From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Tolkien a Racist?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 21:48:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.145951.26044@lgc.com> mbs@zycor.lgc.com (Matt Shostak) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.015308.15707@leland.Stanford.EDU> jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>>
>>	I'm not saying that Tolkien was a "racist" in the modern sense
>>of the word, and I'm not saying that he set out to write a story which
>>emphasized racial difference and the superiority of some races over others.
>>And I certainly am not trying to "blame" him or disparage his works because
>>they don't conform to my political sensibilities.  But, I do think there is 
>>a great deal of concern about race in LOTR and that the tale clearly portrays 
>>some races as being superior to others.  I think that's worth reflecting 
>>upon and worth discussing.  Why is it in there?  Is he just reflecting the
>>concerns and attitudes of his time and culture, or is there something more
>>to it than that?  
>
>Neither.
>
>It's a work of fantasy, Jim.
>

	
	Now what does that explain, Matt?   Are you saying that because this 
is a work of "fantasy" that it is somehow impossible to discuss it on 
anything but a superficial level--  the level at which we say, "Hey, let's 
pretend Middle-earth's real" and quiz each other on Middle-earth trivia?  
Or are you saying that such focus on racial distinctions are somehow 
explained by the fact that this is a work of "fantasy"?  If so, that seems to 
me to be a very naive, unreflective, and untenable position.  

	LOTR _is_ a work of fantasy.  In fact, it has probably had more
influence in shaping the modern genre of "fantasy" than any other single
work.  Many, if not most, of the standard and now-cliched themes of fantasy 
were in fact invented by Tolkien.  The forms and tropes which Tolkien 
pioneered are now so common that it is easy to lose track of their radical
newness.  You can't assume that just because most works of fantasy now
have racial hierarchies of good and evil that that is in any way a _necessary_
convention that Tolkien had to adhere to.  Tolkien _formed_ these generic
(meaning pertaining to the genre) conventions--  they didn't just appear 
out of nowhere.  In fact, I don't think it's really possible to talk about the
genre of "fantasy" before Tolkien wrote--  it didn't really exist yet.

	One of the more significant tropes in LOTR (and one that has been
adapted by countless cureent writers of fantasy lit) is the division and
hierarchization of races into gradations of moral, cultural, and physical 
superiority.  I think it's interesting and that Tolkien adopted such a racial 
structure--  we can't just assume that it's an inevitable part of any work
of fantasy.  I thus think it's worthwhile to reflect upon _why_ that racial 
hierarchy is there in LOTR.  To say that it's just "a work of fantasy" 
explains nothing; it's a way of evading the question rather than answering it.

	Some posters (and people who have contacted me through e-mail) have
pointed out that LOTR uses the moral dualism of good/evil and, as is commonly
done, combines it with the dualisms of light/darkness and white/black. The
use of this combinations of opposition, they have suggested, has an inherent 
racist potential.  It is this dualist system rather than Tolkien himself
that dictates the racial hierarchy of LOTR, or so the argument goes.
	I think this is at least partly true-- but I think there's more to
it than that.  I agree that the conflating of the themes good/evil, light/
darkness, and white/black does have an inherent _potential_ to be used in
a way that we would consider racist.  But, that potential is only a potential.
An author can make the choice to downplay it, to ignore it, to emphasize it,
to subvert it or some combination thereof.  Tolkien may not have _consciously_
chosen to play up the racial dimension of the white/black moral opposition,
but it certainly commands a noticeable presence in his work nonetheless. 
Deliberately or indeliberately, Tolkien did indeed emphasize the racial
potential of the good/evil and black/white pairing.

	So the question remains--  why this great concern with race and with
the superiority of some races over others in LOTR?

	To answer this question, I think one really has to step outside of the
text and look at Tolkien and LOTR historically and culturally.  Tolkien grew
up during the seeming high point of the British Empire (and more generally of
European colonialism).  Part of the underlying ideology of imperialism and
colonialism was a belief that Europeans were superior (morally, culturally,
and physically) to the people they conquered and ruled.  An additional 
underpinning of imperialist ideology was an inherent nationalism-- European
nations engaged in colonialism as a way of demonstrating their greatness,
their strength, and their superiority to other European nations.  (Today,
we might say that this is more "eurocentrism" and "nationalism" than 
"racism"--  but I don't think such a distinction really existed in Europe
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.)
	I think it's probable that Tolkien "bought into" the ideology of
colonialism and empire--  at least in part.  He was, after all, a "child of
Empire" in a very literal sense.  He was born in the Orange Free State in
southern Africa shortly before Britain conquered it in the Boer War.  His
first years were spent in an area where white Europeans (and descendants of
Europeans) were in a ruling minority.  Furthermore, most of the whites in
the OFS were Afrikaans-speaking descendants of Dutch colonists--  the English
Tolkiens were in a small minority even among the white Europeans.  This
experience must have ingrained in the young JRRT a certain degree of support 
for British imperialist ideology--  an ideology that affirmed not only
the superiority of Europeans over non-Europeans, but also the superiority of 
the British over other Europeans.

	I think that a version of this imperialist ideology is in fact at 
work in LOTR-- and that that is at least a partial explanation for the
emphasis that is given in the work to the superiority of some races/peoples 
over others.  It also seems to make a lot of sense-- especially if one 
believes in Carpenter's claim that Tolkien's main goal was to write a 
"mythology for England."  

	Of course, as I'm sure someone will point out, Tolkien was not a
great supporter of the Empire--  at least not in his adult days.  I don't
really think it matters much though--  it's certainly possible to buy
into an ideology without supporting the state of affairs that it justifies.  
I actually do  think there is some subversion of that imperialist ideology 
going on in LOTR  (i.e. the treatment of the Woses, the "Wild Men" of the 
Druadan Forest)--  but that seems to me to be the exception rather than the
rule.

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>






Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien