No matter what Trump does or fails to do, he remains within the relatively narrow 35-45% range of approval. Aronson quotes Jerry Falwell, Jr. "I can't imagine him doing anything that's not good for the country," says Falwell. "I know anything he does, it may not be ideologically ‘conservative,’ but it’s going to be what’s best for this country,”
Aronson seizes on this "anything he does" as the core of Trumpism, which Aronson links to white evangelicals, Trump's strongest demographic of support (80% in the last election). Wondering how this could be so, Aronson draws on sociological research to locate this "anything he does" support in a white fear of displacement.
Diana Mutz provides Aronson his main thesis in her 2018 postmortem of the 2016 election. It is not economic anxiety, Mutz argues, that motivated this core of white voters. It is status threat, the perception among whites that other racial minorities are taking over, usurping the position of cultural, economic, and political hegemony that white people have historically enjoyed in the US. Mutz explains, "It is not racism of the kind suggesting that whites view minorities as morally or intellectually inferior, but rather, one that regards minorities as sufficiently powerful to be a threat to the status quo.”
I think this is spot-on. When I hear white conservatives grousing about racism as an overused scare-word by progressives, I see them distinguishing their beliefs (everyone is equal) from those of "real" racists like the KKK. They don't see themselves as racists--they recoil at being called racist--because they don't hold what they consider to be racist beliefs. Cue progressive eye-rolls. I'm not sure I've seen much in the way of an effective progressive response to this. By effective here I don't mean accurate but "at least as intuitively appealing as whites' denial of racism is to them."
Confronted with the "I'm not racist" response from white people, progressives like me tend to react in one or more various ways:
- You're lying to me: Sure, Jan. You really are racist--as in you believe black and brown people to be subhuman--but you know they can't just say that out loud (at least not when you think someone who'd object might hear). So you lie. Obviously, this is a strong claim. Obviously, there are some situations in which this is likely true. But, putting myself into a white conservative's shoes, I can see why this response wouldn't exactly elicit self-reflection and trust. It's a battle blow--you're a bad-faith actor--not a call to dialogue. (Sometimes a battle blow is what's called for, but I'm restricting myself to situations of dialogue and outreach.)
- You're lying to yourself (cognitive dissonance): That is, you really do harbor racist beliefs (e.g., distrust of people of color, belief that white people are smarter/better/more deserving than others, stereotypes about black and brown people). But your self-image is of someone who does not believe such things. So you lie to yourself, creating elaborate rationales for racist beliefs and feelings that somehow excuse you of racism (ex: I don't hate black people! I have black friends! I hate lazy people, and black people are more likely to be lazy. That's not racism; that's just facts...). Because the lying-to-yourself response is subtler than a charge of bad-faith mendacity, progressives like me often proffer it as a way of preserving some sense of good faith (or, at least, preserving the sense that we progressives operate in good faith). And, like the deception response, it may be true in some cases. But, again, in terms of how someone is likely to take it? Well, I wouldn't usually be open to someone telling me that I'm mistaken in or deluded about my account of my own thoughts and beliefs. I'm more likely to hear that message as an attack, which it kind of is.
- You're implicitly biased: This is a favorite of late, a version of the lying-to-self argument that has numbers-based research to quote backing it up. You can take an implicit bias test to see whether your unconscious reactions betray bias for your ethnic group and against others. The validity of these studies, as with so much else in psychological research, has been called into question. I'm less interested here in the truth or accuracy of implicit bias (it makes intuitive sense to me) than in how I'd respond as a white conservative to the charge of implicit bias. How would I respond if told, for instance, that I'm implicitly biased against people I think I'm not biased against? I'd probably be resentful, especially if I view that charge as coming from a hostile source likely to use my implicit bias against me. And that is a problem: insofar as implicit bias exists, it (1) likely exists to some extent for just about everyone; (2) gets framed as something you aren't or can't be responsible for. Of course, studies suggest one can mitigate implicit bias over time. But as a weapon in the you're-so-racist conversation, diagnosing someone with what sounds like a mental condition is of limited efficacy. (Much the same can be said, I think, about "white fragility." I think that model is accurate, but when has "well, you're just being fragile" worked to make me more open to changing my mind?)
- You're systemically racist: This response seeks to displace the idea of racism as an individual failing, replacing it with an understanding that the systems and institutions of society were build of, by, and for white privilege. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that participants in that system behave and react in ways that perpetuate that dominance, even though they may individually wish for racial equality rather than white supremacy. I'm a fan of this view. But it's tough to make it work in practice. The naive view of racism--open, explicit bigotry--is incredibly powerful (it doesn't help that open, explicit bigots are enjoying a level of publicity they haven't seen in years). Once you make racism mean "the overlapping effects of various social structures," critics ask, what do you call those racially prejudiced bigots? Moreover, these critics ask, doesn't a thoroughgoing definition of racism as systemic rather excuse people who hold racist views? Moral accountability (you should stop perpetuating racist systems) without moral agency (your racial privilege inheres in the system; you did nothing to gain it, nor can you simply wish it away) jars with white conservatives' common sense of right and wrong. (Of course, that's what makes systemic inequality so maddening for those on the losing end: they suffer the consequences without having done anything wrong except be born into a marginalized group.) It can work, but it takes a while to do. The systemic approach is so complicated that often progressives themselves avoid it. It's much more fun to label someone racist than to have a long conversation where we get on the same page about how institutional structures can perpetuate racially discrepant outcomes.
But, if you're doing that lagniappe work, trying to move white people to some point where they can at least grok why they're being called out for racism, I wonder if Murtz's framing might have more potential.
Murtz's frame lets us affirm that, yes, you can personally believe that races are equal. But you can at the same time feel uncomfortable or threatened when you see a norm of representation and prestige changing in ways that make it seem like your group is losing. The problem isn't (or isn't only) a frame of "non-white people are inferior" but a frame of "social status is a zero-sum game that only one group can win." This frame can be identified. This frame can be challenged. It may be easier, at least initially, to challenge that frame than to guide/drag someone through an odyssey of self-criticism and systemic reflection.
Or it might not.
More tomorrow,
JF
No comments:
Post a Comment