Consider how Trump supporters take offense at accusations that they are racist. From their perspective, they "don't see color" or "see all people equally." They may point to "actual racists"--hood-wearing, cross-burning klansmen--and wonder how anyone could possibly lump them together. Progressives crying "racism," from this perspective, is what creates a racially charged climate.
Progressives' responses to this line of argument, I wrote yesterday, tend to be some version or combination of "you're lying" (you really are racist), "you're implicitly biased" (you're a racist and don't realize it), or "your definition of racism is ludicrously narrow" (racism is systemic, institutional, historical, etc.). Any or all of these might be true. But none work especially well in an exchange (and for the sake of these posts I'm assuming a scenario in which both parties are able and willing to try at such an exchange).
Kimmel (paralleling research by Diana Mutz) suggests another narrative driving Trump voters' resentment: aggrieved entitlement. This group (Kimmel focuses mainly on straight white men) have been raised in a culture that sets them up to expect a certain level of status--access to power, ease of movement in society, prestige, representation, etc. As social, economic, and legal systems slowly (all too slowly, all too piecemeal) realign around changing demographics, white people (white males especially) experience a relative loss of historical privilege as things come back into balance. But balance can feel like catastrophe to those who've historically benefited from unbalance. It feels like being attacked. They are being denied what they're entitled to have.
Take Congress, for instance. Right now, Congress is 23.7% female. This is obviously discrepant; over half of US citizens are women. A properly representative elected body would match demography. To get from one-quarter to one-half women in Congress, though, a lot of Congressmen will need to not be elected--replaced, if you will. Now, I imagine that if you asked all the male Representatives and Senators currently in office whether they thought women can and should serve in Congress, they'd say yes. Ask them whether it'd be a good thing for there to be more women Congresspersons, almost all would say, "Yes, absolutely!" But follow that up with, "OK, are you willing to step aside to make room for a woman to replace you?" They're going to point to someone else--probably someone on the other side of the aisle--and say, "Him first."
Justice will feel like discrimination to some people. It’s a loss of (unbalanced, undue) status.
No wonder, then, that the story circulating on the right involves white people (and white males especially) suffering as much or even more discrimination
than people of color (or Muslims, or LGBTQ+ folk, etc.). That’s a devilishly effective story for white people. Criticisms that point out the evidentiary flaws in
that story reinforce the story for
white people. (See? Typical
discrimination. You say you’re concerned about white men and boom! Racist and
sexist.) That's a tough nut to crack.
Pernicious as it is, though, I think that aggrieved entitlement is ultimately more fragile a construct than white supremacy and racism. That is, I think we can get people to the point of recognizing the problems with the story they've been told about what they're entitled rather than getting them to see their racial status as problematic.
Kimmel, for instance, relates appearing on a panel of men about economic anxiety. On the panel were several working-class men who were un- or under-employed. One of them complained that he had been a finalist for a prestigious position at a company, but he'd lost his job due to their hiring a female candidate. Grumbles of sympathy and agreement from the audience. Aggrieved entitlement in the air. Kimmel responds with a simple question: "What made that your job?"
The correction Kimmel offers cannily sidesteps the I'm-not-racist/sexist/etc. defense. It doesn't suggest anything about the man's identity at all. It poses a question that invites the man to rethink the expectation he had going in, the story that he's been told that available positions should go to men, not women.
To be clear, I definitely think sexism and racism--all the isms--exist and have detrimental effects on society. These systems and attitudes--and they are of course subtler and more pervasive than TV-villain bigotry--need to be challenged. Hard lines should be drawn. But--in exchanges between people where there's some hope of meaningful connection--"you're racist" is a pretty formidable barrier.
"What makes that story you've been told accurate or fair" might have a bit more purchase.
More tomorrow,
JF
No comments:
Post a Comment