White Professors Taking Responsibility for Teaching White Students about Race,Racism, and Privilege

How does a white professor teach a course composed of predominantly white human-services students about race, racism, and privilege? What are some of the pitfalls? What works? What is challenging? Why should such a course be part of the undergraduate human services curriculum? This article investigates these questions by exploring a course taught by the author, “Exploring Race and Challenging Racism in the United States.” A variety of pedagogical tools and approaches are discussed.     

Racism without Races: Reflections on Racialization and Racial Projects

‘The metaphor of race is a dangerous weapon whether it is used for asserting white supremacy or for making demands on behalf of the disadvantaged groups...Treating caste as a form of race is politically mischievous; what is worse, it is scientifically nonsensical’. Andre Beteille (2004: 52) ‘…what is in fact “scientifically nonsensical” is Professor Beteille’s misunderstanding of “race”. What is mischievous is his insistence that India’s system of ascribed system of social inequality should be exempted from the provisions of a UN Convention whose sole purpose is the extension of human rights to include freedom from all forms of discrimination and intolerance – and to which India, along with most other nations, has committed itself” Gerald Berreman (cited in Thorat and Umakant 2004: xxv ) ‘The possibility that the current Indian Hindu-Muslim or upper versus lower-caste conflict may be, in a significant sense, a variant of a modern problem of “ethnicity” or “race” is seldom entertained…”racism” is thought of as something the white people do to us. What Indians do to one another are variously described as “communalism”, “regionalism” and “casteism” but never “racism”’. Dipesh Chakrabarty (1994: 145)     

Essay-Comment: On the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships—Australian Government Publishing Service,Canberra, 1977.

“Strange thing—human relationships—for a Government to set up a Royal Commission on.” That is a comment I have heard more than once. It has been accompanied by an aloofness, a slight irritability, keeping the Report at arm's length and unread. That is from one section of the public. There are many other reactions. And there are our colleagues, many of whom have said how very important the Report is, and they have read it. Midway between these and other polarized viewpoints stands the Report itself, a long important essay in societal self-awareness. No wonder it has aroused much contradictory response.     

The Role of Contact and Information in Racial Attitude Change among White College Students*

While much research has been done on the determinants of change in prejudice among whites, relatively little is known about the process of change in contemporary racial attitudes, variously described as symbolic racism, laissez‐faire racism, or color‐blind racism. This article uses data from a sample of white college students to examine the impact of intergroup contact and exposure to information about racial issues on changes in contemporary racial attitudes and feelings toward blacks (a key component of prejudice), using Pettigrew's (1998) model of the process by which contact produces change in racial attitudes. Results provide support for Pettigrew's model, showing while contact is important in changing whites’ feelings about blacks, both contact and exposure to information about race are important predictors of changes in contemporary racial attitudes. A comparison of longitudinal and cross‐sectional models of contemporary racial attitudes suggests that contact, especially in setting with “friendship potential,” has an impact on attitudes both directly and indirectly, through providing avenues through which racial information can be obtained as well as by providing motivation to pay attention to it.     

Redefining antiracism: Learning from activists to sharpen academic language

People have fought against racism for as long as it has existed and yet it persists in diverse and materially impactful ways. The primary challenge to eradicating racism is likely the power of white privilege. This paper argues that another important obstacle to progress has been the lack of a clear definition of antiracism that movement activists and scholars can collaboratively use to ensure that antiracist scholarship and efforts meet the full measure of the term's intention. While academia has struggled to converge on a definition, “lay race theorists” and movement activists—Black women in particular, have been participating in discourse online and through other venues where consensus appears to be developing around a definition. This article attempts to summarize activist discourse in defining antiracism as “the commitment to eradicate racism in all its forms” and individual antiracism as “the commitment to eradicate racism in all its forms, by (1) building an understanding of racism and (2) taking action to eliminate racism “within oneself, in other people, in institutions, and through actions outside of institutions,” noting that “antiracism is an ongoing practice and commitment that must be accountable to antiracist Black people, Indigenous people, and other People of Color and consider intersectional systems of oppression.” While research on the public conversation benefits from its easy access and limited additional burdens on movement activists, future research should test these definitions with movement activists to ensure that definitions and metrics are as relevant to the antiracist movement as possible.     

The Dog Who Barks and the Noise of the Human: Psychoanalysis After the Animal Turn

What would or could a psychoanalysis beyond the human be? And who—and how—might we who call ourselves human be or become in turn? In the “Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,” Freud (1916–1917) famously declared psychoanalysis to be the third great blow to human self-love delivered at the hands of science. First, the Copernican revolution revealed that the earth was not the center of the universe “but only a tiny fragment of a cosmic system of scarcely imaginable vastness.” Then Darwin and his contemporaries undermined the ground upon which “the human” had asserted a fundamental difference from “the animal.” And now, psychological research has tripled down, giving “human megalomania” its “third and most wounding blow.” “The ego,” Freud wrote, “is not even master in its own house.” In passages like this, we get a glimpse of a psychoanalysis beyond the human–animal boundary. Nevertheless, the force of anthropocentrism returns again and again in Freud’s body of work, as when he consigned human animality to a prehistoric past or linked it to the baser instincts that human civilization needs to overcome. But what if, instead of running away from the animal in us, we were to dwell with and alongside the nonhuman? Drawing on the work of psychoanalyst Jean Laplanche and cultural theorist Nicholas Ray, this essay traces the sounds and scents of the nonhuman animal in and for psychoanalytic theory.     

Agriculture and Rurality: Beginning the “Final Separation”?*

Abstract When is a farm a farm? When is rural rural? Has the issue of the rural‐urban continuum returned? Decades ago rural sociology worked itself into two blind alleys: rural‐urban differences and attempts to define the rural‐urban fringe. Although these conceptual problems eventually were exhausted, recent developments in California raise the possibility of a phoenix‐like revival, although in new form. Three cases—the success of Napa Valley winemaking and the urban crowding that has accompanied it, the explosion of wine grape acreage in neighboring Sonoma County as demand for premium wine grapes has increased dramatically, and an antibody‐manufacturing goat “farm” in Santa Cruz County—have spurred community controversies and are now generating debates over the definition of “agriculture,” whether agriculture is rural, and “When is rural rural?”     

Outline of a sociology of decisionism

I propose an agenda for empirical research on decision, choice, decision‐makers, and decision‐making qua social facts. Given society S, group G, or field F, I make a twofold sociological proposal. First, empirically investigate the conditions under which something—call it X—is taken to be a decision or choice, or the outcome of a decision‐making process. What must X be like? What doesn't count (besides, presumably, myotatic reflexes and blushing)? Whom or what must X be done by? What can't be a decision‐maker (besides, presumably, rocks and apples)? Second, empirically investigate how decision/choice concepts are used in everyday life, politics, business, education, law, technology, and science. What are they used for? To what extent do people understand and represent themselves and others as decision‐makers? Where do decision‐centric or “decisionist” understandings succeed? These aren't armchair, theoretical, philosophical questions, but empirical ones. Decision/choice concepts’ apparent ubiquity in contemporary societies calls for a well‐thought‐out research program on their social life and uses.     

Standing Up for Science and Social Justice

What does it mean to do social science—perhaps especially for those of us whose research focuses on issues of social justice—during what my students gingerly refer to as “this time we're living in”? Community based participatory research offers one important approach.     

“Everyone Knows It's a Social Construct”: Contemporary Science and the Nature of Race

Abstract

Sociological literature frequently claims that scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed, not biologically anchored. I investigate contemporary scientific thinking about race by interviewing more than 40 biologists and anthropologists at four northeastern universities. Contrary to sociologists' expectations, racial constructionism is revealed to be a minority viewpoint. Moreover, this research shows that the usual “constructionist” versus “essentialist” dichotomy a blunt tool for characterizing the debate about race; a third platform—“antiessentialism”—must be taken into account. Recognizing antiessentialist discourse calls for a reevaluation of prior research that emphasizes socioeconomic status and professional affiliation as influences on interviewees' concepts of race; this project demonstrates that such tectors do little to distinguish essentialist from antiessentialist veiwpoints.     

Ritual Power in Interaction*

Research (by a self-styled participant observer) into two fashions of persons—nurses and punks—lends unexpected significance to the ritual “frame” as this appears in Erving Goffman's thought. A new concept that was only implicit in Goffman's ritual frame is demanded by the research experiences. This is “ritual power.” Ritual power, especially when it is strong, is like “presence” or “possession”, and it may well exert a major claim on interactants' consciousnesses (whether the interactants are displaying it or appreciating it). Of course, it must follow that verbal forms which try to define ritual power will do so the more powerfully the more they arrest the reader's attention. So it may not be a good idea to use sociological rhetoric of any sort to suggest that punks and nurses are exemplary referents of “ritual power”, but this last possibility is only latent in what follows.     

Understanding the use of “twinkie,” “banana,” and “FOB”: Identifying the origin,role, and consequences of internalized racism within Asian America

Where does internalized racism come from? How is it sustained and perpetuated within the Asian American community? What is the role and consequence of internalized racism within the Asian American community? This article reviews the existing literature to map the origin, role, and consequences of internalized racism among Asian Americans. Research on internalized racism must examine more than individual behaviors, otherwise it falls victim to conceiving of individuals as “racial dupes” (i.e., an individual who has been deceived into supporting existing racial hierarchies and systems of racial inequalities). However, the research should also veer away from an over emphasis on individual agency and resistance because doing so ignores the larger structural systems of inequality that exist, via colonial mentality and racialization, which influence individual behaviors. Future research on internalized racism must engage both perspectives to hold accountable the connection between broader racialization processes and everyday interactions driven by internalized racism.     

Ladies First: Race,Class, and the Contradictions of a Powerful Femininity

This article helps to fill a gap in the literature on the role of femininities in reproducing inequality. In particular, this research examines one version of femininity—ladyhood—and the ways that it is shaped by racism, classism, heterosexism, and sexism. Women may enact ladyhood in pursuit of a “powerful femininity.” Data come from an ethnography on an interracial, elite women's social change organization, which made ladyhood part of its meanings and practices. Specifically, by enforcing ladyhood, the women effectively reproduced their own subordination. Their “power” was an illusion. I explain their allegiance to ladyhood by placing the organization in the historical context of racism and class struggle.     

Negotiating race and place in the Garifuna Diaspora: Identity formation and transnational grassroots politics in New York City and Honduras

This paper is an exploration of the relations between the politics of identity and the socio‐economic and political processes of the current era of globalization. Using ethnographic material from the transnational grassroots organizations of the Garinagu—an Afro‐Indigenous population living in transnational communities between Central America and the US—I show the multiple ways that they articulate their identity between and among the tropes of “autocthony,” “blackness,” “Hispanic,” “diaspora,” and “nation.” This construction and negotiation of identity is intimately connected to the negotiation of rights vis‐à‐vis nation‐states and international political bodies, where ideologies of race, ethnicity, nation, and citizenship carry with them different implications for rights and belonging. I argue that the complexities of this case point to the uneven processes of globalization, within which the power to define the ideological terrain of economic and political struggles is still profoundly unequal.     

Multiculturalism and Cultural Issues in Online Gaming Communities

This article looks at racism, nationalism, and culture wars within multicultural Internet communities, specifically looking at Omerta, an international mafia‐themed text‐based massively multiplayer online role‐playing game (MMORPG). Omerta allows players to live and create a world of their own where groups of players, called families, interact and work together in peace and war. The text‐based aspect leads the majority of play dealing with negotiations in multi‐user chat (Internet Relay Chat), with the focus being on diplomacy and negotiation. Within the Omerta game, players of Turkish nationality have been refused admission into some families due to the perception that their primary loyalties are to other members of their own nationality, rather than members of their current family. This has led to much turmoil within the community and the creation of “Turkish Alliances”— families consisting of only Turkish players due to the lack of recruiting from other nationalities. What does this say about the functionality of multiculturalism and the possibility for success?     

Saving the Savior

This article begins with an autobiographical reflection about what sociology has meant to me as an Iranian intellectual. Sociology has enabled me to think critically about my country's politics and culture, appreciating its strengths without overlooking its unjust and injurious aspects. That experience shapes my answer to the question “Saving Sociology?” If there is anything in sociology that I would like to save–in both senses “to keep” and “to rescue”—it is sociology as a critical, reflective discipline, a discipline that not only studies society but also contributes to its change. As the contemporary world moves toward a “global” society, we are increasingly facing the dilemmas of multiculturalism. Sociologists often investigate other societies or (like myself) look back at their own from a spatial and cultural distance. This situation has created a dilemma for many scholars: Should we criticize problems stemming from “indigenous” beliefs and practices of other societies? Cultural relativism argues that different cultures provide indigenous answers to their social problems that should be judged in their own context. While this approach correctly encourages us to avoid ethnocentrism, it has led to inaction towards the suffering of oppressed groups. Reflecting on the relativist approach to sexual dominance, I question some cultural relativist assumptions. Discussing how “indigenous” responses to male domination in many cases disguise and protect that domination, I will challenge the “localist” approach of relativism and argue for a universalist approach.     

Advancing a sociology of ignorance in the study of racism and racial non‐knowing

By a wealth of indicators, ignorance appears a bona fide if often vexing social fact. Ignorance is socially constructed, negotiated, and pervasive; ignorance is often socially inevitable, even necessary; and, without a doubt, ignorance is socially consequential. Yet, despite its significance, ignorance has appeared a largely secondary concern among sociologists. Perhaps more perplexing, while sociologists of racism, power, and domination have long focused on the ways racial ideologies distort and mystify racial understanding to sustain White supremacy over time, we have done less to elaborate ignorance than is possible and warranted. Here, I join growing calls for a fully‐fledged “sociology of ignorance” and argue that antiracist and decolonial scholars have much to gain from and contribute to such an endeavor. This article traces the historical forebears of a “sociology of ignorance” and explores ignorance as a social concept before turning to examine precedents and increasing attention to ignorance scholarship on racism, racial domination, and racialized non‐knowing. Drawing from this work, I urge race‐critical scholars take advantage of our unique position to advance theory and methodology surrounding ignorance and the social‐cultural production of non‐knowledge as a broader area of social inquiry.     

Problematizing the “informal sector”: 50 years of critique,clarification, qualification,and more critique

Since its coining in 1971, the concept of the “informal sector” has been used to draw scholarly, political, and philanthropic attention to hundreds of millions of workers who lack basic labor protections. But as the term proliferated, so too did its detractors. Critics claim that the label of “informal” homogenizes the world's poor and distorts understandings of the sources of and solutions to their economic woes. What are the origins of the concept's contradictory nature? What strategies have scholars used to increase the likelihood that it will be used to illuminate and uplift, rather than to distort and denigrate? This article analyzes how scholars have resignified and retheorized the informal economy in response to five conceptual challenges: stigmatization, definitional fuzziness, homogenization, an either/or fallacy, and the presumption of “formalization” as the solution. Such efforts have preserved the concept's analytic potency and political relevance. In the longer term, however, a true testament to the concept's value would be if it outlives its own utility; that is, if it mobilizes enough recognition and resources to the invisibilized majority of the world's workers that scholars and state bureaucrats no longer feel the need to lump them together under a misleading catchall label.     

Conflating Apples and Oranges: Understanding Modern Forms of Racism

Social scientists generally agree that the post‐Civil Rights form of racism is different from that which existed in the Jim Crow‐era in the United States. However, beyond this agreement, what exactly modern racism is and “looks like” is debatable. With this in mind, a surprising and somewhat disturbing trend frequently occurs among social scientists that can have real consequences within academia and the general public: conflation. In naming a newly developed concept as “racism”, social scientists often conflate three interrelated concepts: racial prejudice, racial discrimination, and racism. This paper clarifies these three interrelated concepts and the problems with conflating them. Additionally, this paper describes many of the alternative conceptions of racism in the post‐Civil Rights era, identifying where conflation exists in each concept. In closing, the paper describes the implications of conflation for social science research and the American public.