In her criticism of Smith’s novel, Chu traces the writer’s practice of negative capability, or the practice of articulating the virtue of seeing something from both sides.
Whole essay was like “WORDS MEAN THINGS!! or do they? Maybe not. Who can tell? What if words that mean things make people uncomfortable? Who is disempowered now? Words might mean things! Call me names if you must! A good day! You’re welcome!” *Vanishes like Tuxedo Mask* https://t.co/HAkylF7h6S— Daniel José Older (@djolder) May 6, 2024
Who among the students and faculty protesting and who among those with families being genocided invited Zadie Smith into the conversation. The young peoples language is far beyond this dislocated, moonwalking, looking from a real safe distance rhetoric.— Natalie Diaz (@NatalieGDiaz) May 5, 2024
— Arnesa Buljušmić-Kustura (@Rrrrnessa) May 6, 2024
Note Smith’s accusations, unmoored from supporting evidence. When considering a literary approach, it’s tempting to make excuses (and later, Smith addresses her status as a writer) but claims require facts. This is the irresponsible imprecision I’m referring to /2 pic.twitter.com/uwnvSIp6u6— Dwayne Monroe / @dwaynemonroe@mastodon.online (@cloudquistador) May 6, 2024
“Although [Dena] Schutz’s intention may be to present white shame, this shame is not correctly represented as a painting of a dead Black boy by a white artist — those non-Black artists who sincerely wish to highlight the shameful nature of white violence should first of all stop treating Black pain as raw material. The subject matter is not Schutz’s; white free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others and are not natural rights. The painting must go.”
Smith’s piece and the reactions to it underscore the responsibility of a nuanced discussion to have a point, especially when one side of the debate involves genocide or charges of genocide. The criticism that Smith’s use of language is an attempt to sanitize that genocide is a fair one, and it exemplifies Desmond Tutu’s often-quoted admonishment of neutrality during injustice is a correct analysis.
Despite the reactions from writers and academics, Smith’s place as a literary darling will likely be unaffected by this piece, as it was not affected by her hand wringing over Schultz’s Open Casket and connecting that to the perceived Blackness or lack thereof of her own children. Black writers and academics who are concerned about the plight of the oppressed will likely continue to doubt Smith’s ability to meet the moment, particularly where oppressed people are concerned, because, as The New Yorker piece makes clear, it is more important to her to seem to be an objective philosophical authority than it is to adequately react to objectionable things.
Source: Black Enterprise
