8 Conversations on Race

>> A conversation is a stand in for terms such as frameworks, schemas, discourses, or scripts. It's something of a disciplinary compromise when using the word conversation. What we mean is a framework that helps create and establish meanings about [inaudible] differences. And these conversations, they tell us as individuals and also as members of society, what and how to think about and react to [inaudible] race and ethnicity. This is why the conversations matter. If our frameworks for thinking about race and ethnicity are incomplete, if they are, reflect only certain perspectives without respecting, reflecting the many perspectives associated with our positions, our race, our gender, ethnicity, our religion, our class, the intersections among them which is the case. They are incomplete and partial, our conversations about race at this point. Or if they are flawed, if they are wrong, which many of them are, then the conversations that flow out of them are obviously not going to facilitate the effective communication, debate, and problem solving that are essential for an effective democratic society. Okay so what we have up here on this slide are the eight most common conversations out there in public discourse right now. Now each one as you can see is identified by a characteristic phrase but we should understand each of these as a sort of general rubric that includes within it several different variations on the sort of general rubric. Now we have identified these eight conversations through analysis' of what pervasive cultural products. What do we mean by that? Advertisements. Op eds. Movies. Television shows. News programs. Theater productions. Blogs. And newspaper and magazine articles. So kind of what's out there in the public sphere. They show up also, these conversations, in the discussions that we have with our families, with our friends, with our colleagues, with our students. Now there are certainly other ways to think about race and ethnicity. I'm sure many of you, especially those of you who are scholars of race and ethnicity have other ways to talk about it. But our analysis' so far indicate that these are the eight most common. And now a few things to note about them before we get into them. Not all of these conversations have the same status in US American society. Some cross the class and color line while others are more common among certain ethnic groups. Some conversations are relatively new while others have been around since the concept of race has existed. Some, as you can see, overlap with each other while others, as you can also see, flatly contradict each other. Some conversations are relatively thin while others are thicker. Usually the more negative ones, they tend to be more elaborated and come with compelling images and narratives. Okay so now conversation number three, this is a favorite in the academy, at least in my experience of the academy. That's the one that says that's just identity politics. This conversation is, I think, drawn upon by those who think that pointing or drawing attention to one's race or ethnicity is a strategy that's used by weak people to gain unfair advantage. And in this conversation they attach the word identity to the word politics to convey the idea that someone who advocates for something on the basis of racial or ethnic identity is somehow acting illegitimately. And this conversation expresses the frustration that those who have race for identity are somehow going to get a type of special privilege that will be denied to those who don't have [inaudible] mainstream or white people. People who use this conversation tend to say things like, when is white history month anyway? Or, all of this attention to race and ethnicity detracts from the really important issues like class. Or they say she's just playing the race card. Usually when people use this conversation, our analysis' have found they're trying to shut down conversations about race and ethnicity altogether. >> [Inaudible] >> This was a questionnaire given in a study on racial attitudes and this was one that came back unfilled out with somebody writing across the top, I'm white. A very clear statement that it wasn't relevant to them. Okay, but you know the problem again with the, that's identity, that's just identity politics conversation is that it ignores the fact that all politics, all politics to a greater or lesser extent are identity politics. After all, what is an interest group other than a group of people who share some kind of identity? Now I want you to consider this slide from one recent tea party gathering. Now it asserts the oft repeated tea party claim that tea partiers are nonpartisan and that they represent all Americans. Now, it is a claim contradicted by the CNN New York Times poll that gives us our first glimpse of the demographic makeup of the tea party. Okay so I want you to notice that there are two columns here and one of them is the column of all respondents and the other one is people who, the res- those respondents who identified as tea partiers. And it's the difference between them that I want you to pay attention to. So the respondents to the poll were roughly equal men and women. Now among those who identified themselves as tea party supporters, 59% are men and 41% woman. Now an even bigger gap shows up in race and age. So about 77% of all the people who responded to the poll were white with 21% being non white, whereas almost 90% of the tea party supporters are white with only 8% being non white. The other thing you'll notice is that over 75% of tea party supporters are over the age of 45. And an equally dramatic gap shows up in political ideology. Only 28% of all respondents reported always or usually voting republican, okay whereas 66% of the tea party respondents did so. So despite tea partiers claim to represent all Americans, you can see that they are overwhelmingly white-- older, white republicans, most of whom are men. And their politics, whether or not they know it, whether or not they claim it, reflects their identities.