We were quick to look at the Gates Affair through the lens of race. But it soon became clear that race was not the whole story. To bring things fully into focus, we need a second lens—that of rank. The lens of race highlights the well-known injustices of racism. The lens of rank reveals the less well recognized indignities of rankism.
Rankism has not received the attention that racism has. Perhaps its time has come. But, before looking through the lens of rank, a common misconception must be cleared away. Rank, in itself, is not the problem. Like race, rank is just a fact of life. Rank tells us who’s in charge. Used properly, it’s a useful organizational tool. The problem lies not with rank per se, but in rank abuse. By analogy with racism, sexism, and ageism, abuse of the power signified by rank is rankism. Once you have a name for it, you see it everywhere.
Rankism is the principal source of man-made indignity. As indignities accumulate, it becomes harder to repress the indignation they seed. Beyond a threshold that varies according to personal history, indignation erupts. It is not hard to understand why Professor Gates felt humiliated by treatment he interpreted as another instance of the racial profiling that has long dogged African-Americans and others lacking the protections of social rank. On top of that, a pillar of common law has it that “a man’s home is his castle.” Homeowner Gates might reasonably have assumed that he outranked a law enforcement officer on his home turf. While giving vent to his indignation can be questioned, it’s not difficult to understand his anger.
Now turn the lens of rank on the attending police. Police are trained to assume command of unruly situations. While on duty, the understanding is that our guardians outrank us, precisely so they will have the authority they need to stabilize volatile situations. We expect the police to exercise their authority according to strict rules that safeguard individual rights and the public interest. On those occasions when our guardians do abuse their rank, victims’ only resort is to take the matter to higher authority. That minorities and the poor, more than others, must pursue justice in this way is evidence that rankism falls disproportionately on them.
The Gates Affair, and the discussion it has provoked, were incubated in America’s racial history and aggravated by confusion about rank and its proper use. To reach a judgment on the Gates Affair, one must decide whether or not Professor Gates improperly attempted to assert his rank—as a Harvard professor or as homeowner—over the policeman. It is equally germane to ascertain whether or not Sergeant Crowley overstepped his legitimate authority in arresting Professor Gates. My purpose here is not to rehash, let alone try to pass judgment, but rather to find, in our obsession with the incident, a clue to the crux of the matter. The Gates Affair is that rarest of teachable moments—one that provides an opportunity to drive home an old lesson while offering us a new one.
The Gates Affair reminds us of our sorry history of racial profiling and gives new impetus to ending it. It also suggests that we’re more likely to eradicate profiling if we show our guardians the same dignity that we seek for ourselves.
But, more important than assigning blame in the case is turning the lens of rank around and seeing what it tells us about ourselves and our relationships. The clash between Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley grips us because it mirrors our own struggles with rank and its rightful use.
How much deference is due our boss, our spouse, elders, children, teachers, doctors, religious leaders, and elected officials? Where does the proper use of rank end, and rankism begin? When it is we who are outranked, do our superiors treat us respectfully? If not, why not? In those areas where we hold rank over others, do we protect their dignity as we would have them protect our own?
At long last, we’ve got racism in our sights. But rankism is still largely below the radar. Like racism and sexism before they were identified, rankism is endemic, ubiquitous, and seemingly impregnable. It’s an unrecognized source of dysfunctionality in families, schools, the workplace, religious institutions, and heathcare. Like the more familiar isms, now finally on the defensive, it too will have to be rooted out of our social institutions if we are to perfect our union.
The Gates Affair offers an opportunity to widen our lens so as to take in all varieties of rank abuse and to recognize the indignities that arise from them. The professor and the policeman will have served us well if the incident with which they are identified is seen as a milestone towards an America in which, without exception, everyone—the public and the police, employees and employers, students and teachers, blacks and whites, young and old, gays and straights, everyone—is accorded equal dignity.



8 Comments







Homeowner, obivously guilty of no crime being investigated by police officer in home, DOES outrank police officer. Period.
The premise, that
sucks.
Robert Fuller’s piece is certainly the best analysis I’ve seen of “Gates-Gate.” Rather than produce a whodunit, or to take sides–which would be to turn the “teaching moment” into a cudgel–Fuller points us to a framework that’s higher and deeper than what the mass of commentators are offering. The dignitarian perspective explains this episode better than any other interpretive prism. With its ability to identify with everyone’s point of view, it “dignifies” and raises up all parties to the dispute. If we really want to improve our society–rather than simply put down our political opponents–what can be a better way of apprehending the episode? On top of that, we have the bonus of Dr. Fuller’s burnished prose and the handsome clarity of his argument. I hope everyone, especially including Mr. Obama, reads this life-giving essay. And kudos for publishing it.
Robert W. Fuller has one note to sing, and he sings it everywhere, and maybe he even has a handle on something important about “rankism,” and…
Who cares if he’s prescribing “equal dignity” for a wife-beater and the cop who has to walk into a volatile situation and save a woman’s life? What gives a cop the right to tell a wife-beater to put down a butcher knife and step away from an injured woman?
And obviously most of the imbecile posters who commented on Gates/Crowley would also insist that since the wife-beater is in his own home, no cop has the right to order him to do anything, much less relinquish a cherished project like cutting his wife’s throat.
I’m not sure I understand – I hope it’s clear that my comment at #1 applies because the sgt. quickly determined that no crime had been committed. At that point, his authority/rank disappeared as he moved into something other than enforcing the law/investigating a crime.
Oh, and whether Prof. Gates tried pulling rank – we have only the already discredited police report for that allegation. The recording of Crowley’s call for back-up does not support the claims he made about Gates’s behavior.
Way too much of this argument proceeds without having examined all the available facts, which does require making an effort to round it all up from different sources.
I was not talking about situations such as you describe where a crime is being committed.
Yeah, Crowley could more or less instantaneously determin that no crime was being committed, according to all sorts of people who never saw a crime scene, and if Crowley had responded to a domestic disturbance, and walked away just because the homeowner showed some ID and shouted at him to get out, I’m sure all the same people would be celebrating the fact that the wife-beater killed his wife with a butcher knife one minute after the cops departed.
And no, Buckwheat, I’m not offering a complete course in police procedure to everybody who shoots his mouth of about Sgt. Crowley and Skip Gates, unlike a couple of White House lawyers who explained the facts of life to the ludicrous non-lawyer Obama and his pal Skip, and convinced both of them to back the fuck off Crowley before they stepped on their dicks again.
You’re angry. I get it. You might want to explain where it comes from, otherwise it just seems hostile.
First, don’t include me in your “people who have never seen a crime scene.”
I’ve seen quite a few. You don’t know anything about who you’re scolding.
Second, read the police report written by Sgt. Crowley. He had ALREADY made the determination that Prof. Gates was the resident of the home, that he was not a burglar breaking in, and thus, that NO CRIME had been committed.
There was no hint of a domestic disturbance. The call about a possible break-in has no parallel with a call about a man beating his wife or children. (and trust me, I know quite a bit about those situations, professionally, so don’t bother to try to school me)
Read up on the facts, then come back and try arguing from what is known, not your own imagining of a situation that didn’t happen.
Why are you so fixed on the domestic violence scenario? It has nothing at all to do with this.
Oh, by the way – “ludicrous non-lawyer Obama?”
The President is in fact a lawyer, graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was elected by his fellow law review members as president of the Law Review. He practiced law after graduation and he taught law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
How did you miss that? It was all over the news last year, for some reason.
I get it now — you just hate President Obama for whatever reason, and this is the club you think you have to beat him with.
Like I said, get your facts straight, then argue.