Jonno Marlton Blog 9: Anderson, Norris, and White Flight in Defining Private vs. Public

After reading Clybourne Park, I feel like I have a new appreciation for my own ignorance.  I am not saying that I am embracing it, but rather I am claiming it in an effort to eventually move into a better position to be able understand my place and how I can use it to achieve an equalization that I am truly hoping does exist.  Bruce Norris reminds us that race matters, and that the racial differences between members of a community serve as almost an excuse to keep separate.  It is convenient to stick to one’s own kind because then one does not have to take the risk of breaking out of the little box that defines the intentionally separate.  The self-containing mentality appears to be a lingering one, in the sense that Steve attempted to have a conversation that was doomed from the beginning because no one involved was able to consider the other side (and even that it was assumed that the community conversation has just two sides.)  As Anderson points out on page 150 of his book, “racism was a major element in the conception of ‘Empire’ which attempted to weld dynastic legitimacy and national community,” meaning that it was not just race, but racism, that functioned as both a community builder and a tool for maintaining hegemony.    

I am having a particularly difficult time distinguishing between the public and the private in a community.  As we can see from Clybourne Park, the private insecurities of a community or a sub-community manifest themselves publicly as the demographics of a neighborhood change or as individuals in a community band together against others of that same community.  I am tempted to identify the private aspects as fear and insecurity, but then again the anger and the violence that plagues any society (which I would categorize as public) are bred out of the private fears.  The building blocks of our nation, according to Anderson, include hatred.  Therefore, the pain that people feel is a public one.  But, the fact that we haven’t found a way to recognize and use our differences constructively speaks to the public/private divide. 

The white flight article on blackboard takes an upbeat tone, celebrating the fact that black and white residents are happy in their integrated Hampton neighborhoods.  It is not until half way through the article that we stumble upon a description of the inconclusive findings of the census in explaining what may not even be considered white flight in Hampton.  The article is an optimistic one that avoids the pain that I imagine many feel is involved in the integration and changing demographics of a certain neighborhood or area.   My point is that this sort of article puts into the public consciousness a tidbit that is only partially reflective of our community.  So my question is, how much of the pain and hurt is kept private, and how much of the public confusion and anger that we see is properly reminiscent of the private concerns?  Also, how related are the public and private?  What are some possible distortions between the realm of public and private, and have they come from an effort to protect a certain way of living?