Many years ago I was teaching an Introduction to Women's Studies course and the class was stuck on the concept of objectification. After trying unsuccessfully to explain and getting ready to call it quits, a Chicano student raised his hand to help and very clearly and concisely defined the term, providing clarity to his classmates.
At the end of the class I congratulated him on doing a good job and asked him how he understood it so well. He responded with something to the effect of "I am Texan, in Texas people like me are referred to as 'hands'; we are either 'good hands' or 'bad hands', but just 'hands'. If we are not 'hands', we either don't exist or are a threat to growers. We are never fully people."
It was my first time hearing the term "hands" to refer to agricultural workers. I would later hear it when a grower was upset that one of his "good hands" was participating in a lawsuit for unpaid wages. It wasn't a "I can't believe I failed my good 'hands' by miscalculating wage payments" sentiment, it was more of a "I can't believe these good 'hands' have the nerve to demand I treat them as a person, my good 'hands' betrayed me by asking me to see him as a person" kind of sentiment.
Last night's Democratic debate reminded me of the notion of "hands." I signed on late in the debate, only after all of the commentary about Julian Castro being rude had already spread. I missed the moment, so later I went back to see it. I saw a white man take up a brown man's time. I saw a white man's face red with what seemed to be rage because a brown man was brownsplaining his health care plan to him. I saw a brown man call a white man out with less than a smile on his face.
And that was the transgression Castro committed last night. In the political landscape, so far Castro has been liked for being "good hands"- sweet, friendly, does the party work without complaining much, challenge white men with little to no power who may become threats to white men of greater power, but that is all "good hands" are allowed to do and be. THEY CANNOT COME INTO THEIR OWN POWER.
This is the challenge non-traditional candidates face. They must run for a position that requires them to be full people, but stick as closely as possible to the most acceptable version of the stories they were born into. Castro's sin was akin to "good hands" bringing a suit for unpaid wages-thinking that he was equal in personhood to the grower (Biden) and believing that other people accept that he is equal to the grower (the audience). A truth is that even in 2019, even after years of economic uncertainty, Americans still relate more to the grower enraged that he is being called to account for breaking the law than they can relate to the "good hands", the worker, behaving as though he walks in respect.
But here are some 2020 questions, how many "hands" are tired of being "hands." How many will come out for a party that still sees them as "hands." Castro's failure last night was a failure of not sticking to one acceptable story. It is a danger a lot of other candidates run, Kamala can't risk a moment of rage, Pete can't risk a moment of untraditional masculinity, Booker covers his rage with laughter-what happens when he forgets to do that? I can go on and on...and the most important part for the Democratic Party in these moments will not be what happened, but how they talk about what happened. Can Castro rise only as long as he is "good hands" or is he allowed to be more than that?How Democrats talk about that (and other future narrative transgressions) will determine who comes out to vote in 2020.
At the end of the class I congratulated him on doing a good job and asked him how he understood it so well. He responded with something to the effect of "I am Texan, in Texas people like me are referred to as 'hands'; we are either 'good hands' or 'bad hands', but just 'hands'. If we are not 'hands', we either don't exist or are a threat to growers. We are never fully people."
It was my first time hearing the term "hands" to refer to agricultural workers. I would later hear it when a grower was upset that one of his "good hands" was participating in a lawsuit for unpaid wages. It wasn't a "I can't believe I failed my good 'hands' by miscalculating wage payments" sentiment, it was more of a "I can't believe these good 'hands' have the nerve to demand I treat them as a person, my good 'hands' betrayed me by asking me to see him as a person" kind of sentiment.
Last night's Democratic debate reminded me of the notion of "hands." I signed on late in the debate, only after all of the commentary about Julian Castro being rude had already spread. I missed the moment, so later I went back to see it. I saw a white man take up a brown man's time. I saw a white man's face red with what seemed to be rage because a brown man was brownsplaining his health care plan to him. I saw a brown man call a white man out with less than a smile on his face.
And that was the transgression Castro committed last night. In the political landscape, so far Castro has been liked for being "good hands"- sweet, friendly, does the party work without complaining much, challenge white men with little to no power who may become threats to white men of greater power, but that is all "good hands" are allowed to do and be. THEY CANNOT COME INTO THEIR OWN POWER.
This is the challenge non-traditional candidates face. They must run for a position that requires them to be full people, but stick as closely as possible to the most acceptable version of the stories they were born into. Castro's sin was akin to "good hands" bringing a suit for unpaid wages-thinking that he was equal in personhood to the grower (Biden) and believing that other people accept that he is equal to the grower (the audience). A truth is that even in 2019, even after years of economic uncertainty, Americans still relate more to the grower enraged that he is being called to account for breaking the law than they can relate to the "good hands", the worker, behaving as though he walks in respect.
But here are some 2020 questions, how many "hands" are tired of being "hands." How many will come out for a party that still sees them as "hands." Castro's failure last night was a failure of not sticking to one acceptable story. It is a danger a lot of other candidates run, Kamala can't risk a moment of rage, Pete can't risk a moment of untraditional masculinity, Booker covers his rage with laughter-what happens when he forgets to do that? I can go on and on...and the most important part for the Democratic Party in these moments will not be what happened, but how they talk about what happened. Can Castro rise only as long as he is "good hands" or is he allowed to be more than that?How Democrats talk about that (and other future narrative transgressions) will determine who comes out to vote in 2020.
Comments