Vivid and engaging, Silent Racism persuasively demonstrates that silent racismâracism by people who classify themselves as "not racist"âis instrumental in the production of institutional racism. Trepagnier argues that heightened race awareness is more important in changing racial inequality than judging whether individuals are racist. The collective voices and confessions of "nonracist" white women heard in this book help reveal that all individuals harbor some racist thoughts and feelings. Trepagnier uses vivid focus group interviews to argue that the oppositional categories of racist/not racist are outdated. The oppositional categories should be replaced in contemporary thought with a continuum model that more accurately portrays today's racial reality in the United States. A shift to a continuum model can raise the race awareness of well-meaning white people and improve race relations. Offering a fresh approach, Silent Racism is an essential resource for teaching and thinking about racism in the twenty-first century.
Frequently asked questions
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on âCancel Subscriptionâ - itâs as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time youâve paid for. Learn more here.
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes, you can access Silent Racism by Barbara Trepagnier in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Politics & International Relations & Politics. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
MY GOAL IN WRITING THIS BOOK is to encourage well-meaning white people to reconsider their ideas about racism. The title, Silent Racism: How Well-Meaning White People Perpetuate the Racial Divide, suggests that concerned whites are implicated in racial problems, including the disparity between blacks and whites. The title also introduces the term silent racism, which raises the question: Why talk about silent racism? After all, if it is silent, how could it possibly matter?
This introduction and the chapters that follow will reveal that silent racismâthe racist thoughts, images, and assumptions in the minds of white people, including those that by most accounts are ânot racistââis dangerous precisely because it is perceived as harmless. The silent racism in peopleâs thoughts, images, and assumptions shapes their perspective of reality. And a perspective that is shaped by racist thoughts, images, and assumptionsâno matter how subtle they areâwill produce behavior that reflects racist thoughts, images, and assumptions. But before rethinking racism, we need a clear understanding of racism within a historical context.
The definition of racism is somewhat complicated because it varies over time as well as from one social group to another. A common definition was adopted before the 1960s civil rights movement, when racism was thought to consist of two components: the prejudice of individualsâalso referred to as intolerance or bigotryâand discriminationâbehavior that treats black Americans and other races unfairly compared to white Americans.1
At the height of the civil rights movement in the late 1960s, a more sociological view of racism emerged among blacks. Before then, even sociologists viewed racism in terms of prejudice and discrimination (for an example see Merton 1967). A sociological view of racism means looking at an issue with a broad view, one that considers the larger social context in which an issue is embedded. Metaphorically, the difference between a sociological view and a psychological, or individualistic, view is similar to the difference between looking through a telescope or a microscope: the telescope represents the sociological view, and the microscope the psychological view. A telescope captures larger patterns that are not obtainable with a microscope. As the civil rights movement progressed, sociologists began to see the cultural and structural components of racism as an important part of the problem, especially racial inequality. In terms of effects, a psychological interpretation of racism focuses on hurt feelings (Johnson 1997), not broader material costs. And yet, racism is a cultural phenomenon that operates through social structures that produce systematic, differential effects for blacks and whites. This occurs in the economic, legal, and political systems as well as in education and health care.
The ideas presented in this book emerged from within a sociological paradigm that regards racism in the United States as a societal phenomenon that began with slavery, was sustained throughout the Reconstruction period, and persists today in the institutions of societyâin other words, systemic racism (Feagin 2001). With these sociological insights in mind, I selected both the theoretical framework and the methodology from symbolic interactionism, a microlevel perspective within sociology. Although a microperspective, symbolic interactionism is a sociological approach, not a psychological one. Symbolic interactionists are interested in how people make sense of things; that is, how people attach meanings to their interactions and their environments and how those meanings play out in peopleâs everyday lives. I incorporate a more critical view than the early apolitical view espoused by George H. Mead and Herbert Blumer, the founders of symbolic interactionism. Nevertheless, exploring how well-meaning white people make sense of racism entailed taking an in-depth look at the participantsâ thoughts about racism. Therefore, the focus of this study is the way participants define race matters and especially how they make sense of racism. My focus on the sense making of well-meaning white people regarding racism does not imply that I do not see systemic racism as the more fundamental problem; rather, my focus on the thoughts and beliefs of individuals arises from the question, Do well-meaning white people contribute to systemic racism, and, if so, what part do they play? The research project presented here, then, focuses on a small piece of the larger racism puzzle.
Definitions of Racism
White Americans and people of color in this country differ significantly in their definitions of racism (Blauner 1994). Most whites think in terms of the oppositional categories âracistâ and ânot racist.â Whites in the âracistâ category are defined as disliking or hating blacks and other minorities, and their animosity is portrayed in acts or statements that are blatantly racist (Jaynes and Williams 1989). Whites in the ânot racistâ category, in contrast, are defined as trying to ignore racial difference (Blauner 1994). This white definition of racism is problematic because it does not recognize racism unless it is blatant and/or intended; neither does it acknowledge institutional racism. Furthermore, the view overlooks subtle forms of racism that have emerged since the civil rights movement and that are color blind; that is, forms of racism expressed in nonracial terms that are not obviously race-identified. The white definition of racism also ignores acts of everyday racism: routine actions that often are not recognized by the actor as racist but that uphold the racial status quo (Essed 1991). For example, black women report that whites often seem surprised to find that a black person has a college degree or is a professional. This form of everyday racismâmarginalizationâis based in the white assumption that blacks are not educated or successful. Ignoring racism that is not hateful and intentional effectively hides the fact that white people daily perform acts of everyday racism.
Two assumptions underpin the view that white people are either âracistâ or ânot racist.â First, most whites assume that racism is hateful; and second, most whites believe that racism is a rare occurrence. These assumptionsâthat racism is hateful and rareâdeny that racism today is often unintended and routine. Although blatant racism like that which occurred before the civil rights movement occurs occasionally today, more often racism consists of routine acts of everyday racism that are not viewed as racist by the person performing them and therefore are not intentional. It is this unintentional racism, I will argue, that produces a good deal of institutional racism and resulting racial inequality. Yet, because this racism is not recognized by most whites, even well-meaning white people contribute to the racial divide without intending to and without knowing that they do.
In contrast to the white definition of racism, data show that blacks and other people of color see racism as permeating the institutions of society, producing racial inequality in employment, education, housing, and justice (Blauner 1994; Bonilla-Silva 2003; Feagin 2001). Women of color believe that racism âis inherent in the social systemâ (Essed 1991: 106). Joe Feagin (2001) devised a definition of racism based on the ideas of black intellectuals including Anna Julia Cooper, Oliver Cox, Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Du Bois, Frantz Fanon, and Kwame Ture: racism is systemic and includes the racist practices of individuals, the economic and political power of whites over blacks, racial economic inequality, and the âracist ideologies, attitudes, and institutions created to preserve white advantages and powerâ (p. 16). For people of color, the definition of racism is closely tied to the recent sociological definition that racism is built into U.S. institutions and U.S. society itself.
Why do the black and white definitions of racism differ so dramatically? Definitions, like all knowledge, are shaped by culture and the social structures of society. Peopleâs definitions differ depending on where in the society individuals are located (Mannheim [1936] 1952). This is as true for peopleâs definitions of racism as it is for other definitions. For example, before emancipation, slaves had a very different experience of the plantation than the owner because of their location as slaves. Later, during the segregation era when blacks were free and yet were denied entry into white establishments, they had experiences unknown to most white people. Given our racial history of slavery and segregation, it is not surprising that black and white Americans have conflicting definitions of racism.
This point is captured by W. E. B. Du Bois ([1903] 1999) in the concept of double-consciousness, which illustrates well how blacksâ view of racism differs from that of whites. Du Bois writes in The Souls of Black Folk, âOne ever feels his twonessâan American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunderâ (p. 11). Du Boisâs poignant description, it is safe to say, describes a side of racism that does not resonate in a personal way with the experience of white people.
Rethinking racism entails rethinking the language we use to talk and to think about racism. Changing the oppositional categories âracistâ and ânot racistâ to a continuum ranging from âmore racistâ to âless racistâ would more accurately depict racism because it would encompass blatant racism at the âmore racistâ end and yet not obscure the everyday racism (Essed 1991) that is concealed in the ânot racistâ category. The oppositional categories in our language today hide subtle acts of racism, especially from the actors performing them, primarily because the ânot racistâ category implies that no harm is done. At times, everyday racism is not hateful, and it is often not intentional. And yet, everyday racism contributes to the production of institutional racism, which produces negative effects for minorities. An important function of the racism continuum would be to portray white people as racist in varying degrees, eliminating the false notion in the minds of most white people that they are not at all racist. The change to a continuum would lessen the importance of whether people intend to be racist and focus instead on the racist effects of their actions. As mentioned, the shift to a racism continuum would not diminish the importance of blatant racism that would occur at the âmore racistâ end of the continuum. See Figure 1.1 for the racism continuum.
Silent Racism
This study exposes racism hidden in the ânot racistâ category; in the process it demonstrates that white commonsense notions about racism are shaped by language that distorts the racial reality. The oppositional categories keep people from seeing a form of racism built into the fabric of society, a form of racism that maintains racial inequality. I call it silent racism.2 Although the focus of this book is on the silent racism of well-meaning white people, that does not imply that other, more obvious forms of racism are not as important as ever. Hate crimes performed by bigots as well as the racially conservative projects of color-blind racists, both of which cause extraordinary hardship in the lives of blacks and other people of color, rightfully deserve the attention of race theorists. However, silent racism deserves attention as well, primarily because it does its damage unobserved and because it inhabits the minds of well-meaning whitesâthe group most amenable to changing its thinking and its behavior regarding race matters, the group most likely to stand with blacks against racism.
Two forms of silent racism emerged in the data: stereotypical images, and paternalistic assumptions. Stereotypical images are based on misinformation about blacks prevalent in the culture. Paternalistic assumptions are based on a sense of superiority found in some relationships between blacks and whites, especially hierarchical relationships that were, and perhaps still are, customary in the South. Silent racism is not the same as prejudice, which is generally perceived as bigoted attitudes held by individual whites about a minority group. Silent racism, on the contrary, is not limited to intolerant whitesâit inhabits the minds of all white people whether or not they acknowledge it or are aware of it. Silent racism is more closely linked to the âimages, attitudes, fictions, and notions that link to and buttress systemic racism [and] constitute a broad white-racist worldviewâ (Feagin 2001: 34). In addition to exposing silent racism, this study identifies passivity in white people, some of which is produced by the ânot racistâ category itself. Passivity emerged from the data in three forms: detachment from race matters, apprehension about being perceived as racist, and confusion about what is racist and what is not racist.
Other theorists have come to the conclusion that white people generally are racist. Blumer said in 1958 that white people as a group are racist in varying degrees. Findings here validate that statement unequivocally. Lewis Killian, in his 1990 presidential address to the Southern Sociological Society, expressed the idea as follows: âWho are the white racistsâparticularly in the eyes of the majority of whites who now claim to accept the principle of racial equality? It is not they themselves but those Klansmen and American Nazis and Skinheads. They themselves are innocent, for they have accepted the victories of the Civil Rights Movementâ (Killian 1990: 4).
Killian uses irony to expose the fact that white people can both be racist and claim innocence. More recently Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2003) has argued that white people generally are color blind, defined as seeing racial inequality as a result of causes other than racist practices. Most race theorists today, however, do not make this claim explicitly, leaving room for the possibility that some whites are not racist.
The decision to limit the topic of discussion to racism directed solely at black Americans when other minority groups are also routinely the objects of racism was a difficult one. In an effort to keep the discussions focused, however, I believed that limiting the topic of discussion to racism to one group was imperative. I chose racism against blacks because the literature in which this study is grounded focuses on racism toward blacks (see Blumer, Bonilla-Silva, Essed, Feagin, Frankenberg, Omi and Winant, and Wellman). In addition, data concerning racism toward Hispanics would likely have been tainted by rhetoric saturating the political climate in California in the early to mid-1990s, at the time the study was carried out.
Implementing the Study
I used small discussion groups, also called focus groups, as a format for data gathering. An advantage of this method over individual interviews is that using small, homogeneous groups is a more appropriate model when sensitive topics are discussed (Aaker and Day 1986; Churchill 1988). Because a frank discussion about racism relies upon a context of safety, focus groups were preferred for this study. I cannot know what data I might have collected in individual interviews, but I am confident that participants shared openly and honestly about their own racism in the small group format used here. I also sensed a feeling of group unity when, although joining the study entailed participating in only one discussion group, participants in several groups joked about when the group would meet again, an indication that they were open to such an idea.
After the participants for a particular group arrived, I explained that a discussion group differs from a support group in that interaction is encouraged rather than discouraged. Often, a participant was reminded of a childhood memory by another participantâs comment. Furthermore, group members were urged to engage with other participants, asking for clarification and even disagreeing with othersâ ideas if the occasion arose. In this way, I hoped to ensure that the groups would be dynamic, which would enhance the data. In addition, interaction within a groupâcalled synergismâproduces especially meaningful responses. For example, participants occasionally responded to anotherâs comments by examining their own commonsense explanations. This occurred in one group when a participant, prompted by what another member of her group said, asked herself, âGod, do I have any prejudices like that?â This example of synergism illustrates not only that group members are likel...