Only slightly about Sookie Stackhouse...

I’ve read five of the Sookie Stackhouse Southern Vampire Mystery series, so there must be a lot in them I find compelling and likeable and there is. If I mainly wanted to comment on them in this post, I would point out that Shreveport and the surrounding area is 40%+ African-American, but that none of the major recurring characters in the series are. Off the top of my head, the most important African American character I can think of is the black man whose death in the second book, Dead in Dallas, gets going one of the two major plot lines (having to do with a private sex club). I would acknowledge that this represents the segregated reality of the rural south, in which neighborhood bars, such as Merlottes, tend to cater primarily to either a white or a black clientelle, but that the segregation is not all that complete. I would also acknowledge that white writers often have to tread carefully, because of the abysmal history American letters have in imagining the Africanistic resident, but that I think her novels would be richer if she would give it an earnest try.

I have no intention of stopping there, however. Give me a moment to get my cyberpodium out of my flash drive.

In the best and worst tradition of literary criticism, I’m going to throw out discussion of everything I like about the Sookie Stackhouse books–Sookie herself, her struggle with the hypermasculine subcultures that thrive in the rural south, the character Sam, and the dry, wry wit that infuses these novels–to focus a sec to look at a marginal consideration in her novels: race.

Right off the bat, I feel two immediate responses forming:

1. One is the sort of roll my eyes "there you go again" response. Geez, not everything is about race. It’s easy to complain about what a writer doesn’t do. No writer can do everything, especially while working in a genre related field. Why not look at what she does do?
2. But she does deal with figures of race, but she denaturalizes them. There are vampires, fairies, werecritters, and less common other supernaturals, who form coalitions and subcultures very much analogous to race.

From a critical perspective, the second is more compelling, since an argument that says "for once, would you just focus on the positive?" is unproductive. That is not to say it’s more or less correct. It is important to note, though, that the two arguments are mutually exclusive. If I want to argue that she deals inventively with race, why should I as a reader want to excuse the lack of a fully realized Africanistic presence in the day to day world? Why can’t the novels do both?

I think this points to a problem with current discussions on race. Let me draw this out for a moment, and then explain how it relates to the post-human.

Race and Humanism: A Digression
Race, as such, is in part a creation of the humanistic enterprise. To understand this, look at Thomas Jefferson, a founder of American humanism (he edited a version of the New Testament to cut all the miracles out of it, making less a religious than a humanist document). What does EVERYONE know about Jefferson these days?

1. He wrote the declaration of Indepence, which gave voice to the spirit of liberty that would find a home in the abolitionist movement: "All men are created equal..."
2. He kept slaves, believed in Negro inferiority, and tried to prove it in his Notes on the State of Virginia.

How can both things be true? Because the same spirit that wanted to improve humanity also saw it as important to recognize gradations of difference in quality between human communities. Humanism is in part a project of social hygiene.

To put this another way, the basis for racism and the opposition to it share a cultural ancestry. Now lets flashforward to the future. Two responses to the historical and continuing discourse on race in America.
1. Race is a myth, with no biological reality. We would all do well to ignore it.
2. Race is a social reality, silently embedded, throughout most of American history, in the concept of "American." We need to discuss race, because avoiding discussions of race devalues the experience of black Americans. (W.E.B. Dubois said it well a century ago, talking about growing up in a majority white culture: "One always feels this twoness, two warring souls, black and American, in one dark body...")
Deny the first, you open the door to fascism. Deny the second, you get policies whose effect (sometimes by design) is to limit economic and educational mobility to black people (I’m thinking of the June 2007 Supreme Court cases which seem to disallow considerations of race in the college admission process.)

Class: A Digression Digresses
In practical, political terms, one response (one I hope most colleges will be using) is to focus less on race than on class. If the goal is economic mobility, than we consider factors such as high performance in a low performing school, and relative performance compared against families of similar income levels. Offer help to enough poor people, and a disproportionate percent of the people helped are going to be African American. As a strategic response, I completely support this.

But what does this move signify? We are at the end of a 400 year period which sought to "naturalize" race lines. At the same time, class alignment has always been downplayed. In these terms, a coming together of diverse groups along shared class interests is a "cyborgian" construction.

Pointing out the shared affinity of folks along class lines is always interesting in American culture, in part because class is less visible in America than, for instance, race or gender. But I am unwilling to replace one kind of essentialism with another. But to "naturalize" it would to an extent to "essentialize" it.

(By the way, even assuming that colleges follow this route, I'll await some evidence that the students who are so recruited recognized in each other a sense of shared class interest. )

Enter the Cyborg.
I’ve covered this before on this blog. but Donna Haraway’s pre-eminent example of the social cyborg was the definition "Women of Color," one which cut across class and race lines to identify a common interest in reforming American institutions to be more inclusive.

Enter the Posthuman.
The human being is defined in humanistic discourse by his organic unity, his reflective nature, his progressive maturity. I could support this by citing Matthew Arnold and F. R. Leavis, but believe me, that would get tedious. –Maybe another day.
The posthuman is artificial, inorganic; he or she or it interupts the organic unity of the social body or social text.
Sookie Stackhouse is Posthuman
in her "freakish" abilities to violate the unity of other individuals; she is not a self-contained, unified entity; parts of those around her "leak" into her.
Vampires are Posthuman
at leasst in the Sookie Stackhouse novels, and most contemporary vampire novels, for mostly the same reasons as Sookie is. (Dracula is not post-human; he’s just an aristocratic monster.)

Here’s the point (and I do have one)....

The Posthuman (as I’m using it) is not utopian or essentialist. It is improvisatory, and provisional. It respects the idea of science and progress, but is as likely to lead to error, because it has no stranglehold on the truth. It allows for the recognition of class, sex, and race distinctions, devalues rigid alignment along these lines. This is a perspective we need to discuss race intelligently these days.

Therefore...
The Sookie Stackhouse series is not leading the way towards the posthuman, but it is participating in the evolution of same. Assuming a posthuman perspective (which believe me, does NOT come naturally to me) gives me a way of seeing what I like, and why, though I like Harris’ figures of race (vampirism, lycanthropy, etc.), I want more.