Claims of belonging: An imagined conversation on Show Time

“When actors put violence on display, they are bringing to life ideas about how the world should be and more specifically, how it should be ordered—who should have power and who should be included and on what basis people should claim belonging […] violent display is both a social and aesthetic affair” (Fujii, 2021: 2). Using various cases, Lee Ann takes us on this intricate and compelling journey showing us how displays of violence are exercises of power. As I read this book, I found myself settling on race-gender violence and how I have experienced it in multiple realms—both directly and indirectly. In this reflection on Fujii’s most recent book Show Time: The Logic and Power of Violent Display, I engage in a “conversation”, while recognizing that what I need is no longer available, with Lee Ann.

We are sitting outdoors at a restaurant on U-Street in Washington D.C. (this is where we first met and before it was gentrified).

After much laughter and catching up, I ask:

What do you think of the recent insurrection in the U.S.? How does this violence speak to race-gender hierarchies?

Lee Ann: Much of the analysis of the recent insurrection and breach of the U.S Capitol ignores race and gender as a lens for understanding how this insurrection is part and parcel of the race-gender violent rituals that perpetuate much of U.S. history. Show Time speaks to race and racial order in helping us understand violent rituals. However, it leaves gender alone. But the setting for violent displays in the U.S. is “the Jim Crow South”. And yes, we know that race is intimately connected to gender. Having said this, I would argue that the recent insurrection is an enactment of race-gender violence and this is especially the case when we bring to the center the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris. She identifies as a woman of color. The primarily white audience, both male and female, enacted a “performance” of talking back (but not in the sense of how hooks (2015) uses it where she speaks back to power—that place where the marginalized challenge oppressive structures). They are talking back to their fears. I refer to this as an engagement in “forward panic”. “Forward panic occurs when pent-up tension and fear in conflict situation can finally be released”. (Fujii, 2021: 6). And so, we can read the insurrection, in part, as a response to the perceived threat of the rise of Black women—a response to the calls to “listen to Black women”.

I sit in silence, allowing Lee Ann’s response to resonate. Then I ask: So, essentially, this insurrection can be read as a continuation of the silencing practices directed to those on the margin who dare to think they can access democracy?

Lee Ann: “Research about the past is always, at the same time, about the present. Understanding the gravitational pull of silencing narratives and the source of their centripetal force helps to deepen and expand our analytics” (Fujii, 2021: 114). Yes! The insurrection is a silencing mechanism that allows the past to come into the present and shape the future. After all, that is why individuals engage in violent displays.

Julia: So, the insurrectionists rely on previously existing narratives of who should exercise power?

Lee Ann: I talk about how silencing narratives in Maryland “served to guard against alternative readings of the past by refocusing the outrage on the supposedly more outrageous “crime” of outsiders”. (Fujii, 2021: 114). And I would argue that you could extrapolate this argument to help explain the race-gender nature of the insurrection. In this case, Black women are viewed as the outsider—in the sense that they are not the “proper” stewards of American democracy. One must remember that Black women are historically not regarded as citizens who should have full access to democracy. And so, when you have Black women like Harris and Stacey Abrams running for major office, some can perceive it as a threat to their way of life. Consequently, it would make sense to undertake the violent display on the Capitol.

Julia: Talk to me, Lee Ann! Talk to me.

Lee Ann: Think about this, Julia. Black women are challenging democracy in all types of ways. Remember what Anna Julia Cooper told us. She said, “Only the Black woman can say when and where I enter, in the quiet, undisputed dignity of my womanhood, without violence and without suing or special patronage, then and there the whole Negro race enters with me”. Imagine what it would mean for Black women to access power. And I truly mean substantive access to power. So yes, all these Black women running for office and all these assertions like “listen to Black women” and a Black woman (Black and South Asian) woman sitting in the Oval Office of the White House can be scary to some. They probably imagine a type of reckoning unlike any they have seen. So, it makes sense for them to engage in a violent display. But just maybe it is a violent display that will not result in silencing.

Silence delicately lingers at the end of Lee Ann’s sentence.

Julia: Lee Ann, please write the second edition of Show Time!