TOWARDS AN ASCETIC ANTIRACISM
Race is a social construction (Omi & Winant 2014); racism is a function of social behaviors and relations. Racist ideologies are not the cause of systems, institutions or actions that perpetuate or exacerbate racialized inequality – they are produced to justify and legitimize these states of affairs (Kendi 2017). In other words, the actual practice of racialized group-making and inter-group competition is more fundamental than the popular discourses and ideologies which frame them (Loveman 1999). Yet many contemporary antiracist efforts — especially among highly-educated, relatively well-off, white liberals – focus primarily on ‘hearts and minds’ (beliefs, intentions, attitudes, feelings), symbols and rhetoric. Antiracism has largely shifted from a sociological project (focused on institutions, behaviors, the distribution of resources, etc.) into a psychological one (McWhorter 2019). Even sociologists seem to be increasingly adopting psychologized frameworks for understanding and advancing antiracism (e.g. Bonilla-Silva 2019).
Two assumptions
seem to undergird this approach: first, that the primary obstacle to racial
justice is a lack of awareness about the challenges people of color face, or the
comparative advantages whites are presented with, or one’s own culpability in perpetuating
racialized dynamics, etc.
Second, it is assumed that if people commit to antiracism in principle
(as a result of being made aware of the realities of racialized injustice), they
will cease inequality-generating behaviors in practice. Therefore, winning ‘hearts
and minds’ will translate into changes in actions and interactions, or to
reallocations of resources and opportunities.
These tactics have proven ineffective, even counterproductive (e.g. Cooley et al. 2019; Dobbin & Kalev 2016; Forscher et al. 2019; Wilton et al. 2019), because the assumptions they are based upon are false. As we have seen, awareness of systemic racism does not cleanly translate into actual behaviors that reduce inequality — neither does supporting racial egalitarianism through words, beliefs or feelings. Indeed, among the primary beneficiaries and perpetuators of systemic racism today are whites who are already convinced of their privilege — who both understand and lament the disadvantages people of color face. It is precisely these convictions that blind them to their own role in reinforcing racialized inequality, thereby pushing them to look externally to identify culpable parties (i.e. the problem must be the ‘bad’ people who say, feel, or believe the ‘wrong’ things about others from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups).
The primary challenge, therefore, is not to convince people to support antiracism in their ‘hearts and minds’ – but rather to mobilize those who already (ostensibly) support racial justice to act on those convictions, and to live in accordance with their professed values. The most meaningful act of resistance to systemic racism would be for its primary beneficiaries to seek ways to give of themselves – thereby subverting the system’s self-oriented and extractive logics (Baudrillard 2017) — rather than attempting to blame, coerce, cajole or expropriate from others under the auspices of antiracism.
Logistically speaking, this “ascetic” approach to addressing racialized inequality is easy. Some tactics have already been suggested in this paper: avoid “moral grandstanding” (Tosi & Warmke 2016) on race. Abstain from itemizing charitable donations in an attempt to lower one’s tax liability. Refrain from summoning the authorities against people of color in response to petty crimes, disputes or suspicions. Adopt a YIMBYist posture with regards to community development (Semuels 2017).[18] Whenever possible, rely on carpooling, public transportation (or taxis) to get around instead of rideshare apps. Avoid delivery services – and be extraordinarily generous in tipping servers, delivery workers, et al. when their services are relied upon.[19] Treat all service workers with dignity equivalent to one’s peers. If in a position of authority, make extra effort to recruit, mentor, promote or admit qualified people of color – and work to ensure that all subordinate employees receive compensation that is both genuinely livable and representative of the value they bring to the organization. These are low-hanging fruit. Other tactics are a far greater test of one’s antiracist commitment because, despite being technically easy to implement, they would often require far more significant changes to practitioners’ lifestyles and aspirations.
For instance, the standard compensation for domestic workers should be at least the “formal economy” wage to hire a white person to provide equivalent services[20] – regardless of the documentation status of the person hired, and whether or not the arrangement is “on” or “off” the books. Given the gender dynamics around domestic labor, this is both a feminist and an antiracist cause. However, putting it into practice would often require significant cuts to other spending, purely for the sake of paying a more just wage for the same domestic labor people currently receive. Many would have to rely a lot less on nannies and cooking or cleaning services if they adopted this practice. Some may be forced to reconsider the feasibility and costs of the dual-earner model altogether – and reckon with difficult issues involving the division of domestic duties – put off up to now because someone else was eating the costs (again, typically underpaid minority and/or immigrant women).
Alternatively, consider schooling: New York City swings decisively “blue” yet has one of the most racially-segregated school systems in the entire country (Harris & Fessenden 2017). There is a widespread perception among elites that education deficits are the primary driver of inequality – rather than the relationship working the other way around (Hanauer 2019); there is also widespread support, in principle, for public schools. Yet few relatively well-off whites in New York City send their own children to their zoned public school (Douglas 2017). Many send their kids to private schools that charge tuition of tens-of-thousands per year but nonetheless market themselves as social-justice oriented institutions (Robin 2015). Others send their children to elite public schools, often outside their residential zone. These parents tend to vigorously oppose attempts by the city to increase students of color at these schools – be it through reserving places for low-income and/or minority students (Hylton 2018), including considerations of race or income in admissions, or reducing importance of standardized tests in admission decisions (Ali & Chin 2018). Granted, this opposition is not usually grounded in antipathy towards blacks or Hispanics, but out of a drive to see their own children succeed (albeit, even at others’ expense). Yet this is, fundamentally, how systemic racism operates.[21]
The absence of these relatively well-off white students at their zoned schools matters a lot. It is not simply an issue of decreased government revenue due to fewer “butts in chairs.” The time, energy and other resources upper middle class and wealthy parents could dedicate to things like the PTA could make an immense difference at their zoned public schools (as they do for the elite schools they currently send their children to). A greater share of upwardly-mobile white peers would expose students of color to transformative networks, opportunities, and other forms of social and cultural capital (Briggs 2002). Conversely, relatively well-off white students would gain totally different understandings of race and privilege were they to attend majority black or Hispanic schools alongside many students from lower-income backgrounds (Hagerman 2018); they would also grow significantly more likely to have interracial relationships as adults (Merlino et al. 2018). In short, it would be an absolute game-changer – for public schools, the students they serve, and the communities in which they are embedded — were these left-leaning relatively well-off white parents to simply send their children to their zoned public schools.
Not only would this make a big impact, it is also easy to implement (logistically speaking). In fact, it is far simpler than jumping through all the hurdles to secure a place for one’s child at an elite school, paying (tens-of) thousands of dollars in tuition, then arranging for transportation there and back each day. It is also far more straightforward than the methods elites currently gravitate towards for ‘bringing up’ poor and minority students, i.e. pushing separate, privatized, experimental and idiosyncratic forms of educational funding and/or delivery on poor and minority students. Rather than developing institutional models that literally require sustained high levels of inequality in order to remain sensible, viable, and perhaps most importantly, profitable (Rooks 2017),[22] elites could ensure that children attending local public schools receive the same education as their own children by simply sending their own children to those schools. There is no political resistance to overcome, no coalition to build prior – all these families have to do in order to help significantly undermine systemic racism is yield to the default (their zoned public school). But of course, despite being so easy, for many, this is also very hard. It requires a willingness to deny perceived[23] opportunities and advantages for oneself and one’s family in order to give others a leg up. Plenty of higher-SES (highly-educated, urban dwelling, left-trending) whites care about racism enough to share (or write) an op-ed, take part in a demonstration, or other symbolic gestures of the sort. Far fewer seem willing to put actual “skin in the game” (Taleb 2018). Yet this is precisely what the situation demands:
Racialized inequality is a macro phenomenon that is generated primarily at the micro level, through individuals’ behaviors in particular contexts over time. It can be unmade through a similar process. But it is important to bear in mind that it is a process. There are no quick or easy fixes for problems of this depth and scale. Isolated, sporadic, or short-term efforts will not suffice; the key is to change patterns of action, interaction and resource allocation across time. This is another reason for an ascetic approach to antiracism: Asceticism is a way of life; it is about giving up non-essential things in order to draw closer to what is genuinely good, true, or important (Hadot 1995). Ascetic antiracism entails the same. However, it remains to be seen how important racial justice actually is to those who perpetuate and benefit the most from (yet are also among the most vocal denouncers of) racialized inequality. This is a determination that can only be made with reference to action, or a lack thereof.
Here it may be tempting to define systemic racism as a collective action problem, and assert that an individual’s sacrifices would be futile unless most other relatively well-off whites were also on board (thereby indefinitely delaying the obligation to make substantive changes to one’s behaviors or lifestyle). In reality, the kinds of practical measures described here can have important and immediate effects within one’s local community – especially for individuals who are struggling.
The systemic effects would grow stronger given higher levels of participation,[24] but this only reinforces the importance of whites who are willing to lead on this issue. Often, all it takes is one person to serve as an exemplar for others to follow-suit (Han et al. 2017); a single household can help inspire neighbors, friends, colleagues, and extended family. Young people can motivate their peers or inspire successive generations (Vaisey & Lizardo 2016). Indeed, broader socio-normative changes often do arise in just this way, through the gradual diffusion of ideas and practices from local contexts outwards (Kincaid 2004, Bicchieri & Mercier 2014). That is, the best solution for a collective action problem is for someone to step up and do the right thing (Willer 2009).
CONCLUSION: FROM ZERO SUM TO EXCESS
When confronted with the prospect of making personal sacrifices in order to achieve racial justice, a common response from relatively well-off (highly-educated, liberal, urban) whites is that antiracism does not have to be, and indeed should not be, a zero-sum game. This is true in a sense, albeit not the sense in which it is typically meant.
Again, the essential task for antiracists must be to challenge the self-oriented and extractive logics undergirding systemic racism. The ‘do well while doing good’ or ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ approaches are therefore doomed to fail because, as Audre Lorde put it (2007), “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” Indeed, we can see the failure of the ‘grow the pie’ model in the reality that the pie has been consistently growing over the past decades, yet inequality has been steadily growing as well because the wealthy — aided and abetted by the upper middle-class — have been taking an ever-larger share for themselves (Piketty 2017).
In many respects, the prevailing order is founded on an understanding of human beings as homo economicus. Under this model, people are primarily self-regarding; we do (and should) work first and foremost to advance our own interests; the highest purpose of life is to be better than others. For the many who hold this view, ascetic antiracism would likely appear to run contrary to human nature – it may seem irrational for whites to willingly ‘lose out’ for the benefit of others.
Fortunately, homo economicus is not an accurate description of who we are as human beings, nor how we actually behave in the world (e.g. Bowles & Gintis 2013). In many important respects,[25] human relations are not defined by scarcity but by excess (Bataille 1985): What we all hunger for most of all is to be part of something bigger than ourselves – to find a purpose and/or a community to dedicate ourselves to. Precisely what brings meaning to our lives are the causes and people we invest ourselves in. This is the sense in which ascetic antiracism is not zero sum: it denies the premise upon which the notion is based. Giving of oneself does not impoverish, it enriches.