From David Schraub:
Drum identifies a paradox: We have to talk about racism, but talking about racism renders conversation impossible. Racism is a “such a uniquely toxic accusation that it makes any real conversation hopeless.”
But here’s the thing: there’s no reason why that has to be true. When we talk about homelessness, for example, and I argue that a particular political position is unfair to the homeless, it doesn’t have this effect. Racism is different: to talk about racial justice at all is automatically translated into a personal attack on the target’s moral character. And once that’s the terrain of the discussion, we’ve insulated the underlying policy differences from critical review. All conversations about racism are converted into inquisitions into whether or not someone is a conscious bigot. Since they know they’re nothing of the sort, the “accusation” is dismissed and the “accuser” is labeled a race-baiter. One may have noticed that even if one takes great pains to frame an argument such that it does not call anybody a racist, the stock response nevertheless will be “are you calling me a racist?!!?” Why are they so eager to make the debate about something so “toxic”? It’s because that’s actually very easy terrain to deal with.
Framing racism as a “toxic” accusation benefits the status quo racial hierarchy. Most obviously, it does so by insulating policies which have racial impacts from meaningful scrutiny. More subtly, it allows proponents of maintaining racial hierarchy to maintain their self-perception as anti-racist. This whole gambit depends on asserting the exceptional moral seriousness of racism (else how could it be so “toxic”?). One often hears the claim that a given charge of racism is spurious coupled with the assertion that such frivolous accusations “make it harder to oppose real racism” — a reassertion of racism as something that is serious and does need to be opposed. The net result is that racism is so serious that nothing ever actually can be racist — a neat equilibrium, for those who want to identify as non-racist but don’t want to actually change anything about themselves.
Bullshit.
Would you like to see a “uniquely toxic accusation that it makes any real conversation hopeless?” It doesn’t take much thought: In the context of homeless people, it might be something like “deliberately putting children out of the street to starve and freeze to death.”
And yes, people do occasionally make that accusation and yes, people then do focus on resolving it because it is such an unpleasant accusation to receive.
But of course, you don’t see it that much. Although the quoted blogger may not realize it, the amazing thing about the English language is that we have many terms of degree for fucking over the homeless, ranging from “not supportive of homeless rights” to “unfair to the homeless” to “dehumanizing” all the way up to “wants them taken out behind the shelter and shot.”
And when it comes to “racism” we have more than one way to talk about all of the , ranging from the “racism” of failing to recognize one’s unconscious privilege, to the “racism” of failing to proactively fight against it; to the “racism” of opposing affirmative action or reparations (on any grounds,) to the “racism” of supporting neutral processes with racial-differential results; to the “racism” of holding active prejudice against POC; to the “racism” of violent hatred and violent actions against POC, to…
Wait a gosh darned second. Are those all the same term? Whose stupid fucking idea was it to push the same word as a means of describing behavior which literally runs the gamut from “psychopathic lynching” to “unconscious failure to proactively reduce your privilege?”
Oh, wait. Something tells me it was the same groups who are now claiming to be surprised, shocked, amazed, that–after having used the term on very low-level stuff for effect–people would focus on defending against the effect they chose. Why, the nerve of those folks: reacting rationally to a change in social standards? Actually responding to the threat of censure? That’s bizarre. Astoundingly so.
I mean hell: sure, you might have some people suggesting all whites are racist, and sure, you might have some people suggesting all racism is hate speech. But it’s instantly obvious to third parties which racism is which, right? It’s not like people want to punish hate speech, anyway. It’s not as if you can get fired for it, or get a higher criminal sentence.
And sure perhaps the race-focused folks have managed to convince colleges to pass speech codes like this, which literally prohibit racism and cultural intolerance. But it would be very odd if you actually expected any of those students to refrain from discussing sensitive topics, or if you expected them to actually adhere to the rules. Nobody in college would ever get reported or suffer any consequences: the rules are clearly fake. And of course, there’s really no risk anyway. After all, irrespective of the race of the person you’re arguing against, you can always rely on them to play fair. You can be certain that they would never exploit any situational or process advantages.
Sigh. Is it really not obvious?
gin-and-whiskey:
Ah, is that the siren call of civil discourse I hear?
In hindsight, you’re right. That was a bad move. You may be glad to know that it’s on the agenda for the next meeting. Once a majority of the Language Cabal has approved a fix, we’ll publish it via the major media outlets, and then everyone will use the new terminology from that day forward, and we’ll be able to consign that little misstep to the dustbin of history. Won’t THAT be a relief!
Because that’s how language works.
It must be so difficult, being you. I wonder what our funny little brains look like, from your perspective.
Sarcasm aside, suppose we did come up with a carefully-graded hierarchy of internalized, ah, bias, at the bottom of which was “fribble, n.: the state of benefitting, on average, from unearned and un-asked-for systemic advantages conferred by the culture one lives in, and of being unaware of it.” Do you really think that, the next day, we would not hear people saying, “Wait a minute. Are you calling me fribble? I’m not fribble! How DARE you!”
Humans are adaptive and creative tool users. If the task at hand is driving a nail and we have no hammers, we’ll use that big crescent wrench over there, thanks. Or that rock. If it matters to our sense of self-worth to drive that nail, if not driving that nail will threaten our sense that we are entitled to everything we have, most of us would drive that nail with our own elbow, if we couldn’t contrive to use someone else’s.
I have internalized racism. I’m ashamed of it. I work hard not to let it show. I want to be a better person, a person without it, and I work toward being that better person. But there it is. I would not be able to engage with it if I denied that it were there. Which is the problem that it seems to me Schraub is pointing out: you can’t go somewhere better if you insist that you’re already there.
You want to cushion the blow by using a gradated terminology. Leaving aside problems of adoption, you could make rational arguments in favor of that. One strong counterargument is that you have now converted a one-time bootstrap (“Sigh. Yeah, okay, I see what you mean. We pretty much all have this internalized racism to some extent, huh?”) into a multi-step process (“Well, okay, I’m a teensy bit fribble, but it’s not like I’m frooble, or nooble, or zibble, or freeble, or weeble, and I’m certainly not the R-word!”). Result: sliding definitions, attempts to draw a line around ourselves and define everything outside of it as “more fribble than us”, etc.
Pretty much the status quo, actually, except with more steps.
Grace
The idea that what we need is a more nuanced vocabulary to talk about racial injustice was argued quite forcefully in Lawrence Blum’s I’m Not a Racist, But ….: The Moral Quandery of Race (Cornell UP 2002). I don’t disagree with Blum’s arguments — indeed, I think his book is fantastic — but over the years I’ve grown more skeptical of their utility. The fact is that, while not gradated as we might like, we do have other ways of talking about racial injustice other than “racism.” “Racial injustice,” “racial bias,” “racial prejudice,” “doesn’t adequately account for the views of racial minorities,” “racial inequality,” etc.. They’re a bit awkward, but people use them precisely because they’re trying to bend over to not use the “toxic” r-word. And in my experience, it does no good whatsoever — a criticism couched in those terms will still be met with a red face and goggled eyes “ARE YOU CALLING ME A RACIST?!!?” Which seems to support that this framework — regardless of who “created” it in the first place — now benefits the racists at least as much as it does the anti-racists.
I’m also baffled by this argument that there is some sort of dirty pool in using “racist” to apply to both low and high severity conduct. If I say Joe is a “liar”, I could mean anything from “he used a false fact in an argument” to “he said he’d return my lawnmower Friday but intended to keep it over the weekend” to “he swindled a million people out of their pension money.” Those of course vary widely in their seriousness, but it isn’t even considered strange, much less problematic, that “liar” could encompass all these sorts of behaviors. Likewise with “racist”: If “racist” is defined as (for example) “having inegalitarian attitudes towards particular racial groups”, it would apply both to someone with unconscious aversive racist tendencies and to the Bull Connors of the world. This is not even an uncommon, let alone objectionable, feature of language.
“Ah, is that the siren call of civil discourse I hear?”
Ah, is that a tone argument I hear?
David Schraub:
Does your definition encompass the following sentences:
“Black people are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia than white people.”
“Asian students are more likely to score higher on standardized tests than white people.”
“Black people have a lower life expectancy than Asian people.”
“Asian people are, on average, shorter than average height for all people.”
All of these statements are “inegalitarian” toward a particular group. However, none of them are particularly “aversive,” and they are probably all true (though the truth value of these statements has little to do with my argument).
I would be willing to work with a definition of racist that “it is a statment or attitude of or pertaining to a racial characterization or classification.” (Off the cuff working definition.) This encompasses the very innocuous (blacks are more at risk for sickle-cell anemia) to the very hateful ([CENSORED, by Jut as unnecessarily inflammatory; you may insert your favorite example here]).
However, it seems that most people who want “racist” to have the wide array of application also want it to be reserved to a term that makes some sort of moral judgment.
In short, there appears to be a desire THAT the term have some sort of toxic quality to it by eliminating, by deinition, “racist” statements that are not considered morally repugnant.
-Jut
Yup. That’s part of how we roll around here.
Jut – the difference between “inegalitarian” and “inegalitarian attitudes” is significant.
I think it’s very dubious that any of your statements actually are “inegalitarian towards a particular group.” But they are definitely not “inegalitarian ATTITUDES towards a particular group.”
Since your entire critique is based on falsely pretending that “inegalitarian” and “inegalitarian attitudes” are interchangeable, your entire critique fails.
Back in the day when I was learning what’s now called “progressive” politics and analysis (the 1960’s and early 1970’s), it was taken as a given that we are all racist. We grow up marinated in racism (and sexism, etc.), so it’s impossible for us to get rid of our racist tropes, attitudes, beliefs, “truths,” etc. The most we can do is to counteract them, but for this, we must learn to recognize them, and each racist trope, etc., requires a separate learning process.
It’s like lice in the 15th century — everybody had them, and people learned to pick them off of themselves and other. Everyone knew that everyone had lice, so no one got offended at having a particularly obvious louse pointed out or picked off of them.
The people in our racism-infested age who insist on getting all offended when someone points out how they’ve said or done something racist come across like people from the 15-th century who refuse to admit they have any lice — and thus end up being covered with them.
(And, no, changing the words or phrasing used to point out racist acts and speech won’t make a difference. That’s just magical thinking, it’s been done many times before and it didn’t change anything. But I’ve had that argument here before.)
Schraub’s and Drum’s posts only work if you’re a white person assuming that your audience is white while also assuming that how you internalize racial issues, racial commentary and their political utility will be from the perspective of someone who has, at best, a minimal and detached investment in substantive equality and, at worst, a resounding, clear and historical investment in its maintenance. I can’t really take either of their posts as anything but sickening and infuriating (though for different reasons), because I find the absence of people of color and the absence of perspectives that internalize their vantage points/political priorities incredibly glaring. There’s a way to discuss Drum’s disturbing – albeit illustrative – post and I’m not sure throwing another white dude with his own racial blindspots in the picture is the best way to highlight the moral failings Kevin Drum’s post exemplifies.
Just…ugh.
AMM:
Time for one of my favorite bits on internalized racism. Jay Smooth advances a way of thinking which is very similar to AMM’s example, and does it very engagingly.
Grace
Drexciya: You are entirely correct that my post adopts as its vantage a particularly situated White person who has “at best, a minimal and detached investment in substantive equality and, at worst, a resounding, clear and historical investment in its maintenance” and who almost certainly has not internalized the vantage point of persons of color. I adopt that vantage for three reasons:
(1) As you say, it’s the one Drum adopts and I was responding to his post.
(2) The question I’m exploring is a particularly tactical move whereby any discussion of racism is considered to be “toxic” and only justified in cases of extreme moral depravity. That move, in my experience, is primarily one made by persons with the above characteristics for the reasons I suggest in my post.
(3) The above set of attributes, I believe, characterizes the majority of persons and persons with political and social power in this country, and the persons most responsible with structuring the framing of what “racism” is in our society. Deconstructing why such people talk the way they do (and why, seemingly counterintuitively, they describe racism as an extremely serious moral sin even though they have a strong vested interest in perpetuating a system of racial hierarchy) is a valuable project.
Nonetheless, that I was engaging in that particular project is something that I should have made clearer, since it is quite true that the impact of how one uses “racist” and how it will be interpreted will differ depending on who the audience is and what their priors are, and exploring that is also a valuable project in its own right.
Words and perspectives are what they are. If they don’t convince you because you have a different perspective, that’s because of your perspective and not because of your race. (After all, not all people of a given race share the same perspective, goals, or analysis.)
I am confident that some folks think your post is great. I am confident that some folks will disagree. I am even confident that there are some folks whose opinion of your post is based on their belief regarding your racial status–they may be more, or less, likely to agree based on what race they think you are. That’s because of what is in their minds, not what color their skin is.
Well, it’s obvious that people are limited by their own minds, but that applies to everyone. I can’t see beyond my own perspective, though I can work to expand it; neither can you.
I do think you’re correct about substantive equality. It’s certainly true that different people have widely differing interpretations of what “equality” means, and that white people tend not to select substantive equality.
That’s because the interpretations tend to be motivated by self interest, across groups: the top folks in a group tend to push for process equality (this allows them to obtain preferential outcomes); the middle folks tend to push for input equality (this increases their chance of preferential outcomes without admitting too much risk from the bottom folks) and the bottom folks tend to push for outcome/substantive equality, which increases the benefits to them (at the cost of benefits to the middle and upper groups.)
But “equality” isn’t limited to inputs, process, or outcomes alone. It includes all of those. The fact that you emphasize only one of the three competing equalities is unsurprising. Almost everyone wants to promote the solution which is most beneficial to them. It doesn’t make it right, though; no matter which you prefer the others remain relevant.