Can’t anti-racism be color-blind?

[pure_doxyk]

Maybe it’s the philosopher in me, but I don’t see how any argument against racism that depends on color to make its point is valuable in the long run.  If the goal is to end racism, which I hope it is, then shouldn’t we be engaged in activities and rhetoric that de-emphasize skin color (etc.) as a valid reason to make political (and by extension

Comments

[a_priori]

I wonder if the concerns you raise should make us worry about the initial move (which you apparently accept) to define racism as 'prejudice + power

[flamingjune07]

What if the discussion of "institutional power" and such is not posited as merely a stipulative redefinition, but as a description and explanation of some of the more subtle features of the immediate phenomenon? Or, in other words, what if it's not just that the interesting stuff happens at an institutional level, but that it's necessary to view a social act (whatever it is that is being called "racism") within and relative to a broader social context (history, institutional power, etc) in order to better understand that act, and how we should react to it (your "real practical deliberation)?

[pure_doxyk]

I had a great discussion with my husband about this exact thing last night. He makes a rather bold claim that this "sociological usage" has the effect of shielding people from being accused of racism, since under that definition, only an institution or a society (never a person) can be racist. Thus, oddly and creepily, the definition that comes from the "Ivory" tower is one that makes it incredibly easy for bankers, politicians, journalists, teachers, etc. to excuse their own actions as "by definition not racist" -- or if they are racist, as the fault of the institution as a whole and not the individual

[flamingjune07]

He makes a rather bold claim that this "sociological usage" has the effect of shielding people from being accused of racism, since under that definition, only an institution or a society (never a person) can be racist.

Just to be clear, this is not at all what I mean -- I think that "racism" as an immediate phenomenon is something that absolutely does manifest in individual interactions, and thus a person is definitely capable of "being racist" at one time or another, or having a generally racist worldview or attitude, and so forth. I just think that there are some pretty compelling reasons to take the wider societal context into account in order to understand what's going on with these actions and attitudes (and thus know what to do with/about them). I know it's tempting, at the very least because it's a lot "cleaner," to focus only on the isolated individual or only on the broad societal theory, but I don't think either of those narratives make any sense without actively taking each other into account.

[pure_doxyk]

I think I agree totally with you there, though that last sentence is a big statement....could any one person ever really take both of those into account? I think it's a good goal to have, but I also don't think it should get in the way of calling out and ending racist practices -- by people *and* by institutions -- when we see them.

[flamingjune07]

could any one person ever really take both of those into account?

Several pretty awesome philosophers and also I myself would say no, but our inability to be omniscient doesn't seem to stop us from trying to know stuff ;)

[pure_doxyk]

Hmph. Maybe YOU'RE unable to be omniscient; I'm still trying.

;)