Conviction
Conviction is what I felt as I read Shelby Steele’s Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country. This kind of conviction leads to examination of thoughts, behaviors and even societal tendencies, particularly those that have been participated in, while being unaware. In this book, Steel names the very thing that should convict us as we examine America’s challenge with race and minority struggles that keeps true progress at bay – the shame of hypocrisy. By exegeting his personal experiences growing up in 1950s and 60s, against the cultural moments of his formative years, he settles on a conclusion that doubles-down on the promise of the American experiment: true freedom and responsibility. By doing this, Steele offers an insightful critique of America’s cultural and political responses to racism, while also calling all people back to the idealistic promise of American freedom.
Naming the Problem
In his opening story, Steele captures our attention by naming the very fear that many white men encounter when wadding into the racial equality conversation and that is “white guilt.” Steel defines white guilt as “the terror of being seen as racist – a terror that has caused whites to act guilty toward minorities even when they feel no actual guilt.” [1] This guilt has lead to a “white paternalism” that continues to undermine the true human freedom of blacks in America. [2] Steele is relatable in his observation of this through the story of attempting to quit the swimming team only to be drawn into a conversation about race. [3] As a senior in high school, Steele found himself naming the very issue underlying his exclusion from the summer swim retreat. His coach became confronted and convicted with the realization that he had participated in segregating an athlete from the summer retreat because of accepted social norms, and was, in fact, a racist because of this.[4]
Hypocrisy
The strength of Steele’s observation is the emotional tension that underlies the struggle with racism. He draws the distinction between evil and hypocrisy. He argues that evil is rationalized, but hypocrisy is “not an act of evil; it is the pretense of innocence even as one is clearly in league with evil, and with the all duplicities and deceptions that serve evil.”[5] While no one wants to be confronted with their own racism or to be found participating in racist acts, hypocrisy seeks to legitimize systems and behaviors that allow people to participate without having to be confronted with reality. When these realities are confronted, as was the case with the movement’s of the 1960s, or in Steele’s example with his teammates, there exists a sense of re-victimization as justifications and patronizing solutions are offered that serve to undermine the person’s agency. [6]
Loss of Identity
The result of this emotional tension, and why it continues to be a struggle, is the loss of identity for America. The 1960s were marked by a “quest for legitimacy against hypocrisy” through political and cultural movements such as feminism, sexual revolution, environmental movement and civil rights. [7] This called into question the American identity that Steele likens to “a great vacuum had suddenly opened up in the world. An authority that one had taken for granted and built a moral identity around, was simply no longer there. [8] This created a crisis of identity as these hypocrisies were revealed and found to be propping up the American way of life for those who benefited from the hypocrisies.
The Solution
The response to the cultural upheaval of the 1960s and the cultural movements was the rise of a liberalism that continues to harm by supplying solutions that do not cost human dignity or agency. Steele argues for a kind of conservatism that promotes individual responsibility and freedom – which are the true promises of American democracy – as a solution to government intervention that will only perpetuates dependency. [9]
Conviction
I found Steele’s perspective to be convicting as it calls attention to the tacit ways that privilege perpetuates the established position. I am drawn to the idealism of true freedom and responsibility, but wonder if it can exist against the history of hypocrisy that has not been fully exposed. The burden is placed back on the individual, yet the systematic hypocrisy may keep the individual from fully participating in actual freedom and agency. Even with these questions, the best way forward is to allow myself to be convicted and not rationalize my own thoughts, behaviors and actions.
- Shelby Steele, Shame : How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country (New York: Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group, 2015) p1.
- Ibid., 2.
- Ibid., 41-51.
- Ibid., 50.
- Ibid., 47.
- Ibid., 52.
- Ibid., 55-67, 69.
- Ibid., 76.
- Ibid., 197.
About the Author
Chad McSwain
Chad is a systematic creative serving in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years, Chad is a professional question-asker and white-board enthusiast, who enjoys helping people discover their own passions and purpose. A life-long learner, he has a B.A, Philosophy - Univ. Central Oklahoma, M.A Theology - Fuller Seminary, M.Div. Perkins School of Theology at SMU and is pursuing a Doctor of Leadership - George Fox University. He is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, currently serving as Lead Pastor of Whitesboro UMC. Chad and his wife, Brandi live in Prosper, Texas along with their three children, two pugs and a chameleon.8 responses to “Conviction”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hey Chad,
I found your conclusion fascinating.
“I am drawn to the idealism of true freedom and responsibility, but wonder if it can exist against the history of hypocrisy that has not been fully exposed. The burden is placed back on the individual, yet the systematic hypocrisy may keep the individual from fully participating in actual freedom and agency.”
If I am understanding this correctly, would you argue that Steele does not give enough weight the the systems that are in place due to the history of oppression in our society? If I am misunderstanding please let me know.
That’s correct. I don’t believe that Steele finds the systematic responses to racism to be effective. That’s what I see in his opening example of seeing Sandra Day O’Connor and choosing to commit to his perspective of “the benevolent paternalism of white guilt…” (p. 2) resulting in the construction of systems like affirmative action, that do more harm than the good they are developed to do.
I find Steele’s commitment to individual responsibility to be compelling, yet systems are the very places that hypocrisies can hide.
Do you think that Steele finds the systematic programs of liberalism effective or helpful?
“I am drawn to the idealism of true freedom and responsibility, but wonder if it can exist against the history of hypocrisy that has not been fully exposed. The burden is placed back on the individual, yet the systematic hypocrisy may keep the individual from fully participating in actual freedom and agency. Even with these questions, the best way forward is to allow myself to be convicted and not rationalize my own thoughts, behaviors and actions.”
#boom
Wow, you really gave a lot of thought to this! I am impressed by in my opinion a GREAT BLOG!
Chad,
In reading your post I could see how you really internalized and thought about the issues Steel raised in his book. I do agree he raised a lot of good points and give us pause and conviction.
What I would ask is why does he place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the left? He leaves out the right (conservatives) and the Church? Since the civil rights movement we’ve had our share of liberals and conservatives in power. We are the United States of America, how can one group be blamed for this shame/sin?
Hi Audrey
Great questions! I am not sure how the church fits into the perspective Steele is weaving through the various social movements of the 1960s.
I think the answer to the burden being placed on the left is that white guilt and shame has allowed the left to have more influence in setting up systems that were meant to correct systematic hypocrisies, yet these systems took the basic dignities of those they were trying to help. In doing so, these systems perpetuated ways of keeping minorities from authentic achievement in the culture.
I found myself wondering if the issue is not so much cultural but economic. Those who have reached some level of economic comfort can question systems that are meant to level the economic playing field.
What kind of role do you think economics play in systematic racism?
Chad,
You said, “The burden is placed back on the individual, yet the systematic hypocrisy may keep the individual from fully participating in actual freedom and agency. Even with these questions, the best way forward is to allow myself to be convicted and not rationalize my own thoughts, behaviors and actions.”
First, your conclusion seemed to hit everything in your post. The statement that “the best way forward is to allow myself to be convicted.” I felt that as I was reading your post. I found myself in the same boat as I was reading the book.
You also said, “yet the systematic hypocrisy may keep the individual from fully participating in actual freedom and agency.” Why do you think that is?
Thanks for engaging with the reading. I know this can be uncomfortable for all of us, but so good to actually dialogue about it.
Thanks Daron.
My understanding of Steele is that he is addressing the emotional drive behind our responses to racism, particularity as it relates to our American identity. Steele finds our legislation and programs influenced by liberalism of the 1960s and 70s lack personal responsibility that develops agency and residency to give a person their own dignity.
While I applaud individual responsibility, I think that our current programs that actually reinforce American hypocrisy will fade out easily. I think we need to maintain the tension of the individual and systemic responses, otherwise the gravity will be towards those who currently benefit from the way things are.
Perhaps the missing element is a way to relationally engage, while still providing ways to addressing cultural and political programs that keep minorities marginalized.
Chad, Great thoughts. I agree that there is a need to wrestle with the systemic issues in light of the individual experience. This is a key part of new ministries that are forming in different cities in the US and around the world. Ones where we acknowledge the needs and falws of the systems and yet we empower individuals with in communities to make the changes that are needed for their communities from their perspectives. I liked your word choice of the “tension” between individuals and the system and then your desire to find ways to relationally engage. Relational engagement is messing and time consuming, but I think you are right in noticing its value in this process of healing. Thank you for your thoughts!