DBF: Racialized

(This is the second post in a series exploring Michael Emerson and Christian Smith's Divided By Faith)

There are helpful and there are unhelpful ways to enter most any discussion. This is particularly apt when discussing a polarizing and oftentimes entrenched issue, such as race.

When discussing race remember: Fist bumps solve EVERYTHING!

One key to constructive conversation is defining our terms, so that we are all having the same conversation. For many in contemporary American society, any discussion of race is immediately framed with labels.

Who is a racist?

Who is not? 

This is why I'm not!

This is why she is!

We seek to categorize and dichotomize, even at the expense of understanding, empathy, and the truth. This is why Emerson and Smith are wise to write based on a concept called racialization, rather than nebulously asking, "Who is or is not racist?"

Before I define racialization, a word about the trouble with nailing down racism as a term. Racism is a personally, historically, and experientially loaded term and concept.

Personally, in this cultural moment, most people will go out of their way to define themselves as not racist. They will usually set the standard to make sure that they and their inner circle are not included in the definition of racism. This means different people will set different standards on the basis of self-interest. This is a biased perspective. It is culturally and introspectively blind, therefore it won't work.

Historically, in different eras racism has been defined in differing ways. In the 1820s, the statement "Blacks are inferior to whites and should be kept in slavery for their own protection" would have been considered benign in most of America. By 1950, that statement would have been considered clearly and obviously racist. But in 1950, the statement "Whites and blacks ought to be separated in the public sphere" would have been considered morally neutral or morally right by most of America. Today, that statement in clearly and obviously racist.

This leads to a frightening question: What makes us believe that our views won't been deemed the same in 2050? When seeking to define racism, the historical record shows we as a society usually use a standard that is a least one if not two generations removed from the present. So, if one's definition of racism is Jim Crow, then by that standard one can rightly assume racism is dead in America. Or even if one's definition is individuals intentionally holding to discriminatory policies, the standard is very easy to "otherize" and blame some other group (As a Northerner at heart, I can readily admit we Northern folk do this to the South all the time).

Definitions are hard. De jure segregation is no longer enforced, but that doesn't means racism is dead. Our historical placement blinds our perceptions.

Finally, talking about race is experientially loaded. Most everyone in America has some story where they personally were either accused of racism or felt racism was enacted against them. These experiential and emotional back stories make racism further difficult to define.

None of this is to say we should shy away from discussing race or racism, please don't misunderstand me. It is only to say the issue is extremely complex for a number of reasons and we need to consider these complexities before embarking into such discussions.

So, with racism too convoluted to nail down for a sociological study, the authors of Divided By Faith use the terms racialization or racialized society throughout the book. They define it as such:

A racialized society is a society wherein race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationships.

Or more tangibly:

The racialized society is one in which intermarriage rates are low, residential separation and socioeconomic inequality are the norm, our definitions of personal identity and or choices of intimate associations reveal racial distinctiveness, and where "we are never unaware of the race of a person with whom we interact."

The question the authors then ask: Is the United States a racialized society?

In the next post I will seek to answer that question statistically, but in the little space remaining here I want to pursue it anecdotally.

Does race matter profoundly in America? Yes or no?

Well wait, before you answer that question for yourself, consider asking it of someone else. If you're white, go ahead and ask one of your close black or Latino friends that question? . . . If you don't have a close friend of another race . . . Well, that suggests your experience is a racialized one. Yes or no? If you do have a close friend of another race, I would seriously encourage you to go ask.

OK, next thought have you ever answered the phone and immediately known the race of the person on the other end? Why did you take note of it? Surely, not because it didn't matter in any sense.

Last one, if you wanted to go to a part of your area where their would be people of a vastly different economic standing than yourself (upwards or downwards), what are the chances 85% of the people in that neighborhood would be of the same race as one another? Just from your own experience.

I think these answers likely provided you with some anecdotal evidence that America is indeed a racialized society, but if you were that kid who loved having a substitute because it meant videos, I've got something for you also:



OK, next time, I'll have a little more on racialization asking, "Statistically, is America a racialized society?"