PS: I want to ask about optics versus impact. On page 121, you write: "For visibility to effectively improve the plight for marginalized people, empathy must be evoked, and this world is specifically designed not to empathize with Black people," not to mention the "harm that can accompany visibility" that you detail on page 113. That's why, you write on page 124: "The work is not in trying to transform the carceral gaze: it's in trying to destroy it." My note there was just "wow" written underneath: that's a fantastic sentence.
Could you speak to the limitations of visibility? I think in our political moment, there is a lot of neoliberal excitement over Biden's appointments; around Kamala Harris; around the commitment to Harriet Tubman $20 bills before $2,000 checks have been dispersed, or $1,400 checks. I feel like that has a place in this conversation.
HZ: Definitely, and those are all things that I'm thinking about when I'm writing about this. I mean, this has been a conversation that's been ongoing. What I didn't want to do is to completely disregard the power of being seen: that's not what I'm saying in that. What I wanted to highlight is that, like anything else, it's not always just one thing. There can be harm in that as well. And often, I think, with the liberal narrative of representation, we're only talking about the supposedly universal benefit that comes from being seen.
That's just not something I experienced in my life: it's not something that I knew. Even from the perspective of being a Hare Krishna who was homeschooled, I wasn't really thinking about representation in that way, and I don't think that I was worse off for it. And so I'm thinking about the work that is raised because we only value things on specific platforms; the people who are raised [who] don't necessarily want to be platformed that way; and thinking about what could happen, for Black folks in particular. But I think this is something that all movements can ask themselves: if I'm valuing this conversation, what other power can we find outside of just being on the bill?
![PS: I want to ask about optics versus impact. On page 121, you write: "For visibility to effectively improve the plight for marginalized people, empathy must be evoked, and this world is specifically designed not to empathize with Black people," not to mention the "harm that can accompany visibility" that you detail on page 113. That's why, you write on page 124: "The work is not in trying to transform the carceral gaze: it's in trying to destroy it." My note there was just "wow" written underneath: that's a fantastic sentence.
Could you speak to the limitations of visibility? I think in our political moment, there is a lot of neoliberal excitement over Biden's appointments; around Kamala Harris; around the commitment to Harriet Tubman $20 bills before $2,000 checks have been dispersed, or $1,400 checks. I feel like that has a place in this conversation.
HZ: Definitely, and those are all things that I'm thinking about when I'm writing about this. I mean, this has been a conversation that's been ongoing. What I didn't want to do is to completely disregard the power of being seen: that's not what I'm saying in that. What I wanted to highlight is that, like anything else, it's not always just one thing. There can be harm in that as well. And often, I think, with the liberal narrative of representation, we're only talking about the supposedly universal benefit that comes from being seen.
That's just not something I experienced in my life: it's not something that I knew. Even from the perspective of being a Hare Krishna who was homeschooled, I wasn't really thinking about representation in that way, and I don't think that I was worse off for it. And so I'm thinking about the work that is raised because we only value things on specific platforms; the people who are raised [who] don't necessarily want to be platformed that way; and thinking about what could happen, for Black folks in particular. But I think this is something that all movements can ask themselves: if I'm valuing this conversation, what other power can we find outside of just being on the bill?](https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/eK3XvAPPsDRFo8L7ZCbQWen8Duo/fit-in/1024x1024/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2021/04/26/642/n/44344577/95ccf91ffabe2241_GettyImages-1230698647/i/PS-I-want-to-ask-about-optics-versus-impact.jpg "PS: I want to ask about optics versus impact. On page 121, you write: \"For visibility to effectively improve the plight for marginalized people, empathy must be evoked, and this world is specifically designed not to empathize with Black people,\" not to mention the \"harm that can accompany visibility\" that you detail on page 113. That's why, you write on page 124: \"The work is not in trying to transform the carceral gaze: it's in trying to destroy it.\" My note there was just \"wow\" written underneath: that's a fantastic sentence.
Could you speak to the limitations of visibility? I think in our political moment, there is a lot of neoliberal excitement over Biden's appointments; around Kamala Harris; around the commitment to Harriet Tubman $20 bills before $2,000 checks have been dispersed, or $1,400 checks. I feel like that has a place in this conversation.
HZ: Definitely, and those are all things that I'm thinking about when I'm writing about this. I mean, this has been a conversation that's been ongoing. What I didn't want to do is to completely disregard the power of being seen: that's not what I'm saying in that. What I wanted to highlight is that, like anything else, it's not always just one thing. There can be harm in that as well. And often, I think, with the liberal narrative of representation, we're only talking about the supposedly universal benefit that comes from being seen.
That's just not something I experienced in my life: it's not something that I knew. Even from the perspective of being a Hare Krishna who was homeschooled, I wasn't really thinking about representation in that way, and I don't think that I was worse off for it. And so I'm thinking about the work that is raised because we only value things on specific platforms; the people who are raised [who] don't necessarily want to be platformed that way; and thinking about what could happen, for Black folks in particular. But I think this is something that all movements can ask themselves: if I'm valuing this conversation, what other power can we find outside of just being on the bill?")
