Despite being the first Black woman to run for US President on a major party ticket, Kamala Harris’ identity plays no prominent role in public perception. Hans Asenbaum argues that Trump’s attempts to define Harris are failing because of her intersectionality and fluidity
Kamala Harris is the first Black woman nominated by a major party for US President. A historic moment – you would think! But somehow, Harris’ race and gender are not playing a prominent role in this election.
There is, of course, plenty of contestation around identity. Indeed, this election is part of the 'identity wars' around abortion and white supremacy that I wrote about in the launch blog piece for this series.
Harris entered the race late and was little known, resulting in a struggle to 'define her'. While Harris projects herself as a progressive, patriotic fighter for freedom, her opponents frame her as a radical-left fundamentalist.
If you picture Kamala Harris, it is unlikely you will think of her, primarily, as Black and a woman
Astoundingly, despite identity wars and struggles over defining Harris, her gender and race are not the media's principal focus. If you picture Kamala Harris, you might think of a vice president, a prosecutor, a bearer of hope or a destroyer of everything – but it is unlikely you will think of her, primarily, as Black and a woman.
Compare Harris' campaign to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. The first woman ever to be nominated by a major US political party, Clinton's gender dominated her public appearances. She first entered the political stage as Bill Clinton’s wife – and even after eight years as Senator and four years as Secretary of State, the image of her as the First Lady, the cheated wife, was locked in.
As presidential candidate, Clinton faced the usual conundrum for women in politics: if she acted empathetic and caring, the media criticised her for being too weak to be president; if she acted like a strong leader, she was berated for being too manly. To counter her image as an 'icy control queen' in the 2008 primaries, Clinton invited female voters to a local café where she became emotional and even teary, succumbing to the pressure of gender expectations.
Harris’ femininity, in contrast, doesn’t appear to be an issue. There are certainly features of her public performance that could be associated with female stereotypes, for example, the social media videos of her laughing, dancing, and cooking. However, this footage doesn't reduce Harris to her gender but makes her relatable as a 'real person'.
Rather than Harris’ femininity, it is her husband’s gender role that attracts public attention
In fact, rather than Harris’ femininity, it is her husband’s gender role that attracts public attention. Douglas Emhoff presents a model of modern masculinity – a caring, supportive enabler, comfortable in the background.
In 2016, Clinton’s then and Harris’ now opponent, Donald Trump, branded Clinton a 'nasty woman' – a label that stuck. When Harris entered the race in 2024, all of Trump’s attempts to brand her failed.
First, he accused her – unoriginally – of lying and called her 'lyin’ Kamala Harris', which her supporters quickly turned into 'lion Kamala Harris', flooding social media with lion memes. Frustrated, Trump kept misspelling and mispronouncing her first name. Calling her Kamabla or Kabala, Trump stirred racist sentiments by orientalising her.
When all these strategies proved futile, Trump decided to address the issue head-on. In his ultimate attempt to define Harris, he stated: 'I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black… all of a sudden, she made a turn, and she became a Black person.'
This shot backfired. Instead of a debate about Harris’ race, Trump’s racism became the topic. Harris responded: 'We deserve a leader who understands that our differences do not divide us – they are an essential source of our strength', styling herself as a strong, progressive leader, while defining Trump as racist.
Trump was more successful in defining Barack Obama by spreading conspiracy theories about his citizenship and insinuating he was Muslim. Just as Clinton ran as a woman, Obama ran as an African American. His race was central to his public perception; his becoming the first Black president was a historic event.
Obama appeared as a modern version of a Civil Rights leader; an almost prophetic figure. Obama’s use of 'hope' in his messaging echoed Martin Luther King’s 'dream'. Of the African Americans who have competed for the presidency, many, such as the reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, were religious leaders. Obama’s rhetorical style and tone of voice carried elements of his pastoral predecessors.
Harris’ African American heritage doesn’t dominate her public appearances; recent polls show that only 70% of African Americans intend to vote for her
In contrast, Harris’ African American heritage doesn’t dominate her public appearances. This is evident in Obama’s and Harris’ political followership. In the 2008 election, an unprecedented 95% of African Americans voted for Obama. Recent polls show that only 70% of African Americans intend to vote for Harris.
So why is it that Harris’ gender and race are not dominating her public perception? Why is Trump failing to define her? The answer lies in the multiplicity and fluidity of her identity. Harris’ intersectionality as woman, and African American, and Asian, and a prosecutor, and Vice President, makes it difficult to reduce her to one set of stereotypes.
When Trump describes Harris as 'becoming Black' and states: 'There are numerous ways of saying her name… I heard it said about seven different ways', he is actually pointing to her strength – her resilience against being defined by others.
In my book, The Politics of Becoming, I describe this multiplicity and transformability as the 'fugitive self'. The contributions to this blog series deepen these insights in, for example, Black Lives Matter, selfie activism, and the Brazilian mental health movement.
None of this is to say that Harris’ identity doesn’t play a role in this election. On the contrary, her indefinability is creating a new progressive identity politics.
Hans' work focuses on democratic theory and practice, identities, digital politics, and participatory research methods.
The Politics of Becoming: Anonymity & Democracy in the Digital Age
Oxford University Press, 2023
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy
Coedited with Selen Ercan, Nicole Curato, and Ricardo Mendonça
Oxford University Press, 2022
Kamala Harris is an Indian American woman. She is not Black. Jamaica is a country, not a race. Her father never identified himself as Black but as mixed heritage of Irish and Hindu. Her attendance at Howard University is a public university that is open to all races as well as the AKA sorority. It also amazes me how White America is telling Black America who and what is Black American.
In addition, Candance Owens have supporting evidence of Kamala's true genealogy.
Kamala Harris is not African American. No matter how hard see has attempted to blackify herself the truth is surfacing.
It %100 matters. It wouldn't have mattered if she told the truth. She lied and said she was black. But now we are learning that she is white and Indian. A president pretending that she is black to play the equality and inclusion card to get votes is sickening. A wealthy white woman pretending to be a black middle class woman. Wow! Unbelievable. I guess race is fluid now too.
White people ONCE again trying to tell black Americans about race. Kamala Harris is NOT black has never been black and has only used being black for political expediency.
Black Americans should call her AND white Democrats out for using the black American experience for political theft. She is nothing but another DEMOCRAT fraud...we've seen plenty of them since Democrat Slavery.
This is an such an unhinged white article. How dare this writer wave away the utilization of Black identity. Who is he to decide? It is sociopathic and sick for someone to mine the history of Black suffering for political gain. Donald Harris, her father, is NOT African American. He has never identified as Black, he is listed on Jamaican documents as Mixed Race, Indian and White. His direct family comes from a wealthy slave owning family in Jamaica. Anyone who knows anything about Jamaica understands the family dynamic immediately. Indians and Whites are the elites of the island. Kamala is an Indian American and she could have been the first Indian American president if she didn't need to rely on lying to secure the Black vote. Kamala's media goons went after Janet Jackson for being ahead of the curve and used their influence to cover the suspicions that most of us Black people have been talking about between ourselves for some time.
Team Janet...lock, stock and barrel!
It absolutely matters because it is a lie. She is a liar. She lies about everything.
Kamala's race only matters because she made it matter. And she did so to gain votes. As it turns out, she is not an African American, no matter how hard the mainstream media claims otherwise.
Honesty Matters. If she is lying, then she is falsely attempting to use being black to gain an advantage in the presidential. If she is indeed being dishonest about her race and heritage, then she is despicable. The truth matters.
She’s not Black and it does matter. She used the race card. It would be easy for her to defend herself and say who her black grandparents are. She’s gone radio silent. The woman she claimed was her Grandmother in her book the help. There are two photos with this woman at about age 3 and in her 20’s, unfortunately that Grandmother died 4 years before she was born. Her Dad’s side of the family was slave owners. Kommie La (the communist) is Indian, Jewish and Irish. You’re not Journalist, your Democrat coverups. Do your fucking job.
Donald J. Harris, born August 23, 1938
Jamaican-American economist and emeritus professor at Stanford University
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Harris
The majority of Americans are voting for her because of the lowest common denominator the color of her skin.
But its the same people behind the scenes who have placed her in power that push genocide, and profitable endless war and policy.
how does an article by a “senior research fellow” get written without doing any actual research? kamala harris is being dishonest about her background and exploiting black america for political gain and that’s not worth looking into? how is someone a victim of their own lie? lazy european pretentiousness has never solved anything and its sparkle has finally faded…what you just wrote is simply the smoke of an extinguished flame…