“Racism and “Universality” in Literature” by Sue Gambill: Summary and Critique

1. The Myth of Universality in Literature

• Gambill critiques the assumption that white experiences are “universal” while non-white perspectives are seen as specific or niche.
• She references Robert E. Hemenway’s Zora Neale Hurston: A Literary Biography (1977), where he highlights how Black authors are pressured to “transcend race” to be considered universal (Gambill, 1981, p. 3).
• The expectation that great literature must avoid racial identity perpetuates the false notion that whiteness is racially neutral.

2. The Double Standard for Black and White Writers

• White authors are rarely required to acknowledge their racial identity, while Black authors are expected either to erase it or be categorized as writing only for a racial audience.
• Gambill cites the case of Gwendolyn Brooks, who was advised that writing about “being a Negro” limited her literary greatness (p. 3).
• This double standard echoes the marginalization faced by women writers, whose works are often dismissed as non-universal or trivial.

3. Passive Racism in Literary Representation

• Gambill examines how literary narratives often implicitly define whiteness as the default.
• She provides an example where a Black man is explicitly identified in a story, while white characters are not marked by race (p. 3).
• This subtle yet pervasive form of racism reinforces the idea that white perspectives are the norm, and non-white characters are “other.”

4. The Problem with the “Universal Experience” Concept

• Gambill challenges the “universal experience” myth, arguing that it erases cultural diversity.
• She equates this to the flawed “melting pot” ideology, which demands assimilation rather than celebrating unique identities (p. 3).
• True universality, she asserts, can only be achieved by acknowledging and embracing diverse cultural narratives.

5. Call for a More Inclusive Literary Perspective

• Gambill urges white feminists to recognize and combat racial bias in literature and criticism.
• She argues that failing to interrogate these biases contributes to the systemic exclusion of non-white voices.
• Literature should be critically examined to ensure it does not reinforce racial hierarchies under the guise of universality.

1. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Challenges the Assumption of Whiteness as Neutral
  • Gambill critiques the way whiteness is treated as the universal human experience in literature while racialized identities are marked as “other” (Gambill, 1981, p. 3).
  • “Other characters are not identified as white because the narrator assumes that everyone sees with white eyes, and is the same.”
• Exposes Passive Racism in Literary Representation
  • Highlights how Black characters are racialized in narratives while white characters remain unmarked, reinforcing racial hierarchies in literature.
  • “This is a kind of racism that is difficult to expose because it is passive.”

2. Feminist Literary Theory

• Draws Parallels Between Racism and Sexism in Literature
  • Gambill argues that just as women’s literature has been dismissed as trivial, Black literature has been marginalized as non-universal.
  • “Women writers know what it’s like to be criticized for being trivial, not ‘universal’ or ‘humanist.'”
• Calls for Intersectional Analysis
  • Encourages white feminists to recognize racial biases within feminist literary criticism and actively work against them.

3. Postcolonial Literary Theory

• Critiques Eurocentrism in Literary Canon
  • Gambill critiques the expectation that Black authors must transcend race to achieve literary greatness, an idea rooted in Eurocentric literary traditions.
  • “The ‘universal experience’ is a myth that perpetuates white male-centered standards, experiences, and culture.”
• Challenges the “Melting Pot” Ideology
  • Argues that the idea of universal literature, much like the melting pot myth, erases cultural diversity rather than embracing it.
  • “The myth, like the melting pot myth, nullifies rich cultural diversity.”

4. Reader-Response Theory

• Examines How Readers Perceive Race in Literature
  • Encourages readers to question their unconscious biases when engaging with literary texts.
  • “Does the reader ask what racial or ethnic group the other characters belong to, or why only the Black man is identified racially?”

5. New Historicism

• Literary Analysis Within Social and Historical Contexts
  • Gambill’s argument reflects historical literary criticism that positions race and gender within their socio-political contexts.
  • “To write and teach literature without a critical perspective in this respect is a form of racism.”

6. Cultural Studies

• Literature as a Site of Ideological Struggle
  • Gambill critiques how literature reinforces dominant ideologies about race, urging a more inclusive and representative literary landscape.

1. Overgeneralization of Literary Standards

• Gambill critiques the concept of “universality” in literature but does not acknowledge that some themes—such as love, loss, or justice—can be universally resonant across cultures.
• Critics argue that while the dominant literary canon has been Eurocentric, not all works by white authors impose whiteness as the universal standard.

2. Limited Engagement with Non-Western Literary Traditions

• Gambill’s argument primarily focuses on race within the context of American and Western literature, neglecting how non-Western traditions define universality.
• She does not explore how other cultures grapple with similar issues of racial and ethnic representation in literature.

3. Possible Reductionism in Literary Analysis

• Some critics might argue that her focus on racial bias risks reducing literature to political messaging rather than artistic expression.
• The expectation that all literature must challenge racial assumptions may overlook the complexities of storytelling, where race is not always central.

4. Absence of Counterarguments

• Gambill does not fully engage with potential defenses of universality, such as the idea that literature can express shared human emotions without reinforcing whiteness.
• A more nuanced approach might differentiate between universal themes and the imposition of white cultural dominance.

5. Potential Oversimplification of White Writers’ Intentions

• Gambill critiques white authors for failing to acknowledge their racial identity in writing, but some scholars argue that not all white writers actively reinforce racial exclusion.
• The assumption that whiteness is always imposed as neutral may overlook instances where white authors challenge their own racial privilege.

6. Lack of Concrete Literary Analysis

• While Gambill uses a general example of a literary passage featuring a Black character, she does not provide a detailed critique of specific canonical texts.
• A stronger argument could have been made by deconstructing well-known literary works rather than relying on a hypothetical example.

7. Feminist-Centric Approach May Overlook Broader Racial Perspectives

• Gambill’s argument is directed toward white feminists, but critics may argue that addressing broader racial critiques beyond the feminist lens could strengthen her claims.
• Some scholars believe that a broader intersectional analysis—including class and nationality—would provide a more comprehensive view.