 1960s, the civil rights movement helped reverse many of the legal barriers against miscegenation. Then, in 1967, the supreme court took up the case of Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia. In that year, sixteen states still had laws that made interracial marriages illegal. The case was brought about by Perry Loving, a white man, and his African American and American Indian wife, Mildred Jeter. Since interracial marriage was illegal in their home state of Virginia, the couple was married in Washington, D.C. When they returned to Virginia, the newlyweds were arrested and put in jail for breaking the law. Before dawn one morning, police officers barged into their bedroom, shined a flashlight on them, and demanded to know what the couple was doing. Mr. Loving pointed to their framed marriage certificate on the wall, but the officers informed them that the D.C. license was not legal in Virginia. At the trial, the Virginia judge gave the Lovings a choice: they could spend one year in jail or move to another state. In his opinion, the judge said:
Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The couple grudgingly moved to nearby Washington, D.C., and appealed their case, which eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Court found the laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the Court’s decision: “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed upon by the State.” With that decision, all the remaining anti-miscegenation laws in the country were null and void.

It is the battle that, ironically, paved the way for our soon to be 44th president. Born in 1961, Barack Obama is the son of a white mother and a Kenyan father. Had the prevailing, dominant cultural view not been challenged, and eventually overturned, no child of "mixed" parentage could have risen as he has in this country. For me, it is precisely that fact that makes it so hard to countenance Obama's seemingly naive insistence that marriage is only what today's dominant culture says it is. Because, in spite of Rick Warren's adamant assertion, marriage has not ALWAYS been defined the way he defines it. The definition of marriage depends on not only the historial period, but also on the geographical location and the cultural traditions of the individuals involved in the marriage relationship. A general definition of marriage is that it is a social contract between individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally -- the religious context is a rather latter-day afterthought. Being married also gives legitmacy to sexual relations within the marriage. Forms of marriage include:
monogamy
polygamy
polygyny
polyandry
same-sex
pragmatic (arranged)
romantic
forced

So, we are locked in a huge battle for cultural dominance. No matter what he might think, no matter how overpowering the numbers of others who believe as he does (about 71% of U.S citizens identify as Christian -- about 7% of those are of the evangelical stripe), Rick Warren (and others like him) do not have the right to simply override those who differ from him in this culture. The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Warren could/should take a lesson from the BDSM culture. Our community understands how dominance works. If you are the dominant half of a relationship, then you get to have things be the way you say they will be. That is the nature of power exchange dynamics. Relating based on a defined power exchange can be good and positive and joyful, but we all understand that the essential prerequisite is consent. Non-consensual power exchange wears labels like rape and kidnapping and abuse.

Better, we keep in mind the words of President William Clinton at his own inauguration: "Thirty-four years ago, the man whose life we celebrate today spoke to us down there, at the other end of this Mall, in words that moved the conscience of a nation. Like a prophet of old, he told of his dream that one day America would rise up and treat all its citizens as equals before the law and in the heart. Martin Luther King's dream was the American Dream. His quest is our quest: the ceaseless striving to live out our true creed."

To the "pastor" I'd simply say this, "Please feel free to believe and preach as you choose. You are surely entitled. What you are not entitled to do is IMPOSE your set of values and beliefs on me or mine. You are not the boss of me. I do not accept your views, and I will never, ever consent to your dominance. Someday, there WILL be marriage equality in this country. People will be able to love and form families as they choose. That will not harm your marriage. It will not weaken the fabric of our society. It will come -- for people who are GLBT, and eventually for those of us who believe that love is not limited to only two.

swan