Junot Diaz's How To Date A Browngirl, Blackgirl

To deal with the concern of subjectivity and objectivity in Junot Diaz’s “How to Date a Browngirl, Blackgirl, Whitegirl, or Halfie” is actually to talk about a situation where appearances are manipulated to the degree that objectivity becomes impossible. The tale takes the guise of an instructional manual, purporting to provide advice as to how exactly to work or act depending upon the ethnicity and social course of the reader’s time. However, if the real function of “dating” is to attain perhaps not just real, but mental intimacy—that is, to really start to understand the individual one is courting (and vice versa)—then the advice of the tale becomes counter-productive. This then becomes the main irony and driving power of the tale. The prospective

for either participant to understand the other, objectively, becomes impossible as Diaz instructs the audience (an assumed male) to pile layer upon layer of subjective façades onto his interactions, masking his record, social status, and also racial characteristics in hopes of manipulating the circumstance at the cost of mental closeness (in the feeling of the individuals understanding each other’s real selves). Likewise, by showcasing the degree to which a person’s own expectations of another individual being are determined by his or her subjective generalizations about a person’s race or course, Diaz shows that although we control the other’s perception of us, our perceptions of other people additionally control us.

By the 2nd paragraph of the tale, its part as a primer becomes clear as the narrator instructs the audience to mask his social course by concealing the “government cheese” in the fridge . But also this might be perhaps not an easy action, since the girl/date’s social course will figure out just how well the cheese will have to be concealed. This presents the main motif of the story—that the desired audience must work in a different way based upon the competition and social course of the individual he is courting. Therefore, Diaz’s directions fly in the face of the age old, objective, parental knowledge of “just be yourself” and highlight the means in which race/class constructs and objectives make such advice impossible to heed. This might be more evidenced by the narrator’s directions that the audience hide elements of his background and racial background: “take down any embarrassing pictures of your family,” “Hide the photographs of your self with an Afro,” and “Run a hand through your hair like the whiteboys do even though the only thing that runs easily through your hair is Africa” . To follow the advice of the tale will, in all chance, get the follower closer to some kind of real closeness, but this closeness will be the outcome of a very carefully manipulated subjective impression he produces for his time, instead than the more inherent and objective truths of whom he really is.

But Diaz does maybe not confine his evaluation entirely to the methods in which the girl’s battle and course should figure out the behavior of the woman time (the “you” of the tale).

It additionally determines the girl’s behavior, or at minimum exactly what the audience should expect of the girl. Diaz peppers his instructions with advice as to exactly what to expect, such as “A halfie will tell you that her parents met in the movement” , “a local girl may have hips and a thick ass but she won’t be quick about letting you touch” and “A whitegirl might just give it up right then” . Therefore Diaz shows not just stereotypes and their possible for precision, but additionally the degree to which a person’s upbringing and battle can figure out his or her behavior. In doing therefore, Diaz emphasizes the means in which the social forces of competition and course undercut both individuality and objectivity. If our actions are determined by the social impacts put upon united states by our competition and course, where is there space for individuality? If our response to other individuals is determined by competition and social course, are we courting a person or a racial/social archetype? To deal with another individual being as a racial or social archetype instead than as a person is to trade in stereotypes. The narrator’s advice is predicated upon his subjective knowledge of teams (race/class), instead than the consideration of each individual being as a person, possessed of unique responses and desires. He plays at presenting the audience with objective truths (If she is this, she will work this method) however, if a reader appears beyond the respected tone, he or she can see that this advice is undoubtedly predicated upon the narrator’s subjective knowledge of these racial and social teams. This observation is additional evidenced by Diaz’s addition of a minute where the narrator’s advice falters and breaks down in the face of a woman whose actions move beyond the world

of label and into that of individuality: “She will cross her arms, say, I hate my tits. Stroke her hair but she will pull away. I don’t like anybody touching my hair, she will say. She will act like somebody you don’t know” . At this point, the woman is acting like somebody the narrator does not understand, someone whom does not fit nicely into a racial label. She is a person, possessed of the woman very own unique hang-ups and insecurities. She is an individual being much more than an archetype, and this confounds the advice of the narrator. This minute is Diaz’s reminder that we are all more than the groups into which we fit, and that no fit is perfect.

Therein lies one of the main talents of Diaz’s tale: by showcasing the decrease of the person to race and course characteristics, he causes the audience to concern both the precision and the legitimacy of such a decrease. Though the tale couches all of its points under the pretext of intimate closeness (ranging from a kiss to complete on sexual intercourse), it nevertheless causes the curious audience to start thinking about the methods one manipulates appearances in all social contexts and interactions and the way in which one’s very own biases and objectives determine behavior.