Editor’s note: Last week I started a big debate over at my blog with this rant/post. The post below is inspired from that debate. I’ve been really frustrated with the “I’m not racist” refrain that I keep hearing over and over, and Dumi over at Black at Michigan put some of my views into his words, so I gave a short ranting response that lead to a good discussion on racism. I’m posting the follow-up post where I discuss racism and racists in more depth, but in order to follow the meaning of this post, I suggest following the debate at my blog, and reading the post at Dumi’s blog to put this in perspective.
The I’m a Racist and I Participate in Racism thread has really touched on many important issues, and I thought it would be useful to further discuss some of the issues that people brought up in the comments section. Let me first say that I don’t really think that we can separate racism and racists. I see racism existing in four major forms:
- Individual or isolate—actions or incidents that are the products of isolated individuals, who intentionally or unintentionally harm people physically, psychologically, or socially because of the race, gender, national origin, etc.
- Small group–actions or incidents that involve a relatively small number of people, who intentionally or unintentionally harm people physically, psychologically, or socially because of their race, gender, national origin, etc
- Direct Institutional—laws, policies, and formal and informal practices encoded in institutions that are specifically designed to exclude minority groups from access to resources
- Indirect institutional–laws, policies, and formal and informal practices that are not specifically designed to exclude minority groups; however, the result of these policies is such that minority groups are disproportionately affected. (These typologies comes from http://www.socioweb.com/sociology-textbooks/book/0136747221“> Feagin and Feagin.)
Feagin’s model could be used for any type of discrimination, but in this case I wanted to focus on racism. I think racism exists on two major levels–the institutional levels and the interpersonal level.
Of course racism, is not the same as racists. Racists would be the people who participate in racism whether it is institutional or interpersonal in its nature. When most people think of racists, they think of people engaging in interpersonal racism, but I think anyone who participates in upholding racist structures or institutions is indeed racist. I know that won’t sit well with many folks because they view racists as people who act with a deliberate intent to cause harm, but I would contend that many people do not intend to cause harm. In fact, some people are relatively powerless in a social system, and they engage in racism even though they may think that it is wrong or harmful. In his famous essay on racism and the American creed, sociologist, Robert Merton1 mentions a group of people he labels non-prejudice discriminators. These are people who do not hold prejudiced beliefs, but engage in discriminatory behavior. I think in many cases non-prejudiced discriminators are relatively powerless. Take the example of a loan officer at a bank that has redlining policies or a cashier in a store that has informal policies of targeting black customers as shoplifters. While the loan officer and the cashier may think these policies are wrong, they could fear losing their jobs if they do not comply with the institutional rules. Are these people racist? Yes. However, they are likely not as culpable as the people who create and enforce such racist policies. Moreover, we could also have social institutions that include people who are not racist in their interpersonal lives, but a part of systems that support institutional racism.
Many people immediately jump to a discussion of culpability when racism comes up–the key question they ask is, “Who is to blame?” However, I think if we just started from the point that blame is less important than eradicating racist behaviors and institutions, we would all be better. Personally, I think everybody deserves a little blame, but some deserve more blame than others. For me culpability is directly related to power–the more power a person has the more culpability he or she has. Nevertheless, the blame discourse is not really going to get us further because it exacerbates social inequalities that already exist. I’m not saying; don’t speak truth to power, but I am saying that it is important as a strategy to work of redistributing power more than placing blame.
Personally, I use the term white racism, not because I want to “blame” all whites for racism. I use “white racism” because I agree with the commenters that institutional racism is much more insidious, and institutional racism in the US is undoubtedly “white racism.” Racism is not just “white” because of who created or maintained it; it is also white because it upholds white supremacy. There is no history of social institutions in this country that upholds “black racism” as an ideology. Many people of color also participate in white racism–one primary example being colorism which exists in numerous societies.
Many commenters also suggested that “reclaiming the term racist” and arguing that everybody is racist may not be an effective strategy for social change because it is either 1) too radical for people to accept or 2) it is so conservative that people may say why change. I think the question about strategy is important. I don’t have a simple answer as to what the best strategy would be, but I do have a collection of random thoughts about it:
- I would like to change how people define racism. To me racism is not about hate or evil, although I do think it is morally corrupt. If we could focus more on behaviors and practices and less on “good vs. evil,” we may be able to make a dent in racism. Part of what started my rant was the fact that people were engaging in very clear (interpersonal) racist behavior, and saying they weren’t racist because they were nice people, etc. etc.
- Part of the problem we have now is the emergence of a colorblind/raceblind rhetoric. Reclaiming racist challenges colorblindness and can make institutional and interpersonal racism more apparent. People don’t like the r-words (racist and racism), but many really don’t have a problem with engaging in racist behavior or turning a blind eye to racism.
I could write more, but I’ll turn it over to the readers. Do you think it is worth it to try to put the word “racism” and “racist” back into the lexicon? If not, why? If so, what strategy do you think we be effective.
- Merton, Robert K. 1948. “Discrimination and the American Creed.” Pp. 99-126 in R.M. Maclver, ed. Discrimination and National Welfare. New York: Harper & Brothers. [↩]
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Shiny Ideas
The problem with attributing racism to “everyone” is that it doesn’t tell us what we can do to institute change. Perhaps the person who paid for a film featuring a white, male protagonist is supporting both sexism and racism, and practically everyone in our society can be defined as “racist” through participation in a racist institution. It might be more effective to discuss possible solutions to this problem, or to single out policies as racist, rather than focusing on the individuals who institute those policies.
I think racism is better defined in terms of specific privileges and institutions, and the term “racist”, applied to people, should mostly be a pejorative one reserved for those who are one the extremes in their racism. It’s hard to point out many people in our society who couldn’t be considered “racist” in having some sort of stereotypes regarding race. What needs to be done, I think, is for people to be made more aware of their own prejudices, and for there to be a real debate regarding those prejudices. There needs to be more of a discussion on what can be done to make society less racist.
This is not to say that there aren’t individuals who can be considered racist, but I’d say it’s better to draw the line at those who actively try to
I think it is the controversy
I’m leery of using “racist” to refer to individuals because I think it tends to feed into framing the issue as being about what you are rather than about what you do. It also allows people to try to dodge responsibility for a particular racist act by asserting that they are on the whole not racist. Institutions and behaviors are racist, and we have to work on recognizing and eliminating them, rather than worrying about whether someone is a racist person.
The difficulty with that position (which is reasonable), Stentor, is that without personal moral transformation, there can be no progress towards a racially harmonious society. People actually do have to change, and not just at the behavioral level.
Robert, while I agree that moral transformation is necessary, in many cases these changes are closely linked to behavioral ones. Take the “I’m wary around minorities because they are more likely to hurt/mug/assault me” sort of racism. The first step would clearly be to convince the person that this attitude was racist, because otherwise they would have no motivation to change that attitude. But, once that understanding has been established, monitoring behavior might be the best way to change that attitude. Sometimes behaviors are easier to change than attitudes, and changes in behavior can result in changes in attitude.
Sorry about the typos: in comment 1, the last two lines shouldn’t be there, and in comment 4, I only meant to italicize the word “are”
*Stay away* from calling individuals “racist” unless they do something like the Michael Richards rant or a hate crime.
That’s the easiest way to turn sympathetic people off – use the R-bomb.
However, call policies like redlining and racial profiling racist to change the behavior of the functionaries involved in the policies.
Banks care about making productive loans, and cops *should* be concerned about preventing and investigating crime and capturing its perps. Tell them that racism interferes with those goals – you’re passing up good loans and money for your business by not lending to qualified non-whites, and you’re letting white criminals get off scot free when you racially profile.
Well, you can also add thoughts and beliefs to the list of things that can be racist, without needing to view people as racists.
If you refer to people as being racist, it helps to not treat it as a binary. Just because someone is not completely non-racist doesn’t mean that they aren’t a lot less racist than they could be. Focusing on thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, and how behaviors intersect with structural and institutional power that amplifies the racist effect is a useful way of focusing on the degree to which someone is racist, rather than just treating it as a racist/not a racist distinction.
Personally, I tend to be pretty free with viewing people as being racist (including myself) and not quite as free with attempting to call people on it, but (I think) still freer than most.
….mmm, no. A thought or belief can’t be racist; they might contribute to racism, or be often held by racists, but “racist” is something that has to live in a meatbag. Or so I’d opine, if I were the sort to put myself forward like that.
Robert:
You’re referring to the noun “racist,” right? But surely the adjective “racist” can describe a thought or belief, in the sense of being exemplary of racism? That is, an idea can’t be *a* racist, but it can be racist.
….mmmm, no. Ideas can’t be anything. I understand (and employ) the conversational shorthand that we use (“that’s a great idea!”, “your thoughts are foolish”, etc.), because 99% of the time it contributes to ease of communication. But the shorthand always ultimate places the cognitive attribute in the cognitive actor – the person. Her thinking was great when she came up with the idea, he was thinking foolishly, and so on.
Please don’t derail the thread on this personal philosophical objection; I shouldna ha brought it up.
So your view is that one shouldn’t say that the belief that it is okay for cops to shoot black people is a racist belief, but rather that it is racist to believe that it is okay for cops to shoot black people, where it is the act of holding the belief that is racist, rather than the belief. I can see how a stridently anti platonic philosophy could make that an important distinction but, in normal language usage, surely those two statements are largely equivalent. As you say, I should probably ignore the derailment, but I had to ask.
Right. I’m not sure why my enormous brain suddenly feels a need to throw a flag on this play, but it does. Probably something to do with it being important to own racism and not push it off onto our cognitive structures. (“I’m not racist – just my ideas are!”)
I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with the “people are racist but ideas are” notion.
At some level there needs to be accountability for our actions, and as long as people feel to use the “I’m not racist” card, they don’t take some accountability for their actions. Of course, I agree that accountability occurs at the individual level, group level, and instituional level.
I think many people, especially whites, are looking for a sort of easy painless way out on racism. Let’s face it before we get over racism we have to go through a painful process of individual and structural assessment.
Oh, I have no problem with saying that a thought can be racist. But we have to be careful to consider what the facts surrounding these thoughts are. For example, say I operate a store that is on a boundary between a white middle-class area and a black low-income area. It could easily be empirically true that a shoplifter is more likely to be black than white. So for me to say on the basis of that fact that “most shoplifters in this store are black” is not racist. On the other hand, if someone from out of state who had just pulled off of the Interstate and didn’t know the area at all walked into the store, saw some black people there and said to themselves “most shoplifters in this store are black”, that would be a racist thought.
I don’t think I can agree with the definition of “racism” you are using. I know that this is a common objection, so possibly there’s a good, obvious answer to it that I’m overlooking; if that’s the case, tell me what it is.
Your definition is Practices that are not specifically designed to [harm] [low-status] minority groups; however, the result of these practices is such that [low-status] minority groups are disproportionately affected. (I’m replacing exclude with harm, as I think it captures your meaning better—for example, racism in the criminal justice system harms minority groups by over-including, not by excluding; I’m adding low-status to avoid the “WASPs are a minority, too” distraction.)
The problem I have is that some policies will disproportionately harm low-status minorities and still seem to me to be justifiable. For example:
A policy requiring basketball players to be over 6’ tall will disproportionately disadvantage South-East Asians.
A “crackdown on murder” policy in Richmond (where 95% of murder victims are young black men, and it’s almost certain that the murderers are also based on the areas where the murders occur) would disproportionately affect young black men.
Now, there are two common reasons cited why such policies aren’t racist.
1) It’s obviously required to achieve the goals (taller people are really better at basketball).
2) Expand the “minority” group enough and on average it helps “minorities” even if it disadvantages specific minorities.
But with those as possible justifications, a lot of policies that are commonly condemned as “racist” (redlining, legacy admissions) can be argued to be “not racist”; we are pretty much back where we started.
I think maybe I make a distinction between being racist and being a racist. I think that considering someone a racist requires a much higher degree of commitment. Someone who has racist thoughts, and even engages in low level racist actions (or sits idly by while others do), is racist, but if they are aware that their racist thoughts and actions are wrong, and are something they are working to stop doing, I would hesitate to call them a racist.
Racist as an adjective I feel comfortable applying to almost everyone, racist as a noun, I feel should be restricted to those who are consciously, knowingly, intentionally racist, someone for whom racism is an identity, rather than a trait.
I’m not a racist, but…
I am still racist. Even though I try not to be.
In fact, some people are relatively powerless in a social system, and they engage in racism even though they may think that it is wrong or harmful.
Then those people aren’t racists. To be a racist, or any kind of “-ist” that carries moral weight, implies the power to act otherwise.
I think your definition is too academic and doesn’t really relate to how most people, regardless of color, use the term “racist.” Racist is a moral term as well as a political one; to be racist implies a moral flaw. And if you’re guilty of a moral flaw, it means that you’ve got the power to act otherwise, that you have the power to not give into this flaw. So someone can’t be a racist if they don’t have the power to be non-racist.
I think there is great danger in defining the word racist over broadly. If everyone becomes a racist, what does the word communicate?
I read and wonder, how far is Rachel going to take this:
What about a bank owner who wishes to hire tellers with some justifyable sounding level of education. (Can add, subtract, use word processors etc.) What if, through no fault of the owner’s, “orange” people have more access to education than do “purple” people. What if the disparity in access to education is not only not the fault of the owner, but they have taken active measures to minimize the disparity?
Regardless of the fault, intention or wishes or the bank owner, one result of the education disparity is his hiring policy will have the effect of making it disproportionately harder for “purple” people to get jobs at the bank.
Is the bank owner racist because his policy has a differential and negative impact on purple people? Are favored orange people who accept jobs at the bank racist? What about the disadvantaged purple people who take jobs? What about customers who favor the bank because the tellers make fewer errors than those at the non-racist bank across the street?
I know I’m stretching to reducto ad absurdum. The examples you picked to illustrate indirect institutional racisms don’t fall quite in this category.
Still I think the definition of of indirect institutional racism needs to be refined to tell us where the racist label stops. Because if we call this banker, his employees customers racist, then the word becomes meaningless and loses all power: What would it even mean to say Michael Richards a racist? Of course he’d be a racist would be– just like everyone else on the planet!
At some level there needs to be accountability for our actions, and as long as people feel to use the “I’m not racist” card, they don’t take some accountability for their actions.
I very much agree, but to me, this is the reason to avoid saying that a person is a racist — it seems to invite the “I’m not a racist” response, sidetracking the conversation into passing judgment on the nature of the person’s soul and potentially implicitly excusing any racist thing they may do on the basis that they’re overall not a racist. So rather than saying “no seriously, you really are a racist,” I’d say “I don’t care whether you’re a racist — what I care about is that this thing you’re doing hurts Aborigines/Indians/whoever, and now that you’ve been made aware of it you need to figure out how to stop it.”
I think it interesting to discuss the concept of “White Privilege” when discussing ideas of race and racism. I am borrowing this term from Peggy McIntosh’s article titled “White Privilege and Male Privilege”. In her article, McIntosh discusses how most people don’t recognize some their actions as racist. She writes: “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege”.
Later in the article, McIntosh writes a list of all the ways she has come up with to support her ideas on “white privilege”. This list made me realize how often people are racist and not even know their actions are hurting others. Here are a few of the “privileges” from her list. #5 I can go shopping alone most of the time, fairly well assured that I will not be followed or harassed by store detectives. #16 I can be pretty sure that my children’s teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others’ attitudes towards their race. #18 I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race. #46 I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin.
Racism is still a huge issue in this country. After reading this article I was shocked to know how many of these privileges apply to me because I am white. I never even considered that someone of color may not enjoy the “privileges” that McIntosh lists. I would recommend reading this article as it opened my eyes to race issues within the U.S. I discovered that sometimes I AM a racist; that sometimes I pass judgments based on skin color or clothing choices; that sometimes I play into stereotypes and stigmas; that sometimes I believe media representations of people of color. Hopefully, in the future I will be more aware of how my actions affect other people.
I’d say “I don’t care whether you’re a racist — what I care about is that this thing you’re doing hurts Aborigines/Indians/whoever, and now that you’ve been made aware of it you need to figure out how to stop it.”
So let’s go to the above example, then. You own a bank. You are hiring account managers. A certain level of language and math skills are required. The educational levels of local groups are such that you find that there is a group of people you are not hiring very many of because they don’t have the skills. Are you racist?
You can’t hire in account managers whose skills don’t reach the minimum because then they are going to make mistakes that will cost you time and money and customers. You could go out of business. If you start running classes to teach these people skills, then you are spending time and money that will raise your costs and put you behind your competitors, again risking your business. Is “what you are doing” hurting this group? Or is it what someone else is doing that is hurting them when they try to get a job?
Stentnor, I agree with your point in terms of confronting racist behavior in a particular person or a small group. Many people will tune out when you say the word racist. In the case you mention above you are trying to refocus whites on how their behavior affects others, and then, you leave it up to the person to reflect on whether or not the behavior is bad, racist, etc.
I just think we need to find a way to get white people not to be so defensive. I think if more whites were willing to acknowledge their racism, other whites may start to realize that sort behavior is unacceptable (e.g.–I’m trying to take the lead by saying I’m racist. If you got the chance to read it over at my site.).
Charles said, “I think maybe I make a distinction between being racist and being a racist.”
Yeah, I know where you are coming from here. When you say someone is “a racist,” many people view racism as this overwhelming feature of a person’s character, not a piece of who they are or what they do. That article “a” makes a big difference, and I tend not to put the article in front of the word racist.
Charles said, “…if they are aware that their racist thoughts and actions are wrong, and are something they are working to stop doing, I would hesitate to call them a racist.”
Yeah, but the problem is the vast majority of whites who I know aren’t doing anything to change. That’s a big part of the problem, so if someone isn’t making any effort to change and is engaging in bigoted behavior maybe the need to be knocked upside the head with the word racist. I think it can be a wake up call, and it sends a message to others who are around that says, “You shouldn’t behave that way.”
I also agree about the difference between nouns and and adjectives in terms of the word racist.
Aaron said, “*Stay away* from calling individuals “racist” unless they do something like the Michael Richards rant or a hate crime.”
Ok, but Aaron that was part of my original point. Click on the link to my site. I was pointing out that even Michael Richards and the guy on the Real World, who were angrily referencing black people using the n-word, said they were not racist.
It has gotten to the point, where whites don’t want to label anything as racist.
Amanda, you make some good points, and maybe one of them is that people may have an easier time recognizing privilege before they recognize racism.
Isn’t saying “race X doesn’t want to do X” or “race Y does Y”, racist?
Ron F said, “…The educational levels of local groups are such that you find that there is a group of people you are not hiring very many of because they don’t have the skills. Are you racist?”
If an individual black person comes before you and you make these assumptions about that person, then you are being racist.
On the other hand, if the pattern is such that you don’t come across many qualified applicants from racial minority groups (and you aren’t using an internalzied bias to assess their qualifiactions), this doesn’t necessarily mean that you are being racist, but I would argue that the system that creates many of these disparities in education, etc. are the results of racism. So they system is racist, and if the bank makes no effort to reconciled this, then they are not helping with the problem.
Ron F said, “If you start running classes to teach these people skills, then you are spending time and money that will raise your costs and put you behind your competitors, again risking your business. Is “what you are doing” hurting this group? Or is it what someone else is doing that is hurting them when they try to get a job?”
Actually, most private businesses have voluntary affiramtive action programs. It is rare that a private business has been forced to start AA programs. Most businesses support affirmative action in education and hiring. In fact, the big three auto makers were some of the first groups to file briefs on behalf of the Univ. of Michigan a few years ago. I don’t think these businesses would creat voluntary AA programs if it wasn’t good for business.
Robert said, “Isn’t saying “race X doesn’t want to do X” or “race Y does Y”, racist?”
It’s definitely a prejudice, and it is usually an example of the ecological fallacy that under-girds (SP?) most prejudices. It is an overgeneralization, which many of us commit at some point or another. I try to use qualifiers, such as “most” “many” “some” etc.
On the other hand, if the pattern is such that you don’t come across many qualified applicants from racial minority groups (and you aren’t using an internalzied bias to assess their qualifiactions), this doesn’t necessarily mean that you are being racist, but I would argue that the system that creates many of these disparities in education, etc. are the results of racism.
I’d say that in such a case it’s quite likely that a history of racism would have had a part in why a given racial group would have a disparately low educational level.
So they system is racist, and if the bank makes no effort to reconciled this, then they are not helping with the problem.
O.K. But, is that their job? Is that their obligation? I’d certainly say it’s their obligation to not have a racial bias in their hiring decisions, both morally and legally. I’d even go so far as to say that they should go to an effort to hire every member of the minority group that qualifies for a job. However, if these hiring practices still leads to a racial balance in their staff that is at variance with the surrounding population, on what basis are they obligated to do anything further about it? I’m positing a situation where there are sufficient prospective new hires in the area with the necessary training/skills to fill the positions the bank has open.
Actually, most private businesses have voluntary affiramtive action programs. It is rare that a private business has been forced to start AA programs.
AA programs and educational programs are two different things. It’s one thing to say “Let’s make sure that we select from the available and qualified labor pool a group of new hires whose racial balance reflects our community as a whole.” and “Let’s set base qualification criteria and hire every minority applicant who meets them, regardless of how they compare to other qualified applicants.” It’s quite another to say “Let’s hire people who aren’t qualified and train them so that they are qualified.” That’s an educational program. As far as employee educational programs go, starting up a program to educate prospective employees so that they can take on an entry-level job (as opposed to training already working employees so that they can gain additional skills) is something that a company will only do when forced. It’s just not the government that’s forcing them to do it.
Most businesses support affirmative action in education and hiring. In fact, the big three auto makers were some of the first groups to file briefs on behalf of the Univ. of Michigan a few years ago. I don’t think these businesses would creat voluntary AA programs if it wasn’t good for business.
We live in a capitalist society. Businesses only spend money if it pays them to do so. Now, there is a certain value to community goodwill. Business do spend money on charity, etc. because it gets noticed if they don’t and that can have repercussions financially.
But when you’re hiring people to work at your business that can’t actually perform profitable labor for you until you provide them training, you’re only doing that because the labor pool available to you doesn’t have enough people in it that already have the necessary skills prior to being hired. Given the state of public education in Detroit, I’d guess that the auto companies there have the choice of either doing massive training or moving out of Detroit. In fact, that’s one reason why in a city like Chicago many companies moved out of Chicago and into the suburbs; the City of Chicago public school system wasn’t turning out a sufficiently trained labor pool, and the suburban schools were.