This seems like this is the quintessential question of the chicken and the egg: are people racialized by society or do they racialize themselves? At some point it seems like both sides need to call a truce if we want to move past this.
Clifton, you said “My overall point is that we can't deracialize America as long as large racial disparities persist and the bias narrative holds sway “. Doesn’t the bias narrative require a racial identity? Without racial identity doesn’t the bias narrative lose its teeth? I mean, everyone with a victim mentality will find something to blame for their failures/shortcomings. The problem, from my experience, comes when everyone affirms the legitimacy of their victimhood, instead of saying “Man, that sucks. What can you do different/better next time?” (This is a general observation, not specific to race).
Thanks Amy! I appreciate your comment. Pew Research issued a report last April that was titled, "Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other:"
No matter where they are from, who they are, their economic circumstances or educational backgrounds, significant majorities of Black Americans say being Black is extremely or very important to how they think about themselves, with about three-quarters (76%) overall saying so.
Having an identity is to be human. Most people want to be part of something bigger than themselves. We have family identities. We join groups. We root for our favorite athletes and sports teams because we feel a connection with them. We enjoy the company of people who share our culture, values, norms, heritage, sensibilities, etc. These things lead to social cohesion. They help explain why people are willing to make sacrifices for others and/or the common good.
Social cohesion collapses when large numbers of people think they and other members of their group are victims of discrimination. They view their neighbors and fellow citizens warily and pay more attention to the differences between them and their peers instead of the things they have in common.
Debunking the bias narrative is critical if we want to reduce racial disparities and deracialize America. More black people might embrace Roger Ferguson's ideas for closing the racial wealth gap, for example, if they had more trust in the financial markets. A distrust of financial institutions is one of the reasons why cryptocurrencies became popular with black consumers in recent years according to the Kansas City Fed:
The collapse of cryptocurrencies is well documented. People who purchased them because they distrusted financial institutions exemplify what can happen when false narratives hold sway.
Clifton, I agree that black identity is clearly a thing. I don’t dispute how important it is. Right now, the narrative I hear is to constantly tell me that groups are under attack by other groups. If you identify as part of those groups and are constantly told that you are discriminated against, you would certainly develop a worldview and identity in which that is the case. For example, when you survey white people a shocking number believe they (or I should say “we”) are under attack more than any other group, Christians claim to be under assault in America, etc. So an individual’s perception of bias is not the best indicator of bias.
Let me separate the conversation from race per se, and maybe you’ll understand my question better. Let’s say I am a young female engineer and I have an issue with an older male engineer actively undermining me. I can tell myself, “Wow, this guy is a jerk. How can I resolve my particular situation”. Or I can say “this office is sexist and I am the victim of discrimination.” Maybe both are true, but one is empowering, and the other not. One makes the problem one explicitly of identity and the other just an interpersonal issue to resolve. Worse, if I think about it in those identity based terms, I might think there is some truth to the identity of my group (in this case young female engineers) is in actuality inferior and/or a separate group from the overwhelming majority (older male engineers). I’d argue, in reality we are one group (engineers working on solving whatever technical issue).
Now maybe I’m misunderstanding something… but in my attempt at a non race analogy, if the result is all female engineers migrate to different departments so that the company is sex-segregated because the female engineers can’t trust the male engineers to be fair in their interactions… soon it would be a self-fulfilling arrangement, wouldn’t it? And who would actually benefit in that arrangement?
The female engineer can frame the issue the ways you suggested - "This guy's a jerk! What can I do about it?" or "This place is sexist and I'm the victim of discrimination!" She could also ask herself a series of questions to help determine if the issues she has with her colleague are borne of something other than sexism (e.g., Do either of them have personality traits or approaches to their jobs that rub each other the wrong way? Do other women at work have issues with this guy or is her situation unique? Does he get along with other young colleagues?). She could ask herself a lot of questions before she reached any conclusions about her colleague and decided what to do next. How far and how honestly she's willing to go with this exercise tells us a lot about her maturity and how much her "identity" influences her decision-making.
I agree, if I'm understanding your point correctly, that "identity" often keeps people from reconciling their differences and achieving "win-win" scenarios.
I think that is clearly true that identity can get in the way, but that wasn’t quite where I was going. I tried to pick a realistic and concrete example of a situation and reaction without the burden of that being an established “identity”, sort of like Star Trek exploring our world by putting it in an outer space context. Clearly not doing as well as I’d like. It was an example in my own life, but I’m not trying to make it about me.
But let’s say it’s me, since that’s where we are. There is a difference between being affirmed that my treatment was because of an identity (young female) and being encouraged to think of it as a specific incident makes a difference (I was encouraged to see it both ways over the years)... It especially makes a difference when it happens dozens of times, in different situations and with different people. It’s really easy to get a chip on your shoulder if you let it. This is objectively borne out by the number of young women who leave STEM fields in the first few years of their careers (I believe in the early 2000s it was as high as 50%). And yet, there is not an identity of “young females in STEM”. If that became an entrenched identity, I think it would only serve to make the problem worse. And then who benefits? And how do you ever move past it?
I don’t know if that made it more clear, or not. But to take *me* out of it: If you hold on strongly to an identity that is forged as part of being a group that is discriminated against, how do you let go of the idea that you are discriminated against because of your membership in the group (ie bias narrative)?
You ask a good and tough question at the end of your reply. We can never know with certainty why others act the way they do or why they react to us the way they do. It takes a good deal of wisdom and maturity to avoid immediately suspecting the worse when things don't go well when we interact with others. This is especially true for young people.
Friends of mine have wrestled with finding ways to make young female engineers feel accepted and appreciated at work. Mentoring seems to help. So does frequent and constructive feedback from bosses. That said, nothing is foolproof.
My sense is that the bias narrative loses strength when there's clear evidence that it's wrong, we have faith that bias will be addressed when it occurs, or we can see examples of people who share our "identity" but are thriving.
I appreciate you saying you try, but that really shouldn’t be necessary. In my experience there were very overtly inappropriate situations that made everyone in the room uncomfortable (and went out of their way to say so). But that is not something where 80% being normal humans erases the 20% that are just unprofessional jerks… once again though, that is not my point. Let me say it another way… for me I wanted to be seen as an engineer and all of my issues were when I was instead perceived of primarily as a young female. If I internalized that I was a female as my primary identity I would see the world through that lens and not as an engineer in an office. I was given lots of reasons to see myself in that gendered way, but I resented that expectation too much to do it. Your data on “blackness” indicates “black” is the primary identity. In identifying that way so strongly, all the bad things that happen are because of the “black” identity and not because of anything else. To me, that impedes progress. Does that make sense? If not, I should probably stop, though I do really enjoy beating metaphorical dead horses.
My physician wife had some of the same issues in her medical group. Oddly, some of the older doctors who were of foreign birth and more fundamental religious backgrounds were more accepting of her than the younger men. And the blatant fact was that most of the men were very accepting and supportive, but there were a few jerks who treated both her and other male colleagues poorly.
Which goes to the fact that there really are still many racist individuals in this country, and they are of all different races and ethnicities themselves. This does not mean that the whole of "White" America is racist in and of itself. Nor should people of any race excoriate another race for the bad actions of the few bad actors within those racial groups.
This seems like this is the quintessential question of the chicken and the egg: are people racialized by society or do they racialize themselves? At some point it seems like both sides need to call a truce if we want to move past this.
Clifton, you said “My overall point is that we can't deracialize America as long as large racial disparities persist and the bias narrative holds sway “. Doesn’t the bias narrative require a racial identity? Without racial identity doesn’t the bias narrative lose its teeth? I mean, everyone with a victim mentality will find something to blame for their failures/shortcomings. The problem, from my experience, comes when everyone affirms the legitimacy of their victimhood, instead of saying “Man, that sucks. What can you do different/better next time?” (This is a general observation, not specific to race).
Thanks Amy! I appreciate your comment. Pew Research issued a report last April that was titled, "Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other:"
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/04/14/race-is-central-to-identity-for-black-americans-and-affects-how-they-connect-with-each-other/
Here's the opening paragraph:
No matter where they are from, who they are, their economic circumstances or educational backgrounds, significant majorities of Black Americans say being Black is extremely or very important to how they think about themselves, with about three-quarters (76%) overall saying so.
Having an identity is to be human. Most people want to be part of something bigger than themselves. We have family identities. We join groups. We root for our favorite athletes and sports teams because we feel a connection with them. We enjoy the company of people who share our culture, values, norms, heritage, sensibilities, etc. These things lead to social cohesion. They help explain why people are willing to make sacrifices for others and/or the common good.
Social cohesion collapses when large numbers of people think they and other members of their group are victims of discrimination. They view their neighbors and fellow citizens warily and pay more attention to the differences between them and their peers instead of the things they have in common.
Debunking the bias narrative is critical if we want to reduce racial disparities and deracialize America. More black people might embrace Roger Ferguson's ideas for closing the racial wealth gap, for example, if they had more trust in the financial markets. A distrust of financial institutions is one of the reasons why cryptocurrencies became popular with black consumers in recent years according to the Kansas City Fed:
https://www.kansascityfed.org/ten/2022-fall-ten-magazine/inside-the-rise-of-black-consumer-cryptocurrency-ownership/
The collapse of cryptocurrencies is well documented. People who purchased them because they distrusted financial institutions exemplify what can happen when false narratives hold sway.
Clifton, I agree that black identity is clearly a thing. I don’t dispute how important it is. Right now, the narrative I hear is to constantly tell me that groups are under attack by other groups. If you identify as part of those groups and are constantly told that you are discriminated against, you would certainly develop a worldview and identity in which that is the case. For example, when you survey white people a shocking number believe they (or I should say “we”) are under attack more than any other group, Christians claim to be under assault in America, etc. So an individual’s perception of bias is not the best indicator of bias.
Let me separate the conversation from race per se, and maybe you’ll understand my question better. Let’s say I am a young female engineer and I have an issue with an older male engineer actively undermining me. I can tell myself, “Wow, this guy is a jerk. How can I resolve my particular situation”. Or I can say “this office is sexist and I am the victim of discrimination.” Maybe both are true, but one is empowering, and the other not. One makes the problem one explicitly of identity and the other just an interpersonal issue to resolve. Worse, if I think about it in those identity based terms, I might think there is some truth to the identity of my group (in this case young female engineers) is in actuality inferior and/or a separate group from the overwhelming majority (older male engineers). I’d argue, in reality we are one group (engineers working on solving whatever technical issue).
Now maybe I’m misunderstanding something… but in my attempt at a non race analogy, if the result is all female engineers migrate to different departments so that the company is sex-segregated because the female engineers can’t trust the male engineers to be fair in their interactions… soon it would be a self-fulfilling arrangement, wouldn’t it? And who would actually benefit in that arrangement?
The female engineer can frame the issue the ways you suggested - "This guy's a jerk! What can I do about it?" or "This place is sexist and I'm the victim of discrimination!" She could also ask herself a series of questions to help determine if the issues she has with her colleague are borne of something other than sexism (e.g., Do either of them have personality traits or approaches to their jobs that rub each other the wrong way? Do other women at work have issues with this guy or is her situation unique? Does he get along with other young colleagues?). She could ask herself a lot of questions before she reached any conclusions about her colleague and decided what to do next. How far and how honestly she's willing to go with this exercise tells us a lot about her maturity and how much her "identity" influences her decision-making.
I agree, if I'm understanding your point correctly, that "identity" often keeps people from reconciling their differences and achieving "win-win" scenarios.
I think that is clearly true that identity can get in the way, but that wasn’t quite where I was going. I tried to pick a realistic and concrete example of a situation and reaction without the burden of that being an established “identity”, sort of like Star Trek exploring our world by putting it in an outer space context. Clearly not doing as well as I’d like. It was an example in my own life, but I’m not trying to make it about me.
But let’s say it’s me, since that’s where we are. There is a difference between being affirmed that my treatment was because of an identity (young female) and being encouraged to think of it as a specific incident makes a difference (I was encouraged to see it both ways over the years)... It especially makes a difference when it happens dozens of times, in different situations and with different people. It’s really easy to get a chip on your shoulder if you let it. This is objectively borne out by the number of young women who leave STEM fields in the first few years of their careers (I believe in the early 2000s it was as high as 50%). And yet, there is not an identity of “young females in STEM”. If that became an entrenched identity, I think it would only serve to make the problem worse. And then who benefits? And how do you ever move past it?
I don’t know if that made it more clear, or not. But to take *me* out of it: If you hold on strongly to an identity that is forged as part of being a group that is discriminated against, how do you let go of the idea that you are discriminated against because of your membership in the group (ie bias narrative)?
You ask a good and tough question at the end of your reply. We can never know with certainty why others act the way they do or why they react to us the way they do. It takes a good deal of wisdom and maturity to avoid immediately suspecting the worse when things don't go well when we interact with others. This is especially true for young people.
Friends of mine have wrestled with finding ways to make young female engineers feel accepted and appreciated at work. Mentoring seems to help. So does frequent and constructive feedback from bosses. That said, nothing is foolproof.
My sense is that the bias narrative loses strength when there's clear evidence that it's wrong, we have faith that bias will be addressed when it occurs, or we can see examples of people who share our "identity" but are thriving.
I appreciate you saying you try, but that really shouldn’t be necessary. In my experience there were very overtly inappropriate situations that made everyone in the room uncomfortable (and went out of their way to say so). But that is not something where 80% being normal humans erases the 20% that are just unprofessional jerks… once again though, that is not my point. Let me say it another way… for me I wanted to be seen as an engineer and all of my issues were when I was instead perceived of primarily as a young female. If I internalized that I was a female as my primary identity I would see the world through that lens and not as an engineer in an office. I was given lots of reasons to see myself in that gendered way, but I resented that expectation too much to do it. Your data on “blackness” indicates “black” is the primary identity. In identifying that way so strongly, all the bad things that happen are because of the “black” identity and not because of anything else. To me, that impedes progress. Does that make sense? If not, I should probably stop, though I do really enjoy beating metaphorical dead horses.
My physician wife had some of the same issues in her medical group. Oddly, some of the older doctors who were of foreign birth and more fundamental religious backgrounds were more accepting of her than the younger men. And the blatant fact was that most of the men were very accepting and supportive, but there were a few jerks who treated both her and other male colleagues poorly.
Which goes to the fact that there really are still many racist individuals in this country, and they are of all different races and ethnicities themselves. This does not mean that the whole of "White" America is racist in and of itself. Nor should people of any race excoriate another race for the bad actions of the few bad actors within those racial groups.