I found a nice explanation of it in Wikipedia today, where the original quotation was given:
"this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity”, and of a two-ness, of being "an American, a Negro; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder."
Dr Du Bois goes on to explain:
The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife, — this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He does not wish to Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa; he does not wish to bleach his Negro blood in a flood of white Americanism, for he believes that Negro blood has yet a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without losing the opportunity of self-development.
So, my entry is not about race or American identity, I was thinking about it in a different context after an incident last week. I was invited to a dinner by a colleague of Bren, where a hexagenarian gentleman of Bangladeshi origin was also invited. So after dinner, this gentleman was talking about his family, and then segued into a discussion on motherhood and the right role for woman.
His argument was that the society should value motherhood and the duty of raising a family more, so that the women, whose "most important" role is keeping the family together, would not seek other alternatives, like career to feel important, and would concentrate at home. Then he continued that the north American children are falling behind compared to Chinese and Indians in science, math and other achievements, because the Chinese and Indian children come from a stable family environment, where the mother's role is always clear.
I won't mention the personal context he was referring to, but at that table, there were five other people including me, and all of us were stiff and uncomfortable at the backhanded sexism involved in the argument. We politely nodded and did our bit of ooh-ing and aah-ing to accommodate our guest, but at some point, this other Canadian woman got flustered and tried to distract herself by throwing peanuts at another dinner mate. I occasionally left the table to remove the dirty dishes, so I didn't have to react to that argument.
I spend a lot of time blaming other people for not providing me with opportunities. But I think after listening to experiences of my colleagues and friends, I often thank my lucky stars that I was not born a woman, because I wouldn't know how to live.
Siobhan, my Irish friend (yes, I missed the accent on a, Shu, don't send me hate mail) once commented (Gender Equality in the Desh) that in Bangladesh 'food chain', "a white man is top of the chain and a white woman is the bottom", facing all forms of harassment. And certainly, after seeing my colleagues being harassed by a complete stranger in the elevator just because, and being harassed by a young poor jewelry seller just because, I often wonder where the road ends.
So, back to double consciousness, and the two-ness. As a woman, it's not enough to use the opportunity for self-development and contribute to the society, but you need to also gain appropriate approval of the men to avoid the so called "being cursed and spit upon by ... fellows" for not also living up to the stereotype of "the most important role".
For Bangladeshi born daughters raised in the west, is there a bigger form of oppression?
