P O S T E D B Y M O N I Q U E
Editor’s note: Two weeks ago an ARNOVA member set off a campfire of controversy by warmly recommending the White Courtesy Telephone blog to his colleagues. For those of you unfamiliar with the group, ARNOVA is an association of extremely intelligent people who study the nonprofit sector. WCT investigative reporter Rachel Tension was able to obtain a transcript of the highly charged ARNOVA discussion, parts of which are reproduced below. (We changed the participants’ names because we were too lazy to ask their permission to use their real names.) In Washington, DC, it’s dog eat dog. In academia, it’s the opposite, so we were frankly hesitant to approach the subject without some professional assistance. We invited WCT semiotician-on-retainer, Monique Nescafé, to help interpret the transcript for us. Dr. Nescafé’s work for the past several years has focused on neomaterialist narratives in the novels of Jennie Adams. This is her first guest post with WCT …
I am so very happy to be invited to write for the White Telephone of Courtesy, and especially to comment on the post-capitalist discourse of ARNOVA members. They say the American mind is closed. No, my friends, he is wide open, like the pore of some gigantic sweat gland.
Consider this small exchange:
Alas, … I find the name [White Courtesy Telephone] unfortunate. It may indeed be useful but the title is off-putting.
—BettyI am in the process of considering the title for my upcoming book, so I have titles on my mind. Can you clarify what it is about the title of the White Courtesy Telephone blog that makes it off-putting? …
—DorothyI think the title of “white courtesy” gives the impression that there is something else possible like “black courtesy”—i.e. that there are disparate courtesies for different groups. Or even worse—that there is no other courtesy other than white courtesy. I have been involved in discussions with other groups who would therefore find the title offensive. Unless of course you mean it ironically (like we don’t have white courtesy). At the very least, I do not actually understand what “white courtesy” means.
—Betty
In her brilliant rejoinder, Betty lays bare the racial insensitivity of the White Courtesy Telephone editors. This is not in dispute: these editors often make light of subjects that would be better treated with reverential silence. I applaud Betty. Her act of problematization, of affirming a posttextual paradigm of reality—the impression of a racialized there-for-me—is, in my view, an intellectual tour de force.
How does she do it? She describes herself as being in a superposition of affective eigenstates: while it’s true that she feels “put off,” she simultaneously postpones her feelings of offense as she considers an ironic reading of “white courtesy.” She is put off, but she is not quite yet put off. (A monk asks Dongshan Shouchu, “What is Buddha?” Dongshan answers, “Three pounds of flax.”) And although Betty does not actually understand what “white courtesy” means, she complains about the phrase anyway. If confusion is the first step to knowledge, then Betty is clearly very knowledgeable.
Betty also brilliantly presences the elided contextuality of the ARNOVA discourse by referring to “other groups” that would find the blog’s name offensive. This kind of offense-by-proxy is the mark of a generous individual, willing to be offended not only for herself but on behalf of others as well.
And so, what is it ultimately that puts the “white” in White Courtesy Telephone? Another ARNOVA commentator chimes in:
… we know words make a difference, so what I’m interested in is: why did the creators of white courtesy telephone pick that name, rather than, say, ‘black courtesy telephone,’ or just plain old ‘courtesy telephone’?
Was it in order to prompt this very discussion?
Or do white courtesy telephones have a special connotation not shared with courtesy telephones of other colours?
I may be exposing my ignorance here—but that’s because I’m ignorant.
—Nigel
Did Monsieur Ruesga, when he chose the name White Courtesy Telephone, choose it in order to “prompt this very discussion”? It is possible, n’est-ce pas? He might very well have anticipated the ARNOVA exchange as a sommelier anticipates a Montrachet 1978 from Domaine de la Romanée-Conti. How delicious, to inquire after coloured telephones through the fog of a fine wine. While these coloured telephones may have a special significance, we will henceforth, in deference to our subject, refer to them as telephones of colour.
An earlier interlocutor, whom we have named Dorothy, returns to the discussion:
… To be honest, the problem I have had with the name, having understood the reference* when I first encountered it, is I don’t get it. I don’t get what it has to do with the substance of the blog …
—Dorothy
Do you see, my friends, do you see why societies build special structures called universities for people who engage in such rarefied discourse? Why they lock us away in ivory towers? It is, franchement, because the academic sense of irony is so refined, it is so biting and pure, that if it were shared with the common people, they would die almost instantly from paroxysms of laughter and tears. It is manifest that our interlocutor, Dorothy, merely pretends to miss the connection between the blog’s name, “White Courtesy Telephone,” and its subject: the assumptions, values, culture, and practices of nonprofit and foundation work. Dorothy’s kind of serio ludere (serious play) is rare in academic circles, where admitting your ignorance can cost you your tenure.
By feigning a kind of morbid insensibility, Dorothy foregrounds the connection between the blog’s name and the culture and practices of contemporary American philanthropy, where “white courtesy” and its cousin, white privilege, are indeed dominant. By pretending to internalize the strictures of white courtesy, rooted in white middle class norms of discourse and behavior—that is to say, by simulating an ignorance of the blog’s themes— she effectively models elite evasion of issues relating to race, gender, class, and other differences.
Thus the ARNOVA interlocutors succeed in exposing the White Courtesy Telephone editors for the tactless fools they are, for clearly no person of intellect or feeling can leave the blog’s pages without feeling offended in some way. At the same time, the ARNOVA exchange becomes painfully self-referential, a brilliant reductio ad absurdum of what too often passes for wisdom in American society.
_____
* It is a matter of intense speculation whether she is referring to this post by WCT contributor, Dixie Moline.
Image source: The University of Georgia
I will say nothing against Monique. I am sure she deserves an affirmative boost from you, Albert, based on her skin color, certainly not for the quality of her prose. But if White Courtesy Telephone has some kind of quota system, where are the Hindus? May I ask? What courtesy are we shown? Two blacks here, one male and one female, both insipid. Surely you do their race no compliment by foregrounding these ***** ******* of yours. As for Hindu-Amercans, none! I would settle for no white courtesy, Albert, and a little plain justice. I have already found several hidden meanings Monique missed. But if you think I am going to put my best work down here in the comment section where it is subordinated to her post and marginalized, you are very much mistaken.
Posted by: Dr. Chadwallah | October 21, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Dr. Chadwallah's work is write for hire. Any hidden meanings he finds while in my employ remain the property of Wealth Bondage. They may be made available behind the paywall at WB.
Posted by: Candidia Cruikshanks | October 21, 2007 at 07:43 PM
Wait a minute! It's Sunday, I am on my own time. Those hidden meanings are mine. (Oops, I did read Albert's site once on company time. Candy tracks all online activity. Maybe she can prove as a nexus.) Best to leave well enough alone. My visa never came through, and Candy could have me deported.
Posted by: Dr. Chadwallah | October 21, 2007 at 07:46 PM
The intermediate stage between capitalism and socialism is alcoholism.
Posted by: Stuart Johnson | October 21, 2007 at 08:13 PM
WCT bloggers speak for themselves and rise or fall on the merits of their thinking. Regarding Monique's writing: It took everything I had to convince her not to place every word of her essay sous rature.
Posted by: Albert | October 21, 2007 at 08:15 PM
T'es encore faché avec moi car je t'ai appelé un imbécile maladroit. Tu m'as demandé d'écrire la vérité, et voici la façon dont tu me remercies. Je te donne un gros baiser quand même.
Posted by: Monique Nescafé | October 22, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Oh, Monique, postmodernist theories explain a lot of the facts, but I'm afraid the end of study is only the beginning of reality.
Posted by: Barbara, a lovely, intelligent girl | October 22, 2007 at 06:57 PM
:-D
I had heard there was trouble in Frontier World. Merci, Monique.
Posted by: erasmus | October 22, 2007 at 07:21 PM
May I, in all humility and deepest respect to the distinguished venture capitalist, CEO, and resident of a fine manse Candidia Cruikshanks, offer her an electronic introduction to the former director of the Independence Seaport Museum in Philadelphia, Mr. John S. Carter. Ms. Cruikshanks, and other devotees of this and related blogs, may explore their compatibilities with this philanthropic icon, who has advanced giving 'til it really feels good Philadelphia style to new heights, by a careful reading of the front page of today's Inquirer (Philadelphia, not National). Just copy and direct your browser to:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20071022
_Seaports_Carter_asks_for_leniency.html
Posted by: Jon | October 22, 2007 at 07:26 PM
Thanks for the link, Jon. I had heard of Mr. Carter's "museum antics" (his words) from a colleague whose husband preceded Mr. Carter as director of the museum. Grand larceny and fraud aren't going to win him any friends in high places, unless of course he involves his board in the looting, which is exactly what he appears to have done. If he's that clever, he's also intelligent enough to know that bilking the public of large sums of money and property is better done through legal means such as lobbying or serving in the U.S. Senate.
Posted by: Albert | October 23, 2007 at 01:34 AM
dr. nescafe: i think that if the editors had intended the blog to be about the culture and practices of american philanthropy, they would have called it "Culture-and-Practices-of-American-Philanthropy Telephone."
Posted by: i.a.t. | October 24, 2007 at 08:43 AM
"White Courtesy Telephone" makes about as much sense as "Black Entertainment Television."
Posted by: Stuart Johnson | October 24, 2007 at 09:11 AM
Cake Walk at the Big House, brought to you by White Courtesy Telephone. Prizes for best Dick Cheney imitator.
Posted by: Phil | October 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM
I'll be wearing an enormous red bowtie. And I'll bring Monique, if she can keep her hands off me. Will Dr. Chadwallah be joining us?
Posted by: Albert Ruesga | October 24, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Isn't it about time you folks focused on something other than your own cleverness?
Posted by: Bobby Gentry | October 26, 2007 at 09:59 PM
Isn't it about time you folks focused on something other than your own cleverness?
Posted by: Bobby Gentry | October 26, 2007 at 10:01 PM
"Isn't it about time you folks focused on something other than your own cleverness?"
I keep telling them that, Bobby, and they keep telling me to go jump off a bridge. That's pretty fucking insensitive, don't you think?
Posted by: Billie Joe MacAllister | October 26, 2007 at 10:46 PM
It gets tiresome, night after night, the ribaldry, always expecting the unexpected. Like those secret societies at Yale or Oxford where wealthy students mock sacred things while drinking themselves unconscious.
Posted by: Stuart Johnson | October 27, 2007 at 09:28 AM