Race is a sensitive subject. (Of course, so are privilege and prejudice and class, but in the name of biting off only as much as one can chew, I'll just stick to race in this post.) I've been told in the past that part of the reason why sometimes it's hard for folks to hear what I'm saying is because I imply that people are racists when they are in fact, just stereotyping. While both might not be ideal, the former is a far worse offense than the other. Furthermore, they probably didn't intend to be offensive to begin with.
As I reflect on this, I'm reminded of how important usage is in our society. In the context of US history, the word “racism” implies an era of lynchings, segregation, and blatant rhetoric about the inherent differences between folks simply based on the activity of your melanocytes. The word “stereotyping” implies the recognition of trends based on surface characteristics. We all know we're not supposed to do it, but a little voice inside us still wonders, 'but isn't it kind of true, like, in general?' And it's pretty widely accepted, that while racism might be learned, stereotyping is a natural consequence of the way humans think. As Hofstader reminds us, humans think through analogy and patterns; if we took everything as individual, we wouldn't even be able to recognize that a closed door and an open door were the same object.
So naturally, when I imply (or probably more bluntly just accuse) folks of racist remarks or behavior, folks get very upset. They don't identify as someone who supports segregation. They don't identify with someone who believes that one race is inherently superior to another. Racists are bad people and I am not a bad person.
I think it's time that we think a little more deeply about racism and the importance of rhetoric. I remember when I was training to be a Resident Assistant in college, part of our awareness building was to read Beverly Daniel Tatum's Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? Inevitably most people didn't read it. Many of those who actually did were offended. In addition to trying to explain the psychology of racial identity development, the book also uses a more progressive definition of “racist.” Tatum (and many others in her field) defines a racist to be “any person who has received benefit from systemic advantage based on race.” She defines “prejudice” as “a preconceived judgment or opinion, usually based on limited information.” Thus, folks of color, in this country CANNOT be racist. And the flip side of that coin, and the most upsetting, ALL white people, are automatically, no matter how enlightened, racists. All of us are prejudiced.
I think it's a brilliant rhetorical maneuver. In an age where blatant racism is no longer acceptable (though, however sadly, still in existence), it's easy for white folks to believe that while racism might still be a problem, 'I don't subscribe to racist beliefs therefore I'm not the problem and don't really need to be active about it.' In the past, racism in this country has been both an individual and systemic issue. These days, while individual racism might be dropping, the systemic issues, though perhaps less blatant, still exist. By defining racist in systemic terms, Tatum re-places the onus back on all of us with racial privilege. She says to white folks, 'Racism IS you. Being neutral in a racist system is being racist. If you don't want to be a racist, you have to work against it.'
In most of my conversations, I do not actually mean “racist” in the terms that Tatum describes. Tatum's definition of “racist” removes personal behavior from the equation. When I use the word “racist” I am still using it in a more traditional way in the sense that I am remarking upon what I perceive to be a person's thoughts, actions, and words.
However, I do think that we need to reconsider the link between stereotyping and racism. I think we also need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I use the word “racist” to describe “stereotyping” because I want to acknowledge that “stereotyping” and giving in to our own implicit biases are just as dangerous as blatant racism. Society might tell you it's more understandable and even forgivable, but statistics show that it still leads to inequities in the way health care providers interact with folks of color, rates of arrest, conviction and sentencing, salary, hiring practices, etc. The list is endless.
Implicit bias/unconscious stereotyping is the new enemy. It's insidious and difficult for most folks to recognize in themselves much less address. So this is my rhetorical maneuver: stereotyping is not innocuous and reinforces the current racist system. It is also something that is not to be brushed off or excused as “human nature.” Calling it racism, and naming it's ultimate consequences with a strongly negative term, reminds us of this. I want people to react as strongly to implicit bias as they would to a call for resegregation. Let's stop congratulating ourselves for not being blatantly racist and thinking that's enough. That's like men congratulating themselves for not believing that women should only be in the kitchen and considering the battle for equality between the sexes finished. We can do better.
As I reflect on this, I'm reminded of how important usage is in our society. In the context of US history, the word “racism” implies an era of lynchings, segregation, and blatant rhetoric about the inherent differences between folks simply based on the activity of your melanocytes. The word “stereotyping” implies the recognition of trends based on surface characteristics. We all know we're not supposed to do it, but a little voice inside us still wonders, 'but isn't it kind of true, like, in general?' And it's pretty widely accepted, that while racism might be learned, stereotyping is a natural consequence of the way humans think. As Hofstader reminds us, humans think through analogy and patterns; if we took everything as individual, we wouldn't even be able to recognize that a closed door and an open door were the same object.
So naturally, when I imply (or probably more bluntly just accuse) folks of racist remarks or behavior, folks get very upset. They don't identify as someone who supports segregation. They don't identify with someone who believes that one race is inherently superior to another. Racists are bad people and I am not a bad person.
I think it's time that we think a little more deeply about racism and the importance of rhetoric. I remember when I was training to be a Resident Assistant in college, part of our awareness building was to read Beverly Daniel Tatum's Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? Inevitably most people didn't read it. Many of those who actually did were offended. In addition to trying to explain the psychology of racial identity development, the book also uses a more progressive definition of “racist.” Tatum (and many others in her field) defines a racist to be “any person who has received benefit from systemic advantage based on race.” She defines “prejudice” as “a preconceived judgment or opinion, usually based on limited information.” Thus, folks of color, in this country CANNOT be racist. And the flip side of that coin, and the most upsetting, ALL white people, are automatically, no matter how enlightened, racists. All of us are prejudiced.
I think it's a brilliant rhetorical maneuver. In an age where blatant racism is no longer acceptable (though, however sadly, still in existence), it's easy for white folks to believe that while racism might still be a problem, 'I don't subscribe to racist beliefs therefore I'm not the problem and don't really need to be active about it.' In the past, racism in this country has been both an individual and systemic issue. These days, while individual racism might be dropping, the systemic issues, though perhaps less blatant, still exist. By defining racist in systemic terms, Tatum re-places the onus back on all of us with racial privilege. She says to white folks, 'Racism IS you. Being neutral in a racist system is being racist. If you don't want to be a racist, you have to work against it.'
In most of my conversations, I do not actually mean “racist” in the terms that Tatum describes. Tatum's definition of “racist” removes personal behavior from the equation. When I use the word “racist” I am still using it in a more traditional way in the sense that I am remarking upon what I perceive to be a person's thoughts, actions, and words.
However, I do think that we need to reconsider the link between stereotyping and racism. I think we also need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I use the word “racist” to describe “stereotyping” because I want to acknowledge that “stereotyping” and giving in to our own implicit biases are just as dangerous as blatant racism. Society might tell you it's more understandable and even forgivable, but statistics show that it still leads to inequities in the way health care providers interact with folks of color, rates of arrest, conviction and sentencing, salary, hiring practices, etc. The list is endless.
Implicit bias/unconscious stereotyping is the new enemy. It's insidious and difficult for most folks to recognize in themselves much less address. So this is my rhetorical maneuver: stereotyping is not innocuous and reinforces the current racist system. It is also something that is not to be brushed off or excused as “human nature.” Calling it racism, and naming it's ultimate consequences with a strongly negative term, reminds us of this. I want people to react as strongly to implicit bias as they would to a call for resegregation. Let's stop congratulating ourselves for not being blatantly racist and thinking that's enough. That's like men congratulating themselves for not believing that women should only be in the kitchen and considering the battle for equality between the sexes finished. We can do better.
