The Elephant in the Room: Examining the Impact of Systemic White Supremacy on the Work of Racial Reconciliation
By Carey Ruiz
“Racism is the water, not the shark” -Drego Little (2017)
In yet another racist incident evaluated in the court of social media, this past January, a white, teenage boy from an elite private school, wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, confronted a Native American while the teen’s friends laughed and chanted. While longer versions of the initial video indicated a much more complex interaction between those involved, the underlying sentiment of white entitlement and superiority did not seem to change.
However, at once, conversation about dynamics of racism, ethnocentrism, and divisiveness became reduced to whether or not the kid featured in the video was racist or a victim of racism. In a twist of irony, the incident occurred over the Martin Luther King holiday and while social media was saturated with King’s quotes of love, peace, and social justice, it was also peppered with calls for “seeing both sides of the situation” and “getting all the information” before ruining the lives of the innocent teenage boys who were involved in the incident. And yet again, what was lacking was any regard to a broader conversation about why people of color might find the incident offensive in the first place.
I am a white woman, but I am always struck by the tendency of many white people to try and “explain away” incidents punctuated by racism. Many white people profess egalitarian attitudes but feel ambivalent when it comes to social programs aimed at improving the life chances of those who are not white (Gilens 2000; Neubeck and Cazenave 2001; Biernat and Crandall 1999). Further, they are at times quick to justify an incident with racial overtones as something other than racist (DiAngelo 2018). Many white people have a very limited understanding of racism, perceiving it as something personal, as an inherent defect within an individual. This perception blinds people to structural relationships that shape race prejudice and racism. Racism and white supremacy are structural phenomena. (DiAngelo 2018). They are interwoven into our cultural tapestry; they are the background noise of our social institutions. Still, while most people abhor racism on a case-by-case basis, they fail to see its structural pervasiveness. In this essay, I am going to discuss the way in which white supremacy and racism are created through social structure. Focusing solely on personal prejudice and intention as the only impediments to race relations is not enough when it comes to racial reconciliation. This essay will briefly describe some examples of the social construction of white supremacy and racism and how these create obstacles when it comes to racial reconciliation.
The Social Construction of Race, Racism and White Supremacy
Social scientists have long been aware of the relationship between individual perception and social structure. We gain knowledge about the world and we impart knowledge to others through social contact and our social relationships (Mead 1934). It is this knowledge- what Mead (1934), calls the knowledge of the “generalized other”- that enables an individual to engage in abstract thought, using an awareness of others’ attitudes to shape one’s individual response. Knowledge of the generalized other comes from two types of social relationships. The first relationship is that which an individual directly belongs and of which has firsthand knowledge; the second, however, is that social group to which an individual is indirectly associated (Mead 1934). Participation in both types of social relationships allows an individual unlimited access to knowledge about different classes, subcultures, and group; thereby, allowing many, if not all, people in a community the opportunity to engage in a social relationship of one type or another. As we engage in these social relationships, however, we simultaneously create meaning around those interactions (Mead 1934). Meanings manifest for individuals in a way that both connects them to the larger society while allowing a person room for individuality. These meanings also help us create an understanding about our society.
Specific racial meanings can and do change over time. What remains, what seems a permanent fixture in U.S. society, however, is a system of racial formation based on white supremacy (Omi and Winant 1989). For example, the Civil Rights Act abolished much of the old Jim Crow caste system in the United States (along with many blatant forms of racism on individual, religious, and academic levels). However, Michelle Alexander (2010) argues that the mass incarceration of black and Latino men created a new caste that is no less racialized. Moreover, in that such a creation has enabled certain political interests to achieve its goals, it has been deliberate and to the benefit of a white status quo. Alexander (2010) outlines her argument this way: Post Civil Rights Era achievements led to the dissolution of blatant discrimination as Jim Crow laws were overturned. As more and more black people gained rights and became increasingly politically mobile, economic injustices began to come under scrutiny. Multiracial coalitions began to form and increasing criticism toward the status quo grew. Those interested in upholding the old world order had to find new ways of pursuing their political interests. Overt discriminatory language was no longer politically correct and using race as a justification for discrimination is now illegal. A new way of discussing “otherness” in political discourse emerged by framing it as an interest in “law and order,” and “otherness” was framed under the context of criminality with the criminals in question having a particular racial look (Alexander 2010: 40).
As Alexander’s research on race and the criminal justice system shows, race and ideas about race are created through social structure. Race is not biology but rather a way in which people organize the world around them. Race provides context and shapes meaning in our interactions with one another. Race helps provide a group identity and provides “cues” about other differences (Omi and Winant 1989). It affects us as individuals, and we have an individual response and values; however, the construction of meaning around race is entirely social, driven by societal, economic, and political forces that have shaped racial meaning over time to the advantage of white groups (Omi and Winant 1989). Since racism is a social construct, individuals take their cues regarding the social acceptance of certain racialized behaviors from society, particularly, the groups to which they belong. While we gain meaning through a process of interaction with others and with society, this interaction generally occurs in groups. Groups maintain social order. They are integral to society running smoothly. Group belonging, to whatever group we belong, provides all of us with a sense of identity. However, while a group is composed of individuals, its existence is not contingent on particular individuals. Groups develop their own boundaries, identities, and ways of doing things, and even its own identity so that individual identity is often directly linked with group identity (Simmel 1898). This helps explain why many people (who identify as “non-racist) will act in ways that defend the status quo (to the detriment of other races) if it suits their group interests (Wellman 1993).
Racism is Beyond Individual Prejudice
Few people are comfortable being called a racist; nor do many people want to belong to a group that is considered racist. George W. Bush reported that Kanye West calling him a racist was an “all-time low” point in his presidency (Chappell 2010). Of course, one could point to actions or inactions taken by Bush, such as the Iraq war and/or the delay in aid to Hurricane Katrina victims, as true low points. However, even when Bush was pushed on those very points in an interview, he still maintained that the lowest point of his presidency was being called a racist (Chappell 2010). With this revelation, the former president is illustrating an awareness of the generalized other in alluding to a cultural condition in the United States: perceptions of racism are worse than actual racism. Our awareness of the generalized other (Mead 1934) informs us that in modern society, overt racism is distasteful. Having an identity of racism is bad; whereas actual racist events or situations tend to be morally negotiable (i.e.: George Zimmerman had a right to defend himself; Tamir Rice’s toy gun looked real). In an attempt to avoid giving someone a label of “racist,” our culture is willing to ignore the racism embedded in a social situation.
Racism and white supremacy exists externally to the individual (Bonilla-Silva 2003). Or as DiAngelo (2018) points out, white supremacy describes our culture, not an individual mindset. In a culture that has been built on and permeated with white supremacy (Anderson 2016; Alexander 2012; Omi and Winant 1989), the knowledge one gains about the world around is predominantly white supremacist. Moreover, race itself is what Omi and Winant (1989) call a socio-historical concept, indicating that social and cultural understandings of race have evolved over time and with a substantial amount of influence by social institutions. As Carol Anderson (2016) suggests in her pivotal work, that with every gain made by people of color, white obstruction has impeded the progress. A racial hierarchy has always existed in U.S. society in some capacity (Anderson 2016; Omi and Winant 1989). At a basic level racism has not changed but rather changing social constructs are used to justify it (Omi and Winant 1989). In other words, it is the same song being played to a different tune. However, the constant change around the meaning of a “racialized situation” does allow people the opportunity to ignore the racism that accentuates the situation (as what occurred during the exchange between the Native American protestors and the group of teens at the Washington Mall last January). So then racism and white supremacy are preserved through transformation of meaning around a social situation. These transformations assist in allowing white denial of white supremacy. Those interested in racial reconciliation must first recognize that racism in this country has received moral, legal, and intellectual support from its inception. Social structures implement racist policies, with little pushback from white people in general. Moreover, structural support for white supremacy has not changed, at least not much. As DiAngelo (2018: 129) discusses, because our culture is embedded with a white supremacist world view, the question of racism and white superiority is not a question of “if” it exists but rather “how” it exists. In this regard, racism then becomes a broader conversation as opposed to “you either are or you’re not.” The focus must be on the social patterns that perpetuate white supremacy (DiAngelo 2018), and the way in which those patterns are recreated in our interactions with other individuals, as well as our social institutions. These white supremacist patterns impact the way in which we interpret and think about the world around us. Despite our personal motivations and intentions, we simply cannot remove ourselves from the patterns and messages that permeate society, especially if we are unwilling to acknowledge them.
Because race, racism, white superiority, etc., exists external to individuals, to be intentional about race reconciliation is to acknowledge that racial reconciliation exists outside the social norm (DiAngelo 2018). We deny the normalcy of racial hierarchy because we do not wish to identify with a group who benefits from it. As previously stated, we develop our understanding about our social world through our interactions with others. We interpret and reinterpret social situations and create meaning around them. Whiteness becomes the norm when our world itself is predominantly white. Further, when we receive cultural messages through school, religion, the media, etc., that contributions of people of color have been minimal, it creates a cultural narrative that is white supremacist, despite the personal opinions individuals may have. One’s own moral code can tell us to shun ideas of white superiority and racism; however, we should not deny its existence in the world around us. White identity is formed in a world in which white people are the standard. A mindset of “treating everyone equally” is not enough to overcome the lifelong socialization in a culture of racial hierarchy in which whiteness and white superiority are the norm, and all else is exceptional (DiAngelo 2018). To be white engaged in racial reconciliation means one must constantly check oneself against the privilege of being white in a white dominated culture.
Racial Reconciliation
Racial Reconciliation in which white supremacy is the norm means one must be willing to accept social pushback from violating such norms (DiAngelo 2018). Beverly Tatum (1997) illustrates this point in her work on identity when she describes the reactions of her white students to a white antiracist activist who spoke to her class. Many of the white students were concerned about losing friends or significant others if they spoke up and sought advice from the activist regarding what to do when they found themselves in situations in which they encountered racism. Nonracist identity becomes a negotiation with what is considered acceptable and unacceptable, in not only mixed race company, but same race company, as well. Oftentimes individuals will avoid engaging in reconciliatory work not only out of concern about making a racial “misstep” with someone of a different race but also a fear of being perceived too radical, liberal, muck-raking, etc., by individuals of the same race. Our awareness of general social attitudes inform us that in modern society, overt racism is distasteful. Most people are willing to recognize and express disapproval with regard to abstract or extreme situations of white supremacy. However, when discussions question white privileged position, such as whether or not the calls of Black Lives Matter are legitimate or whether or not Kaepernick should kneel, accusations of divisiveness abound. True racial reconciliation involves listening to the critique of white supremacist culture with empathetic understanding, not a reflexive reaction to a perception of an “attack” on a particular race. When it comes to speaking about racism, the onus is typically on people of color. People of color are expected to take risks when it comes to sharing their experiences and opinions; white people should also be willing to take risks when it comes to speaking out against racism and white supremacy.
Moreover, it is not fair to expect people of color to share their racial experiences without first building trust (DiAngelo 2018). Trust does not happen simply because the dominant group wants it to. In addition, social contact must be something other than superficial in order to diminish racist ideology (Allport 1944). Research suggests that a substantial indicator of diminished racism is having witnessed a racist event and becoming upset by it. In addition, recognizing racism is mediated by whether or not a respondent had a close friendship or dating relationship with someone of a different race. Therefore, it is not merely an awareness of what racism or white supremacy is, or even knowing individuals of other races, that diminishes racist ideology, but rather when it “becomes personal” (Ruiz 2012). Inter-racial interactions are much more impactful in racial reconciliation than peoples’ professed attitudes toward other races (Ruiz 2012). However, such interactions and relationships should be authentic. Building genuine relationships means more than simply “adding and stirring” people of color into your church, organization, projects, etc. Allport’s (1944) contact hypothesis suggests that it is not that mere contact that reduces racism, but rather the meaning contained within the contact. Forging deeper relationships with people of different races has the potential to yield real social change when it comes to addressing racial hierarchy in our society, but only if the relationships are authentic. Authentic relationships require openness, and a willingness to risk discomfort. Moreover, to be authentic requires all white people to take ownership of white supremacist ideology embedded in our culture. The goal for white people interested in racial reconciliation is not to convince others that one is “not a racist;” the goal is to disrupt white supremacy (DiAngelo 2018).
Conclusion
As I think about the aims of The Angela Project, I want to offer some concluding reflections for readers. Real relationships require effort. Those interested in racial reconciliation should enter into spaces where racial reconciliatory work is already being done rather than expect the work to come to them. Oftentimes, there is an expectation that inviting people of color to join in the projects of white people will be sufficient. Or, white people avoid racial reconciliatory work altogether. When white people avoid spaces in which they are a minority, or where white supremacy will be acknowledged and addressed, in an effort to maintain control and/or avoid discomfort, this creates inauthentic dialogue between racial groups and perpetuate the misinterpretations regarding racism and white supremacy that abound in our culture (DiAngelo 2018). If racial reconciliation exists outside social and cultural norms, going against those norms will feel unfamiliar. There will be pushback; or, one may say or do something racially insensitive. That does not mean, however, one should be unwilling to engage in the work. There is a dialectical relationship between our understanding and experience of our social world and not only our personal attitudes toward racism, but whether or not we will engage in action to help diminish white supremacy in general society—thereby changing our social climate. Individuals need to have a deeper meaning or interpretation of the situation in order for racism to diminish. Therefore, if we are interested in creating real change, white people must be willing to enter into spaces and engage in dialogue that may not be comfortable. When we, as white people are confronted with white supremacy, we should lean into the discomfort rather than attempt to diminish or justify it. No one individual created white supremacy; however, individuals can begin to dismantle it. First, we must acknowledge its existence and its impact on all our lives. As is apparent through The Angela Project, we in the United States have come a long way with regard to racial reconciliation, but we still have a long way to go. In the end, that is the gift The Angela Project gives the church, the opportunity for us to tell and then come to know the truth. For in knowing the truth, “we shall be made free” (John 8:32).
—Carey Ruiz is an Assistant Professor of Sociology & Justice Studies and Director of Diversity and Community at Campbellsville University in Campbellsville Kentucky. With research interests in the areas of social class and race, she has examined risk factors and pathways into trafficking of adjudicated female minors and is currently co-authoring a study on the impact of race and group dynamics on excessive use of force among police.
References
Adorno, Theodore. 2001 [1944]. “The Authoritarian Personality.” Pp. 81-91 in Racism: Essential Readings, Ellis Cashmore and James Jennings, eds. London: Sage
Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press
Anderson, Carol. 2016. White Rage: The Unspoken Truth about our Racial Divide. New York: Bloomsbury
Allport, Gordon. 1979 [1954]. The Nature of Prejudice (25th Anniversary Edition). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Biernat, Monica and Chiristian S. Crandall. 1999. “Racial Attitudes” Pp. 297-411 in Measures of Political Attitudes, John Paul Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver, and LawrenceS. Wrightsman, Eds. Burlington, MA: Academic Press
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism Without Racists: Colorblind Racism and the Persistance of Racial Inequality in the United States. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
Chappell, Bill. 2010. “Bush Says Kanye West's Attack Was Low Point of His Presidency; West Agrees” National Public Radio. Retrieved: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/11/03/131052717/bush-says-kanye-west-s-attack-was-low-point-of-his-presidency
DiAngelo, Robin. 2018. White Fragility: Why it’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press
Gilens, Martin. 2000. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, Volume 1. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Neubeck, Kenneth J. and Noel A. Cazenave. 2001. Welfare Racism: Playing the Race Card Against America’s Poor. New York: Routledge
Omi,Michael and Howard Winant. 1989. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge.
Ruiz, Carey. 2012. The Elephant in the Classroom: High School Students Definitions and Perceptions of and Reactions to Racism (unpublished dissertation) University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
Simmel, G. (1898). “The Persistence of Social Groups” American Journal of Sociology, 3 (5)
Tatum, Beverly Daniel. 1994. “Teaching white students about racism: The search for white allies and the restoration of hope.” Teachers College Record 95(4): 462-476.
Wellman, David T. 1993. Portraits of White Racism, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
