Teaching Through Critical Race Theory & Popular Music
It seems that people need examples of how to teach via Critical Race Theory (CRT) — I’ve often heard people say, nobody teaches CRT- it’s a legal framework. Yes…..and, though it is understood as a legal framework, Derrick Bell gave many historical examples and was known for using counter storytelling to reveal truths.
In my class, I’ve taught through the lens of ‘interest convergence’, which is a CRT principle that communicates that “the interest of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of white”. One important historical example Bell used to teach interest convergence was how school desegregation, through Brown v. Board of Education, was supported by those in power only because the US was trying to promote democracy globally. They were seen as hypocrites to try and assert democracy as freedom while treating Black people in oppressive ways. Black people experienced both immediate and long-term consequences from this convergence of white interests. Why didn’t the courts stipulate quality education with integration instead of only supporting integration? In my profession, I’ve written about the problematic connection of so-called equality and justice.
My class is a social justice and arts class, so we use songs and other art to help us understand things through counter storytelling. Through song, we not only understood interest convergence at a societal level related to race and racism, but since many songs are about love and relationships, we also understood it at a relational level. We used the song “Mirrors” by Justin Timberlake. It’s important to note that this song doesn’t have racial, but patriarchal dynamics. But understanding the ways that the narratives of women are centered around men in our society allows us to reflect on the ways the experiences of Black folx and other people of color tend to revolve around whiteness. We can also view this through a lens of the intersectionality of race and gender experiences.
Mirrors is also an interesting to critique this song, because sonically, it’s a great song. A Timbaland production. As we played it in class, students couldn’t get enough of it. That’s even better for counter teaching. That said, this writing is not a critique of Justin Timberlake or Timbaland. It’s just a perspective on the song’s message. One key question about the message-
Does his expression related to her center more around her personhood or his experience?
Some of the key lyrics are “I couldn’t get any bigger with anyone else beside of me”, “I can’t ever change without you, You reflect me, I love that about you”, and “You’re my reflection and all I see is you, My reflection, in everything I do”
One student asked, but is it wrong for a relationship to be a mirror that allows you to see yourself? Nope- not wrong at all. But it is if it’s only a mirror or primarily a mirror. You have to have mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors (culturally relevant pedagogy). Windows into other people’s experience and sliding glass doors as relational dynamics that hold space for going in and out of each other’s experience.
“We don’t define love from the place of those who have always stood at the center with a world full of mirrors.”
Also, we live in a society in which there are many mirrors for men that tell us we are valuable, our perspectives matter, women are created for our pleasure and serve our self development, etc. And we (men) don’t have as many windows into women’s and LGBTQ+ experiences that are not rooted in scarcity, single stories, and stereotypes. While women have less mirrors and more windows. With respect to race, white people have many mirrors of their own personhood without many windows into the full humanity of Black people and other persons of color.
So in the song, her personhood matters not intrinsically, but more so as a reference point and a mirror to him. That is interest convergence. You are valuable as I see that I can benefit from your humanity.
After I initially posted this on Facebook, one of my friends and I had a dialogue about it on the thread. I thought that this dialogue really added to the message and might help to further the overall point, so I’m including it here:
Dialogue
Comment by a friend: “Reading the lyrics has a very finite, obsessive tone to it. But listening and embodying the emotions with him give you a different vibe. That could be a class all on its own.”
My Response: “Most pop songs are ego-centric as it concerns love. We actually redefine what love is at the beginning of this class using songs like ‘Eartha’ by Jamila Woods, based on a famous interview that Eartha Kitt did. Eartha Kitt essentially said love is not rooted in compromise and how you belong to somebody else. It’s rooted in loving yourself and then choosing to share that with someone. The refrain in Jamila Woods song related to that is “who gonna share my love for me with me.” To take that point further, there is a difference between the golden rule and the platinum rule, as Milton Bennett calls it. The golden rule essentially says, love people as you love yourself, while the platinum rule says, love people as they love themselves. The golden is rooted in knowing. The assumption is I know how to love myself, so therefore I know how to love you. However, the platinum rule is rooted in curiosity. I don’t know how to love you, so I actually have to love you from a place of not knowing. So I simultaneously am holding space for belonging to myself while being curious about getting to know you. Loving people primarily through a mirror experience leads to sentimentality and the people could still be objects. Loving people with more windows is rooted in genuine empathy.”
Friend’s Comment in Response: “So is mirror and window love the same as golden and platinum love, respectively?
Coming from you they both sound like functional ways to love. However, knowing the human experience window love, platinum love can be narcissistic love. They ‘see who you are’ and use that against you. And it’s not necessarily projection. And they love you like they think you should be loved. It’s a terrible cycle but can be explained with these theories.”
My Response: “It’s interesting, because we teach from a Black Feminist Queer Lens in the class. So we are defining belonging from people who have had to belong to themselves because there was nowhere for them to belong in the world. This could also be connected to W.E.B. Dubois talking about double-consciousness. He is essentially saying I am trying to be both Black and an American- not having to choose between parts of myself, but they won’t let me be. So the position from which we define love and belonging is important. We don’t define it from the place of those who have always stood at the center with a world full of mirrors. If we did that, then yes, it would be very narcissistic. I would argue that whiteness and patriarchy are narcissistic in this way. I could say so much more- but you might just need to take my class.”
Friend’s Response: “Narcissism is the fabric of the structure of American white supremacy in all aspects.”