I Wish I Had More Time to Try to Understand This
During our syntopical meetings we were asked if we had more time into what we might dig more deeply (I am paraphrasing the question). To answer, I would like to spend more time with this book, Not So Black and White by Kenan Malik. I am intrigued by the history he provides about how the concept of race evolved, but in only being able to do an inspectional reading, I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around it.
Race did not give birth to racism. Racism gave birth to race.
He writes, “It is not racial differences that have led to unequal treatment but the persistence of social inequalities in societies with a commitment to equality that has led many to view such inequalities as ineradicable, and hence natural, and to place people into different racial categories. Race did not give birth to racism. Racism gave birth to race.”[1] He then goes on to explain the history of how this came to be, namely that the intellectuals and elites “began dividing the world into distinct races to explain and justify the differential treatment of certain peoples.”[2] In other words, it wasn’t skin color that divided people, it was one’s social class.[3] As someone who grew up in the 80’s and 90’s, the idea of race as a skin color has been ingrained me making it difficult to comprehend a concept of race that is based on social status rather than skin color.
Trying to Understand Anti-Racism
In the podcast Triggernometry, Malik discusses how these days while “in your face” racism may not be as prevalent, racism still abounds. The reason for this (if I understand what he was saying), is that our tradition of “radical universalism” which used to mean, equal rights for all, has shifted to identitarianism.[4] I will come back to this idea of universalism versus identitarianism, but first, I would like to address what Malik says about anti-racism.
Malik says, “Anti-racism used to mean the failure to treat people equally.” I got curious and looked up the current definition of “anti-racism” and found a few definitions. The first one comes from Alberta Civil Liberties Research Center; “the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably.”[5] In his book, How to be an Anti-Racist, Ibram Kendi defines an antiracist as, “One who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.”[6] Furthermore, Kendi writes, “The opposite of racist isn’t ‘not racist.’ It is ‘antiracist.’ What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of ‘not racist.”[7]
Based on these definitions, it seems that to be an anti-racist one must actively work to change laws and policies that allow racial inequity. However, in a 2021 study it was found that the term “antiracist” is used most often by white liberals who want to appear to be good people. [8](Again, I paraphrase here but I think you get the point.) The study finds that “the whites who self-describe as “anti-racist” may be more likely to self-identify as ‘very liberal,’ but their liberalism is of a more generic variety. They support progressive racial policies (on surveys), oppose old-fashioned racism, and would confront a friend who told a racist joke. Yet they are also strongly more likely than other Americans to identify with color-blindness, suggesting that such Americans, characterized by what we call ‘generic liberalism,’ simply affirm any views that sound racially progressive. I feel personally convicted. (Insert here: face palm emoji.)
Identity Groups Leave Behind the Most Vulnerable
Later, in his book, and in the podcast, Malik claims, identity groups or racial communities are often seen as homogenous groups when they are anything but. Believing racial communities to be homogenous has proven to be disastrous because in doing so, they abandon the people on the bottom, the most vulnerable, the lower class. He uses the example of how the “Black community” has been made up of people who share the attribute of black skin but who hail from different places in our world. He points out that in the UK, there has traditionally been a class difference between Black people of African descent versus Black people from Caribbean descent, leaving Black Caribbean students behind in education.[9]
I Still Have Questions
I believe Malik is arguing that we should return to the tradition of radical universalism and in doing so, address the class divide which leads to so much inequality. While I don’t disagree with Malik, his argument does bring up many questions for me. Three of those questions are:
- Is being “colorblind” a facet of a radical universalistic perspective? With the rise of identitarianism, “colorblindness” has been seen as the opposite of being anti-racist.
- In the podcast Malik and his hosts discuss the importance of understanding the real problem. I think he was trying to say that we must go back to a radical universalistic tradition because identitarianism will not address the real problem. Is it possible for radical universalism and identitarianism to simultaneously work to heal racism or are they such opposites that to work in parallel to one another would be impossible?
- Based on the writings of Max Weber and others we have read this last year, does capitalism have such a grip on our culture that healing the class divide (which according to Malik is the real problem) such a wicked problem it can never be completely solved?
Fukuyama wrote, “Every person has an inherent dignity and even more than economic advancement we want that dignity to be recognized.”[10] As many others have pointed out in their blogs, racism is a wicked problem. I don’t know how we will get there but until we are able to recognize the dignity of each human being and treat them accordingly this wicked problem will remain so.
I told you, I need more time to dig deeper with this book and these ideas.
[1] Kenan Malik, Not So Black and White; : A History of Race From White Supremacy to Identity Politics. London, Hurst, 2023, 14.
[2] Ibid, 8.
[3] Ibid, 9-10.
[4] Triggernometry Podcast, What We Get Wrong About Race, Kenan Malik.
[5] Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, NAC International Perspectives: Women and Global Solidarity, https://library.fandm.edu/c.php?g=1045768&p=7588278, accessed February 29, 2024.
[6] Ibram Kendi, How to be an Antiracist, London, England Bodley: Head, 2019, 13.
[7] Ibid, 9.
[8] Perry, S. L., Frantz, K. E., & Grubbs, J. B. (2021). Who Identifies as Anti-Racist? Racial Identity, Color-Blindness, and Generic Liberalism. Socius, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211052945.
[9] Triggernometry Podcast, What We Get Wrong About Race, Kenan Malik, 43:56.
[10] Fukuyama Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, MacMillan Publishers, New York, Scribd, 19.
About the Author
Kally Elliott
Mom of four. Wanna-be Broadway star. PC(USA) pastor. Wife. Friend. Sometimes a hot mess. Sometimes somewhat together. Is this supposed to be a professional bio?9 responses to “I Wish I Had More Time to Try to Understand This”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I also think racism is a wicked problem, and I agree with what you said — that we need to “be able to recognize the dignity of each human being and treat them accordingly.” Well said.
Regarding philosophical/radical liberalism, I thought Yascha Mounk’s description of liberalism (maybe one of the better definitions I’ve read) helped provide a grid for better understanding Malik’s book, though not perfectly.
I appreciate Malik’s historical overview of the problem, but I do wish he would have attempted to outline a roadmap for change (which, of course, does include framing the problem, and he does certainly write in a way that would inform that framing). Interestingly, not to get ahead too far into the semester, but I just read Pragya Agarwal’s Sway: Unravelling Unconscious Bias. Agarwal does bring up some very specific ways to tackle the problem (in the case of her book, unconscious/implicit bias) especially in her epilogue.
Travis, I think you named what was bothering me about the book. He didn’t give us a roadmap for change, at least not that I read/heard – other than to allow people to organize to protest for better working conditions, which isn’t really a roadmap.
Hi Kally, I too gravitated back to Fukuyama.
I remembered this…”The rise of identity politics in modern liberal democracies is one of the chief threats that they face, and unless we can work our way back to more universal understandings of human dignity, we will doom ourselves to continuing conflict.”
Alas we are doomed.
On class, I harkened back to the old adage, “the have’s and the have not’s” Malik spins it differently but I think the root is the same.
I have lived in Germany, Turkey, Italy, Slovakia, Korea with side shows in Iraq. In all the places I was DIFFERENT. While n the U.S. Army I was shipping my car from a Texas port to Germany. The woman at the counter asked me “How did you get your name (Russell – I am named after my dad’s parole officer). I replied oh my mom gave me the name. she smiled and went on with the car inprocessing.
Micro agression? Does she need to go to DEI training. NOPE. She was being kind in the only way her upbringing taught her. I can live with that.
In all the countries I have lived in, in all the churches that I have participated in, it has been delightful to depend on the share identity we have in Christ.
Selah….
Some fun U.S. Facts
1. Anti-Coolie Act (1862): Aimed at reducing the competition between Chinese laborers and white laborers by imposing a tax on Chinese workers.
2. Page Act of 1875: Considered one of the earliest immigration laws, it effectively prevented Chinese women from immigrating to the U.S. by classifying them as “undesirable,” targeting those suspected of prostitution or being brought for immoral purposes.
3. Chinese Exclusion Act (1882-1943): This act was the first and only major federal legislation to explicitly suspend immigration for a specific nationality, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years, which was later extended.
Now a days we are classified as the Model Minority. Somehow different and perpetual outsiders.
Thanks Kally….like you, I felt like this book deserved more than an inspectional, even quick read…and there’s lots to digest. In regards to your second question for more consideration, it seems to me that Malik is suggesting that identitarianism cannot fix the problem because it becomes just a different stream of racism/division of people in the end. If that’s the case…then my question becomes, “How, then, do people unite to protest an injustice in such a way that the powers will actually listen?” And if the lower socio-economic class did so against the wealthy elite, would it be any less unhealthy or polarizing or virtuous than a movement applied to race? Lot’s to ponder!
Kally,
Whew! So much to think about. I think that is why it is such a wicked problem. There are so many interweaving parts. You ask: “Is being “colorblind” a facet of a radical universalistic perspective? With the rise of identitarianism, “colorblindness” has been seen as the opposite of being anti-racist.” This is such a loaded question. Every time I try to think through these issues, I come up more confused. Colorblindness, in my mind, does not seem to honor the differences we have which are beautiful and deserve to be learned from. And yet, dwelling on diversity can also hinder more than unite, especially with the nature of humanity seeing one culture or better than another. It’s got to be both…I think??? I think of our Brazilian congregation. They so desire to be a part of our church with all that is included in that, but yet desire to honor their culture with their own services, food, and community. It has been a win-win. Perhaps this is where Malik is making the distinction of equality of opportunity being what is the greater need?
I do think it needs to be both, lifting up the “rich cultural history” as Jonita mentions in her blog, AND seeing our common humanity.
Kally, in your context, how are you being called in filling in the gaps of this wicked problem of racism? hard question, but I wonder if this is where we each start with this topic?
Well, we just got the worship schedule and apparently I am preaching on racism (again) at the end of April. Here is where I’d like to insert an eye rolling emoji because I am still just trying to learn about racism and don’t feel qualified to preach on it!
Russell, you write, “She was being kind in the only way her upbringing taught her. I can live with that.”
So much YES! I so believe we need to respect and appreciate when people are being kind in the only way their upbringing taught them. BUT, I am curious, what is our responsibility (if any) to help them learn a better way? So much written around being an anti-racist tells us that we should be teaching people the “better” way. I think we can do this in a kind, compassionate way, but I also struggle with stomping on someone who is just trying to be kind in the way they know how to be kind.