No one outlines the contours of contemporary racism better than Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. In his book Racism Without Racists, he discusses in depth the key elements of contemporary racism. However, he goes well beyond beliefs to discuss the rhetorical practices of contemporary colorblind racism. One of the rhetorical styles of contemporary racism he identifies is “rhetorical incoherence.”
Because the new racial in America forbids the open expression of racially based feelings, views, and positions, when whites discuss issues that make them feel uncomfortable, they become almost incomprehensible.
In the interviews used in his study, many people who were otherwise articulate people, had difficulties discussing racial issues. In particular, Bonilla-Silva notes that questions about personal relationships with blacks, intermarriage, and self segregation.
I was reminded of rhetorical incoherence and inarticulateness, this weekend as I listened to reporters discuss the Presidential election. I watched a discussion between 3 white reporters on MSNBC–two white women and one white man. Since this is 24 hour cable news, and they had to provide instantaneous commentary on the South Carolina Democratic primary, I expected them to have a few little stumbles. However, the two women reporters were very inarticulate, especially when the subject turned to whether or not race should/did matter in contest between Clinton and Obama. One reporter kept tripping over her words, and seemed very unsure of herself. She ended several comments with “you know what I mean,” and the other woman reporter would jump in with a yes. Any person familiar with TV and radio commentary knows that a reporter shouldn’t end her commentary with, “you know what I mean?” If a person has to say this repeatedly, then maybe that person isn’t making sense, and of course, one of the rules of being a reporter is “if you make a mistake just go on. ” In all honesty, I didn’t know what this reporter meant. She was vacillated back and forth between the “race doesn’t matter perspective” and the “black voters are turning to Obama perspective,” which is clearly a contradiction. What was clear to me was that this inarticulate reporter, with the help of her colleague, was going on self edit mode. She was trying to please two groups of people-those who say race doesn’t matter and those who say race does matter.
I’ve noticed this phenomenon all over the TV–many otherwise articulate people cannot talk about race in an intelligent manner. Some of it is the general ignorance people have about race. Most people, especially whites, also don’t seem to have clear parameters for discussing race in a true interracial context. Like nearly every reporter I have observed discussing race over the past few weeks, it was clear that the reporter above did not know the distinction between racial identity and racial ideology/issues. Moreover, like most people I hear discuss race, she was unable to make a distinction between “should racial issues/identities matter” and “do racial issues/identities matter.” This is, of course, one of the central problems with colorblindess. Maybe in an ideal world where race was never invented race wouldn’t matter, but we don’t live in that world. If I’m being totally honest, I prefer a forthright, articulate racism over inarticulate, double speak racism. It is often refreshing to know exactly where someone stands on race rather than having to watch an individual’s behaviors to see if words match deeds. I felt this way while watching this reporter. In fact, I was actually happy when she moved on to the next subject and her verbal skills improved. I was tired of trying to figure out what she was saying, and I was tired of watching her embarrass herself.
I don’t want to be too harsh on this lone reporter because I guarantee that, if you are paying close attention, you will see rhetorical incoherence from many people. You’ll notice it in classrooms, in interpersonal discussions, on blogs, and in many different areas where discuss of race occurs. Be prepared to see it often in this Presidential race.
Nice post. One point I thought could use clarification is that being inarticulate or ignorant about issues of race is not necessary or sufficient for being racist, although ignorance on the topic is one ingredient of a racist culture.
Seems to me that these reporters have come up with a narrative for their story before the story actually happens. Then, when the facts don’t fit the narrative, they can’t reconcile the two. So even though huge numbers of whites voted for Sen. Obama, they’re still stuck on “race vs. gender” and hose up their commentary trying to run their narrative.
I think that part of the issue goes beyond a deviation from the “narrative” to a deviation from common vocabulary.
In common parlance, if a white guy uses race as a factor and votes for a white candidate instead of the black candidate running against him, he is engaging in “racist behavior.”
We are less comfortable saying that the black guy doing the same thing to vote for a black candidate is being “racist.” Didn’t we learn somewhere that racism = prejudice + power? If the black voter has no power, can he be acting racist? But wait . . . this black candidate has a decent shot to be President. Can we say that there is no “power” involved here? Maybe in a world where a black candidate has a legitimate shot to be President, a black voter can be “racist” in voting for him.
But wait, we also learned that in Nevada the Hispanic voters favored Clinton. Are Hispanics a third “race”? We think that people who hate Hispanics are “racist,” so maybe they are a race. But is it “racist” if people of Race A votes for candidate of Race B or candidate of Race C? Can you be racist for someone else’s race?
Imagine having a discussion about race in 1970 if the word “racist” didn’t exist. It would be pretty darned hard. I think we are having that conversation now, but the words we are missing refer to power structures, racial varieties and interactions, and other ambiguous issues that we never had to talk about in 1970 because we’d never be in a situation where Barack Obama could be either leading or a close second in a Democratic primary.
I don’t blame the reporters as much as I do the inability of language to catch up. Is a Hispanic voter who prefers the white candidate to a black candidate a “racist?” Yes, for some definitions of racism, but no for others. How else can a reporter (addressing a broad audience) talk, except to say, “Black South Carolina voters are not racist, except they are voting based on race, but, well, you know what I mean”?
You know, this is a really interesting discussion, though it’s not surprising white people have trouble discussing it articulately because the danger for saying something racist is high, and that’s too risky, especially for a commentator on national TV.
My thoughts reading these comments were – isn’t it different to vote FOR someone of your race/gender for president, especially when there has never been a president of your race/gender, and saying that you WOULDN’T vote for a particular candidate because of that person’s race/gender?
I mean, the black people voting for Obama and/or the women voting for Clinton, even if they are doing so in part because of their identity affinity, surely (if it’s not their first election as eligible voters) have voted for white men in the past. They are not communicating that they would not consider a white man for president because of his race/sex, which seems to me at least potentially racist. I don’t know if this is a relevant/important distinction, but it seems to be part of what people are struggling with.
Well, duh.
If Joe White Person is talking about race and says something idiotic or anti-POC, JWP has committed a social foul. A fairly major one, depending on circumstance: the “racist” brand can be pretty serious. To use an Alas example, I am fairly certain that folks have been banned for too many negative “_____ are _____” statements, when made against POC.
If Joe Black Person is talking about race and says something idiotic or anti-white, JBP has also committed a social foul. But it’s generally considered to be much more minor. Although JBP (being human) is probably going to be an idiot with similar frequency as a white, we can’t even agree on a word to define what JBP did. To continue with the Alas examples, I don’t think people usually get banned (and I’m not even sure they get censured) for negative “whites are _____” statements.
Different consequences lead to different actions.
Bonilla-Silva has to know that: he writes in such a way that it’s obvious he supports said different consequences. So why does he ignore their effects on people?
Rich B. said:
We are less comfortable saying that the black guy doing the same thing to vote for a black candidate is being “racist.”
Maybe you are. I’m not. Neither are a lot of people.
Didn’t we learn somewhere that racism = prejudice power?
I didn’t when I was first taught the concept some 50 years ago. And I have yet to see where the idea has caught with the general public. Thankfully.
Now, some people have been taught that. Others have been taught correctly. Tell me, who’s “we”?
Sailorman said:
Although JBP (being human) is probably going to be an idiot with similar frequency as a white, we can’t even agree on a word to define what JBP did.
Sure we can; “racist”.
Emily said:
I mean, the black people voting for Obama and/or the women voting for Clinton, even if they are doing so in part because of their identity affinity, surely (if it’s not their first election as eligible voters) have voted for white men in the past. They are not communicating that they would not consider a white man for president because of his race/sex, which seems to me at least potentially racist.
But there’s a difference between past elections and this one for many people; this is the first election where their choice was “vote for a white person vs. vote for a black person”, as opposed to “vote for a white person vs. don’t vote”. I say “most people” because back in 1972 Rep. Shirley Chisolm (D-NY, IIRC) was on the Democratic primary ballot in Massachusetts; I don’t know if she was on ballots nationwide or not in that year.
RonF (quoting Sailorman):
The word doesn’t appear to be agreed.
True. At least, not here. The consensus is rather different with the general public, I believe.
A quick search showed a variety of definitions of racism. Check it out here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=qIu&defl=en&q=define:Racism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
To take a separate tack, the major news stories have involved how Bill Clinton “injected race” into the South Carolina primary by saying, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” Senator Clinton was similarly criticized for saying that MLK “worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed.”
This was considered to be “race baiting.” And maybe it was. I wasn’t impressed by any of it, but I see where the people who were offended were coming from.
But it also sounds a lot like something Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper might be found saying in hour 7 of coverage of the South Carolina primaries. If statements like these (which everyone can agree are objectively “true” before we consider what the speaker meant when he or she said it) can get the Clintons into trouble, I certainly understand why news analysts get nervous.
See, someone whose position was that they would rather not vote than vote for a white man, I can see calling that racist/sexist. But I don’t know anyone who’s ever said/done that. But someone who has voted for white men in the past but is influenced in part by the historic possibility of electing a black/female president, and who considers that in choosing who to vote for, I don’t think that’s racist/sexist.
I think people who WON’T vote for a category of people because of their race/sex are sexist/racist but people who consider race/sex in the decision are not necessarily racist. No one is going around saying “well, I would never vote for a white man for president” or “I just can’t bring myself to vote for a white man for president” or “would America really elect a white man as President” or “is a white man really capable of fulfilling the job of President.” If they were, then you could call them racist/sexist.