If you haven’t had the chance to read anything from professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, I highly reccomend his books–Racism Without Racists and White Supremacy and Racism in the Post Civil Rights Era. I used his model of colorblind racism in my dissertation to talk about how interracial relationships are viewed in contemporary American (US that is) society. Granny has a post (inspired by this post) discussing some of Bonilla Silva’s views on “race talk” in the colorblind era. I think Dr. Bonilla-Silva added a few more elements in the final draft of the book than he had in the earlier article that Granny cites.
Here are a few quotes from the theory section of my dissertation discussing Bonilla-Silva’s views on colorblind racism. For those who are interested in social theory, I combined a symbolic interactionist (Goffman’s and Blumer) perspective with contemporary racism theory as the foundation for the study research.
Several stylistic and ideological characteristics distinguish the “new racism” from its predecessor. Bobo, et. al. (1997) argue that laissez faire racism involves three key elements– persistent negative stereotyping of African Americans, opposition to policies to improve the conditions of African Americans, and a tendency to blame African Americans for the persistent gap in socio-economic standing. Bonilla-Silva (2001) adds other characteristics, which are particularly helpful at identifying the “style” of contemporary racism—1) increasingly covert racial discourses and practices, 2) avoidance of racial terminology and claims by whites that they experience “reverse discrimination,” 3) a racial agenda in the discussion of political matters that avoids direct racial references, 4) invisibility of the mechanisms of racial inequality, and 5) the rearticulation of some of the elements of Jim Crow racism (pg. 90). One of the most important elements of contemporary racism is the emergence of the “colorblind ideology.” The colorblind ideology asserts that color is not important and should not be the basis for social judgments. The key problem with colorblind ideology is that it is an abstract principle that does not hold true in practice, particularly in the practice of marriage and intimacy (Bonilla Silva 2001). This new racist ideology is often referred to as colorblind or laissez faire racism.
Here is another quote on the specific issues that Granny raises.
Bonilla Silva’s (2003) concept of race talk is particularly useful because he talks about the rhetorical strategies that that Whites use to avoid be labeled as racist. These strategies are very clear examples of the face work used maintain the illusion of antiracism. For example, Bonilla Silva talks about the—“I’m not racist but…” and “Some of my best friends are….” statements that Whites use in discussing racism. These statements are almost immediately followed but negative assessments of racial minority groups. Bonilla Silva identifies several other semantic maneuvers that are common.
1) The “I’m not Black so I wouldn’t know” strategy, in which White respondents claim to not know or understand racism and its effects. 2) The “yes and not, but” strategy, in which Whites claim initially to not have favorable position but then go on to express their actual views. 3) The “anything but race strategy,” in which Whites argue that nonracial factors explain racial outcomes. 4) The “they are the racist ones strategy,” in which Whites try to shift away from their own racism by projecting their views on to Blacks. 5) The dimunitives strategy, which includes statements such as life is “a little harder for interracial couples. 6) The rhetorical incoherence strategy, in which Whites are clearly uncomfortable and make contradictory and incomprehensible statements. These strategies all help Whites save face and avoid the label of “racist” in front of their peers. This is particularly important since front stage discussions of racial issues are less and less candid, and avoiding the impression of racism is important for the maintenance of a positive self image under the system of contemporary racial ideology.
An additional frame not discussed in the above quotes, is what Bonilla-Silva calls the naturalization framework. When people naturalize racism, they see the current racial order as normal or natural. They may use comments such as “it’s just natural to want to be around your own kind.”
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Deth's Journal
I’m glad to see there’s a book that says what I’ve been trying to say for a long time. I definitely will be giving this a read.
Attacks on “color blind racism” tend to exaggerate the privelege of poor whites. A white guy who grew up in a trailer park somewhere in North Carolina and has a thick southern accent is going to have the deck almost* as stacked against him as a poor black would. Two huge advantage that whites have over blacks are 1) that there tends, in white culture, to be a greater valuation on the text-based, Weberian system prevalent in the U.S., and 2) the dialect of English spoken by white people tends to be much closer to Standard English than Black English Vernacular is. Certain poor whites, though, are almost* as alienated from such a system as are black Americans.
*I say “almost” because even a poor southern white can, with effort, erase his accent, get rid of his mullet, etc., whereas a black person cannot change skin color.
Not in North Carolina he wouldn’t. In NC a poor/working class background with an attendent southern accent is an open door to housing and jobs that have a high probability of being denied to African Americans of poor and even moderate incomes. It also ensure less police pa-trolling of your neighborhood.
Not in North Carolina he wouldn’t.
Point taken. In the wider world further into the corridors of power his southern-ness would be much more problematic. But yeah, I wasn’t taking the more local level into account. My mistake.
Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennesse, Kentucky, S. Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, rural Pennsylvania, West Virginia, S. Illinois, S. Indiana.
19 states where a poor white man with a southern accent would not face comparable economic and social stigmas as a poor to moderate income black man. Not so local when you add it up!
19 states where a poor white man with a southern accent would not face comparable economic and social stigmas as a poor to moderate income black man.
The poverty (if not the accent) and class problems would still be a really big minus, though. I mean, the white elite of the former Confederacy spent close to a hundred years fostering resentment of blacks by the white lower classes to divert attention from the fact that the condition of poor whites was, vis-à-vis educational levels, economic advancement, etc. much much worse than in the rest of the nation.
strategy #1 “I’m not black so I wouldn’t know”: Some blacks seem to request this of whites speaking about issues of blacks – humility, admission of ignorance. And some whites want to admit, “shit, what do I know, I haven’t BEEN there, all I know is what I read” because they feel ignorant or not sufficiently empathetic. I guess that strategy #1’s offense or lack of offense is in the social situation, tone of voice, etc as much as in the concept.
strategy #3 “anything but race”: This argument is true in some cases and incomplete in most cases and false in many cases. 5-65-30? So if the white individual constantly uses the “anything but race” theory of causality for why bad things happen to a black person, well, white person is off base. If the black person always blames everything on race alone, well, they are off base too. Most outcomes have more than one contributing factor, race and class being frequent important cofactors.
NancyP beats me to the punch, but please permit me to play racist apologist anyway: What is a “semantic maneuver”?
I expect many people (including myself) say things of this nature – because it’s often accurate. I don’t defend the remark as polite or sensitive or comforting, but I question the suggestion that this “semantic maneuver” is insincere.
Ok, I’ve observed that one, too. To be sure, the word “but” signals that all the foregoing speech was merely pretense. In fairness, however, this linguistic trick is not unique to us racists. The statement “Sure I love you, but I’m not in love with you!” betrays all the same linguistic dynamics without any of the racial ones.
This one makes me crazy.
A predominantly black jury found OJ Simpson not guilty on the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, but a predominantly white jury found OJ Simpson liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson. Sure, I suspect the jurors harbored racist attitudes; then again, I suspect everyone harbors racist attitudes. But how could I judge whether the jurors’ decisions resulted from their racist attitudes unless I considered the nonracial factors that might have influenced their decision? If it’s a “semantic maneuver” to say that I’d need to consider the evidence or the conduct of the attorneys before evaluating the jurors’ decisions, then I’m guilty of semantic maneuvering. And I hope you are, too.
Look, everybody discriminates. The relevant question is whether you discriminate on the basis of irrelevant (“suspect”) criteria such as race. And the way I (and courts) identify when people do so is by ruling out all the relevant criteria. Except for the most blatant examples of racist conduct, I don’t know how to conclude that someone was motivated by racism until I consider other possible motives for his behavior.
Of course people who are motivated by racist attitudes will try to rationalize their behavior on the basis of non-racial factors. But so will people who are striving to make decisions based on relevant criteria. Thus I find nothing suspicious about the “anything but race strategy.” To the contrary, I find it suspicious when people jump to conclusions that a decision resulted from racism, without considering alternative theories.
I don’t doubt that many racists employ this argument to deflect fault from themselves. However, I also hold the view that whites are not the only group of people prone to drawing conclusions on the basis of inadequate information.
Ok, you got me there; that style of argument bugs me, too.
It’s classic deconstruction: Find a continuum. Label one part of the continuum the Norm and the most extreme other parts as the Margin. Then address all phenomena on the continuum as if it were the Norm, while giving occasional acknowledgment to the Margin.
So in the continuum of oppression, I acknowledge the life of middle-class white male suburban heterosexual Christian professionals as the Norm, and the life of slaves in the 1860s as the Margin. I then assume that everyone I encounter faces the same level of oppression as myself. I’m shocked that anyone would accuse me of being insensitive to oppression, because I’m perfectly sensitive to the plight of slaves from the 1860s. But unless oppression comes in the form of chattel slavery, I simply don’t recognize it, except as an inconsequential variant from the Norm. “Yeah, yeah, sure, there’s a little oppression there, but not enough to matter/worry about/take into consideration/[what have you].”
Again, my only defense is that this linguistic trick is not unique to racists.
To be sure, many white are uncomfortable discussing race, especially when being accused of having racial bias. And I know I’m less articulate when I’m put on the spot and under stress. I must confess, I had never known anyone to call babbling a strategy, really….
_____________
The “Climate Change is Morally Repugnant” discussion addresses the Gilbert hypothesis that people are not more exercised about climate change because the human mind is biased to concern itself with problems that, among other things, are easily identified with a specific causal agent and are morally repugnant. Stentor argues, in part, that people will get more exercised as they come to see that climate change IS caused by humans and IS morally repugnant.
Now comes this discussion of White “color-blindness” strategies:
I often wonder about the merits of demonizing racism. I believe that the practice of making broad judgments based on easily-acquired information is widespread, but the social stigma around the problem makes people (especially whites) resist acknowledging and addressing it. Arguably the stigma around racism impedes addressing racism.
Then again, Gilbert would likely argue that if we define discrimination merely as a sub-optimal decision making strategy, and identify its cause as structural or social, then no one will pay attention. To add drama, we need to identify the cause as specific human villains, and the problem as one of moral repugnance! NOW you have people’s attention. But, not surprisingly, now white people are not especially inclined to participate in the discussion.
Arguably both discrimination and demonization are manifestations of the workings of the human mind.
Definition issues at heart here, I think. E.g. a lot of people think “racist” means “intentionally discriminating on the basis of race.” And under that definition, well, 1) if you don’t intend it, you’re not racist, and 2) there’s no problem with someone nonwhite being racist. And so on.
That said, I don’t actually think this list is “particularly useful” when shown to someone who does not already agree with the author’s premise, or who hasn’t already bought into the underlying assumptions, or who hasn’t adopted the specific (and not necessarily universal) language that many folks use to discuss this.
E.g. it looks to me that there are a lot of contradictions and “doesn’t make sense” stuff in this list as well, though I’d bet my hat they would make sense if I read the entire book or spent a few years studying things. (at least I know that much)
I have confess #6 made me smile, though, coming at the end of that list:
6) The rhetorical incoherence strategy, in which Whites are clearly uncomfortable and make contradictory and incomprehensible statements.
I mean, look at it from the point of a relative newbie:
After being told that in #1-5 all sorts of stuff you thought was not necessarily racist IS racist; after trying to figure out from the various blogs and threads why you can’t claim to empathize and understand from a black point of view (offensive) and also can’t claim you don’t empathize or understand (racist); after trying to strip all your conversations of the word “but” (which is quite difficult to do;) after trying to figure out how to have a discussion about racial outcomes and figure out what is/is not racist without discussing (and discarding, if necessary) nonracist explanations; after doing your best to figure out why the definition you were taught of “racist” and “racism” is itself racist…And after having this all told to you by a POC, in a setting where (to the degree intent actually matters) you ARE actually trying to “do the right thing” if only you could figure out what it is…
Well, you get befuddled. Confused. Stammering. Incoherent at best.
Which means you’re a racist.
Heh.
I have finally started to learn enough to realize that things which SEEM contradictory often aren’t. But i can’t shake the image of reading this list to someone (and omitting #6) and then asking them to comment under pressure, and then showing them #6. it IS sort of funny to laugh at oneself sometimes; I’vebeen doing that a lot lately.
I don’t know how useful the professor’s classifications really are. I would have preferred a breakdown of the rhetorical devices by “logical fallacy.” Logical fallacies offer a great way to assess the manner in which people defend themselves or assert themselves in discussions. Fallacies are also a great tool to determine the manner in which people process information – prior to offering a response. It seems to me that the classifications, presented above, don’t really begin to address the many ways in which people participate in discussions about race. I believe it is critical to assess the flawed reasoning that is often applied by black folk in understanding particular phenomena. Take the case of the legacy of the NAACP. An honest, empirical assessment of their legacy would result in a mixed verdict, at best. Much of the work of the organization, contrary to public perception, has been geared to undermine, character assassinate, and isolate the leadership of independent black organizations. Sometimes what is needed most is a good long look in the mirror. While Malcolm X was villified by the NAACP and other organizations principally sponsored by American “whites,” he frequently said that excellence has no fear of observation. Taking that close look means subjecting what we say, do, and believe to a deeper level of scrutiny.
Pingback: On Blackness (Part 1 of ∞) « An (aspiring) Educator’s Blog