Brief history of the recent sociology of race

 Brief history of the recent sociology of race

Historically, the approach to race has had some major evolutions especially within sociology.

As the U.S. emerged from the civil rights movement, by the 1980s, the emphasis for reacting to race in the U.S. was on colorblindness or acknowledging that race is a made-up social construct so we should no longer think in terms of race;  we should try not to see anyone's race, and move forward in the world ignoring race.

However, colorblindness did not reduce racism, instead, it ignored it.  This allowed racism to continue and allowed SOME people to claim they were not racist because they ignored race (but also ignored the racism)

This led to a new movement (late 90s) championed by sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.  He said we should strive to be race-conscious.  This means that we should acknowledge that though race is not a discrete biological category, it is in fact a social construct.  As such, it affects both how think about our own identity as well as how we think and act toward other people.  Some of these thoughts and actions might be explicit/conscious and some are implicit/unconscious.  Race consciousness emphasized trying to be conscious of all of these attitudes.

However, being race-conscious allowed SOME people to believe that they were doing their part to be not racist.  It was possible to feel that you understand the racial dynamics in America and that you were going to try hard to be aware of racist attitudes and actions and avoid them in your own life.  This could allow SOME people to go about their business feeling righteous about their own views on race, all the while allowing the status quo to continue.  And the status quo meant that racism could continue.  Sometimes there was a legacy of racism - such as the wealth gap which was generational, and other times there was racism embedded in social institutions.  The empirical data for this type of racial inequality is overwhelming.  (If you need data/examples here, I am happy to provide it)  

So it became clear that individuals claiming to be racially conscious and self-aware was not changing the system.  This led to Ibram Kendi's work called How to Be an Anti-racist.  Kendi's main thesis is that being race-conscious and working to not be racist as an individual is not enough to reverse the racism already embedded within society.  Doing so, allows racism to continue in really significant ways.  And so Kendi is trying to emphasize that simply denouncing racism without doing anything does not make one anti-racist.  In order to truly be anti-racist, one must actively work against the forces of racism that are already embedded in society.  

Some people want to criticize Kendi for being too extreme.  And I think that it is possible to be critical of specific aspects of being an anti-racist.  For example, there are some Americans perceived as whites who claim to be working against racism but not all Americans who identify as black will see their actions as such.  A great example of this are a number of instances during the George Floyd protests where well-meaning whites thought that by looting or rioting they were speaking out against the racism of the George Floyd incident.  These "woke" whites thought that they were taking to the streets to voice their displeasure with race relations.  They thought that they were working to be an anti-racist.  Plenty of Americans who identify as black spoke out against these looters/rioters.   There were stories of protesters who protected cops from being harmed by crowds and protesters who protected stores from being looted.   Clearly, there is disagreement or misunderstanding about what it means to be an anti-racist. And this is not surprising because society is complex and so are individuals.  And not only are they complex and multi-faceted, but they are dynamic: individuals and society are constantly changing.

But the general thesis of Kendi's idea is really simple to me;  if you truly opposed something, you will work to stop it.  For example, if you see a young child wander out into a busy street, you can stand by and say "I am really against letting children get by cars."  Or, you can actually help the kid even though you are a stranger.  You take an active role for something that you care about.  Take something like poverty.  You can claim to be against poverty or anti-poverty, but if you don't take steps in your daily life to end poverty, are you really anti-poverty? In other words, it is one thing to believe something, but it is something much more to actively work against it.  That is the simple takeaway from Kendi.

Meanwhile, Robin Diangelo has been working as a racial equity trainer throughout the different eras that I described above.  And what she has noticed is that SOME people who are in the various mindsets above, knee-jerk when they are challenged to be anti-racists as in the way that Kendi describes.  SOME people think that colorblindness is enough to be antiracist.  In fact, some people strive for colorblindness to the degree that any mention of race makes them uncomfortable.  I have experienced this with students myself.  Others think that race consciousness is enough and as long as they are aware of race, they do not feel obligated to work against laws or institutions that reinforce racial inequality.  When you say that being a bystander allows inequality and oppression to continue, they react defensively because they don't want to be implicated as a cause of continued racism.  The defensive feelings of people who identify as the majority are what Diangelo calls white fragility.  Discussing racism is hard and emotional so it makes people uncomfortable in ways that they have never had to feel.  And since whites are in the majority, they are not used to having to feel the emotion and discomfort of racial issues.  That, is what Diangelo describes as "white fragility".

Despite the history of sociological scholarship I mention above, it is true that both people and society are unique, complex and dynamic.   I think sociologists would be careful to not say, "The left thinks..." or "Conservatives think..." or "white people think..."  I thought about that as I was reading your text about "not all black people agree with the most progressive version of anti racism".  I agree with you and I think that overgeneralizations are a problem.  However I also think that failing to see the forest for the trees is a problem as well.  If you dismiss the overall thesis of Diangelo and Kendi because you get too bogged down in the minutiae, I think it misses the point.  

Regarding ERD - we would have to talk about the specifics of which ERD and what was being pushed.  I think it is naive to think that after hundreds of years of racism that anyone has the solution or even that there is one solution.  

But instead, I think the goal is to acknowledge that:

- Race is a social construct that shapes the obstacles and opportunities for people in the U.S. 

- Being aware of the ways in which race shapes the obstacles and opportunities can help us as both citizens and educators speak and act to mitigate the racial inequalities.

Those are the two basic ways that I approach race.  But I acknowledge that everyone is at a different understanding of those two things.  SOME (emphasis intended) people refuse to believe that race plays a roll in society and even moreso, SOME people will balk at the idea that they have contributed to racism.