Reflection Social Institutions

University of Kansas KKU In Process Date: 20210120

Odyssey

ILL Number: 205901936

111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIII IIII Odyssey: 206.107.44. 79

Email: [email protected]

EMAIL: [email protected]

Maxcost:25.00IFM

KKU Billing: 15IFM

Billing Notes: L VIS

· -Paging notes: •• - < - -- - -----

Call#NOS _Call ##'Title Book/Volume/Issue/Series NOS (Circle) Year -::/: Volume _Article not found as cited - Why?

- Initials

Staff notes: OCLC#: 1042082342 ISSN#:9780190889432

Lending String:

- _,

CUZ,CUl,MERUC,CUV,HDC,DVP,COA,FBR,UIB,IA O,JDB,IAP,*KKU,WEX,CAT

~tw 2-'t(/v"v' l//'{/2-/ (ending Articles

KKU-Libmail

Borrower: CSJ

Call#: E184.A1G56522019

Location: Watson Library Stacks - 1 Center Stacks Stacks Map

Journal Title: Race and racisms : a critical approach /

Volume: Issue:

Month/Year: 2019

Pages: 32-63

Article Author: Golash-Boza, Tanya Maria, author. Golash-Boza

Article Title: Racial Ideologies and Sociological Theories of Racism

ILLiad TN: 1984075

I IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII

Shipping Address: King Library Interlibrary Services San Jose State University 129 S. 10th St San Jose, California 95192-0028 United States

Racial Ideologies

and Sociolog ica / Theories of

Racism

2 CHAPTER OUTLINE

P,ejudiu, D,scrimination d 1

. , an nsl1tur,c;1 .:1/ Racism 33

• Voices: M:croaggressions 38

SySfemic f\:, ,sm and Structural Racism ,w

Racial ldeoloai"s 44

Racial Formation 50

White Supremoc-y and Settler Colonialism 50

lntersectional Theories of Race and Racism 53

White Privilege 54

Whiteness, Closs, Gender, and Sexuality 57

Co nclusion and Discussion 59

• Thinking about Racial Justice 60

• Check Your Understanding 61

• Talking about Race 63

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Institutional Racism

Racial inequality is pervasive in the contemporary United States. We see it in the criminal justice system, where black and Latinx

people are several times more likely to go to prison than whites. We can find racial inequality in employment as well: audit studies have

shown that blacks are less likely than whites to be interviewed and,

once interviewed, to get a job. Once blacks have jobs, they are less likely to get promoted. Black business owners have more trouble get­

ting contracts. In education, the picture is equally bleak. Many schools

in the United States are racially segregated, and the quality of educa­ tion is lower at primarily black and Latinx schools. Within schools, white students are given preferential treatment. When white parents

visit schools, they get more attention from staff members, and teach­ ers are more likely to recommend white students for gifted programs. Sociologists and other researchers have carried out study upon study

demonstrating such inequality. Yet how do we explain it? This is where sociological theories of racism come into play; they

are lenses that help make sense of patterns such as the overrepresenta­ tion of African Americans in the criminal justice system. Sociologists use evidence from their studies to develop explanations, known as the­ ories, for how racial inequality is created and reproduced.

Before we begin an examination· of these theories, what do you think? How would you explain the racial disparities in the crim­ inal justice system, for example? Do you think blacks commit more crimes? Do you think police officers spend more time policing black communities? Do you think police officers are biased against African Americans? All of these questions can be translated into hypotheses that can be tested through scientific studies. First, let's look at how racism can be the basis of an explanation for racial inequality.

PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION, AND INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

Racism encompasses both racial prejudice-the belief that people belong to distinct races and that these racial groups have innate hierarchical differences that can be measured and judged-and racial discrimination-the practice of treating people differently on the basis of their race. For example, an employer can think African Americans are less competent than whites; this belief constitutes racial prejudice. When

~

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

that employer decides to hire a white person instead of an equally quali­

fied black person, that decision may be considered racial discrimination. Both prejudice and discrimination are widespread in U.S. society.

In one survey,Joe Feagin (2001) found that three-quarters of whites agreed with prejudicial statements about blacks, such as "blacks have

less native intelligence" than whites (109). Eduardo Bonilla-Silva

(2013) found that most whites use color-blind discourses that repro­ duce and rationalize racial inequality. In 1995, researchers conducted

a study in which they asked participants to close their eyes for a

second and imagine a drug user. Fully 95 percent of respondents re­ ported imagining a black drug user (Alexander 2010). The reality is

that African Americans account for only 15 percent of drug users in the United States and are just as likely as whites to use drugs. How­

ever, Americans have an unconscious bias against blacks and imag­ ine them to be more likely than other groups to use drugs (Alexander

2010). These and other studies show the widespread nature of racial prejudice.

Many Americans, even those who do not believe they are racially prejudiced, have implicit biases that operate at the level of the sub­ conscious. It is hard to avoid these biases because of the barrage of racialized messages we receive in the media and through our personal networks. Racial prejudice and implicit biases inevitably lead to racial discrimination. (Curious about your own implicit bias? Take the Implicit Association Test at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit.)

In this chapter, we will focus on theories of race and racism. There is another set of scholars whose work focuses more on ethnicity, often through the lens of assimilation-understood as the incorporation of ethnic minority groups into the mainstream. This body of work con­ siders how cultural characteristics, the labor market, and U.S. immi­ gration policies shape the incorporation patterns of ethnic minorities (Portes and Rumbaut 2006). These scholars explain ethnic minority incorporation primarily as the result of the ethnic features and traits of a group and that group's unique "context of reception" (Portes and Rumbaut 2006; Valdez 2011).

As Howard Winant (2000) explains in an article on race theory, there are clear limits to approaches that focus on ethnicity. These in­ clude obstacles to integration and the undesirability of assimilation. As we will see in this chapter, approaches that place race and racism at the center of their analyses allow us to perceive these obstacles more clearly and to understand how and why racial hierarchies persist.

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Institutional Racism

Assimilation theories can be further distinguished from race the­ ories in that they tend to focus on group-level factors, whereas race theories look primarily at the individual or the social structure. Most theories of race and racism emphasize the social structure. However, as we will see in the next section, understanding racial discrimination

at the individual level continues to be crucial.

Individual Racism Discrimination can occur at the individual level when one person discriminates against another. Audit studies have consistently shown that blacks are less likely to be interviewed for jobs than whites and that black and Latinx people face housing discrimination on a regular basis (Feagin 2001; Pager, Western, and Bonikowski 2009). Racially discriminatory actions by individuals such as not calling back an in­ terviewee for a job because of his race or telling a person on the phone that the apartment is taken because he or she has a Spanish accent or lives on a reservation constitute individual racism. Individual acts of racial discrimination and bigotry are commonplace in our society and help to reproduce racial inequalities.

How widespread is individual racism? Researchers have consis­ tently found that racial discrimination is pervasive. One study of Department of Defense employees revealed that nearly half of the black employees had heard racist jokes in the previous year (Feagin 2001). Another survey conducted by Feagin and McKinney (2003) revealed that 80 percent of black respondents had encountered racial hostility in public places. One African American secretary detailed the consequences of constant discrimination as follows: "I had to see

several doctors because of the discrimination, and I went through a lot of stress. And, then, my blood pressure ... went on the rise" (82). This woman, like many other African Americans interviewed in this study, displayed high levels of stress as a result of her mistreatment in the workplace and consequently developed health issues. In another study, Dwanna Robertson (2015) found that Native Americans con­ stantly face the consequences of negative stereotypes about them. One of her participants told her, "I hear things like: 'Show me an Indian, I'll show you a drunk Indian.' 'Indians are lazy'" (130).

It is remarkable that individual racism is widespread in a society that usually condemns overt acts of racism. If a television announcer were to make a racially charged or overtly racist statement such as "African Americans are inherently more violent than whites," we can be sure that

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

the following day, critics would fore fj II . If racial discriminat1·on . fi d e u y condemn the racist statement.

1s rowne upon h . b One way that ind' 'd I . ' ow can it e so widespread?

1v1 ua racism pe · t . decries racism is th h . . rs1s s, even m a society that

' roug racial m1croa · monplace insults and racial 1 · ggress10ns-daily, com- psychological well b . f s ights that cumulatively affect the microaggressions - embg o people of color. The consequences of these

can e severe and t d' f f . Latinx A · ' s u Ies O A rican Americans mericans, and Asian A . h ,

tinued prevalen f . mericans ave uncovered the con- icans on coll ce o m1croaggressions. One study of African Amer-

and professor:ge ca_mpuses, for example, found that white students Americans O conbsl1stkently doubted the academic potential of African

· ne ac student w d getting an ''A" d'ffi as presume to have cheated after

on a I cult math . A h that peopl . qutz. not er black student found

e assumed his sch I h. was for his acad . h' o ars tp was for sports, when, in fact, it

em1c ac ievement Th d cumulative ea- t f h . s. ese stu ents reported that the

uec o t ese slights k aged and frust t d . was to ma e them tired, discour-

, ra e -espec1all · h h their professors d ( Y smce t ey ad expected more from microagress1·on an pheers Solorzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000). These

s can ave sever African Am . II e consequences: a recent study among

erican co ege stude t fi d microaggre . n s oun that certain types of racial

ss1ons were associated . h I ation (Holl' h wit e evated levels of suicide ide-

. mgswort et al. 2016). African Americans are not the I

gressions. In a st d f . on Y group to experience microag- u Yo Asian Amer· , .

tion Derald w· S icans experiences of discrimina- , mg ue and his colle fi d .

experienced a w'd . agues oun that Asian Americans I e variety of micro .

sumptionoffi . aggressions, ranging from the as- ore1gnness to exoticiz t· f .

For example Asia A . a ion° Asian women to invisibility. , n mericans report d th h'

tently asked th . e at w 1te Americans consis- em questions such as "Wh

comments such as "Yi k ere are you from?" or made ouspea good En 1· h,, h

that they might not b £ h g Is , w en the only indication e rom t e United St t h • . ance. Other A • A . a es was t eir Asian appear-

s1an mericans point d h were good at math d th e out t at people presumed they

an at men pre d A • submissive lovers A . A . sume sian women would be

· sian mericans al d sumed that they did 't £ d' . . so reporte that people pre-

n ace iscrimmat· Th A . this study recounted th t h ion. e s1an Americans in

a t e constant ba f • angered them but that th 1 fi . rrage o m1croaggressions . ey a so elt d1sempo d

single event could se . were to respond, as any em mconsequential b itself (Su . .

Nadal, and Torino 2007 ) Th . Y e, Bucceri, Lm, · · ese experience recent study of 152 A . A . s are commonplace: a

s1an mericans found that 78 percent of them

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Institutional Racism

experienced microagressions during a two-week period ( Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell,Ja, and Sue 2013).

Kevin Nadal and his colleagues conducted a study of multiracial people's experiences of microaggressions and found them to be per­ vasive (Nadal et al. 2011). Their studies of both Asian Americans and multiracial individuals reveal that well-intentioned whites often deliver microaggressions because of their insensitivity toward and ignorance about nonwhites. This can be seen, for example, when a white person speaks Japanese to a Chinese American or tells a bira­ cial woman with a black mother and a white father that being half­ white makes it easier to get along with her. In the first instance, the white person may be trying to show a cultural interest in Asian people, although her act simultaneously tries to erase the differences between Japanese and Chinese people and reasserts the presumed foreignness of Asian Americans. In the second instance, this assertion reinforces

white supremacy by implying that the _biracial woman is better than other blacks because she has a white parent.

Microaggressions and other forms of individual racism continue to pose a problem on college campuses. Studies have consistently found that individual acts of bigotry are commonplace in institu­ tions of higher learning (Harper and Hurtado 2007). In a recent study (Harper et al. 2011), higher education researchers interviewed fifty-two African American male resident assistants (RAs) on five college campuses and found that many of the participants reported that supervisors and fellow students consistently doubted their com­ petence and stereotyped them as potential thugs or gangsters. The frequency of individual acts of racism on college campuses has led a number of scholars to argue that many primarily white campuses have hostile climates that are not conducive to learning for nonwhite stu­ dents (Harper and Hurtado 2007). These issues came to a head at the University of Missouri amid a series of overtly racist incidents begin­ ning in 2014. In April that year, freshman Bradley Becker inscribed a swastika and the word "heil" on a dormitory wall. In September, a group of young people near campus yelled the N-word at the student body president. When the administration did not respond to these incidents in a meaningful way, black students and allies organized and demanded the president's resignation. As student protests mounted, racist incidents continued, including another swastika drawing. Finally, following the football team's threatened boycott, President Tim Wolfe resigned in November 2015 (Izadi 2015).

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

voices

Microaggressions ~~a{~~a~-~i~ ·;h~ ·i:~~~ h~a -~~-~ ;~ii~;i·~~ ~~;~;i~~-~~~-;~cl -~~~~~cl~; ~h~~ ·t-~ -~-~ ;~~~~; ~~~~~~ · · · aggressions posted these reports on the website microaggressions.com. How do you feel as

you rea~ these reports? What would you say if you overheard such comments? What would you say if someone directed one of these comments at you?

The presumption that Asian

Americans use chopsticks

at every meal is based on

an idea of inherent cultural

differences. We don't see

these same presumptions

applied to third-generation

Italian Americans or Irish

Americans.

• Often when I have dinner at people's houses, they ask

me ifl would prefer chopsticks, regardless of the meal!

• I am a registered nurse and always get told that I speak

English so well. I was born in Australia and I am of Fil­

ipino background. I don't think about my appearance

until a patient or their family member points it out, and

they are quite amazed/baffled that someone who ap­

pears Asian "speaks so well" and could be considered a "real Australian."

• I always get asked to be an interpreter for patients who

are not native English speakers, specifically for those of

Asian background. Because I am of Asian background

as well, there is this assumption that I speak every lan­

guage in Asia or that there is only one language/ coun­ try in Asia. Unbelievable.

• "Sorry, that must be my black coming out." [Said by]

my biracial friend (African American and Mexican).

Whenever she does or says something negative she

blames it on the "Black" side of her. Makes me feel angry, belittled, resentful.

• I express ~hat my brother attends a private university. Immediately a girl in the car

responds ma very sure voice "Oh, he plays football?" This is the second time this has

£,happened. As if a young black male can only attend a prestigious private college on a ootball scholarship.

• "You're really unintimidating for a black guy." Said by white male. I am a freshman in

college. Made me feel as though I should be intimidating because I'm black

• Ohmygawd.,You're totally not what people think of when they think ofMu~lim women. You re so cool.

• Wow. _Don't get the Muslim mad, guys. We don't want a blown-up school tomorrow: Substitute teacher: Quiet down! You're acting like a bunch of wild Indians! .

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Institutional Racism

f1•J■I continued.

Microaggressions

Oh, but you're Latin, so you must love the heat! While discussing the summer

weather. I'm from Bogota-the average temperature is 60°F. I feel like nobody in the

States bothers to understand that Latinos are not just one monolithic entity.

Source: The Microaggressions Project.

Institutional Racism In the late 1960s and 1970s, sociological thinking on racism moved away from a focus solely on prejudice and individual acts of racism toward an institutional approach. Carmichael and Hamilton (1967) introduced the idea of institutional racism-the policies, laws, and institutions that reproduce racial inequalities-in their book Black Power. They explained that the high rates of black infant mortality in Birmingham, Alabama, and the prevalence of black families in slums are best understood through an analysis of institutional racism.

In an essay published in 1979, Carol Camp Yeakeyposited that research on institutional racism in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s repre­ sented a marked departure from previous research, which had not focused on "the attributes of the majority group and the institutional mecha­ nisms by which majority and minority relations are created, sustained, and changed" (Yeakey 1979, 200 ). Yeakey then argued that racism oper­ ates on both a covert and an overt level and takes two related forms: "The first is on an individual level. The second is on an institutional level where racism as a normative, societal ideology operates within and among the organizations, institutions, and processes of the larger society. And the overt acts of individual racism and the more covert acts of institutional racism have a mutually reinforcing effect" (200).

Understanding the framework of institutional racism is essential for understanding racism in the United States, as racism amounts to more than individual acts of discrimination. An individual police officer

may have prejudicial beliefs that blacks are more likely to be violent than whites. Based on this prejudice, the officer may be more likely to

racially discriminate against blacks and more likely to use more phys­ ical force against blacks than whites. What do we call it, though, when

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

this kind of discrimination happens repeatedly? An analysis of the

1,217 U.S. police shootings between 2010 and 2012 found that young

black males are twenty-one times more likely to be killed by police

than are their white counterparts (Gabrielson, Grochowski Jones, and Sagara 2014). How do we explain this statistic?

In overwhelmingly black neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, nearly three-quarters of black men have been incarcerated.

In some states, black men go to jail on drug charges at fifty times the

rate of white men. In seven states, blacks constitute over 80 percent

of drug offenders sent to prison (Alexander 2010). These extraordi­ nary disparities cannot be explained by individual acts of discrimi­ nation alone.

Instead, it makes sense to argue that racial discrimination has become institutionalized in the criminal justice system. This is be­

cause racial discrimination happens at every level of this system. The laws are written in ways that discriminate against blacks-the dis­ parities in sentences for possession of crack and possession of cocaine

are one example (Alexander 2010). Police officers are consistently more likely to pull over and arrest black men than they are white men. Blacks are more likely to get harsher sentences or even the death pen­ alty ( Gottschalk 2015). When we look at the system as a whole and see that the criminal justice apparatus more harshly affects blacks than whites, and when we can see that racial disc;imination is consistent and systematic, we can say that the criminal justice system is a prime example of institutional racism. Institutional racism also exists in other institutions, including the educational system, housing, and the labor market.

SYSTEMIC RACISM AND STRUCTURAL RACISM

Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton (1967) developed the idea of institutional racism in the 1970s. Since that time, many thinkers have enhanced their conceptual models and developed more complex and integrative ways of thinking about institutional racism. In 1969, Samuel Robert Friedman (1969, 20) defined structural racism as a "pat­ tern of action in which one or more of the institutions of society has the power to throw on more burdens and give less benefits to the mem­ bers of one race than another on an on-going basis." In 1979, Carol Camp Yeakeywrote about "the interrelated and cumulative nature of

Systemic Racism and Structural Racism

systemic or institutional discrimination and racism," the way racism works in "social systems" (203), and explained:

Ihe resource allocation of city schools; residential segregation and housing quality; the location, structure, and placement of transport systems; hiring and promotion practices; academic underachieve­ ment of racial and ethnic minority youth; availability of decent health care; behavior of policemen and judges; a legal order that incarcerates more minorities than majorities; stereotypical images prevalent in the media and school curricula; price gouging in ghetto stores; morbidity, mortality, arid longevity rates; lack of politic!1l clout and effective legislative representation-these and a myriad of other forms of social, political, and economic discrimination concur­ rently interlock to determine the status, welfare, and income of the racial and ethnic minorities of color.

Unfortunately, nearly forty years later, we can make the same assess­ ment with regard to institutional racism. Fortunately, scholars of race and racism continue to refine these theories and approaches. In this section, we explore some of these current approaches.

Systemic Racism Sociologist Joe Feagin defines systemic racism as "a diverse as­ sortment of racist practices; the unjustly gained economic and po­ litical power of whites, the continuing resource inequalities; and the white-racist ideologies, attitudes, and institutions created to preserve white advantage and power" (2001, 16). He explains that systemic racism encompasses daily microaggressions, deep-seated in­ equalities, and antiblack ideologies. Taken together, systemic racism includes:

• Patterns of unjust impoverishment of nonwhites • Vested group interests of whites to maintain racism • Omnipresent and routinized discrimination against nonwhites • The rationalization of racial oppression • An imbalance of power whereby whites are able to reproduce in­

equality through control of major political and economic resources

Systemic racism theory gives primacy to history and to antiblack­ ness: Feagin explains that systemic racism exists because of the history

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

of the United States as a slaveholding nation. Racial oppression was foundational to and is deeply ingrained in our nation's history. The

legal system of the United States-based on the Constitution and Su­

preme Court cases-is rife with examples of entrenched racism. Sys­

temic racism in history and the present day has created a "white racial

frame" that shapes individuals and institutions in the United States.

Feagin emphasizes that racism and racial inequality were created by whites and continue to be perpetuated by white individuals and white­ owned institutions (2001).

The unjust enrichment of whites through slavery and privileged access to resources since the beginning of the United States is at the

core of an understanding of systemic racism. This unjust enrichment has led to unjust impoverishment of African Americans. Past and con­ tinuing discrimination has created a situation in which African Amer­

icans have been denied resources many whites have come to take for

granted, including good jobs, great schools, and nice neighborhoods (Feagin and McKinney 2003; Feagin 2001). The pervasiveness of everyday acts of discrimination, combined with a legacy of unequal distribution of resources throughout every aspect of U.S. society, con­ stitutes systemic racism.

Structural Racism

Proponents of the idea of structural racism take a slightly different approach in their analysis of racial inequality. As we have seen, in­ stitutional racism focuses on practices within institutions, and sys­ temic racism focuses on accumulated acts of racism across history and throughout one's lifetime. Structural racism differs by pointing to interinstitutional interactions across time and space. For example, racial inequality in housing leads to racial inequality in schooling, which in turns leads to racial inequality in the labor market. Across generations, this chain of events becomes a cycle because parents who are less well positioned in the labor market cannot afford hous­ ing in the better neighborhoods, which means that their children will be less likely to attend better schools. A structural understanding of racism underscores the "structural relationships that produce ra­ cialized outcomes" (powell 2008, 798). This emphasis on the rela­ tionships among structures of institutional inequality provides new insights into how racial inequality is reproduced across generations.

Systemic Racism and Structural Racism

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva proposes the concept ofracialized social systems. By this term, he means" societies in which economic, political, social, and ideological levels are partially structured by the placement of actors in racial categories" (1997, 469). Bonilla-Silva places particu­ lar emphasis on racial hierarchies and points to how these hierarchies influence all social relations. Societies that have racialized social sys­ tems differentially allocate "economic, political, social, and even psy­ chological rewards to groups along racial lines" (442). Bonilla-Silva's framework reflects a structural racism perspective because he focuses on structures of inequality, hierarchies, and social relations and prac­ tices that reproduce and rationalize racial disparities.

Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro (2006) offer a keen analysis of the role of structural racism in reproducing wealth inequalities. They explain that wealth inequality "has been structured over many gener­ ations through the same systemic barriers that have hampered blacks throughout their history in American society: slavery, Jim Crow, so­ called de jure discrimination, and institutionalized racism" (12-13). Oliver and Shapiro (2006) point to three instances of structural inequalities that work together: (1) blacks' transition from slavery to freedom without a material base, (2) the suburbanization of whites and the ghettoization of blacks, and (3) contemporary institutional racism in the lending and real estate markets. These three inequalities work together to create a situation in which the median net worth of one white household is ten times that of a Hispanic or Latinx house­ hold and thirteen times that of a black household (Kochhar and Fry 2014) (Figure 2-1).

FIGURE 2-1

MEDIAN NET WORTH OF WHITE, HISPANIC/LATINX, AND BLACK HOUSEHOLDS, 2013

Whites $141,900

Hispanics

Blacks

Source: Pew Research Center 12014).

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Oliver and Shapiro (2006) explain how laws and policies, even those that do not mention race, can still work to enhance racial inequality.

Our tax policies provide one example. In the United States, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income, and tax deductions are

offered for home mortgages. These policies are ostensibly designed to help the middle class and encourage economic growth. However, they

provide many more advantages to whites than to blacks because blacks rarely have capital gains income, are less likely to own a home, and,

when they do own a home, have houses that are worth less than whites' houses (Shapiro 2004). These state policies work to widen the wealth

gap between blacks and whites by providing advantages to those who are already wealthier and who are more likely to be white.

RACIAL IDEOLOGIES

The work of Patricia Hill Collins (2004) is useful for understand­ ing ideological shifts. As she explains: "When ideologies that defend

racism become taken-for-granted and appear to be natural and inevitable, they become hegemonic. Few question them and the social hierarchies they defend" (96). When Collins explains that racial ideol­

ogies are hegemonic, she means they become so widely accepted that they become common sense. An ideology is more than an individual prejudice: it is a set of principles and ideas that embodies the interests of a societal group. A racial ideology, then, is a set of principles and ideas that (1) divides people into different racial groups and (2) serves the interests of one group. Ideologies are usually created by the domi­ nant group and reflect the interests of that group. Both historically and today, the dominant racial group in the United States includes whites (Feagin 2001). Our individual prejudices and acts of discrimination are directly related to our acceptance (conscious or unconscious) of racial ideologies.

Many scholars make a distinction between old racism-which per­ mitted the internment of the Japanese and the enslavement of Africans, for example-and a new but related ideology that perpetuates racism without such practices. In new racism, it is no longer acceptable to make overtly racist statements or to have overtly racist laws (P. H. Collins 2004; Bonilla-Silva 2013; Logan 2011; Wingfield and Feagin 2010). Racism did not disappear with the dismantling of slavery and Jim Crow laws, nor did the civil rights era mark the end of racism. Race

Racial Ideologies

scholars generally agree that the post-1965 era is distinct. Theorists Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994) explain that whereas the government could once be overtly violent toward nonwhites, "in the post-civil rights era, the racial state cannot merely dominate; it must seek hegemony" (147) (emphasis in original). By this statement Omi and Winant meant that policymakers must seek to make the current racial order seem natural and normal, as it is no longer viable to have laws and practices that are explicitly racist.

Racial inequality persists today both because of our history­ colonialism, slavery, and Jim Crow-and because ofongoing practices of discrimination and exclusion. The new racism is an outgrowth of past racial inequality; mass media and popular beliefs "help manu­ facture the consent that makes the new racism appear to be natural, normal, and inevitable" (P.H. Collins 2004, 34). Racial inequality in the United States has become naturalized. We have come to think of it as normal that African American men are overrepresented among prisoners and that white men are overx:_epresented among the elite, even though we would never accept laws that overtly discriminated against African Americans.

In the United States, most people do not consider themselves to be racist, and laws are in place that prevent overt acts of discrimination. Despite this massive change in attitudes and laws over the past century, racial inequality persists. African Americans have, on average, a mere 10 percent of the wealth that whites have ( Oliver and Shapiro 2006). African American men are seven times more likely than white men to go to prison (Feagin 2001). On almost any measure, black and Latinx people are doing worse socially and economically than white people in the United States (Logan 2011). How do we explain the persistence of racial inequality despite the social stigma associated with being a racist? One way is by looking at how different forms of racism operate. This allows us to see how some forms of racism are more acceptable than others, even though all racial ideologies serve the same purpose: to explain, rationalize, and normalize racial inequality and injustice.

Another reason to examine racial ideologies closely is that despite trends that demonstrate widespread racial inequality, a few prom­ inent exceptions make it seem as if racism is a problem of the past. Most notably, the United States had an African American president, has a Latina and an African American serving on the Supreme Court, and has a woman of African American and Indian descent serving as

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

U.S. senator of California. How do we explain these developments?

Cl.early, we need new ways to think and talk about race and racism. In this section, we will discuss different forms of racism and consider the extent to which these racial ideologies persist.

Biological Racism

Bi~logica~ r~cism is the idea that whites are genetically superior.to non­ whites. This idea has its origins in the scientific racism of the nineteenth

century, which set out to prove whites' superior innate intelligence. In the l920s, the American lawyer Madison Grant argued that Nordics

were .the_ "master race" and that the United States should pass laws

bannmg mterracial marriages and ensuring the sterilization of inferior races. In the twenty-first century, it would be difficult to find people who

openly advocate for the sterilization of blacks because of their biological inferiority. Nevertheless, these ideas have not completely disappeared.

One of the most prominent examples of biological racism in recent decades is a 1994 book called The Bell Curve. In this book, Richard Herrnstein and Charles M h . 1 . . .

urray argue t at mte hgence 1s quantifiable. For Herrnstein and Murra £ f . .

Y, as or a century o mtelhgence testers before them, the fact that blacks scored lower on intelligence tests than whites provided support for the idea that blacks are innately inferior to whites.Morerecentlv FrankM· I dV' . h . ,, 1e ean mcentSanc arguedmRace: The Reality of Human Differences (2004) that races are a biological real- ity and that there are meas bl · II I d 'a: . ura e mte ectua 111erences among racial gr~ups. The publication of The Bell Curve, Race: The Reality of Human Differences and other books d · I · h' · · · '. an artic es m t 1s vem provide evidence ~f the per ststence of the belief that whites are genetically or biolog- ically superior to nonwh ·t H . 1 es. owever, most academics reject these views and few America I . . .

' ns open y express such opinions in pubhc ~paces t~day. Biological racism still exists, but it is waning and is sub­ Ject to virulent criticism whenever expressed.

Cultural Racism

Cu~tural ra~ism is a way of thinking that attributes disadvantaged racial groups lack of prosperity to their behavior and culture rather than to structural factors. Unlike biological racism, which claims that some races are inferior because oflower intelligence, cultural racism is the standpoint that a particular culture-African American or Latinx culture, for example-inhibits success.

Racial Ideologies

The 1965 publication of a report by the U.S. politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) planted the seeds for many of the ideas inherent in cultural racism. The document, which has come to be known as the Moynihan Report, acknowledged the pervasiveness of poverty in the black community and pointed to the breakdown of the black family as one of the principal causes of this poverty. Moyni­ han argued that the history of slavery and racism had had detrimental consequences for the black family. He made the gendered argument that the central problem of black America was that there were too many single black mothers who were incapable of raising children on their own. His proposed solution to black poverty was restoration of black men to their rightful place as breadwinners and heads of fam­ ilies. For Moynihan, the solution to black poverty was to "fix" black families. This stance-which ignores structural factors such as dis­ criminatory employment policies and practices-is typical of cul­ tural racism. Essentially, the cultural racism argument points to the behavioral patterns and culture of African Americans as the primary cause of their poverty. Cultural racism persists today. For example, pundits often blame blacks' educational failures on dysfunctional families or parenting styles rather than on failing schools and perva­ sive poverty.

Cultural racism also takes another form: teachers perceive children who invoke African American language and style as less intelligent than those who conform to the dominant culture. Ann Arnett Fergu­ son (2001) found in her research in an elementary school that black students were more likely to get into trouble at school because of the way teachers and school administrators responded to their body language, oral expressiveness, manners, and styles. She found that children who conformed to white, middle-class cultural norms were less likely to get into trouble and were more likely to do well in school, and that the use of African American forms of expressiveness in school was grounds for punishment. Ferguson also argues that when children are white or behave in a· white middle-class way, they are perceived to be self-disciplined and good, while children who "behave black"

are perceived as troublemakers. Ferguson's findings point to the per­ sistence of cultural racism: whereas white, middle-class children are rewarded for behaving in school as they and their parents do at home, working-class and poor black children are punished for speaking and acting as their parents do.

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Cultural racism also affects other racialized groups in the United States. Latinas are often portrayed as "pregnant breeders" who plan

to have "anchor babies" in the United States (Hondagneu-Sotelo

1995). Asians feel the brunt of the "model minority" stereotype-the

myth that Asians are smarter, harder-working, and more successful

than other minorities. And Native Americans are perceived alterna­

tively as "savages" or "wise men." The racialized sterotypes of Native

Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinx Americans are discussed further in Chapter Four.

Color-Blind Racism

Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva offers a framework for understand­

ing how pervasive racial inequality exists even though no one wants

to be called a racist. In his work, Bonilla-Silva (2013) presents the notion of color-blind racism, a racial ideology that explains contem­ porary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics, such

as market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and nonwhites' supposed cultural limitations. This racial ideology ignores or margin­ alizes people of color's distinctive needs, experiences, and identities. Bonilla-Silva argues that although race is a social construction, the idea of race is real in a social sense and has produced a racial structure that systematically privileges whites.

How is it possible that racial inequality is widespread when most whites claim there is no racism and thattheyare not racist? Bonilla-Silva offers an explanation in his book Racism Without Racists (2013). His research team interviewed whites and asked them questions about their views on race in the United States. He found that whites use sev­ eral "frames" of color-blind racism to rationalize and reproduce racial inequality.

One frame Bonilla-Silva mentions is abstract liberalism. This frame involves using liberal ideas such as equality of opportunity or freedom of choice to explain or rationalize racial inequality. For example, when presented with the fact that African Americans still liv~ in underserved, poorer neighborhoods than whites do, a person ~sm_g this frame would explain this inequality by saying that people hve m such neighborhoods because they choose to do so.Nothing pre­ vents them from leaving, so their situation arises not because of racism but because of individual choices. This response, however, ignores the structural factors that have created segregation and continue to

Racial Ideologies

perpetuate it. Similarly, the naturalization frame permits people to explain racial phenomena as if they were natural. The explanation for

segregation would be that people like to be around others who are like them. Again, segregation develops not because of structural factors, but because it's normal or natural.

The aforementioned frames represent explanations that whites con­ sistently offered in interviews about their racial attitudes. In addition, Bonilla-Silva found that whites used specific rhetorical strategies, or ways of expressing ideas, to rationalize their own racial prejudices and discriminatory actions. These rhetorical strategies permit whites to re­ produce racism without being labeled as racists. Bonilla-Silva argues that because post-civil rights racial norms do not permit the open expression of racial views, whites have developed hidden ways of voicing them.

As Bonilla-Silva found, one common rhetorical strategy is to preface discriminatory claims with "I am not a racist, but .... " Alternatively, a white person would say, "Some of my best friends are black, but .... " For example, when asked ifhe would mind if his daughter married a black man, a white person would respond, "I am not a racist, but I don't think interracial marriages work." Or the white person might use another rhetorical strategy called projection, according to which she would respond: "I don't mind if my daughter marries a black man, but you have to think about the children." These rhetorical strategies allow whites to express discriminatory or prejudiced ideas without seeming racist.

In his research, Bonilla-Silva found that color-blind racial ideology is used in everyday speech patterns to rationalize racial inequality. It influences rhetorical strategies, stories, and etiquette that allow whites to explain why racial inequality exists even though most people are not racist. In addition to rationalizing racial inequality, color-blind racism

reproduces racial inequality by permitting people to engage in discrim­ inatory actions without being labeled as racists.

lslamophobia and Anti-Arab Racism Islam is a religion. Does it make sense, then, to define Islamophobia­ the systematic marginalization of Muslims-as racism? Because race and religion are distinct phenomena, religious discrimination and racial discrimination are not identical. Nevertheless, it is clear that the United States is a Christian-centric society and that people who are not Christians face various forms of marginalization. To what extent should these forms of exclusion be considered racism?

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Ram6n Grosfoguel and Eric Mielants (2006) state that Islamopho­ bia began as religious discrimination and has evolved into racial/ethnic

discrimination. They point out that, at the same time that the Spaniards set out to colonize the Americas, they expelled Jews and Arabs from

the Spanish peninsula. During this time, religious beliefs were the pri­ mary motivation for the marginalization of Jews and Arabs. Grosfoguel

and Mielants argue that in more recent times, however, Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment have primarily taken the form of cultural

racism-a concept discussed in more detail in Chapter Three. They

explain that the tropes used to describe Muslims and Arabs such as "uncivilized," "barbarian," "savage," "primitive," "underdeveloped," "authoritarian," and "terrorist" (4) are markers of cultural racism.

For Grosfoguel and Mielants (2006), Islamophobia is a form of racism. Steven Salaita (2006) argues, however, that it is important

to draw a distinction between Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism. Despite the American conflation of Arabs and Muslims, only one-fifth of the world's total Muslim population is Arab, and not all Arabs are

Muslim (Grosfoguel and Mielants 2006). Salaita (2006) maintains that anti-Arab racism goes beyond dislike or distaste for Islam: it is used to rationalize U.S. military interventions in the Middle East.

RACIAL FORMATION

Whereas analyses of structural and systemic racism focus on racism

itself, Michael Omi and Howard Winant consider racial meanings (1994). They introduce the concept of racial formation to help us understand how racial dynamics work in the United States. Omi and Winant define racial formation as "the sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed," and as a "process or historically situated project" (56). They argue that the state (i.e., the national government) is the primary site where race is constructed and contested. According to this theory, the state can reproduce or alleviate racial inequality through its insti­ tutions and policies. Omi and Winant explore "how concepts of race are created and changed" and argue that "concepts of race structure both state and civil society" (vii).

When Omi and Winant's book was first published in 1986, it was a welcome change from earlier works that studied race as a variation of ethnicity, class, or nation. Instead, Omi and Winant presented race as

Racial Formation

a topic worthy of study in itself. Their groundbreaking work has greatly enhanced our understanding of how race works in the United States.

Omi and Winant (1994) draw from the Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci to argue that racial dynamics in the United States have changed from domination to hegemony. Domination refers to direct rule by coercion, whereas hegemony involves rule by both coercion and consent. For example, Omi and Winant contend that the United States prior to the civil rights era could be characterized as a racial dictatorship in which racial inequality was enforced through domi­ nation. During slavery and the Jim Crow era, white domination was legal, state-enforced, and difficult to contest openly. In the current era of racial hegemony, racial stratification and white dominance are achieved more subtly through coercion and consent. Omi and Winant argue that the United States is undergoing a slow, gradual, and conten­ tious transition from a racial dictatorship to a racial democracy.

The concept of racial formation blends an understanding of social structures with an understanding of cultural representations. Omi and Winant use the concept of a racial project, which they define as being "simultaneously an interpretation, representation, or explanation of racial dynamics, and an effort to reorganize and redistribute resources

along particular racial lines" (1994, 56). Racial projects give meaning to racial categories through both cultural representations and social structures. For example, Doris Marie Provine and Roxanne Lynn Doty (2011) argue that the criminalization of immigrants through intensi­ fied immigration policy enforcement is a racial project. In this example, the state targets immigrants and draws attention to their vulnerable status. The increased law enforcement and resulting media attention reinforce the marginalization of immigrants as a racialized group.

For Omi and Winant, a racial project is defined as racist if it "cre­ ates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist cat­ egories of race" (1994, 71). They are careful to distinguish between race and racism and to point out that not all racial projects are racist. Projects are racist only when they reproduce structures of domination and hegemony. For example, one could argue that the criminalization ofLatinx immigrants is a racist project because it reinforces the mar­ ginalized status of this racialized group. Omi and Winant argue that every state institution is a racial institution. They don't go so far as to say that every state institution is racist. This is because they believe the state can also use racial schemas to promote racial equality.

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

WHITE SUPREMACY AND SETTLER COLONIALISM

What if we consider present-day racism in the United States from the perspective of indigenous studies? From this perspective, we are forced to contend with questions related to the meaning of white control of

lands that once belonged to Native Americans. What would the end of racism look like for indigenous peoples? Native Americans' claims are

different from those of African Americans. Andrea Smith (2012) argues that there are three pillars of white

supremacy: (1) antiblack racism, (2) genocide, and (3) orientalism (Table 4-1). Antiblack racism defines people as property, thereby rationalizing slavery and current forms of exploitation, and is rooted

in a logic of capitalism-that is, designed to extract profit. Genocide is rooted in colonialism. This is the idea that native people are disap­ pearing and must disappear, and that therefore non-native people have a right to everything that once belonged to native people. Orientalism is rooted in the idea that certain nations or peoples pose a permanent threat to Western civilization and is thereby used to rationalize war.

Although the United States is no longer engaged in the mass murder and expulsion of Native Americans, many indigenous scholars con­ tend that the logics of genocide and settler colonialism endure (A. Smith 2012). Native Americans continue to have a unique legal po­ sition in the United States: they are citizens both of the United States and of the tribes to which they belong. Scholars such as Andrea Smith (2012) contend that capitalist ideas of property ownership and white supremacist ideas of indigenous inferiority work together to justify the expropriation (seizure) of indigenous lands. From this perspec­ tive, simply returning lands to Native Americans would not solve the

Slavery and current forms of

exploitation are justified.

~ Source:BasedonA.Smith2012.

Native people are disappearing Certain nations or peoples pose and must disappear. a permanent threat to West-.

em civilization.

Non-native people have a right War against such nations or to all that once belonged to peoples is justified.

native people.

lntersectional Theories of Race and Racism

problem of indigenous expropriation. The more fundamental problem is the nation-state itself and the idea that people can control territory and keep other human beings out of it.

Once we recognize that the United States is a nation rooted in white supremacy, it becomes clear that the state will never grant native peo­ ples self-determination. For some indigenous scholars, this recognition means that the struggle against racism requires a challenge to the very existence of the United States as a legitimate state (A. Smith 2012).

Joe Feagin (2001), in his systemic racism framework, contends that antiblack oppression is at the center of U.S. society, even though the United States was formed through genocide. Andrea Smith (2012) contests this framework, arguing that the United States exists pre­ cisely because of the disappearance of indigenous people and that this genocide continues today. One's framework for understanding the experience of native peoples is critical because it shapes how we view racial progress or regression. Smith points to the example of high rates of intermarriage between Native Americans and whites. Is this prog­ ress? Or is it a continuation of a pattern of genocide?

Using these perspectives, we can see how frameworks shape re­ search questions and answers. From the perspective of settler colo­ nialism, orte might argue that the United States is an illegitimate state founded on genocide and must be dismantled. From a systemic racism perspective, one can argue that the United States is founded on a his- . tory of racism and that the Constitution must be rewritten. From a racial formation perspective, the United States is headed in the right direction and through more struggles for justice and civil rights will complete the transition from racial dictatorship to racial democracy.

INTERSECTIONAL THEORIES OF RACE AND RACISM

In what ways do race, class, and gender oppression work together? Some race scholars argue that we need to develop a concrete under­ standing of how race and racism work before we can understand other forms of oppression. Feminist scholars, however, often contend that we must look at race and gender oppression simultaneously-a con­ cept known as intersectionality.

Kimberle Crenshaw (1991) uses this concept in her work, making her point with the example of a group of black and Latina women in a battered women's shelter. Taken together, the factors of race, class, and

' i!

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

gender elucidate how these women ended up in the shelter. The women

faced abuse in part because of gender oppression, but their economi­ c_ally vulnerable situation and race also help us understand their situa­

tion. If they had the economic resources, they likely would have gone

els~whe~e~not to a shelter. If they were white, they wouldn't face racial discrimination in employment, meaning that they may have

had more resources. If they were men, their chances of being battered

would be much lower. Any proposed method of helping these women

must pay attention to their gender, class-based, and racial oppression. A n~rrow lens that focuses on just race, gender, or class would miss crucial aspects of these women's situations. .

Similarly, Priya Kandaswamy (2012) contends that an intersec­ tional perspective helps us better understand welfare policies. She

argues that race scholars, Marxists, and feminists often look past one

another. In contrast, she adopts an intersectional perspective to shed

lig~t on the 1996 welfare reforms. Interconnected ideas of gender, sex­ uality, race, and class influence public opinions about who deserves state assistance and who does not. The 1996 welfare reforms, which dramatically reduced p bl' 'd d'd . . u ic ai , i not ment10n race specifically. In contrast the write f th 1 · 1 . h . , rs o e egis atlon ad no qualms about promot- mg heteronormative ideas (the assumption that heterosexuality is or should be the norm): the first line of the 1996 law is: "Marriage is the foun~ation of a successful society." The 1996 law explicitly embraced marriage, was based on a public discussion of family values and per­ sonal responsibility, and was designed to reform the "welfare queen," a stereotypical figure who is often imagined as a black woman.

Kandaswamy (2012) explains how the idea that race is historically produced and constantly changing can complicate our understand- ing of intersectional't ·t £ 1 " . i Y, as 1 orces us to ook at how race and gender are constituted in and th h h h " ( ) . . roug eac ot er 26 . Race 1s a socially

constructed idea that h d 1 d . . . . . as eve ope m con1unchon with ideas about gender class and sexual't I th' • . .

' , I y. n 1s exammation of welfare policy, Kan- daswam:7 explains concretely how the adoption of an intersectional perspective can enhance a racial formation perspective.

WHITE PRIVILEGE

Whereas most studies of · £ . racism ocus on oppression, those scholars

~ho use a white privilege framework focus on privilege-the opposite side of oppression White · ·1 £

· priv1 ege re ers to the advantages inherent

White Privilege

in being categorized as white. The concept derives from earlier work by African American sociologist W. E. B. DuBois (1868-1963), who observed that white workers in the United States over time came to see themselves as white like their bosses, as opposed to develop­ ing working-class solidarity with recently freed black slaves. DuBois argued in 1936 that white workers received a psychological "wage of

whiteness" by aligning with the dominant group; they were poor, but at least they were white. Additionally, by reserving certain segments of the labor market for whites only, white laborers were able to reap material rewards from their whiteness. Other scholars, mostly histori­ ans, have built on DuBois's insights to explain how waves of European

immigrants learned to be white and to reap the privileges of whiteness (Allen 1994;Jacobson 1998; Roediger 1999).

Prior to coming to the United States, European immigrants of the early twentieth century did not think of themselves as white. And, in some cases, people in the United States did not see them as white. Irish immigrants learned to capitalize on their whiteness by forming unions and excluding blacks from them. And although Jews faced discrimina­ tion during and after World War II, as whites, they were able to reap the benefits of the GI bills and Federal Housing Administration and Department ofVeterans Affairs mortgages that were denied to blacks, which propelled many whites into the middle class (Brodkin 2005). Whereas these European immigrants had to learn to be white, most whites today never have to think about whiteness.

In the contemporary United States, whiteness is an unmarked identity. Whereas African, Latinx, Asian, and Native Americans are constantly reminded of their race, European Americans easily can forget that they too have a race (Dalton 2005). When we talk about race (or, more re­ cently, diversity), the focus is usually on nonwhites, as if white were not also a race (Lewis 2004). When we think of race in the United States, whiteness usually is not the first thing that comes to mind. The reason is that whiteness has become normalized- "whiteness makes itself invisi­ ble precisely by asserting its normalcy" (Frankenberg 1997, 6).

Privilege is often hard to notice. If you are white, it can be difficult to notice that you are not being followed around the store; that people are smiling at you on the street instead of clutching their purses; that no one asks you if you speak English; that you are not asked for iden­ tification when paying with a credit card. Instead, you are likely to think that these things are normal-that this is simply how things are. To notice these privileges as a white person, you likely would have to

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

walk down the street with an African American friend or accompany

a Latinx friend to get a driver's license. Then, you may notice a differ­

ence in terms of how white people respond to you and your nonwhite

friend. Few whites notice they are treated better than nonwhites, and

most are unlikely to attribute that better treatment to privilege. Privi­ lege is largely invisible to those who have it.

White privilege only becomes visible when people point it out. For example, in 2015, a white Stanford student by the name of

Brock Allen Turner was found sexually assaulting an unconscious, semi-naked white woman behind a dumpster. She was taken to the hospital, where a nurse noted that significant trauma had been

inflicted on the victim's genitalia. When the case went to trial, the

jury found Turner guilty on three felony counts, and the prosecu­ tion argued he should get a six-year sentence. However, Judge Aaron

Persky was hesitant to punish Turner this severely and gave him six months in county jail instead. The judge explained: "A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him." Huffington Post writer Alanna Vagianos wrote in response: "Turner's lenient punishment is the perfect example of what happens when rape culture and white

privilege collide." By rape culture, Vagianos is referring to the nor­ malization of sexual abuse of women in our society. Because of Turner's whiteness and class privilege, the judge had sympathy for

him. Turner was held in protective custody and ultimately spent only three months behind bars (Vagianos 2016).

The case of Brock Turner, as well as many other cases of white priv­ ilege, makes it clear that white privilege doesn't simply exist-it is enacted. The judge gave Turner a light sentence because he did not be­ lieve Turner to be a dangerous man, despite the evidence that Turner had committed rape. When shopkeepers are not suspicious of white shoppers, the white shopper is the beneficiary of the privilege, but only because the shopkeeper has accepted the racist idea that whites are less likely to shoplift. White privilege, then, is related to white supremacy: white privilege exists because of past and current practices that repro­ duce racism.

We can also ask, however, whether racism can be harmful to whites even though white privilege exists. In Whiteness: The Power of Privi­ lege, the antiracism activist and writer Tim Wise contends that "the price we pay to stay one step ahead ofothers is enormous" (2005, 120). The vast majority of working people could earn higher wages and have

Whiteness, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

better benefits if whites and nonwhites worked together to demand them as a common goal. Whites are less likely to go to prison than black or Latinx people, yet the enormous amount of resources the United States invests in the prison-industrial complex are resources that don't go into better schools, parks, libraries, and universities. For these reasons, W. E. B. DuBois and others have referred to the "psychological wage of whiteness": racism makes all whites think they are getting a better deal, but the reality is that racism affects all of us, albeit in different ways. DuBois argued that the psychological wage of whiteness drives a wedge between white and black laborers, who oth­ erwise share an interest in working together to fight for better material conditions.

It is important to think about white privilege for several reasons. First of all, if we want to understand racial oppression, it is crucial to understand how it looks from the other side. Second, white privilege often remains invisible, and by bringing it to light we can develop a better understanding of how racism works in our society.

WHITENESS, CLASS, GENDER, AND SEXUALITY

An important point to keep in mind when thinking about white priv­ ilege is that although it certainly benefits some whites, not all whites experience white privilege in the same way. When an employer gives a white applicant the benefit of the doubt because he is white, the applicant experiences white privilege, whether or not he is aware of it. However, a poor lesbian white woman in rural South Carolina, for example, will experience her whiteness-and her white privilege-in different ways than a wealthy white heterosexual male stockbroker in New York. The white stockbroker will have doors opened to him that

will remain shut to a poor woman of any race. White privilege can be hard to see. Similarly, class privilege also

often remains invisible. In a study that compared middle-class white

students with poor white students, Kirby Moss found that middle-class white students "overwhelmingly perceived class position as nearly nonexistent within White culture" (2003, 32). It was very difficult for these middle-class whites to see that they had advantages that working-class and poor whites did not. In contrast, the working-class and poor whites criticized the middle-class whites for being lazy and entitled and for not having to work for anything in life.

. i I:

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

The privileges associated with being white were not the same for

these two groups. The poor whites experienced a contradiction in their identities-whites were not supposed to be poor, yet they were.

These poor whites found it difficult to envision taking advantage of their whiteness, as their poverty presented obstacles to enjoying the

privileges of whiteness. Although they were white, they did not have

the "set of cultural practices" (Frankenberg 1993, 43) associated with

whiteness because of their class background. Moreover, many of

these poor whites lived in poor, primarily nonwhite neighborhoods,

where their whiteness presented obstacles to acceptance in their own neighborhoods.

Past and present-day practices ofindividual and institutional racism have created segregated neighborhoods in the United States. Whites' privileged access to primarily white neighborhoods is part of white

privilege. The other side of this coin is that working-class and poor

whites cannot always afford to live in middle-class white neighbor­ hoods and thus are unable to reap this particular benefit of whiteness.

As Kirby Moss (2003) contends, poor whites sometimes live in pri­ marily nonwhite neighborhoods because that is where they can afford to live. Living in those neighborhoods, poor whites encounter many of

the same challenges that their nonwhite neighbors encounter, such as crime, violence, and lack of access to resources.

This is one example that makes it evident that white privilege does not always work in the same way for working-class and poor whites as it does for wealthier whites. It is important to note here, however, that most poor whites live in primarily white neighborhoods, just as most poor blacks live in primarily black neighborhoods (Bischoff and Reardon 2014). A white man who enters a primarily black neighbor­ hood may be made aware of his whiteness once he finds himself sur­ rounded by blacks and receiving stares (or even glares) from residents who want to know why a white person is in their neighborhood. In the narrow space of a primarily black neighborhood, a white person may not feel she is experiencing white privilege. However, a middle-class white man often can live his whole life without ever having to enter a spa~e where his whiteness will present a challenge. He can avoid pri­ marily black neighborhoods because there is no reason for him to ever go there. In contrast, a black man may need to go to a white neighbor­ ~ood because that is where his job is located, or he may want to move mto such a neighborhood because that is where the good schools are.

Conclusion and Discussion

A black man may encounter problems with law enforcement or neigh­ borhood watch associations if he walks around a middle-class white neighborhood.

Just as whiteness is linked to class, it is also defined by gender and sexuality. White womanhood has historically been linked to sexual virtuosity, and for women, white privilege can hinge on maintain­ ing an appearance of sexual respectability. Amy Wilkins (2004) uses the case of Puerto Rican wannabes-white girls and young women who draw on Puerto Rican cultural styles to attract men of color­ to explain how race, class, gender, and sexuality are co-constructed. Puerto Rican wannabes manipulate their gender and sexual identities to cross racial boundaries: by defying conceptions of white woman­ hood by dressing provocatively, they can claim to identify with Puerto Rican-ness. Notably, they reject whiteness through the rejection of mainstream notions of sexuality.

Catrin Lundstrom (2014) explored whiteness at the other end of the spectrum of white womanhood-Swedish whiteness. Through inter­ views with married female Swedish immigrants in the United States, Lundstrom found that their American husbands placed tremendous value on their wives' Swedish heritage. These American men viewed Swedish women as representing an ideal form of whiteness that en­ compasses white purity, beauty, and sensuality. Lundstrom's work adds nuance to sociological understandings of whiteness, as it allows us to see that there are degrees of whiteness in the United States and that these ideas of whiteness are intertwined with ideas of gender, sex­ uality, and white womanhood.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Theories of systemic, structural, and institutional racism provide us with different frameworks to understand the deep-seated nature of racial inequality in the United States. These analyses place the empha­ sis on racism; Feagin and Elias (2013) argue that only through an un­ derstanding of racial oppression can we grasp the true nature of racial meanings. In contrast, racial formation theory focuses on how race is constructed, and we can use these analyses to deepen our understand­ ing ofracism ( Omi and Winant 1994 ). Analyses of white privilege focus on privilege to show how racial oppression works. Still other scholars

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

invoke settler colonialism as the primary framework for understand­ ing racial oppression. Which perspective is the most valuable?

There is no right answer to this question. Instead, the usefulness of a perspective depends on the kind of question you are asking. For example, imagine you were examining why African Americans and

Latinx Americans fared worse economically than whites in the after­ math of the Great Recession. An analysis based on systemic or struc­

tural racism would be especially useful in this case (Kochhar, Fry, and Taylor 2011). If you were considering why Indonesian women

use whitening creams, even though they express no desire to be Cau­ casian, a racial formation perspective would off er valuable nuances (Saraswati 2010). Both of these studies are grounded in the field of

racial and ethnic studies, but they have different research questions and goals and thus draw from different frameworks.

The frameworks set forth by indigenous and feminist scholars can also be more or less useful, depending on the kinds of questions you decide to ask. A consideration of Mayan migration to Houston would likely benefit from Andrea Smith's (2012) indigenous-settler frame­ work, and an analysis of violence in youth gangs in Oakland would likely be enriched by an intersectional perspective that focuses on race, class, gender, and sexuality. A study of whiteness and class in an eco­ nomically diverse white neighborhood would do well to interrogate the white privilege perspective. No theory can be expected to shed light on every aspect of our society. Moreover, sociologists and other thinkers continue to develop ways for us to understand inequality. Readers of these texts can decide for themselves which frameworks are most useful for understanding the questions that are important to them. What about you? What frameworks do you find most compelling, and why?

THE. UNITED STATES has one of the highest incarceration rates in the

world. African American .men are seven times more likely than wh.ite

men to go to prison. Explain this statistic using two different perspectives

from this chapter (e.g., cultural racism, institutional racism, structural

racism, white privilege). Can either of these perspectives help us to un­

derstand this disparity? Is either of these perspectives useful in terms of

racial justice?

Check Your Understanding

Key Terms ........................................................... .. ;~-~i~i~gi~-~i'th~~~y-~f ~-~~·i;m 33 Jim Crow laws 44

prejudice 33 biological racism 46 discrimination 33 cultural racism 46 assimilation 34 individual racism 35 racial microaggression 36 institutional racism 39 systemic racism 41 structural racism 42 racialized social systems 43 hegemonic ideology 44 racial ideology 44 new racism 44

color-blind racism 48 abstract liberalism 17 naturalization 49 rhetorical strategies 49 Islamophobia 49 racial formation SO racial project SI intersectionality 53 white privilege 54 wage of whiteness 55

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING

2. 1 How is individual racism linked to institutional inequality? . Prejudice, discrimination, and institutional racism are interconnec~ed and thus should not be studied in isolation. Prejudice refers to beliefs about racial difference; discrimination refers to actions; and institu­ tional racism describes the larger context in which prejudice and dis­

crimination occur.

ti:J How widespread is individual racism, and how does it persist?

ti:J What are some examples of racial microaggressions?

ti:J What is the relationship between individual and institutional racism?

2.2 How do systemic racism and structural racism create racial disparities? Systemic racism and structural racism are two theoretical frameworks that aim to explain how racism is deeply rooted in society. While sys­ temic racism focuses on accumulated acts of racism across history and throughout one's lifetime, structural racism points to interinstitu­ tional interactions across time and space.

ti:J What is one key difference between systemic racism and structural

racism?

ti:J How does structural racism explain wealth inequalities?

I

chapter 2 RACIAL IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

2.3 What are racial ideologies, and how have they functioned and changed over time?

A racial ideology is a set of principles and ideas that (1) divides people

into different racial groups and (2) serves the interests of one group. Racism has changed over the years yet continues to benefit whites.

B What is an example of racism pre-1965?

B What is an example of racism post-1965?

B What are the differences among biological, cultural, and color-blind racisms?

B How is lslamophobia related to racism?

2.4 What is racial formation, and how does this concept inform our understanding of racial inequality? Racial formation is one of the most influential theories of race and racism in the United States. It focuses on racial meanings-how racial

categories are "created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed," as Omi and Winant (1994) describe.

B What do Omi and Winant mean when they say the United States is tran­

sitioning from a racial dictatorship to a racial democracy?

B What is an example of a racial proiect?

2.5 What does the perspective of indigenous studies reveal about racism in the contemporary United States? One way to consider how racism works is to examine it from the perspective of indigenous studies. This leads us to consider set­ tler colonialism theory, which offers a broad critique of racism and capitalism.

B What are the three pillars of white supremacy?

B Why is it important to understand genocide in relation to contemporary race relations?

2.6 In what ways do race, class, and gender oppression work together?

Ideas of race, gender, class, and sexuality all shape how racism works, and intersectional scholars take these factors seriously as they build their frameworks.

B What is an example of a scenario that intersectional theory helps us understand?

Critical Thinking

2.7 What is white privilege, and how does it function? White privilege refers to the advantages associated with being cate­ gorized as white and can be a useful analytic for understanding racial oppression. Whiteness and white privilege vary by class, gender, and sexuality.

'=) Who benefits from white privilege, and why?

Critical Thinking ··································································································

1. Think of an issue related to racial inequality and use one of the frameworks discussed in this chapter to explain it. Justify your selection of this framework over the others.

2. What are some of the key differences between systemic racism and structural racism, and how might they shape your research agenda?

3. Most of the scholars cited in the section on intersectionality are women of color. Why do you think these scholars have been at the head of these debates and discussions?

illllit~1, i!!f f ~t!Et:!::t::ji~;ic~j;, :i J ;ari;ies i; your COllllllUnitycould be explained by a structural theory? .. : ''.

"~ . ~?"' can you usewha~ you have lear~ed in this chapter to explain such . C

~ 5:dispa~ities?Jome examples ~ight include a lack of green spac~s.i~no\,/ 4

{i~hiteieigbb~rhoods, ~ preponderapce of minorities in fower·<JUaHjr:' ){I} . scliool~,ora concentration of nonwhites in poorer areas of the city .. •··•·.••