On Prejudice.
The idea was recently put to me that Gordon Allport's linking of prejudice and antipathy is a crucial one:
"Prejudice is an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group or an individual of that group."The writer (here on LJ) felt that given that definition of prejudice, it ( Read more... )
"Prejudice is an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group or an individual of that group."The writer (here on LJ) felt that given that definition of prejudice, it ( Read more... )
I see I've implied an overstatement of what I meant. Yes, it would be wrong to suggest that systemic racism is independent of prejudice. My aim is to distinguish the two and get at their relationship, rather than to split them completely.
As you say, deep subtle unconscious death-of-a-thousand-cuts prejudice is an animating force driving a lot of systemic racism. And agreed, prejudice is always the ultimate root cause of systemic racism. But that thing you point to about that root being sometimes distant from the effect is the key to what I've been stumbling toward here. I believe that the common racism = prejudice + power formulation you'll find in a forum like ap_racism is misleading in those cases because it rhetorically erases that distance. That can lead to a misreading of what the prejudice in play really is. And it can also lead to too great a preöccupation with the root prejudice, which doesn't always tell you the whole story of how an instance of racism works or how to address it.
This last is important to me sitting in the White guy's position because I want to do more than inspect and counter the prejudices knocking around in my head (though that's a big job itself), I also want to better understand the machinery that enacts racism. In a racist context there are plenty of tripwires I can easily trigger that produce racist effects that have nothing to do with my prejudice or lack thereof. I'm ethically obligated to become as crafty as possible about dodging those tripwires. Overcoming prejudice is necessary to overcoming racism, but it's not sufficient.
I like the ring of the distinction you're pointing to between racial disparities and racism. I think you've caught me oversimplifying something, but I don't quite have my hands around it. Could you further unpack how you would define “racism” there, as distinguished from racial disparities?
Reply
The definition does not "erase" the sometimes-zero-sometimes-more distance between prejudice and systematic racism. It simply does not address it. There's nothing wrong, or misleading, about that. It's a definition, not a college course.
"As you say, deep subtle unconscious death-of-a-thousand-cuts prejudice is an animating force driving a lot of systemic racism"
Quibbling a bit, it's not so much deep or subtle, so much as it is undisclosed. It's often quite easy to see- at least for people of colour. It is only invisible to the privileged- just as sexism is generally invisible to men, or ageism is generally invisible to the young and vigourous.
If you are interested in learning more and making positive changes with regard to racism, the first thing that you must attend to is respectfully listening to people of colour on this issue. Respectful listening includes not redefining their terms for them, and not assuming (nor appearing to assume) that your new-to-this-story brain automatically has the answers to this old and difficult problem.
Respectful listening has allowed me to see much institutional bigotry that had hitherto been invisible to me.
I'd also warn that most tripwires are indeed linked to personal prejudice, despite the proclamations of those doing the tripping. The most common manifestation of that prejudice is insistence on trumping, correcting, or dismissing disenfranchised perspectives on the issue.
Prejudice and denial are both so common that the best strategy for most people to move forward involves the assumption of unwitting personal prejudice rather than the assumption of personal innocence. I follow this strategy with regard to my own personal work with ageism and sexism. Rather than assume my own egalitarianism and non-contribution to a problem situation, I start with the quiet, guiltless assumption that I reflect the automatic bigotry of our cultures, and I work from there.
With regard to "racism": definitions abound, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Important aspects include prejudice, hostility, stereotypy, and privilege/disparity.
Many writers feel that the most important aspect is that of privilege/disparity; in the absence of privilege, they feel, the other problems shrivel to sociological insignificance.
"Racism = prejudice + power" attempts to succinctly highlight the importance of privilege, since the 'power' cited really refers to racial disparity in power- specifically, to white privilege.
Other writers highlight the issue of class control in the maintenance of systems of white privilege and white supremacy. Bell Hooks in particular speaks of the need to emphasise and support black self-determination, in opposition to the tendency to define issues in terms of unilaterally mainstream white values, perspectives, and solutions.
So racial disparity is an important concept within racism, but the two terms are not quite synonymous.
Reply
At graduation last year most of the parents were seated in rows of chairs, but several of them stood in order to get a good vantage point to take pictures and videos. The parents who stood were arrayed around the edges, so they didn't block the view of the other parents ... except one, squarely in the middle of the seated area, making the other parents understandably restless.
Had the standing parent been White, my friend simply would have gone over to him and told him that he needed to either move or sit down to not block the other parents' view. But the standing parent was Black, so first my friend went around to all of the other parents standing at the back and edges and asked them to sit. Then she went and spoke to the parent in the middle of the seating, who swung around to point at where some of the other standing parents had been, saying “but what about ... ?” He stopped there, because my friend had preëmpted the objection that he had been singled out because he was Black.
As you might guess, I had an initial response that this parent should have responded as a hypothetical White parent would have. But attentive to the principle you've pointed to of looking for my prejudice, I came to see the prejudice inherent in expecting the same response from a PoC who lives in very different circumstances. My friend rightly insisted that it had been her responsibility to anticipate that parent's objection as she did.
Had my friend not been crafty enough to do this, that parent would have experienced racism, telling himself and others that the racist principal had singled him out because he was Black. From the White guy position, I rightly must respect a PoCs' account of the racism he experiences. And I do respect that: in that case, racism is happening because he is experiencing a hostile environment as a reflection of the pervasively hostile racist society he lives in. The world would have been a worse place, with racism reïnforced yet again. The racism he encountered in that exchange is a result of prejudice, the prejudice of countless people he had encountered over a lifetime in a racist world.
So I would have respected that parent's account of the racism. But I would not have respected his account of my friend's prejudice. I don't see how that failure to anticipate the parent's reaction could usefully be described as “prejudice.” It would have been racist ignorance, a failure of skill in avoiding a tripwire in a racist society, and a failure to meet her White responsibility to not contribute to racism. But not prejudice, as far as I can see.
This contains an important (and difficult) lesson for Whites: you are responsible for more than your own prejudice. But I believe that it also contains an important consequence for PoCs: your experience of racism is unquestionable but your account of its mechanisms is not.
Yeah, that last is a failure of the modesty appropriate for a White guy talking about racism. It certainly would be irresponsible to raise the point outside of an explicit conversation about the workings of racism. But we are in that conversation, and so I believe it's necessary to raise.
I hope it's clear that I'm raising this point not in the spirit of debate, but rather because I'm very appreciative of how this exchange has been very clarifying to me already. This thing is an obstacle to me drawing as much wisdom from your last comment as I suspect it offers. I also hope it's clear that my greatest pleasure in our exchange has been from you correcting me in places where I've been wrongheaded ... which I say because I'm kind of hoping that there's an opportunity for that here on this point as well.
Reply
"But I would not have respected his account of my friend's prejudice. I don't see how that failure to anticipate the parent's reaction could usefully be described as “prejudice.” It would have been racist ignorance, a failure of skill in avoiding a tripwire in a racist society, and a failure to meet her White responsibility to not contribute to racism. But not prejudice, as far as I can see"
Do such things not constitute prejudiced under-valuation of the feelings, experiences, and opinions of non-whites, potentially expressed as unwitting racist behaviour and amplified by multiple power imbalances?
Why is 'prejudice' not an appropriate term?
"I believe that it also contains an important consequence for PoCs: your experience of racism is unquestionable but your account of its mechanisms is not. "
Such considerations are important only in a prejudiced context that seeks to de-emphasise the concerns of non-whites.
Are you really telling me that where an individual is in the acute phase of response to victimisation, that it is appropriate to pause our investigation to insist that the victim correctly understand the mindset of his oppressor, and correctly reflect it?
Rape victims often inappropriately feel that they were targeted because of provocative dress or body type. This is generally far from the truth. Should police rape response personnel seek to educate victims on this factoid, against their wishes, as a substitute for listening and investigation of the purported crime?
No. This is yet another manifestation of oppression. Stop trying to control the learning process of people who are trying to speak out on the topic of their oppression- unless they ask you for help in shaping their path. Their account does not have to be picture-perfect to be valuable.
Reply
If my friend hadn't known to anticipate that parent's assumption that he was being singled out because of his race, that would be a failure from ignorance rather than attitude. That ignorance would be a manifestation of White privilege, to be sure. But I think a useful definition of “prejudice” has to be limited to attitudes (conscious or unconscious) and not include ignorance, which I think is unhelpfully elastic.
Having said that I want to recognize that ignorance of the “American slavery was not that bad” variety reflects an intersection of privilege and prejudice; you have to be prejudiced on the point to have such a misunderstanding in the face of available information to the contrary. Similarly, an insistence on propounding ideas grounded in ignorance is also reflective of prejudice. But not all examples of ignorance are in that category.
It is an injustice that a recent Hmong immigrant with limited English skills faces so many disadvantages. But is it really “prejudiced” of White guys like me to not speak fluent Hmong?
where an individual is in the acute phase of response to victimization
Certainly, no, this isn't always an appropriate thing to raise in that context, and you've caught me being inattentive to this important point.
But I do think that in interracial dialogue about the workings of racism-like what we're doing right here-this is a meaningful ground rule. If I don't take a PoC's word for their experience of racism, then I'm being irresponsible to the dialogue. But if I question a PoC's assertion about Whites' processes that contribute to racism then I may be working responsibly. (I may also be denying something because I'm uncomfortable with it, and I should be called to account for that possibility!) It's potentially responsible both because it's the only place where from the White position I actually have insight to contribute, and more importantly getting it right about what Whites are actually doing that contributes to racism is essential for Whites to become ethical actors in a racist world.
Reply
Yes, Whites irresponsibly miss their racism and their prejudices and their responsibilities in their scramble to protest their innocence. I've seen it and gods know I've done it. Yes, for obvious reasons PoCs often see these things with a clarity that eludes Whites. And so Whites have a responsibility to listen attentively to PoCs' accounts.
But there are many cases where in dialogue Whites rightly see something in PoCs' accounts that is ... not wrong exactly, but off-center ... in a way they can't get past, so that Whites have a hard time getting at the underlying truth of PoCs' accounts, and while they dig for it PoCs feel disrespected. Privilege being what it is, that disrespect further reïnforces racism and it's Whites' responsibility to avoid it. But that's tricky to do and I confess the obvious: I'm not good at it.
Your last comment makes me suspect that we've reached one of those points, and I appreciate your effort to set me straight. So: I want to find a way recognize the disjoint between racism and prejudice in situations like my story without it being an easy out for confronting prejudice in the many places where it's central. Can you give me some insight?
Reply
But there are many cases where in dialogue Whites rightly see something in PoCs' accounts that is ... not wrong exactly, but off-center ...
You mean, wrong from a white position of privilege. *raises an eyebrow*
and I confess the obvious: I'm not good at it.
I tend to agree.
Reply
Certainly very often true.
But as an example of where I don't think that's an adequate description:
I have been told by PoCs in dialogues like this one that I'm not working in good faith, I'm not listening, I'm just speaking for the pleasure of affirming my own position, a desire to reïnforce my White privilege.
And yeah, I'm often not hearing as well as I should. I see that there are rhetorical things that I do that reïinforce my privilege which I can't always see how to avoid-and I'm sure there are plenty more of those things which I don't see. So I should be take that criticism of my motivations seriously, and examine myself.
I do that, and I do catch myself responding on the defensive sometimes, of course.
But I also know that when something happens like guttaperk showing me where I've been wrong, as he's done several times here, I'm delighted. So I'm not kidding myself in believing that finding my wrongheadedness is the point of the exercise. It really is what I'm trying to do, even if I don't always succeed.
So if someone tells me that the motives I claim for myself are false, and I'm not working in good faith et cetera, they're just plain wrong. That's not just how it looks “from a position of white privilege.” Being a PoC does not give them the power to unerringly look into my heart.
Which is why I said in my initial comment:understanding the motivations of Whites, specifically our prejudices, is the one (and I believe only) part of the machinery of racism that PoCs sometimes understand less well than Whites do
I tend to agree
Well, it's reassuring that my judgment is right about something!
Reply
Not only attentively, but respectfully.
"But there are many cases where in dialogue Whites rightly see something in PoCs' accounts that is ... not wrong exactly, but off-center ... in a way they can't get past, so that Whites have a hard time getting at the underlying truth of PoCs' accounts, and while they dig for it PoCs feel disrespected. "
[emphasis mine]
(1) How do you know that the White Response is the Right Response?
(2) Why are PoC's responsible for negotiating White Discomfort in the face of the oppression of PoC's?
(3) You imply that it is wrong for the PoC's to feel disrespected. Is that your position? It would seem to me that the automatic dismissal of the PoC perspective because it makes the White Listener uncomfortable involves both prejudice and disrespect.
Am I wrong?
Reply
I wouldn't say “wrong,”, but I see some places where you're what I was calling “off center:” pointing to something real but I think mistaken about an important element.
Forgive me my characteristic long-windedness going through your comment closely, but this is juicy stuff:
respectfully
Yes! And on two levels: with a respectful mind and with expressions of respect. The habits of White privilege are an impediment to both.
On the latter, I often get tripped up when I'm trying to say “I hear what you're saying but this part of it doesn't make sense to me-can you help me get to the bottom of that?” I believe that's respectful in spirit. If I didn't respect the point and the speaker, I wouldn't bother to try to resolve the place where it doesn't come together for me! But it often comes across as a disrespectful dismissal-“here's where you're wrong”-and I've had a hard time trying to find better ways of asking those kinds of questions.
(1) ... White Response
A fair question! I mean three tightly-related cases, in the family with the specific example I described for littlebreeze directly above: In describing the motivations of Whites, in describing what Whites do among themselves behind closed doors, and in interpreting what I meant by what I said.
Now even when a PoC's reading appears to Whites to be wrong on those subjects, it often reflects an at-least-partial truth which Whites aren't comfortable facing. And even when that reading is Just Plain Wrong, there's likely something for Whites to learn from the PoC's response to the point at hand.
F'rinstance, there are a couple of things there which you read me implying which were really not what what I meant to say. That you read that implication is a lesson to me in how easily I can end up claiming White privilege. But if I clarify (as I'm about to do) and you say, “no, I know you really meant what I read you implying, and you're backpedaling now that I've confronted you about it,” I can fairly claim that my reading of my own statement is the correct one.
To which point, those implications ....
Reply
It's all muddy and unclear, with much scope for error by both speaker and listener; but you are incorrect in claiming that your reframing or clarification trumps any claimed interpretation of your accidental implications.
In other words, as uncomfortable as it may be, PoC's have sound scientific and logical basis for ignoring your denials. A man who accidentally implies that "nonwhite" and "stupid" are linked does not reduce the possibility that he is prejudiced when he re-clarifies that of course he meant that lower socioeconomic status is associated with impaired academic performance.
Even if he is earnestly telling the truth...
Reply
The effects of what we say are in how they are read, and not what we intend. And we are responsible for that.
And as you say, what we say is a reflection of what we believe. Even when we make an implication out of clumsiness contrary to our intent, it is a manifestation of the flaws in our thinking.
I hope it's apparent in this conversation that I accept my responsibility for the many places where you've caught me saying something with bad implications. In this conversation that has ranged from the “wow, my thinking there was just wrong” (where your original post was the signal example) through many places where I was reaching for something I hope is right-minded in spirit ... but doing a poor enough job of expressing it that this not only undermined what I was trying to say, it also screwed up the way I was thinking about it to put that in the wrong, too.
You've caught me in a lot of stuff, which is why I've appreciated this conversation very much.
But frankly, not every conversation about racism is like this one. It is such a slippery topic that I have been in conversations where PoCs have insisted that I was saying something that was literally the exact opposite of what I believe and what I thought I said clearly. As I said, I have a final responsibility for those disjoints, but in those cases I cannot see how PoCs' understanding of the truth of what I have said could be superior to my own.
Reply
You're of course right in what I read as your implication here: PoCs are not responsible for negotiating Whites' discomfort in these situations.
And this is of course a big part of what Whites “can't get past” in these situations. When someone insists that my motivation in a situation is X it's disrespectful and it makes me angry. When that someone is a PoC and we're talking about the workings of racism, then that anger is a barrier to my understanding: sometimes, my protestations here to the contrary, that PoC is right, and I'm angry because it's something I don't want to face about myself. That anger is also a barrier to the dialogue: if I bring it into the conversation, I'm pulling White privilege BS. My anger-more broadly, my discomfort-is of course going to a part of tangling with how racism works, because it's a challenge to my ethics, my behavior, my White privilege.
So as a responsible citizen I, being a White guy, have to handle that discomfort and get past it. My problem.
But I said that this is “part of what Whites “can't get past”.’ The other part is when the barrier really is conceptual: say, the way I'm understanding what a PoC is saying contains an apparent contradiction, so there's something I'm not getting, and a willingness to accept the authority of that PoC's experience isn't going to solve the problem.
Reply
Tricky point.
I think PoCs are right to feel whatever discomforts while in dialogue about racism; racism hurts PoCs, talking about it is painful. I'm a White guy; I'm in no position to judge.
When Whites drag their own discomforts into the dialogue (as I was talking about above) it is disrespectful, so of course PoCs are right to feel disrespected.
And even when Whites are trying to grapple with being not discomforted but confused ... well, given that Whites drag their discomfort into the picture so often, it's not hard to see how it could be misread as doing that again. So on that level it's a reasonable, even predictable, misreading ... so PoCs are right to feel disrespected.
But on a more fundamental level, incomprehension is not disrespectful; your attitude has nothing to do with it, you're just not getting it. Though since both the incomprehension and the disrespect are products of White privilege, I figure that in the very least PoCs are entitled to find incomprehension annoying as hell.
Reply
I can see exactly why you were banned from the community. A lot of talk but none of it showing a willingness to accept or to truly understand the issue at hand. You are like a politician who is asked a tough question. You bluster and blather but in the end your indefensible position remains the same. Mired in stupidity and unwilling to truly entertain anything that might induce change and understanding of the problem.
You are cloaking your unwillingness to move from your position of privilege with a facade of polite, albeit irritating, chat that goes nowhere. After extensive comments here I see one giant circle no progress just rhetoric. (rhet·o·ric - Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous, )
I wish you growth in the future.
Try not to get banned from too many racism communities while you look for the light of comprehension.
Sincerely
LB
Reply
In the course of this discussion, I've discovered and accepted that the definition of “prejudice” I've been using for almost twenty years was just plain wrong. I've shed a lot of my reservations about r=p+p. I've been chastened on when it's appropriate to challenge a PoC's reading of Whites' motivations. I've been caught out on a number of smaller points where my thinking was wrong or sloppy.
I'm sure there's more stuff I've said here where I'm wrongheaded which is why I'm hoping that guttaperk will be kind and patient enough to carve up my comments once or twice more. Getting shown where I'm wrong is my main reason for commenting here.
I'm sorry that this is not apparent to you.
Reply
Leave a comment