Synecdoche and Binary Race

Nakamura’s arguments seem to be large, bulky. They allude to grand claims; representations of race in The Matrix and Minority Report are interesting and her analysis seems accurate. I am left wondering, however, what or how these claims might relate to other texts and digitality in general.

She does discuss some of the implications of the racial structures of these two films, but her connections to a larger context do seem based upon claims and assumptions, rather than a nuanced assessment. For instance, her claims on “white” user interface being more apt to be represented as integrated to the body through gesture/sight interaction and “black” users able to connect via outmoded keyboards read as making few general assumptions.

What is “white” and “black”? Is it simply a visual characteristic? Where do these categories end or intersect? I didn’t feel that she necessarily addressed these definitional concerns, which are important, I think to the discussion of race (ie what constitutes “race”). I admit that I have no experience in critical race theory (and little experience anywhere else, mind you), nor do I have a definition to “white” or “black”. It could be argued that these terms are essential to the discussion, but I don’t usually buy the argument of essential when there is an evident spectrum of categories.

My point here is that this line of reasoning in “The Social Optics of Race” often relies on this binary notion of race. (Again, perhaps this is rhetorical ground that is commonplace in this line of critical inquiry, a discourse with which I am not familiar.) The title of the chapter reveals a clear intent to assess the visual; Nakamura largely bases her categories on visuality: dark skin, dirty appearance, and keyboarding as “black” and light skin, clean appearance, increased intuitive interactivity (jacked-in, gestural computing) as “white”. Based on this reading, Nakamura places “white” as privileged to interactivity, which her writing supports for The Matrix and Minority Report.  I also think that this binarism potentially contradicts Nakamura’s selective use of Haraway, especially with regard to hybridization of the mechanical and organic.  (Now, I’m being vague.)

My critique is based on Nakamura’s methodology. Her references border on synecdochal binarisms, in my view. I think this is seen in her discussion of Apple’s iPod advertising and Trek Kelly’s “iPod Ghraib” visual artwork. Nakamura seems to project her own definitions of race on the silhouetted figures, which lead to such claims as dreadlocks = black people. Again, I see this as eliding a more complex reading of race, one that might involve an actual discussion of how race is being defined within the internal logic of her own work. As mentioned in class last week, I see a lot of Nakamura-the-writer in this book, but see no explicit self-reflexivity.

Along similar lines, Nakamura deploys terms like “cool” and “hipster”, which seem loaded with unacknowledged connotations. She does attempt to define “cool”, which is responsible as she introduces the term as part of her critical analysis, and I have no problem with subjectivity, so long as it is acknowledged. Which it isn’t here.

Nakamura does make a fairly convincing argument for the system of power/control and its relation to the interactivity implied by visual racial cues – in these films. Perhaps, I’m asking too much, or not asking the correct questions, or am simply wanting a different type of aesthetic or social critique based on my own academic interests, but it seems Nakamura does a lot of work on these specific objects and alludes to general social conditions, but fails to connect them for me. I don’t think I’m asking for a unified, tidy connection to social conditions, but Nakamura seems to approach this type of discussion, but then stops a few steps short. Which makes it seem a bit vague at times. (“These shocking images critique consumer culture and the military industrial complex with thich consumer culture is imbricated” for instance (115).  I can see the point here, but wouldn’t mind traveling down that road with Nakamura.  I don’t know who that makes lazy: me or Nakamura.)

To Nakamura’s credit, she does give the relationship between black/white and digitality an interest analysis near the end of this chapter. Throughout, white seems to be presented as privileged and qualitatively beneficial (ie white can more easily manipulate interfaces/technology). Nakamura’s reading of Agent Smith in The Matrix, however, does an interesting job of problematizing this notion. Nakamura notes that “the fantasy of fusion with, or total control of, the machine carries dangers along with it” (107). This is exactly the type of nuanced reading I can appreciate. I just wish there was more of it.