You Can Only Read With Your Eyes

Their Eyes Were Watching God certainly showcases Zora Neale Hurston’s training as an anthropologist. She used the idea of cultural relativism, the knowledge that aspects of a culture can only truly be understood relative to that culture itself. The whole idea emerged as a reaction to very Eurocentric anthropological practices. Huston shows us this in the novel by letting the black characters speak from themselves, unlike Bigger in Native Son. She has the readers understand black American culture as it exists without having to constantly describe it in the context of white society, which is different than the social protest novels of Richard Wright and Ralph Ellison.

In this way, I see cultural relativism seems as a good idea, particularly if the author/anthropologist is to some degree an insider of the community/culture. I think it’s possible to allow cultures to speak for themselves, but this novel can still end up being “minstrel-y”. Not because of the novel, but because of the reader’s interpretations and conversations about it.

You can only ever read with your own eyes. So, Hurston is an insider letting a culture speak for itself, but we are still reading it as outsiders. I read Their Eyes Were Watching God with my own eyes, as white, as female, as a second generation American, as the child of Serbian immigrants, and as decently well-off and never having experienced poverty. All of that changed how I read and interpreted the novel. Your perspective makes you more or less attuned to the subtleties of any writing or conversation.

Perhaps because of my perspective, I was mildly annoyed when we were discussing the depiction of Eatonville, and how its residents “speak in poetry” and comedic performances are essentially a part of daily life. For me, whether or not this depiction “minstrel-y” isn’t necessary a problem of the novel, but rather our discussion of it. It felt like we placed the culture on a pedestal, which immediately reminded me of how a lot of people talk about Serbian culture.

A big part of our culture is dark humor and self-deprecating jokes; it’s a way to cope with the Balkan existence. But it’s one of those “we can joke about this, but outsiders can’t” situations; the people who are on the inside know that dark humor is just a small part of the culture. And yet, the classic “western journalist perspective” of the Balkans consistently overplays the humor, as well as other parts of the culture, as a side effect of its violent history. Reading journalism about the Balkans, you’d think people there are either blood-thirsty nationalists or primitive victims. But you know, at least they’re phenomenally funny people.

Both in our discussion and in the “western journalist perspective”, the culture is often received as more “authentic” because they’ve been through some kind of struggle; racism, oppression, war, et cetera. This dynamic is really evident when you read the country description on the AFS (a study abroad program) website. In Serbia, you get to experience “lively, authentic culture and really great folk dancing”. Going to Bosnia, you “go off the beaten path” and study “genocide and war and ethnic conflict”. If you go to Ghana, you get “friendly culture” and a “complex history explored through various art forms”. But if you go to France, Austria, Germany, Scandinavia, England, you get things like a “refined culture, hardworking attitude, high art”.

The art of Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe isn’t “refined”, but it sure as hell is “authentic”. The culture of the oppressed (which I’m using to mean those who have to some degree been exploited by western Europe/America) is different, interesting, but really the positive traits are only held by western Europeans and white Americans. The art, the traditions, the culture, is essential to the oppressed being human at all and so we put them on a pedestal.

And that doesn't sound that bad I guess, but it bothers me because it still doesn't fully acknowledge the complexity of other people, although maybe I'm wrong about how much this happens.  But nonetheless there are situations where the understanding of the culture of a people doesn’t change their state of disenfranchisement. What do the oppressed gain from having the oppressors acknowledge their humanity when they can just ignore it? Knowing about traditional Serbian culture doesn’t have an impact on most people’s perception of their character as violent. With a novel like Their Eyes Were Watching God, white Americans would perhaps get a glimpse at black life, but that doesn’t change racism. White Americans are still going to appropriate black culture even after this novel is published.

Presumably, Ellison and Wright would make this point that Hurston’s anthropology fails to be social protest. But what separates Hurston from these men is that she isn’t claiming this novel to speak for all black people. They wanted a way to describe an overall experience of racism in America, but all that Hurston (as an anthropologist) did was depict the society of black people in central Florida at the turn of the century. It’s not a big statement, but rather a pointed exploration of a subculture that was completely overlooked. And the “social protest” aspect of her novel comes from giving the community she describes humanity and a voice, and I in fact think that's more powerful than a protest novel.

I am not so pessimistic as to think that literature and anthropology (particularly Hurston’s phenomenal mash-up of the two) does not achieve this goal. Hurston’s depiction of black Americans as human and complex is deeply important and revolutionary at the time of its publication. I still feel bothered by the interpretation of one culture as more “authentic”, but I think bringing humanity to people is nonetheless is deeply important. I don't have a conclusion, just some more things to think about really.