How can we talk about structural racism and still have people listen?

I’ve been arguing in my paper and recent talk about the advantages of focusing on accountability systems, rather than on character.  Some, like philosopher John Doris, argue that character doesn’t exist.  But if it does,  it is by definition too consistent and stable to be changed much–certainly compared to accountability systems.  In addition, I’ve argued a more psychological point–that people will be less defensive when accountability failures are viewed as driven by systems rather than character.

Enter Dr. Ed Livingston, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), to make me doubt myself by misunderstanding the term “structural racism” in a crucial way, and also suggest an opportunity for experimental research.  Per the NYTimes:

Does “Accountability first” work?

Dr. Livingston’s response would be no surprise to Van Dijk, who noted almost 3 decades ago that accusations of racism rarely end well:

Such accusations are typically taken as deeply offensive attacks on character, and “soon tend to be seen as more serious social infractions than racist attitudes or actions themselves….In other words, denials of racism often turn into counter-accusations of intolerant and intolerable anti-racism.” (Van Dijk 1992).

Robin Diangelo made the point again in 2018:

While making racism bad seems like a positive change, we have to look at how this functions in practice. Within this paradigm, to suggest that I am racist is to deliver a deep moral blow – a kind of character flaw assassination. Having received this blow, I must defend my character and that is where all my energy will go – to deflecting the charge, rather than reflecting on my behavior. In this way, the good/bad binary makes it nearly impossible to talk to white people about racism, what it is, how it shapes all of us, and the inevitable ways that we are conditioned to participate in it.

White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, by Robin Diangelo. Chapter 5, “The Good/Bad Binary.”

But the very term “structural racism” is specifically designed to help people talk about racial biases without attacking character.  From the Aspen Institute:

Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist.

Yet despite the part I bolded and italicized, Livingston thinks structural racism is a personal attack.  Structural racism is not exactly “accountability first”, but it is definitely “system first”.  Much like moral accounting, it focuses not on character, but on the fact that (as an example JAMA readers might know) public policy and longstanding institutions have led Black Americans to live disproportionately in food deserts that make it harder for them to live heathy lives–a factor in racial health disparities that seems very far from an attack on Livingston’s character.

So am I overselling the psychological benefits of an accountability-first approach in reducing defensiveness?

Which word is the problem?

One possibility is that the second word in “structural racism” is simply so loud that it drowns out first one.  This wouldn’t surprise me too much, since it can says so many different things at once:  “racism” can  refer to an internal emotional state (negative affect toward some race), an internal cognitive state (a tendency to categorize by race, or to believe that race is an informative signal of some other quality), a behavior (forming alliances with those of one’s own race, and/or against those of another, treating someone differently because of their race)–in addition to sometimes being used as a synonym for structural racism.

Alternatively, the problem is with the word “structural”.  It sounds like academic jargon, so it might just not be understood easily.  The term also conveys that something (a structure) can’t be changed, which undercuts one of the advantages of focusing on systems rather than character–we can actually change systems!

This suggests to me a proposal for an experiment.  Ask people to talk about issues that could be accurately characterized by the term structural racism, and manipulate whether “structural” or “racism” (or both) are swapped out for something else.  Otherwise, the topic, content and instructions would be identical.  Would people be more likely to understand the intended focus on systems rather than character?  Would the conversation be less contentious and more constructive?  Would the effect be greater among those who tend to exhibit more of the emotional, cognitive and behavioral forms of racism?

There must be research like this, but a short search didn’t uncover any.  (I did, however, find this very interesting article on The Psychology of American Racism, which highlights the importance of not seeing everything through an American lens–something I do too often.)  If you are interested in such research, or know of relevant papers, please let me know!

A caution

This research direction is not without risk.  Ibram Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist, cautions against trying to purge “racism” from our vocabulary.  A series of snippets from his book, online courtesy of the Aspen Institute:

“Racist” is not – as Richard Spencer argues – a pejorative. It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to constantly identify and describe it – and then dismantle it. The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction. (Introduction)

Definitions anchor us in principles. This is not a light point: If we don’t do the basic work of defining the kind of people we want to be in language that is stable and consistent, we can’t work toward stable, consistent goals. Some of my most consequential steps toward being an antiracist have been the moments when I arrived at basic definitions. To be an antiracist is to set lucid definitions of racism/antiracism, racist/antiracist policies, racist/antiracist ideas, racist/antiracist people. To be a racist is to constantly redefine racist in a way that exonerates one’s changing policies, ideas, and personhood. (Chapter 1)

…in the liberal haze of racial progress… some well-meaning Americans started consciously and perhaps unconsciously looking for other terms to identify racism. “Microaggression” became part of a whole vocabulary of old and new words – like “culture wars” and “stereotype” and “implicit bias”… that made it easier to talk about or around the R-word. (Chapter 4)

Kendi’s approach is somewhat in conflict with that of moral accounting, because he doesn’t share the latter’s singular focus on accountability systems over character.  I also worry that the definitions of racism change so much from speaker to speaker and year to year that there is still much work to do if we are to use that term productively. But Kendi is right that not everyone is working with definitions in good faith, especially when it comes to racism.

I plan to write a number of posts on issues of what is now often called DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion)–including one soon that ties to the definitions of groups, entities and societies that are so central to moral accounting.  Stay tuned, and please pass along thoughts and suggestions in comments or by email.