Ghostly Ideals in Black History

Amelia Fowler

Professor Miller

African American History

12 May, 2023 

Ghostly Ideals In Black History

Often in American History we find a lack of representation from any perspective beyond white men. In Kyle E. Brooks’ presentation on Ghostly Ideals, he dissects the ways in which the presence black icons has persisted by putting it into historic context. He begins his discussion with a quote from William Faulkner, saying “The past is never dead, it’s not even past.” Being both an incredibly stimulating quote and also the perfect transition into his discussion, Brooks uses this to shape his argument. His thesis reads “the genealogy of black religious leadership in sociopolitical life has been haunted, so to speak, by a nostalgic mythology of black male clerical authority.” Here, Brooks states that the past haunts the present and black icons have left an image that has been shaped by white political and social life and is both impossible and unrealistic to recreate. 

In using examples of icons like MLK, Brooks argues that there is a false image of what black leadership should be and claims that white society has shaped black religious leaders. He mentions George Liele, who was a celebrated preacher among both white and black citizens. However, he claims that Liele was only deemed fit enough to be freed from his master for his contributions to religious life; it was the only thing that separated him from his identity as a black man and the false connotations given to Black Americans at this time. It was this shared appreciation for God and religious life that gave Liele enough credibility to be a free man. “The role of the black preacher was an exceedingly flexible container for a variety of interests and aims. A form of organic authority that was formed by social, political, and religious contingencies,” (Brooks).  

Brooks uses the term “Hauntology” consistently throughout his presentation, “To describe the mythology of black religious leadership as a hauntology means to reckon with how a tradition turns into a ghostly ideal.” He mentions author Erica Edwards and her book “Charisma,”  where she argues that leadership has privileged figures whose speech aesthetics align with more performative ideals. There is a mold in place for what religious leaders, or leaders in general, must conform to. The term “charismatic aesthetic” refers to various elements and acts that reconstruct political authority and, further, how they become mythologized and naturalized; Essentially, there are blueprints for leadership and the leaders themselves. Brooks also mentions Karl Marx and Marxism philosophy. “What does it mean to follow a ghost? What if this came down to being followed by it, always persecuted perhaps by the very cause we are leading?” (Derrida, Spectators of Marx). Brooks uses Marx’s ideology to lend support to his argument about the hauntology of black history and how previous figures or ideas linger/haunt us. 

Brooks uses Martin Luther King Jr. as a prime example of a ghostly ideal. While MLK was undoubtedly an incredibly significant historical figure, his image and presence still haunts the world today. Brooks argues that MLK established an unachievable standard for black leadership and that his intense legacy caused him to become a ghostly ideal. Even in death, he was celebrated and remained a leader of triumph that most other leaders would pale in comparison too. “The conditions that enabled and sustained King’s charismatic authority were already in decline well before his assassination .” It was King’s Charismatic approach to leadership that allowed him to fit the script of what an ideal leader should be. “The ghostly icon of King becomes an impossible ideal that exists only as a myth, not as concrete substance.” This quote expresses how King’s legacy can be appreciated but not recreated. We remember MLK as a symbol of hope and growth for the struggle of racism in America. Because he is seen as an icon, a sense of humanity within him is lost. We don’t remember his characteristics, but rather his movement and influence, hence Brooks labeling him as a ghostly ideal. 

Brooks’ presentation was incredibly informative and lends a lot of support to Black History in America. With his use of various authors and sources, he is able to articulate his argument that the past will never die and there are a plethora of ghostly icons in black history; Further, how these representations and ideologies still prosper today. The concept of hauntology is incredibly significant to Brooks’ presentation because it helps support his argument that there are many ghostly figures in black history specifically. Most of them share similar characteristics but they are also required to not simply be amazing, but out of the ordinary. Historically, Black Americans have suffered a great deal because of white supremacy and white dominated society. There was hardly room made for black Americans in society. That being said, Brooks highlights those who were able to rise above their set places in society; However, this was only under the condition that they were exceptional and could be integrated into white society on a certain level, which in most cases regarded religion. 

Black preachers are particularly highlighted because of their worship for God, which was a common practice among all races. Martin Luther King Jr. was deemed exceptional for many reasons, one of which being he fit the mold of a charismatic leader. The March on Washington was an incredibly significant event in the era of civil rights. Freedom on my Mind highlights several figures responsible for this historic movement, and yet, Martin Luther King Jr. is the figure that we remember and credit most. It is often believed, or rather, overlooked, that an icon such as himself had or even needed help. However, it is assumptions such as these that reinforce the notion of ghostly ideals and support Brooks’ argument of how we remember black icons. Benjamin May believes that icons like MLK “present a moral problem because its ground principle, the deuces that those made to lead, are the arbiters of a very specific embodiment of perfection.” May believes King’s image is problematic because he so perfectly fits the model of the ideal leader. There is hardly another human being who will live up to such legacy. “The image likeness and aesthetics of his charismatic authority become a ghostly script that his successors followed and are followed by.” His embodiment is elusive and immaterial, and, therefore, impossible to capture. “It makes for a great story but an impossible repetition.” 

In his conclusion, Brooks mentions the influence of James Baldwin and how he views icons like MLK. Baldwin described the paradoxes of black leaders, claiming “The terrible thing about being a negro leader lies in the term itself…created and defeated by the same circumstances.” This notion supports the idea that black leaders have been created in predominantly white society, therefore, conformity poses restrictions. To be a black icon in white society meant that one did not have to be good, they had to be great. This presentation lends support to African American history overall as it is these icons that Brooks is referring to that helped change the centuries long narrative; They allowed black history to have a rightful place in society. By acknowledging the hauntology that Brooks argues, there is a better representation and comprehension of black history overall. This study and analysis of hauntology allows much clearer insight into the misinterpretation of black history in America as well as its leaders.

 

Works Cited 

Baldwin, James. “From the American Scene: The Harlem Ghetto.” Commentary Magazine. February 1948. 

Brooks, Kyle. “Ghostly Ideals: The Hauntology of Black Religious Leadership.” Youtube, USD Humanities Center. March 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RTxuQBQxPQ

Bay, Mia. Waldo, Martin. White, Deborah. “Freedom on my Mind: A History of African Americans.” Bedford/St. Martin’s; Third Edition. 21 September, 2021. 

Edwards, Erica. “Charisma and the Fictions of Black Leadership.” U of Minnesota Press. 24 January, 2012. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*