Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations (Routledge Classics) (27 page)

There is no justification for Malcolm’s sexism. Speaking about that sexism in his comparative work Martin and Malcolm: A Dream or A Nightmare, James Cone emphasizes that both men “shared much of the typical American male’s view of women.” He elaborates: “Both believed that the woman’s place was in the home, the private sphere, and the man’s place was in society, the public arena, fighting for justice on behalf of women and children.” Significantly, Cone insists that we not ignore the negative consequences to black life that were the result of both Martin and Malcolm’s support of sexist agendas.

While we black men may understand the reasons for Martin’s
and Malcolm’s or our own sexism, we must not excuse it or justify it, as if sexism was not and is not today a serious matter in the African American community. As we blacks will not permit whites to offer plausible excuses for racism, so we cannot excuse our sexism. Sexism like racism is freedom’s opposite, and we must uncover its evil manifestations so we can destroy it.

Few black men have taken up Cone’s challenge. And the teachings of Malcolm X are often evoked by black men today to justify their sexism and the continued black domination of black females.

The truth is, despite later changes in his thinking about gender issues, Malcolm’s earlier public lectures advocating sexism have had a much more powerful impact on black consciousness than the comments he made during speeches and interviews towards the end of his life which showed a progressive evolution in his thinking on sex roles. This makes it all the more crucial that all assessments of Malcolm’s contribution to black liberation struggle emphasize this change, not attempting in any way to minimize the impact of his sexist thought but rather to create a critical climate where these changes are considered and respected, where they can have a positive influence on those black folks seeking to be more politically progressive. In his autobiography, Malcolm declared his ongoing personal commitment to change: “My whole life has been a chronology of changes—I have always kept an open mind, which is necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every intelligent search for truth.” Given progressive changes in Malcolm’s thinking about gender prior to his death, it does not seem in any way incongruous to see him as someone who would have become an advocate for gender equality. To suggest, as he did in the speeches of his last year, that black women should play an equal role in the struggle for black liberation, constitutes an implicit
challenge to sexist thinking. Had he lived, Malcolm might have explicitly challenged sexist thinking in as adamant a manner as he had advocated it. Cone makes this insightful observation in his discussion of Malcolm’s sexism:

Whatever views Malcolm held on any subject, he presented them in the most extreme from possible so that no one would be in doubt about where he stood on the subject. When he discovered his error about something, he was as extreme in his rejection of it as he had been in his affirmation. Following his split with the Nation of Islam and his subsequent trips to the Middle East and Africa, Malcolm made an about-face regarding his view on women’s rights, as he began to consider the issue not only in the context of religion and morality but, more importantly, from the standpoint of mobilizing the forces needed to revolutionize society.

Often, sexist black men and women who think of Malcolm as a cultural icon suppress information about these changes in his thinking because they do not reinforce their own sexist agenda.

Feminist assessments of Malcolm’s life have not been encouraged by individuals who are concerned with defining his legacy and the impact of his work. If there is a conference or panel about Malcolm and his work, Betty Shabazz, his widow, is usually the representative female voice. Until very recently, sexist consorship has determined who the female voices are that can speak about Malcolm and gain a hearing. Since Shabazz makes few if any comments about progressive changes in Malcolm’s thinking about gender and she remains the representative female voice interpreting his legacy, she participates in closing down the discussion of Malcolm’s views on gender. Clearly, for practically all of their marriage, Malcolm assumed a benevolent patriarchal role in the family. This Shabazz documents in her essay “Malcolm X as a Husband and Father.” Still, it would be too
simplistic to regard Shabazz solely as a victim of his sexist agenda. She too had a sexist agenda. She was equally committed to ways of thinking about gender roles that were expressed and advocated by the Nation of Islam. And though Shabazz made a break with the Nation, interviews and dialogues give no indication that she made substantial changes in her thinking about gender, that she in any way advocates feminism.

Even though Shabazz attempted to assert an autonomous identity and presence after Malcolm’s death, she continued and continues to assume the position that, as his widow, she has the right (accorded with patriarchy) to be the primary, authentic spokesperson, letting the world know who Malcolm X, the man, really was. Legally, she controls the estate of Malcolm X. Yet if, as sources suggest, she and Malcolm were drifting apart (perhaps even on the verge of divorce), it may very well be that despite his patriarchal dominance in the family, his thinking on gender was more progressive than hers. It would of course not be in her interest to reveal such conflict, because it would raise problematic questions about her continued role as the voice of Malcolm, the man.

Ultimately, it may be that any feminist assessment of Malcolm’s life and work must concede that, given the sexist politics of their family life, Shabazz cannot shed much light on Malcolm’s changing views on the woman question. And if indeed her own views are not particularly progressive or feminist, she does not really hold a standpoint from which to articulate the changes in his thinking. Bluntly stated, Shabazz may advocate gender equality in the realm of work but see no need for women and men unequivocally to resist sexism and sexist oppression in all areas of life. She has not publicly indicated a conversion to feminist politics, nor to the kind of feminist thinking that would provide her with a theoretical standpoint enabling her to talk about progressive change in Malcolm (or for that matter anyone’s thinking about gender). Yet just the fact of having been
Malcolm’s wife makes her an icon in the eyes of many black folks who are seeking to learn from Malcolm’s life and work. If Betty Shabazz acts as though progressive changes in Malcolm’s thinking about gender were not important, then she is complicit with those who choose to ignore or dismiss these changes.

Many younger black females (myself included) who have an opportunity to be in Shabazz’s presence admire her fortitude in coping with the adversity she and her children faced as a result of Malcolm’s political choices and his death, as well as the way she has managed to forge a separate and unique identity. Yet such admiration does not change the fact that in most public settings where Shabazz appears with men, she assumes a traditional sexist positionality (i.e., paying close attention to what males are saying in their interpretations of Malcolm’s work, while ignoring or actively discounting female interpretations). Though often supportive of women, Betty Shabazz has not shown ongoing concern with issues of women’s rights. Certainly she has a right to determine what political concerns interest her. What I wish to suggest here, however, is that were Shabazz more outspoken about changes in Malcolm’s thinking about gender, if she were more outspoken about how difficult it was to conform to his sexist domination in family life, if indeed she could articulate her own “bitterness” (if it is present) that Malcolm did not live to offer her the benefits of his progressive thinking about gender, we would have a greater understanding of his developing critical consciousness around the question of gender.

In his biography of Malcolm, Perry attempts to construct Malcolm as a sexist “abuser” whose wife was to some extent liberated by his death.

Freed from Malcolm’s control, Betty, who was catapulted to national prominence by his assassination, blossomed. Like Louise Little, she maintained that her deceased husband, to
whom she had been married seven years, had been a good one. She returned to school, obtained a doctorate, and became a public figure in her own right. “I’m not just Malcolm’s widow,” she proudly told a reporter. During the interview, she alluded to men who misuse women. Such abuse, she said, is spawned by unhappy childhood relationships with mothers or sisters.

Ironically, Perry enlists Shabazz to support his sexist agenda, his critical interpretation of Malcolm which is biased by that very same sexist thinking he critiques in Malcolm, making it appear that only the actions of females (as mothers and sisters) shape and form male identity. Shabazz’s comment reinforces this sexist interpretation of childhood influences. But what about society— and the role of fathers and other men—in shaping Malcolm’s attitudes and actions towards women? Why do Perry and Shabazz both deny patriarchal influence and engage in their own form of mother blame?

This seems ironic since Shabazz’s refusal to talk with Perry implies that she does not see him as the spokesperson to interpret Malcolm’s life and work. But like Perry, she does not fully interrogate the question of gender from a nonsexist perspective. If Shabazz cannot interrogate her own sexist thinking it is understandable that she may be unable to interrogate publicly Malcolm’s gendered habits of being. She may not wish to discuss openly either his sexism or the fact that his changed attitudes were possibly not reflected in his personal life. Similarly, it may be difficult for Malcolm’s daughters to be publicly critical, or self-reflexive about his attitudes towards females, his thinking on gender, because they may only remember that period when he was most committed to a benevolent patriarchal stance and was the kind of father who was rarely home. We can only hope that as time goes on, as black people collectively fully accept that we can know the negative aspects of our cultural icons without losing profound respect for their personal and political
contributions, all who knew Malcolm X intimately will feel that they can speak more openly and honestly about him. Shabazz may then also be able to be more openly critical of black male domination.

Despite Malcolm’s sexism, he helped Shabazz to become a more politically aware person. Interviewed in the February 1990 issue of Emerge Magazine, which focused on “Remembering Malcolm X 25 Years Later,” Betty Shabazz honestly states that she was politicized through her relationship to Malcolm, the man.

He expanded my conceptual framework. As a little middle-class girl in Detroit, Michigan, with older parents and no siblings, it was very limited. Malcolm gave me a world perspective— expanded how I saw things … I think [had I not met and married Malcolm] I would still be a Methodist woman whose concerns were with the community in which I lived, as opposed to the concerns of world society.

Significantly, Shabazz’s statements indicate that sexist agendas did not keep her from learning to think and act politically from the example of Malcolm X. Angela Davis has also spoken about the way in which Malcolm contributed to the development of her social and political thought, her militancy. I myself I have stated, again and again, that the writings of Malcolm X were essential to my political development. For many of us, his unequivocal critique of internalized racism coupled with his unapologetic stance on the need for militant resistance was the kind of political intervention that transformed our consciousness and our habits of being. This transformation happened in spite of Malcolm’s sexism.

Significantly, it was Malcolm’s break with the patriarchal father embodied in Elijah Muhammad that created the social space for him to transform his thinking about gender. Although his relationship with Betty (who did not conform to sexist
stereotypes of female behavior) had already created a personal context for him to rethink misogynist assumptions, to some extent he first had to become “disloyal” (to use Adrienne Rich’s word) to the patriarchy before he could think differently about women, about our role in resistance struggle, and potentially about feminist movement. Contemporary thinkers do Malcolm a great disservice when they attempt to reinscribe him iconically within the very patriarchal context he so courageously challenged. His resistance to the patriarchy was exemplified by his break with the Nation, the critique of his own role in the domestic household, and progressive changes in his thinking about gender: he no longer endorsed the sexist notion that black male leadership was essential to black liberation.

It was again in the company of Fannie Lou Hamer, shortly before his death, that Malcolm made one of his most powerful declarations on the issue of gender. Calling Hamer “one of this country’s foremost freedom fighters” at the Audubon Ballroom, Malcolm declared: “You don’t have to be a man to fight for freedom. All you have to do is be an intelligent human being. And automatically, your intelligence makes you want freedom so badly that you’ll do anything, by any means necessary, to get that freedom.” Here Malcolm was clearly rethinking and challenging his own and others’ privileging of the black male’s role in resistance struggle. Another factor that caused Malcolm to rethink his attitudes towards women was the tremendous support black females extended to him after his break with the Nation, as well as his growing awareness that it was black women who were often the hardworking core of many black organizations, both radical and conservative.

Strategically, Malcolm had to build an autonomous constituency after his break with the Nation. It is not surprising that he had become more aware that women could be formidable advocates leading resistance struggle, and that he would need to rely on female comrades. Again, it’s important to link Malcolm’s
break with the patriarchal, hierarchical structure of Islam with a critical rethinking of the place of hierarchy in any social and political organization. During the last month of his life, he was quoted in the New York Times as saying: “I feel like a man who has been asleep somewhat and under someone else’s control. I feel what I’m thinking and saying now is for myself. Before, it was for and by the guidance of Elijah Muhammad. Now I think with my own mind.” Presumably, this self-critical moment helped him to critically interrogate thinking on gender. It is this rethinking Perry’s biography refuses to acknowledge and critically interpret as an incredible political shift. Speaking with the same arrogant tone that informs much of the book, Perry writes of Malcolm’s relationship with Shabazz: