The Twoness of Capitalism and W.E.B. Du Bois’ Double-Consciousness: The Emergence of Identities in a Capitalist Society
In the capitalist economy, there are relations among Americans that are distinguishable by their economic positioning. Whether this relationship is between the principal and agent, the working-classes, or the differing amounts of income among individuals, Americans are positioned in a society based on their economic status. Capitalism has had a significant effect on the various identities perceived by others of others, as well as of themselves. The free-market based system that drives the competition to make as much of a profit as possible widened the gap between the rich and the poor,[1] resulting in a class-based society. The typical class divisions are among the upper-, middle-, and lower-income distinctions, as well as the two basic classes of the employer and employee.[2] However, the division of class is not simply a matter of how much a worker or employer has profited, it comes with other implications on the members of those classes. While Gideon Sjorberg provides that the economic class distinctions that result from these relations hold untrue perceptions on them, Everett Hughes explains that these perceptions, as auxiliary characteristics, are maintained despite the superficiality of them. Tying into the idea of auxiliary characteristics, Shannon Sullivan establishes the existence of a white American standard that the United States maintains for exploitative purposes. Through the analysis of W.E.B. Du Bois’ double-consciousness as it relates to capitalism in America, I will argue that there is a dichotomy in capitalism has direct and transgressed effect on the foundations that cause the emergence of primary and secondary identities.
Guglielmo Cardechi offers an explanation as to how classes are defined in pure capitalism. Cardechi uses the definition assigned in A Great Beginning, in which classes are “large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor and… by the share of social wealth of which they dispose of and the mode of acquiring it.”[3] In terms of a pure capitalist economy, there is a dichotomy between the producer and non-producer, to which Cardechi also relates to the dichotomy of the exploiter and exploited relationship. The purpose of this dichotomy is to produce surplus-value.[4] There is a further separation of laborer-non-laborer dichotomy that applies to both capitalism and class division. The laborer is not synonymous to the producer. The laborer instead is the social division within the production process.[5] The distribution of relations is a result of these prior elements.[6]
However, Gideon Sjorberg provides the argument that social classes are becoming less distinguishable from one another. Sjorberg argues that class distinctions have become “so vague that social classes can be spoken of only in terms of ideal types.”[7] The class system has, in reality, become more indeterminate with, at the time, the decrease in immigration and the slowing of industrial expansion.[8] The ideal types of clear class distinction that others argue for may rest on “class consciousness,” in which the recognition of variations among people is categorized into a “formal organization” of groups, although subjective.[9] While there may have been a hierarchy of economic-based social classes, businesses began to lose “some of their monopolistic control over political and economic institutions,” even with the growth of corporate.[10] The activity within the classes contributes to the lessening of the clear and distinct separation, with an increase in contribution to the national income and in the ability to afford more goods and services from lower groups.[11] Sjorberg maintains that the ideal types of class division are derived from confusion and limited scope of criteria for previous classes. Class mobility is more than just moving up in class by occupation, it must also include factors such as fluctuations in income and individual-held power. With the upper classes becoming materially weakened, the middle-class’s maintenance of position, and increase in income and material availability of the lower classes, social classes do not exist as originally claimed to be.[12] This does not mean that America is a classless society,[13] but rather the objective nature of classes is less distinct than the subjective nature of classes as is perceived.
The objective-subjective relationship of classes and the prevalence of the subjective nature of class distinction is expressed in Everett Hughes’ On Work, Race, and the Sociological Imagination. Hughes maintains that there may be formal or legal determining attributes to those in a particular social position. For example, there is a necessity to obtain a medical license to be positioned as a physician, and with being a legal physician, there is an expectation to be competent in that field of work.[14] However, what determines a position in a social class itself are informal. While there may be some determinations, “auxiliary characteristics” have become the expectations of social classes. The dominant position held by white men in higher fields of work, such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers, has become an expectation of those fields, “although no law requires that they be so.”[15] The expectation for a white male to be the lawyer or the doctor has become seemingly definitive factors because of external reinforcement in history, and stereotypes represented in media.[16] These expectations seem to overpower the formal determining characteristics that should be the primary association of the positions.
Hughes goes on to expand how auxiliary characteristics apply to the different fields of work, as well as the individuals who occupy those positions. As stated by Hughes, a branch of work may be “seen as honorable, clean, and prestige-giving as against what is less honorable or respectable, and what is mean or dirty.”[17] In the medical field alone, for instance, there is a hierarchy of division of labor, with nurses being at the bottom. This is in association with nurses having to handle what is considered “dirty” work.[18] While Hughes does not explicitly state that nurses are thought to be women, he does consistently refer to women using female pronouns while consistently referring to physicians, who occupy a higher position in the medical field, using male pronouns.[19] Hughes goes on to explain how the perception of an employee of the same position is affected by auxiliary characteristics. Using the example of an African American physician, Hughes explains how the African American physician has the formal qualifications necessary to be positioned as a physician, but this physician may appear as less equal or less qualified by white clients and colleagues. This appearance is due to the clash between the professional standing of the African American’s position as a physician with the expectation for the physician to be white.[20]
In Shannon Sullivan’s analysis of the colonization of Puerto Rico, she explains the relationship between the identities of white Americans and non-white Americans that occurs through white American endeavors. In colonizing Puerto Rico, the United States enforced the “white American identity” upon Puerto Ricans. In doing so, they saw Puerto Ricans as “almost the same as United Staters” yet not “exactly the same.”[21] The United States compared Puerto Ricans to themselves, holding themselves to be the core, or top, civilization. From this comparison alone, the United States, specifically the white Americans within the United States, constructed their dominance over Puerto Rico. The United States viewed Puerto Ricans, then, to be “relatively uncivilized, childlike, ignorant, and weak… people with no cultural or political history of any value” that were lucky to be shaped into the white American identity.[22] According to the United States, Puerto Rico keeps “proving” itself to be incapable of having full autonomy over itself, and are thus incapable of becoming equal to white Americans.[23]
The core foundation of America is capitalism. This is to say that the decisions made in America throughout history have been made by capitalist motivations supposedly in the interest of the public. For capitalists to maximize profit, he must have an effective source of labor. The first effective source of labor was originally the enslavement of both white and black laborers, which shifted to the mass enslavement of black laborers through the Atlantic slave trade.[24] The South especially profited greatly from slavery, with Mississippi alone making over five-hundred million dollars from selling 1.2 million bales of cotton in 1860,[25] and they actively worked to maintain this labor system for their own benefit. Propaganda in the name of science and religion was used to justify the claim that “black men were not real men,”[26] an effort to keep blacks uneducated was made to prevent the loss of their labor, and purposeful slander and discomfort were aimed at any freedmen.[27]
Eventually, advancements toward the citizenship and overall personhood of blacks began to take place. The Freedmen’s Bureau was created to give blacks a start in the economically driven society, construct free common schools in the South to provide education, and secure the recognition of their freedom in the judicial system.[28] During the period of Reconstruction, the Fourteenth and Fifteen Amendments were ratified, giving blacks political power through securing their legal citizenships and voting rights, as well as some holding the position as senators.[29] Although the advancements made were in part motivated by capitalist reasoning and did not erase the prejudices and oppressions of the black community in America, progress was being made. This progress provides the hope and motivation for success among blacks that should be present while being Americans, while the limitations placed upon them through the prejudices and oppression that result from capitalist motivations occur simultaneously.
The twoness present in the simultaneity of promise for the opportunity of success and the limitations that inhibit that promise is a result of the dichotomy present in the structure of capitalism itself. In terms of the ideal, capitalism is not necessarily corrupt. Adam Smith lays out the foundation for the ideal of capitalism. According to Smith, capitalism is most efficient when abiding by the laissez-faire, a free-market economy without government interference.[30] Smith argues that laissez-faire is the necessary goal of profit maximization, promotion of a competitive market, and overall economic success for the country. An increase in competition among businesses should help prevent monopolies and make necessary goods more accessible to the poor.[31] The availability of necessary goods, as Sjorberg argues, aids in the diffusing of exaggerated perception class distinctions by creating equality through anyone being able to have the basic necessities no matter their income. Through the diminishing of exaggerated perception of class distinctions, the class structure in America is then simply based on income alone. In addition to Smith’s and Sjorberg’s discussion of the availability of necessary goods, the ability to access basic necessities promotes the American promise of opportunity despite the continuation of unequal incomes. If an individual can afford basic necessities, they have personal economic success, because they are not deprived of the goods that are necessary for them to maintain a comfortable life. When economic success is viewed in these terms, the individual also has the opportunity to find success beyond their financial status, as they at least have the minimum means to do more in life than struggle to survive.
Over time, new ideals that further benefit society have been added to capitalism. The added ideals of John Maynard Keynes’ capitalism and Kantian ethics expand the original goal of profit maximization to include the necessity of humane ways to carry out this initial goal. Keynes believes that some government involvement in relation to excesses of activity and basic welfare is beneficial in a capitalist society.[32] Although Keynes’ structure for capitalism eventually lost popularity, its beliefs in that some government policies that “stimulate economic activity through public investment” in infrastructure and civil servants while “seeking to regulate the excesses of corporate and financial activity and moderate the most extreme effects of capitalism on the population” remain.[33] Moreover, in Kantian ethics, as it is applied as a duty-based ethical standard in business, corporations may recognize the wrongness and disadvantage in treating employees “as a means to an end” to prevent the possibility of unmotivated and disloyal responses from employees.[34]
The incorporation of these principles into capitalism should help minimize the exploitation of employees and maintenance of distinct class divisions, while still maximizing the capital goal, benefiting both the principal and the agent. In comparison to Du Bois’ discussion of the mistreatment of enslaved blacks to demonstrate this point, slave owners used enslaved blacks as a means to an end as they wrongfully treated and suppressed humanistic opportunities of blacks as a way to minimize expense and maximize profit.[35] Through this “careless and exhaustive culture” of slavery, the slave owners’ lands began to lose value, with the farms in Dougherty County losing more than three million dollars of their worth between 1860 and 1870.[36] Applied-business Kantian ethics[37] should prohibit slavery, including the enslavement of blacks. To treat a worker as a means to an end is to treat him as a machine, denying his humanity.[38] Although the prejudice of blacks not being “real men” is used to keep them enslaved and in the lowest classes, the relation of blacks to slavery is a social construction that was created after slavery was already a prevalent source of labor in America. Colonists’ first legal definition for slaves did not involve race; the meaning of “race” and “slave” has been constructed “over time through their experience with the institution of slavery itself.”[39] America’s original system of slavery was based on individual’s non-religious affiliation rather than the color of their skin.[40] With the initial enslavement of blacks alongside whites resulting from religious motivations and the legal definition of slaves had not factored in race alone, blacks rightfully should have been considered and treated as human along with whites. Furthermore, the freeing of enslaved blacks and fair treatment as humans in the workforce is beneficial to both the parties. The ethical treatment of employed blacks is beneficial to the black workers themselves, as this makes the promise of an opportunity to succeed in an ideal capitalist society more possible. The former slave owners or general employers also enjoy benefits with the likely increase of efficiency among workers and retaining of the non-producible commodity of land.
How capitalism is in practice, however, becomes a system that has been taken advantage of leading to its corrupt nature. Rather than using humane ways to profit and fuel a competition that causes the nation to thrive economically while being beneficial to the public, “the object is to center and increase the power of those who control organized wealth” while seeking “to prove to Americans hat no other system is so successful to human progress.”[41] The increase of power of those in control of organized wealth contradicts the benefit that there would be less of monopolization in a capitalist society. Monopolies crush competition rather than fuel it, leading to higher prices on goods due to the lack of competition among businesses for sales.[42] In a society that is fueled by capitalist economics, and one that holds economic success as the highest form of success, those who are most wealthy have the most influence over society, including the schools and press.[43] As Du Bois emphasizes, when those who have the most economic and political power are a result of monopolies, democracy is undermined, and society becomes more of an oligarchy.[44]
As a result of the actual practice of capitalism, the limited competition places further limitations on the black worker in order to maintain the power of the white workers. The prejudices and promoted necessity for blacks to be exploited in capitalism have transgressed throughout time, keeping the exploiter-exploited relationship among both blacks and whites in the workforce closely tied to the more general producer-non-producer relationship. This transgression is facilitated through the efforts made by white workers to keep the opportunities for blacks limited. These efforts are explained in class conflict theory. Class conflict theory describes the relationships between the ruling class and the proletariat or between two working classes, that causes racial struggle. Under the split-labor market theory, white employers would exploit blacks by using them as “strikebreakers” among the protesting whites, as well as replacements for higher paid white workers. The white workers, in turn, would try to prevent black employment against the benefit of the employers.[45] Paul Baron’s and Paul Sweezy’s conclusion explains the incentive for whites to maintain these efforts. Baron and Sweezy state that race prejudice is related to the provision of a way to release “frustrations generated by a class society,” as race is an easy way to distinguish one group from another. Baron and Sweezy continue by saying that this oppression further benefits white workers, because it protects them from competition between them and black workers, especially when competing for higher-paying jobs.[46]
A further transgression of the limitations on the opportunity of success placed upon blacks as a result of the practice of capitalism has occurred into other core societal foundations as well, with one of these foundations being the law. Ideally, the law will define what is just and protect citizens and their rights. However, the practice of capitalism has created a similar twoness in the law, in which the practice of the law is separate from the ideal of it. Whether ideal or not, what is written in the law is usually an ultimate reference point that defines what is and what is not. As a result, legal decisions can make a person or group equal as much as it can make them separate. In the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, it was the law that maintained a separation between races. The initial reason for the case was to determine whether Dred Scott, who was enslaved in Missouri and taken to Minnesota, was legally free on the basis that he became free upon entering a state where slavery was prohibited in accordance to the Missouri Compromise of 1850. The question then became if citizenship and the rights that follow as promised in the Constitution could be applied to blacks whose ancestors were taken to America to be sold as slaves.[47] Chief Justice Roger B. Taney gave the opinion of the case, to which the decision was that Scott was not free, but rather he was legal 'property'. Chief Justice Taney justified this decision claiming that the statement “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence clearly did not include enslaved Africans, nor were they granted citizenship at the time the Constitution was created.[48] Chief Justice Taney concluded that “the right of property" in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States.”[49]
Similar to the ethical additions to the ideal of capitalism, the law simultaneously continues to evolve over time, and it can promote the ideal promise of the opportunity of success depending on the decisions made. For instance, amendments were added to the Constitution that legally determines the personhood of originally oppressed groups, contrary to the Dred Scott decision. Section I of the Thirteenth Amendment states, “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude… shall exist within the United States.”[50] The Thirteenth Amendment legally changed the identity of African Americans from property to people, to which they should be perceived as such when referencing identity to law. Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment, which grants the right to vote and prohibition of denial to this right “by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous servitude.”[51] The Fifteenth Amendment makes this identity concrete in two respects. The first is that it connects citizenship to former slaves. The second is that having the right to vote is the most important right for a citizen to have because it gives them autonomy; with the right to vote, individuals along with groups are given the right to self-definition.
The second core foundation that the transgression of limitations on the opportunity of success, creating a dichotomy between the practice and ideal, is education. With capitalism becoming the main structure of the nation, education has been influenced to become primarily focused on preparation for the workforce, with the practice of the education system having a different reality than the idea of the education system. The education system as practiced is focused on the teaching of workers and is influenced by America’s worship of show, wealth, self-assertion and brute power.[52] However, proper education should ideally help members of society not only succeed economically but also as citizens of a democratic society. Du Bois states that “it is the souls of children and not the bricks of schoolhouses that make the true measure of education.”[53] By this statement, Du Bois means that a good education does not simply mean an education that is taught in a classroom. There are different levels of necessity for education, including levels of life experience that leads to good character, and levels that lead to the autonomy over one’s self, not solely economically but also politically.
Originally, enslaved blacks were restricted from being taught anything more than necessary to complete their task of labor. The slave masters saw no interest in educating their slaves because that would only be in the interest of the enslaved. Furthermore, it is out of the interest of the master because it would have a negative relation to his interest of profit, and blacks could not educate each other if none of them knew how to read or write. After emancipation, when Black schools were allowed, “the Negro colleges were hurriedly founded, were inadequately equipped, biologically distributed, and of varying efficiency and grade; the normal and high schools were doing little more than common-school work, and the common schools were training but a third of the children who ought to be in them, and training these too often poorly.”[54] The poorly organized school systems paired with the majority of African American children having to prioritize their education secondary to labor[55] became one of the limiters of identity formation.
Ann Mullens gives further insight into how class division influences students’ educations. The reality of the division is supported by the comparison of Yale University and Southern State University students. The majority of Yale students assessed came from high-income families of $135,000 or more, with each parent having a career that requires a professional or advanced degree. Yale students who were not in the top 15% for income came from middle- to upper-middle class families whose parents also had professional careers. [56] Students coming from high income families were more likely to send their students to private schools, which “testify to the expansive resources of the Yale students’ families: the cultural capital and social necessary for understanding the importance of private high schools; knowing how to find them and how to get their children into them; and the finances to pay for them.[57] Students who attend private schools have the benefit better preparation for college, as the curriculum is more challenging and focused on college preparation, with a broader range of courses and extracurricular activities.[58] Private schools are limited only to those who can afford them however, with the average cost of tuition ranging from $35,000 to greater than $41,000.[59] Families who could not afford the tuition of private schools but are still financially well-off lived in wealthy neighborhoods, where even public schools were better geared toward college preparation. The families themselves had an influence on the motivation of the students. Students who came from higher-income families were more expected to go to top colleges, and the parents stressed the importance of this. Some families would move to better neighborhoods or commute to schools a couple of hours away to make sure their children received the best education they could provide for them.[60] The expectations placed on students by their parents become internalized, and the student is both motivated and pressured by the perceived importance of getting into a top college immediately after high school.[61]
In contrast, Southern students were more likely to come from low- to middle-class income families, with parents of first-generation students working in manual labor and service fields.[62] Students who lived in lower-income neighborhoods and could not afford private schooling went to much less rigorous public schools, where courses were easier and less diverse, and the overall “expectations for doing well were generally lower than those of Yale students.”[63] The installation of motivation and pressure to reach the same standards as the Yale students were also less stressed by the families themselves. Most of the Southern students either did not mention family involvement in their education prior to college or a lack of encouragement to strive for top schools.[64] With the lack of incentive by the high schools and families, the idea that there is a college for everyone, and the dependency of whether the students would attend college following high school graduation, the students only put in as much effort as they felt necessary to get into the college they chose.[65] However, the limitations that result from being positioned in a lower-income family does not necessarily determine the output of the student, as “students who barely passed their first years of high school can turn into honor roll students.”[66] Many of the students who made the decision to go onto a four-year college directly after high school chose to because they wanted more job opportunities with higher pay than their parents had.[67] When a student has the incentive to gain control over the limitations of their class identification places on them, they will work against those limitations.
Gaining a solid education was and remains crucial to identity formation, as it should facilitate successful independence. Having independence is necessary for overcoming the secondary identities that are polar to the primary identity. The independence through an education stems from the paths of knowledge in fields of work and knowledge in fields of 'knowing', both of which lead to the paths of economic and political powers. Moving forward, both paths lead to the more singular direction of having autonomy over one’s self. The goal should be to “teach the workers to work and the thinkers to think” so that the end result of the training is not a master of a craft, “but a man” who works not solely for pay “but for the glory of his handiwork.”[68] The education is necessary for a person to become independent. Being independent allows for a greater allocation of personhood to one’s identity in contrast to the chance of being a means to an end when having to depend on others for financial stability and political representation.
The simultaneous promise of an opportunity of success and limitations of opportunity that results from the dichotomy present in the core foundations of capitalism, law, and education are the cause of Du Bois’ double-consciousness. As an African American, Du Bois feels he has two identities in society, with one relating to his black identity, and the other relating to his American identity.[69] The dichotomy expressed by Du Bois is a result of encompassing two distinct social roles. Anne Rawls points out that the social roles are not solely the separation of terms in “African American,” but that they are black and white.[70] The white social role is relative to the American identity because of the white American standard that has been established for exploitive capitalist endeavors by the United States. With whites being the dominant group, they have more power to influence the economic, educational, and legal foundations that instill the belief that any individual can have the same success as an American, but with the belief that this being an American solely refers to the legal definition. As Du Bois expands upon the idea of a separation in identity, explaining that, with having a double-consciousness, he experiences a sense of “twoness, - an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.”[71] The consciousness of an African American is split in two, with two distinct identities that encompass two ways of being in a single body.
The two components of the double-consciousness are made up of secondary identities. The secondary identities are caused by external factors. The external factors may be direct, in which the identifiers are straightforward. The law, for example, is a direct identifier as it can legally define a group as property, as in the Dred Scott case, or define the group as citizens, as it does in the Fifteenth Amendment. The secondary identities may also form indirectly, or through association with external factors. People may tend to associate their identity with the similarities of the group they surround themselves in.[72] For Du Bois, the external factors of growing up in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, a middle-class town,[73] and being able to graduate from Harvard University through opportunistic success by working hard as an individual in America[74] are core to his formation of the American identity; through his being able to share similarities with white Americans. Being in a group that shares a likeness with oneself may result in the emergence of a secondary identity that is attributed to that group of people. Du Bois’ black identity, on the other hand, emerges both from the indirect external factors of being surrounded by similarities but also by differences. The same surroundings that contribute to his American identity are also what forces the emergence of his black identity. Du Bois’ double-consciousness did not emerge until a card that he offered to a white girl was rejected.[75] Due to the rejection and Du Bois’ inability to understand why he was forced to reflect on the situation and concluded about his own blackness. Had Du Bois never experienced this situation or one of similar nature, he would see no need to reflect on the perception of his identity.
The reflection of identity in terms of his double-consciousness is emphasized in what Du Bois explains to be the role of the veil. The veil is representative of a distinction in perceptions. In the case of Du Bois, the veil separates him from the rest of the world,[76] separating his black identity with his American one. Whites cannot see underneath the veil, and, as a result, they cannot see past the negative identity that was created onto African Americans; had they been able to see the person underneath the veil, they would have less substantial reason to outcast the person underneath based on their initial bias. The veil hides the reality of the African American’s identity to the whites, but it does not hide the reality of the outside world to the African American.
In addition to the veil, those who experience a double-consciousness have what Du Bois calls the “second-sight.” The second-sight allows African Americans to see themselves “through the revelation of the other world,”[77] the American world, to which he expands upon stating it is the “sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.”[78] Having double-consciousness empowers African Americans to see themselves as the others, the white Americans, see them in their socially constructed role of being black in America. This ability, however, can only result in the double-consciousness, preventing them from obtaining a “true self-consciousness,”[79] in which that would be a single-consciousness. The true self-consciousness cannot be a double-consciousness, because the self would be the unity of all the identities that make up one’s self, and, with their being unity, the identities would become a single consciousness. Du Bois refers to this ability as a “gift.”[80] Although the second-sight expands the dichotomy of consciousness, it may be considered a gift in that it provides African Americans with a tool to combat the misfortunes of the black community that result from the perceptions of the others.
With the property of emergence through external factors being the qualifying necessity for the formation of secondary identities, the concept of double-consciousness can be expanded. The expansion of the double-consciousness will be referred to as an x-consciousness, with “x” being an indeterminate number. A more definitive attribution, such as a “triple-“consciousness or even a “poly-“consciousness,” serve as possibilities of an x-consciousness, because the addition of consciousness to one’s identity must emerge, but through unknown times and of unknown factors.[81] For instance, DuBois was born with a veil[82] before even identifying as an African American and before he developed a double-consciousness. The additional consciousness only became after being triggered through external means by a chance in time. The possibility of a triple-consciousness, for instance, is true for marginalized groups. African American women are susceptible to three distinct consciousness: being African, being women, and being American. In an analysis comparing violence against black women to violence against white women, Kimberle Crenshaw explains that sexual assault against black women are perceived to be less legitimate or important because of the portrayal of black women by external means to be seen “as more sexual, more earthy, more gratification-orientated,” a perception that is used to distinguish between “good women from bad.”[83] Not only do African American women have to face the secondary identity of being a black as perceived by whites, but they also carry the external identity of being a woman as perceived by both white males and women. Immigrants are another group that can have a triple consciousness. When an immigrant enters a country, they enter “with one set of selves” that “are overwritten and refractured by her experiences… in the new culture, and this experience shapes her consciousness, subjectivity, and sense of identity.”[84] Immigrants then develop two secondary consciousness, one “foreign” identity, and one “new country” identity, as there are the external factors of both becoming a citizen of that country, as well as being defined by other citizens of the country as an immigrant.[85] If an immigrant is also either black or female, they may develop a triple consciousness, and if an immigrant is both black and a female, for example, they may even have a poly-consciousness.
On the other hand, the primary identity is intrinsic to the individual. The primary identity is who someone is despite external factors, and it usually emerges through innate incentives. Primary identities may emerge through inductive social identity formation, the formation of individualized expressions of one’s identity when in heterogeneous groups will result in the formation of a secondary identity.[86] Du Bois best expresses this idea of primary identity when writing about the group of young African Americans characterized by outside factors to be “shiftless,”[87] or lazy. In reality, when assessing the true nature of these boys, they are the opposite. Du Bois tells of these differences as such:
“…they are not lazy; tomorrow morning they’ll be up with the sun; they work hard when they do work, and they work willingly. They have no sordid, selfish, money-getting ways, but rather a fine disdain for mere cash. They’ll loaf before your face and work behind your back with good-natured honesty. They’ll steal a watermelon, and hand you back your lost purse intact. Their great defect as laborers lies in their lack of incentive to work beyond the mere pleasure of physical exertion. They are careless because they have not found that it pays to be careful; they are improvident because the improvident ones of their acquaintance get on about as well as the provident. Above all, they cannot see why they should take unusual pains to make the white man’s land better or to fatten his mule, or save his corn.”[88]
The characterization of being lazy or unambitious is external to this group; it is an identity placed upon them by those who do not take in other considerations of them. Whites may identify such black youth to be shiftless, but that is not who they are according to Du Bois. Despite these external identifiers, this perception of the group of black youth was, according to Du Bois, ambitious and hard-working. As a result of not understanding “why they should take unusual pains”[89] for the benefit of the white man and acting on such, they have some incentive of a primary identity, even in the absence of true self-consciousness.
Furthermore, there is an intertwining of primary and secondary identities can be simultaneously present. Du Bois finds himself in a position relative to Hughes’ discussion of social class and perceptions of the profession at the beginning of teaching at Atlanta University. Du Bois writes about his concerns of himself teaching in front of the group, explaining that he tried to be “natural and honest and frank” but the mistrust for the white students made it difficult. Although there is this mistrust, Du Bois must “rise and lie” and say that “most white folks are honest,”[90] because of the position he is in as a professor. Du Bois must abide by the social role of his profession, because the perceptions by the students “may be truer than the teacher’s own self-perception” as the others see it, and can negatively affect one’s position as an educator.[91] Not only must Du Bois take consideration into his professional social role, but his double-consciousness as an African American puts him in a similar position to the African American physician, who’s qualifications may also be overridden by the auxiliary characteristics, or external perceptions, of his black identity. Du Bois, having been accepted to Harvard University, an ivy league school,[92] where he focused heavily on his education, staying “voluntarily and willingly outside its social life.[93] Du Bois’ efforts were not wasted, as he graduated with a cum laude bachelor’s degree in philosophy, became one of five of the graduates to deliver a speech at the commencement ceremony;[94] both of these were milestones to combat the expectations of the secondary identity, as he was also one of the first African Americans to deliver a commencement speech at Harvard,[95] and he was the first African American to earn a doctorate there.[96] Du Bois was more than qualified enough to teach at Atlanta University, but the auxiliary characteristics the others place upon his black identity conflicts with the expectations of teaching being a white male-dominated profession related to the subjective-class distinction.
The primary and secondary identities can also intertwine when external factors support the incentive that is necessarily present because of their primary identity. This instance of the primary identity being supported by external factors, however, does not necessarily entail that the individual has gained an awareness, either in part or in full, of his true self-consciousness. In his “Freedmen’s Monument Speech,” Frederick Douglass states:
“A [slave] should know nothing but to obey his master – to do as he is told to do. Learning will spoil [original emphasis] the best [slave] in the world. Now… if you teach that [slave] (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever be unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.” [97]
In this statement, Douglass demonstrates the intertwining of primary and secondary identities. The slave is a separate, external, secondary identity placed upon the primary identity of an African American. The white slave owners place the attribute of property on the black identity of an African American, but the African American has the incentive to his primary identity of being human despite the external conditions. Douglass was a slave so far as that identity was placed upon him, but he was not property in terms of his primary identity. Douglass’ primary identity of human was supported by the external factor of learning to read.
The encompassing of a primary identity, in part, contradicts Du Bois’ determination that there is not true self-consciousness. To have a true self-consciousness requires a full awareness of who an individual is despite his secondary identities. While it cannot be expected of an individual to be fully aware of his true self-consciousness, that does not mean there is not a true self. As demonstrated by both the black youth Du Bois discusses, and Douglass’ statement of having personhood even when the external, secondary identity as 'property' was placed upon him, there is still a sense of a true self despite being unaware of it, whether initially or always.
The true self, or the primary identity, is formed as incentives against the external identifiers emerge. The formation of a primary identity first requires time and life experience to figure out who one really is. Du Bois had altered his identity over time, as “on several occasions, he declared himself an American, but over the course of his life he also declared himself a pacifist, Pan-Africanist, socialist, and finally communist.”[98] Throughout his life and interaction of external factors and driven by the incentive of the primary identity, Du Bois develops other aspects of his identity that conflict with the American identity. The formation of the primary identity also requires an x-consciousness. In order for one to realize the pieces that contribute to his true self, there must be a conflict to one’s identity for the emergence of countering incentives to be otherwise. For Du Bois to surpass the auxiliary characteristics in capitalist America and identify himself as a Pan-Africanist and communist having been born and raised in America, he needed to recognize his blackness in the context of the white American standard.
Conclusion
Thus, the dichotomy of the ideal and actual practice of the capitalist economy by white Americans, and the influence that this practice has on other core foundations, has forced the emergence of combatting secondary identities. While success can be found within the ideal of the structures, how these same structures are actually practiced have prevented the beliefs of success to go beyond tangible gains. For as long as these current practices exist simultaneously, the superficiality that these foundations of thought breed will trump whatever good they have the potential to be. With the lack of merging for the ideal of these institutions to play a significant role in the practice of them, the twoness of these foundations of thought causes a mirrored effect for dichotomy to emerge within the self. This dichotomy that emerges is what Du Bois’ calls the double-consciousness. The double-consciousness is Du Bois’ concept of a dichotomy in identity, to which there are two separate identities without a true, unified, self-identity. For Du Bois, his double-consciousness is the dichotomy of identities by social roles associated with his being an African American: a black identity and a white American identity. This concept of the double-consciousness can be expanded to an x-consciousness, where additional secondary identities, identities influenced by external factors, emerge, and the types of identities that emerge are typically those that conflict with the dominant social identity. The emergence of additional consciousness that conflict with the secondary identity that is relative to the identity of the white American standard, however, aids in the formation of the primary identity, or true self. Had Du Bois’ black social role in America not been challenged against his identification with the white American standard, the incentives necessary for him to know himself beyond the auxiliary characters would not emerge.
NOTES
[1] J. M. Roberts, A Short History of the World (New York: Oxford University Press), 352.
[2] Ira Katznelson and Mark Kesselman, The Politics of Power (New York: Harcourt Brace Joyanovich, Inc., 1975), 72.
[3]Guglielmo Carchedi, On The Economic Identification of Social Classes (Scotland: Thomason Litho Ltd, 1978), 50.
[4] Ibid., 50-51.
[5] Ibid., 51.
[6] Ibid, 51-52.
[7] Gideon Sjorberg, “Are Social Classes in America Becoming More Rigid?” American Sociological Review, 16, no. 6 (1951), 783, URL: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=59913dd9-51b4-4ba2-9a07-fafdbb924d1b%40pdc-v-sessmgr05
[8] Ibid., 775.
[9] Ibid., 776.
[10] Ibid., 780.
[11]Ibid., 779.
[12]Ibid., 781-783.
[13] Ibid., 783.
[14] Everett Hughes, On Work, Race, and the Sociological Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1994), 147.
[15] Ibid., 147
[16] Ibid., 148-149.
[17] Ibid., 152-153.
[18] Ibid., 54.
[19] Ibid., 51-54.
[20] Ibid., 152-153.
[21] Shannon Sullivan, “White Ignorance and Colonial Oppression,” 161.
[22] Ibid., 162.
[23] Ibid., 164.
[24] [24] Du Bois, The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois (International Publishers: Canada, 2007), 352.
[25] W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America (New York: Oxford University Press 2007), 355.
[26] Du Bois, The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois, 352.
[27]Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, 110-111.
[28] W.E.B. Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk,” The Oxford W.E.B. Du Bois Reader, ed. Eric Sundquist (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 117-119
[29] Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, 363.
[30] Kenneth Guest, Essentials of Cultural Anthropology (W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 2016), 315.
[31] “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith Institute, URL: https://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations/
[32] Guest 315
[33]Guest, 315.
[34] Lessambo, Felix. “The Legal Environment of Business: Business Ethics.” Lecture, New Britain, February 25, 2019.
[35] Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America 30-31.
[36] Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk,” 172.
[37] This application of Kantian ethics is based on the modern business use of his ethical principles.
[38] Lessambo.
[39] Mary Norton, Carol Sheriff, David Blight, Howard Chudacoff, Fredrik Logevall, and Beth Bailey, A People & A Nation (Massachusetts: Wadsworth, 2012), 70-71.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Du Bois, The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois, 355.
[42] The Adam Smith Institute
[43] Du Bois, The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois, 355.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Carter Wilson, Racism: From Slavery to Capitalism (London: Sage Publications, 1996), 6-8.
[46] Ibid., 5-6.
[47] Roger Taney, “Roger B. Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford,” Living American Documents, Isidore Starr, Lewis Paul Todd, Merle Curti (New York, Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. 1971), 166-169.
[48] James Trotman, Frederick Douglas: A Biography (California: Greenwood, 2011), 83.
[49] Taney, 172.
[50] 13th Amendment,” Cornell Law School, URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii
[51] “15th Amendment,” Cornell Law School, URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv
[52] W.E.B. Du Bois, “Representative Men,” The Oxford W.E.B. Du Bois Reader, ed. Eric Sundquist (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 252.
[53] Ibid., 253.
[54] Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk,” 148.
[55] Ibid., 175.
[56] Ann Mullen, Degrees of Inequality (Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 2010), 25 – 26.
[57] Ibid., 51-53.
[58] Ibid., 57.
[59] Ibid., 52.
[60] Ibid., 53.
[61] Ibid., 41.
[62] Ibid., 26.
[63] Ibid., 55-56.
[64] Ibid., 46.
[65] Ibid., 44-49.
[66] Ibid., 50.
[67] Ibid., 72.
[68] Ibid., 145.
[69] Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk,” 102.
[70] [70] Anne Rawls, “ ’ Race’ as an Interaction Order Phenomenon: W.E.B. Du Bois’ ‘Double Consciousness’ Thesis Revisited,” American Sociological Association 18, no. 2 (2000): 244, URL: https://journals-sagepub-com.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1111/0735-2751.00097
[71] Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk”, 102.
[72] Lisa Jans, Tom Postmes, Karen Van der Zee, “Sharing differences: The inductive route to social identity formation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, no. 5 (2012), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.013
[73] Du Bois, The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois, 78.
[74] Ibid., 132-146.
[75] Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk, 180.
[76] Ibid., 101-102.
[77] Ibid., 102.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid.
[81] While there are factors that have a strong correlation to the emergence of an identity and can be said to have a likely effect, they do not necessarily result in the emergence.
[82] Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk,” 209.
[83] Kimberle Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,” 291-292.
[84] Glenys Lobban, “The Immigrant Analyst: A Journey From Double Consciousness Toward Hybridity,” Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 23, no. 5, (2013), URL: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=0cc578fa-91a6-4519-a756-98ffb14ebf27%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=90821806&db=aph
[85] Ibid.
[86] Ibid.
[87] Du Bois, “The Souls of Black Folk,” 180.
[88] Ibid., 181.
[89] Ibid.
[90] W.E.B. Du Bois, “Darkwater,” The Oxford W.E.B. Du Bois Reader, ed. Eric Sundquist (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 524.
[91] Hughes, 51.
[92] Du Bois, The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois (International Publishers: Canada, 2007), 132-133
[93] Ibid., 135
[94] Ibid., 146.
[95] Bruce Kimball, “This Pitiable Rejection of a Great Opportunity,” The Journal of African American History, 94, no. 1 (2009), URL: https://www-jstor-org.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/stable/25610046?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents
[96] David Lewis, A Biography W.E.B. Du Bois (New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2009).
[97] James McPherson, Civil War (1860-1865) (Ipswich, MA: Salem Press 2014), 576, URL: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzcxNDAwM19fQU41?sid=af1436b6-40d9-456a-a69b-7a377f6aaa7a@sessionmgr103&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1
RIGHTS RESERVED BY AUTHOR. MAY BE REPRINTED, REPUBLISHED, CITED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.
All brackets are as written in the source.
[98] Willie Baber, “Capitalism and racism: Discontinuities in the life and work of W.E.B. Du Bois,” Critique of Anthropology, 12, no. 3 (1992), 340, URL: https://journals-sagepub-com.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/0308275X9201200308
