White Supremacy __ and Racism in the Post—Civil Rights Era

White Supremacy __

and Racism

in the Post—Civil Rights Era

Eduardo Bonilla—Silva

2001

R F N N FR

U

2

What Is Racism?The Racialized

Social SystemFramework

W hat is racism?For mostpeople, the answerto this questionisvery simple. Racism is prejudice,ignorance,or a diseasethat

afflicts someindividuals andcausesthem to discriminateagainstoth-ersjust becauseof the way they look. This commonsenseview onracism is not much different than the definitionsdevelopedby socialscientists.For example,anthropologistRuth F. Benedict,one of thefirst scholarsto formally usethe notion of racism, defined it as “thedogmathat one ethnic group is condemnedby natureto congenitalinferiority and anothergroup is destinedto congenital ~Similarly, Pierre van den Berghedefinedracism in his classic 1967studyas “any set of behefsthat organic,geneticaRytransmitttddif-ferences(whetherreal or imagined) betweenhuman groupsareintrinsically associatedwith the presenceor the absenceof certainsocially relevantabilities or characteristics,hencethat such differ-encesare a legitimatebasisof invidious distinctionsbetweengroupssocially definedas races.”2Despitesomerefinements,currentuseof

theconceptin the social sciencesis similar to Benedict’sand vandenBerghe’s,RichardT. Schaeferin his popular textbook on raceandethnicity defines racism as “a doctrineof racial supremacy,that oneraceis superior.”3Hence,analystsas well as laypeopleregardracismas aphenomenonfundamentallyrootedat the level of ideas.

I label this dominantperspectiveas idealistbecause,as idealistphilosophy, it assumesthat ideasare the root of social action. From

21

22 White Supremacy & Racism In the Post—Civil Rights Era . What Is RacIsm? 23

the outset, however,I want to stress that my point is not that theideasthat individuals hold on racial mattersare irrelevant.Indeed,Idevoteone chapter(Chapter3) to a theoreticaldiscussionof howideashelp shapesocial actionand another(Chapter5) to the elucida-tion of the ideology that helpsshaperacial dynamicsin the contem-porary United States.My argumentinsteadis that the narrow focuson ideashas reducedthe study of racism mostly to psychology,which has produceda simplistic schematicview of the way racismoperatesin society.First, racism is definedas a set of ideas orbeliefs. Second,thosebeliefs are regardedas having the potentialofleading individuals to developprejudice,definedas attitudestowardan entire group of people.Finally, theseprejudiced attitudesmayinduce individuals to real actionsor discriminationagainstracialminorities. This conceptualframework, graphically illustrated inTable1.1, prevailsin the social sciences.

Table 1.1 Mainstream Conceptual Framework oil Racism

Components Examptes

Racism:beliefs about“races” Believing thatblacksareoversexedPrejudice:attitudestoward“races” Fearingblack menassexuallycrazedDiscrimination:actionsagainst‘races” Lynchinga blackmale

In contrastto this idealistview,I advancein this chaptera mate-rialist interpretationof racismrootedin the fact that racesin racial-ized societiesreceivesubstantiallydifferent rewards.This materialreality is at the coreof the phenomenonlabeledas racism.Actors insuperordinatepositions (dominantrace)developa set of socialprac-tices (a racial praxis if you will) and an ideology to maintain theadvantagesthey receivebasedon their racial classification,that is,they develop a structure to reproducetheir systemic advantages.

Therefore the foundationof racism is not the ideasthat Individualsmay haveabout others but the social edtfice erectedover racialinequality Eliminateracial inequality and the practtcesthat maintainit and racism and eventhe division of peopleinto raci4l categoneswill disappear

Before elaboratingmy theory, however,I review a few of themost significant critical perspectiveson racism developedby U.S.

social scientists.4Becauseof the analyticalrelevanceof theseinter-pretations,I offer below a short formal review of eachof theseper-spectives.

Review of Critical FrameworksUsed to Interpret Racism

TheMarxist Perspective

For Marxists classis the central explanatoryvariable of social lifeand classstruggle is viewed as the main societal dynamic.Hence,Marxists regardothersocial divisionsandpossiblesourcesof collec-tive action(e.g.,gender-or race-basedstruggles)as “secondarycon-tradictions”or asderivationsof the classstructure.5Not surprisinglythen,the orthodox6 Marxist position on race is simple and straight-

forward: Racism is an ideology usedby the bourgeoisieto divideworkers.For instance,Albert Szymanskidefinesracismas

[AJ legitimating ideologyfor an exploitativestructure,Racist ide-ologypropagatedin the media,educationalsystem,andotherinsti-tutions, togetherwith the actualdistribution of relativepettyadvantagewithin the working class,servesto disorganizetheentireworking classincluding theethnic majority, therebyallowing capi-tal to moreeffectivelyexploitmostmajoritygroup workers.7

Oneof the first Marxist-inspiredanalystson racial matterswasblack sociologistOliver C. Cox. In his impressiveCaste,Class,andRace,8Cox definedracism or race prejudiceas “asocj~J~attitudçpropagatedilifiongthe public by an exploiting classfor the purposeof stigmatizingsomegroup as inferior so that the exploitatiqp..ofeitherthegroup itself or its resourcesor bothmaybeJustifLed ~Thissdãiàfâf6IÜde~ideology emergedin the fifteenth centuryas a prac-tical consequenceof the labor needsof Europeanimperialists. InCox’swords,

The socioeconomicmatrix of racial atitagonisminvolved thecom-mercializationof human labor in theWest Indies,the East Indies,and in America, the intensecompetitionamong businessmenofdifferent westernEuropeancities for the capitalistexploitation ofthe resourcesof this area,the developmentof nationalismand theconsolidationof Europeannations,and the declineof the influence

24 White Supremacy & Racism in the Post-Civil Rlgtits Era What Is Racism? 25

of the RomanCatholicChurchwith its mystical inhibitions to thefree exploitation of economicresources.Racial antagonismattainedfull maturity during thelatter half of the nineteenthcentu-ry, when the sun no longerset on British soil and thegreat nation-alistic powers of Europebeganto justify their economicdesignsupon weakerEuropeanpeopleswith subtletheoriesof racial supe-riority andmasterhood.’0

Cox labelsthe antagonismsthat emergedout of Europeanimperial-ism as “racial,” but doeshe view them asbasedin race?Does herec-ognize that certainaspectsof social structureare racial in nature?Cox, as all Marxists, argues that race relationsare not truly racial.Thus, for Cox, Europeanimperialistsjustified their exploitationofthepeopleandresourcesof the New World in racial termsbutessen-tially established“labor-capitalprofit relationships”or “proletarianbourgeoisrelations.”ti Racial exploitation is viewed as a specialform of classexploitation. According to Cox, the racial componentof theseclass-basedrelationsstemsfrom the fact that blackswereproletarianizedin their entirety (as a people)in contrastto whiteswho experienceda partial proletarianization.Given that the racialaspectof societiesis not deemedas real, Cox concludesCaste,Class, and Raceby suggestingthat racial minorities should strivetowardassimilation,follow white working-classleadership,and ulti-mately struggle for socialism alongsidewhite workers, The lack ofany critical raceviewpoint is amazingconsidei’ing that Cox,a blackwriter, wrotethis book at a time of greatwhite working-classhostili-ty towardblack and minority workers and that he himself sufferedthe effectsof racial castein academia.

Another popular Marxist view on racism is Edna Bonacich’ssplit labor marketinterpretation.12The twist in Bonacich’sapproachi~ffiuiTinst~doTIeg~WIin~racerelationsandracismas fundamental-ly orchestratedby the bourgeoisie,she suggeststhey are the productof intra—working-classfriction~j~ultiflgj~~oma labor marketsplitalong racial lines. Bonacicharguesthat a split labor marketexistsWhè~ihereis “a differencein thepriceof labor betweentwo or more

6ii~Thfworkers holding constanttheir efficiency and productivi-t~”13Aècordiii~i6 bñã~kh,the United Stateshashada split labor

market sinceslaverywith blacks as the c~egp1ypricedlabor seg-tp.t. After the abolition of slavery, Bonacichclaims that blacklaborersremainedat the bottom of the labor marketdue to a “differ-encein labor militance” comparedto white workers.For Bonacich,

whiteworkers—whetherold stockor immigrants—hadgreaterlevels

of classconsciousnessthanblacks.Although sheis awareof the fact“that a numberof ‘white’ ~othersdiscd~inat~Th~or~Tovert1y,”sheinsists that the lesserdegreeofbli~FIhv~eifi~nfljflãbbi~jfionswasthe reasonfor their utiliza-tionascheafl5ö~ers~stsi~~Wodd Wan pe-niod.i4

What aboutthe well-documentedhistoryof white working-classracism?Bonacichreinterpretsthis history as white workers’ resis-tanceto the “threats” (e.g.,strike-breaking,displacement,and lower-ing the wage rate) posedby blacks. In herview, this “resistance”liinvolved the total exclusionSf blacks from unionsand caste-likeoccupational&VThThñ~SI~nificantly,Bonacichhaslittle to say aboutthe labor threatsposedby the illions of .p~QJmmigr~j~white U.S. workers.Although she believesthat black and whiteworkerscoalescedbetween1940and 1960,shearguesthat the coun-teroffensiveiauncliec1l~rdi_~lioii~thebourgpoisie(plant relocation affdautomationin thepastand downsizingtoday)extendedthe life of thesplit labor market. And becauseblacks were very vulnerableat theoutsetof the coalition period, the policies of the capitalistsdispro-portionally hurt blacks and contributedto the creationof a “class ofhard-coreunemployedin the ghettos.”iC

The orthodox Marxist view on racial mattershas many limita-

tions.17First, orthodoxMarxists regardracismand racial antagonismas productsof classdynamics.Regardlessof whetherthe antagonismis viewed as fosteredby the bourgeoisie(as Cox and Szymanskiwould argue)or as the product of intra—working-classstrife (asBonacichmaintains), racial strife is yiewed as not having a realracial foundation Second racial strife is conceivedas emanatingfrdhi falseinterests.Becausethe unity of the working classand theimpendingsocialistrevolution are a priori Marxist axioms,racial (orgender-based)struggle is not viewed as having its own materialbasis,that is, as basedon the differentmaterial interestsof the actorsinvolved.Con~~entlyracis~JEega&aj9deologicjJ”5f9rratiànal” and the racial struJji~ThfblacksasivT~i7XIih~ughBonacich views the conflict betweenblack and white workersas“rational,” she interpretsthe conflict as rational in class terms.)Finally, given that racial phenomenaare not deemedas independent,mostMarxists shiyitwayfrom performingan in-depthanalysisof thepolitics and ideologiesof race.18

26 WhIte Supremacy & Racism in the Post—Civil Rights Era What Is RacIsm? 27

The Instilnlionahs! Perspective

The institutionalist perspectiveemergedout of the struggleof racialminorities in the United Statesin the l960s.19In contrastto the liber-al view on race relations,which blames the ills of racism on poorwhites,proponentsof this viewpoint arguethat racismis societalandthat it implicatesall white Americans.According to Kwame Ture(formerly known as Stokely Carmichael)and CharlesHamilton intheir bookBlackPower,racismis “the predicationsof decisionsandpolicies on considerationsof racefor the purposeof subordinatingaracial group andmaintaining control over that group.”2n Further-more, they suggestthat a distinction shouldbe madebetweenindi-vidual racism, or the overtly racist acts committedby individuals,and institutional racism, or the racial outcomesthat result from thenormal operationsof Americaninstitutions.Mark Cheslerdevelopedthe mostsuccinctdefinitionof racismproducedby any authorin thistradition: the prejudiceplusyower definition. In Chesler’swords,racism is an ideology of explicit or implicit superiorityor advantageof one racial group_over~if6ib pusihe institutional power toimplementthat ideologyjn Iqp~tions.”21In its most radicalversion(for exampleTureandHamilton’s work), institutionalistsseeracismas an outgrowthof colonialismand institutional racismas the

contemporaryexpressionof this historical event. Therefore,sinceradical institutionalistsarguethat blacks are politically, economical-ly, and socially subordinatedto whites, they advocatefor blacks’nationalliberation,

The institutionalistperspectivehas helpedto dispel someof themythsperpetuatedby thedominantparadigmon racism.Researchersinspiredby this perspectivehavegathereddatato show the systemat-ic disadvantagesthat blacks suffer in the economic,educational,judicial, political, and evenhealth systems.Their findings haveforcefully ~ evidenceol thepervasivenessof racI~th.21M~reover,their assertionthat all whites receiveadvantagesfrom the racial order andtheir forceful advocacyforchallengingall institutions politicized more than one generationofactivistsand academiciansto fight racism~‘h~èvefiftha3ibè and inwhichevefforrifit 6~èit~7ThI t~j ivéiherèfore, heT~édto~ abOutthcein academicandnonacademiccirclesfrom the realm of people’sattitudesto the realm of institutionsand

organizations.

Nevertheless,despite its valuablepolitical contributions, thisperspectivedoesnotposea serioustheoreticalchallengeto the domi-nantconceptionof racismheld in the social sciences.Theoreticallythis perspectiveis jtist a mélangein which everythingcan be inter-pretedas racist 23 Moie significantly despiteits institutional labelthTd~erspectivestill groundsracism at the ideological level, thusfailing to challengethe root problem of the dominantperspective.Thisideologicalgroundingof racismis evidentin thefollowing quotation from TureandHamilton s book

Institutional racismrelies on the activeand pervasiveoperationofant/-blackattitudesant/practices.A senseof superiorgroqpposi-tion prevails whites are better than blacks thercfore blacksshouldhe subordinatedto whites. This is a racist attitude and itpermeatesthe society,on both the individual and institutionallevel, covertly and overtly.24

Although Ture and Flamilton argue that racism is an outgrowth ofcolonial domination and suggestthat its contemporaryexpression

has beeninstitutionalizedor embeddedin the fabric of all institu-tions, they do not developan analysisof how this happensor howthis colonial relationshipoperatesin practice,nor do they identifythe mechanismswherebyracism is producedand reproduced.Thus,they are left with a mysteriousalmighty notion of racism “a racistattitude’ that’~j3rn~èiuiësthe society on boththe individualand institutional level.”

Robert Miles has pointedout otherlimitations of this approach.First, this perspectiveis intrinsically linked to a naiveview of socialstratification wherein race is the sole basisof ~ocia~ diVisioh.Sec3iid, its definition of racism is nclu~fv&jháiit loses its the~-retical usefuljiess.25Thfrd its bisic blu~kT~vhitedivision exclud&‘white groups(e g Irish26 añdJ~sas phuii~T&eFacfalacloiswho

have sharedracializeaexperiences.Furth~rmore,tEi~biii~fyvi~w~ racial minoritygroups,notably Native_Americans,PuertoRicans,and Chicanos.Inthis vein, the cry for “black_power,” although understandablein thestruggkforcivil rights is an unnecessarilyrestrictivepolitical coiic~FiE~Fexcludesthe most likely political allies of blacks in th~stThj1TuHT~EiIiTZuui~nshipFourth and as in the caseof thedoi~fiiaiifperspectiveon racism,this perspectiveis ensnaredin cir-cularity. Racism,which is or canbe’~liiöeverythin~7~5~iiThy

28 White Supremacy & Racism In the Post-Civil Rights Era What Is Racism? 29

anything done (or not done)by whites. The analystidentifies theexistenceof racism_becauseany actiondoneby whites is Iabeledasracist. Finally, for institutionalistssuch as Ture and Hamilton, allwhites are “racist” and thusthereis little room for coalition-buildingw~~i~pjg~essives.27If they truly believethis to be the case,then the logical political option for blacks is (1) waiting until racialminoritiesbecomethe numericalmajority in the United Statesor (2)emigratingbackto Africa. Thenationalistuprisingsor electoralpoli-tics they advocate,given the demographyand the natureof socialpowerin this country,would thenbe untenableandunwise.28

The Infernal ColonialismPerspective

Another group of analysts,inspiredby the civil rights movement,postulatesthat racism is structuredby the colonial statusof racialminorities in the United States.29As in the caseof the institutionalistperspective,proponentsof the internalcolonial frameworkarguethatracism30is institutionalizedandbasedon a systemin which the whitemajority “raises its social position by exploiting, controlling, andkeepingdownotherswho are categorizedin racial or ethnic terms.”3iBlauner, the foremostexponentof this perspective,explains theemergenceof modernracismin thisway:

The associationof race consciousnesswith social relationsbasedon the oppressionof one group by anotheris the logical prerequi-site for the emergenceof racism. The conquestof peopleof colorby white Westerners,the establishmentof slaveryas an institutionalong color lines, and the consolidationof the racial principle ofeconomicexploitation in colonial societiesled to the elaborationand solidification of the racistpotential of earlier modesofthought.32

After different third world peopleswere forcefully moved to theUnited States,a racial orderwasestablishedwith its own dynamics.Central to the operationof such order is the maintenanceof whiteprivilege. Although the racial order and the particularform of racialoppressionare viewed as changingthroughouthistory, white prvi-lege is considereda constantsystemic fact. Blauner arguesthatwhites receiveadvantagesat all levelsbut, unlike institutionalists,hegives primacy to “the specialadvantageof the white populationin

the labor market” since in “industrial capitalismeconomicinstitu-tions are central,and occupationalrole is the major determinantofsocial statusand life style.”33

This frameworktakeshead-onmany of the limitationsof main-streamapproachesto racerelations.While mostof the perspectivesdevelopedby s6óiiF~iënTiit~if&ahistoricalandpostulatethe exis-tenceof race cyjes or common ~cat~criis 34 the internalcolonial model is historically contingent(as Mario Barreraargues)andmfnrmecFb)ItlfeThii’ferencesbetwe~iithe expenencesof whiteethnics and racial minorities. Moreover,the internal colonial per-spëii~challengesthe purely psychologicalview of racism. Firstand foremost, it challengesthe dogmaof conceivingof racismas thevirulent prejudiceof someindividuals by suggestingthat prejudicedindividuals are not necessaryfor the existenceof a racial order.Racism, in Blauner’sview, has an objectivereality “located in theactualexistenceof dominationand hierarchy.”35As with the institu-tionalist perspective,this tradition regardsracism or racial-colonialoppressionas systemic,comprehensive(all actorsinvolved), andrational (basedon the interestsof whites). Furthermore,by conceiv-ing racismas rationalandmaterial(asa social structureorganizedtobenefit whites), this tradition challengesthe simplistic assertionofsocial scientistsand most whites that the cure for racism is educa-tion. Instead,Blaunerand writers in this tradition believethat theabolition of racism,as is the casewith othersystemsof exploitation,requiressocialmobilization.36

Although this perspectiveoffers a clear improvementover theinstitutionalistperspectiveandprovidesnewinsights for the studyofracerelations,it still hassomeseriouslimitations.First, becauseit iscenteredon the colonial natureof racial subordination,it assumesunity amongboth the dominantand the subordinated“races” andthus neglectsthe class:,and gender-,baseddivisions amonzthem.37

Secbiid by ~iressing the centrality of economicoppressionas thefoundationfor understandingwhite privilege, this approachmisses

the processof economicmarginalizationand ~ that somer~Eesthay experienceat somehistoricaljunctures For instancehowwould an analyst in this theoreticaltradition interpretthe contempo-rary statusof “underclass”African Americansor the almostcom-plete exclusionof American Indians to reservations?38Finally, nei-ther Blaunernor other writers in this tradition formulatethe con-

30 While Supremacy& Racism in the Post—CivilRightsEra What is Racism? 31

ceptualtools or analysisneededfor a truly structuralunderstandingof racism. Despiteassertingthat racism is systemic,Blauner doesnot developthe theoreticalapparatusto study how racismis system-atizedand reproducedin societies.Notwithstandingthese limita-tions, I incorporatemany of the insights developedby authors inthis tradition in the alternativeframework that I developin thischapter.

PieRacial FormationPerspective

The recentwork of Howard Winant and Michael Omi representsatheoreticalbreakthroughin the areaof racerelations.In their RacialFormationin the UnitedStates,theseauthorsprovidea thoroughcri-tique of previoustheoreticalapproachesand suggesta new approachfor the study of racialphenomena:the racial formation perspective.They defineracial formation as the “processby which social, eco-nomic, and political forcesdeterminethe contentandimportanceofracial categories,andby which they are in turn shapedby racialmeanings.”39The essenceof this approachis the idea that race“is aphenomenonwhosemeaningis contestedthroughoutsocial life.”4°The very ~racialization~2th~xteiisio~ThI7aciameaningtoapreviouslyunclassifiedreliiioisii~~~ia ~ [It] isan_ideo-loji~i~IFbce~,iiThistoricallyspecific one.”41 In their view, raceshäüM be regardedasanorgiii[iiiig~rincip1eof social relationshipsthat, at the micro level, shapesthe identity ~fTiiaI~idual actorsand,at the i ~lTiapesilFpliëf&oTëTaTliEXlihoujii racial-ioiT~f1ectsiTFsoci~flperes, mianlflm’ant assigna primaryrole to the political level,42particularly to the “racial state,” whichthey r~iFdastlleacor of col iilIiyri6iaEordei Hence,ra&i~r~cJ,parlicii&l~1iflIjost&vi rig~itsera, is viewed asplaying itself out~t~hestatelevel.

Equippedwith thesec~i~&ies,Omi andWinant review therecenthistoryof racial formation in the United States.Of theoreticalinterestis their claim that racial dynamicshavebeenreframed inrecenttimesthroughthe racial project (the activeprocessof reorga-nization of racial dynamicsby a fraction of the dominantrace)ofneocoriservativesand the New Right. Thesegroupshavepushedananti-statist,moral,and individual-rightsagendathat, in fact, suggeststhat the ills of Americaare deeplyconnectedto liberal racialpolicies

going awry. Thus programssuch as affirmative action havebeenredefinedas “reversediscrimin~~’and welfare am stem h~e~~ople~anyofthemrnin~es)inpovert~

~M~irii~Iicalwriting on race in the l990shas beeninspired byOmi and Winant.43My own theory owes heavily to their work.Nonetheless,the racial formation perspectivestill has somesignifi-cant limitations. First, Omi andWinant’s conceptsof racial forma-tion andracializationgive undue~Although bothconceptsarehelpful ~are formed and reorganized,they do not help analystsunderstandhow it is that racial ordersare structured.Arguing that racialclassifi-cationsarepermanentlycontestedandmalleableis a reaffirmationofthe old ideain the social sciencesthat race is a socially constructedca~Ory,44However,this affirmationdoesnotmakecléair whetherornot they believethat race is or can becomean independentbasis ofgroupassociationand action 45 Second althougf intheir bSokthereare hints of a conceptionof racesas social collectivities with differ-ent interests(e.g., “race is a conceptwhich signifiesand symbolizessocial conflicts and interestsby referringto different typesof humanbodies”46),Omi andWinant stop short of making such a claim. Byfailing to regardracesas collectivities with different interests,theiranalysis of~oliticalcontestationover racial projectsseemsto bequarrelsov er ineanin&sratherthaq~psitionsin the racial order.Thus,it is unclearwhy peoplefi ht over racial matters and why theyendorseor contest~~cia1p~j~ts (seechapters4 and 7 in 1994 e i-

tion).47Third, Omi and Winant’s analysiso’f the mostrecentrearticu-lation of racial ideology in the United Statesleavesout acomprehen-sive or systemicview o’f the process.The changeis describedassingularly carriedoutby the right wing andneoconservativesinsteadof reflecting a generalchangein the natureof U.S. racial structure.In drdéiPii make the Giii~TeTiifiiiTOiii[ and Winant would havetoinclude the ag~pcjLofall the membersof the dominantrace—ratherthan privileging spme4ctqrs—andconceivethe changeas affecting~ than privileging the~-oIiiiEaTlevel. Finally, although I sharewith Om aiid Winant the -

id~ihãflãceis “a fundamentalorganizing principle o’f social rela-tionships,”48 their theoretical frameworkcomesclose to race-reduc-tionism in many areas.For instance,their concep~alizationof thestateas the “racial state’qeavesout the capitalist—aswell as thepatriarchal—characterof the state.49

52 WhIte Supremacy & Racism In the Post—Civil Rights Era What is Racism? 33

RacismasSocietalFl/asIc

The last theory I review hereis that of JoeR. Feagin and HerndnVera in their celebratedbook White Racism:The Basics, Theseauthorsargue that racism is a “socially organizedset of attitudes,ideas, andpracticesthatdenyAfrican Americansandotherpeopleofcolor the dignity, opportunities,freedoms,and rewardsthat thisnation offers white Americans.”50Feagin andVera suggestthatracism wasteshuman talent and energyand; hence,that broadlyviewed, it canbe conceivedas societalwaste.FeaginandVera opera-tionalizeracismas rituals (theritesthat accompanymany racial prac-tices), discrimination, mythology (i.e., ideological constructionstakenon faith), a subjectivecomponentof “sincere fictions” devel-oped by the dominantrace to feel good about themselves,and anemotivecomponentthat theylabel asthe “madnessof racism.”

JoeR. Feaginhas recentlyrefined this view in hisRacistAmer-ica: Roots,CurrentRealities,andFuture Reparations.In this bookFeaginconcentrateson making the casethat racism is systemicandrootedin real racerelations.In languagethat fits nicely my own the-

orization,Feaginwrites,

Indeed,systematicracism is perpetuatedby a broad social repro-ductionprocessthat generatesnot only recurringpatternsof dis-criminationwithin institutionsand by individuals but alsoan alien-ating racist relationship—onthe one hand, the raciallyoppressed,and on the otherhand,the racial oppressors.Thesetwo groupsarecreatedby the racist system,and thus havedifferent group inter-ests.The former seeksto overthrow the system,while the latterseeksto maintainit.5i

Feagin’sand Vera’s conceptualizationof racism includes the coreargumentsof the theorizationI advancehere.First, they emphasize,as do the institutionalandcolonial positions,the systematicnatureofracism. Second,they focus on the relational or groupnature of the

phenomenon.Finally, they point to the material (group interest)foundationof racism.

The only limitation I find in their theorizationis their claim thatracismproduces“societalwaste,”a claim that Feaginseemsto havedroppedin his recentwork. Although they are right in claiming thatsocietieswould be collectively betteroff (lesswasteful)if the energythey spentto maintain racial hierarchywasused to increasethe wel-fareof humanity,the notion of wasteconveysthe ideathat racismis

not “rational” (in the utilitariansenseof theword) for whites.In fact,in the conclusionof White Racism,FeaginandVera contendthatracisminvolves substantialmaterial,moral and psychologicalcoststo whites.T~ clthms prublematic.Materially, racismprovidediii~ioundationfor the expansionof the world-systemandaccumula-tion at a global scalefor the West.52Although economistsdebatetoday whetherracism increasesor decreasesthe rate of capitalaccu-mulation and the welfare of white workers,I am persuadedby theanalysisof StevenShulman,53who claims that racial stratificationbenefitsbothcapitalistsand white workers.It is preciselythis mate-Hal foundationthat Icontendhelpskeepracial stratificationinplace.Their claim that wh lave immorally whei they participateinracist structuresand experience poraldilemmaisimportan asapolic tool but not asananalytical one.Whites do not experiencemoral dilemmasS4precisely becausethey developwhat FeaginandVera label as “sincerefictions” that allow tiièi5i5ffl~liifri~-mani~yof racial stratification (see Chapters3 and 5 in this book)Finally, the psychok~icalcosts of racism to whites havenot beenwell documentedor measured.Nevertheless,social psychologistTony R. Brown suggestsin his receptwork that if anything,whiteseitherbenefit somewhatfrom racial stratificationor at least do notlose fro~55HenceJ~omTorldp~ctiveracismiswá~W(ti~6~TItionof the world would be betteroff if racismdidTiotexist), but at the micro level (whites in the ~qrldiy~~em), it is andhas beenhighly profitabl~TDespitethis limitation, the work ofFé~jihand Vera is th~f~icall isticated, advancesthe coreargumentsof a structural or systemjgj~flderstgfl~jflg~fjacism,andprovidesan impressivedocumentationof gp~~jora~’racistprac-t~ in avariet of socials aces.

Limitations of Mainstreamand Critical Frameworks on Racism

I list below the main limitationsof the idealistconceptionof racism.Becausenot all limitationsapply to the critical perspectivesI reviewabove,I pointout theonesthatdo apply andto what extent.

1. Racismis excludedfrom the foundation or structure of thesocial system.When racismis regardedas a baselessideology ulti-

34 White Supremacy& Racismit-i the Post—CivilRights Era What Is Racism? 35

mately dependenton other, “real” forcesin society, the structureofthesocietyitself is not classifiedas racist.The Marxist perspectiveisparticularly guilty of this shortcoming.Although Marxists haveaddressedthe questionof thehistorical origin of racism,they explainits reproductionin an idealistfashion.Racism,in their account,is anideology that emergedwith chattel slaveryand otherforms of classoppressionto justify the exploitationof peopleof colorand survivesasresidueof the past.

Although the institutionalist,internalcolonialism,andracial for-mation perspectivesregardracismas a structural phenomenonandprovidesomeuseful ideasandconcepts,nonedevelopedthe theoreti-cal apparatusnecessaryto describehow thisstructureoperates.

2. Racismis ultimately viewedasa psychologicalphenomenonto be examinedat the individual Ic-rd. The researchagendathat fol-lows from this conceptualizationis the examinationof individuals’attitudesto determinelevels of racism in society.56Given that theconstructsusedto measureracismare static—thatis, that thereare anumberof standardquestionsthat do not changesignificantly overtime—thisresearchusuallyfinds that racismis decliningin society.57

Thispsychologicalunderstandingof racismis relatedto the limi-tationI citedabove.If racismis notregardedas society-widebutas apropertyof individuals who are “racist” or “prejudiced,” then (I)social institutionscannotbe racistand(2) studyingracismis simplya matterof clinically surveyingpopulationsto assessthe proportionof “good” and“bad” individuals (thosewhodo notholdracistbeliefsandthosewho do).

Orthodox Marxists and many neo-Marxistsconceiveof racismas an ideology that affects many membersof the working class.Although the authors associatedwith the institutionalist, internalcolonialist, andracial formationperspectivesfocus on the ideologi-cal characterof racism, they all emphasizehow this ideologybecomesembeddedor institutionalizedin organizationsand socialpractices.

3, Racismis treatedasa staticphenomenon.Racism is viewedas unchanging;that is, racismyesterdayis like racismtoday. Thus,when a society’s racial structureand its customaryracial practicesare rearticulated,this rearticulationis characterizedas a declineinracism(asin Wilson’s works), a naturalprocessin a cycle (asRobertPark seesit), an exampleof increasedassimilation,58or effective“norm changes.”59This limitation, which appliesparticularly to

mainstreamsurveyresearcherson raceand Marxist scholars,derivesfrom not conceivingracism as having an independentstructuralfoundation.If racismis merelya matterof ideasthathaveno materi-al basis in contemporarysociety, then those ideasshould be similarto their original configuration,whateverthat was. The ideasmay bearticulated in a different context, but most analystsessentiallybelieve that racist ideasremain the same. For this reason,withnotableexceptions,60attitudinal researchis still basedon responsesto questionsdevelopedin the 1940s,1950s,and l960s.

4. Analystsdefiningracism in an idealistmannerviewrac,smas“incorrect” or “irrational thinking”; thus they label “racists” asirrational and rigid. Becauseracismis conceivedof as a belief withno realsocial basis,it follows that thosewho holdracistviews mustbe irrational or stupid.6’ This view allows for a tactical distinctionbetweenindividuals with the “pathology” and social actorswho are“rational” and free of racism. The problem with this rationalisticview is twofold. First, it missesthe rational, materialelementsonwhich racializedsystemsoriginally were built. Second,andmoreimportant, it neglectsthe possibility that contemporaryracism stillhasa rational foundation.In this account,contemporaryracistsareperceivedas Archie Bunkers.Among the critical frameworksreviewedhere,only orthodox Marxism insists on the irrational andimposedcharacterof racism. Neo-Marxistsand authorsassociatedwith the institutionalist,internalcolonialist, and racial formationper-spectivesinsist, to varyingdegrees,on the rationality of racism.Nen-Marxists (e.g., Bonacich,Harold Wolpe, StuartHall) and Omi andWinant acknowledgethe short-termadvantagesthat workers gainfrom racism; the institutionalist and internal colonial paradigmsemphasizethe systematicand long-term characterof theseadvan-tages.

5. Racismis understoodasovert behavior Becausethe idealistapproachregardsracism as “irrational” and “rigid,” its manifesta-tions shouldbe quiteevident,usuallyinvolving somedegreeof hos-tility. This doesnot presentseriousanalyticalproblemsfor the studyof certain periods in racializedsocietieswhenracial practiceswereovert (e.g., slaveryand apartheid),but doesposedifficulty for theanalysisof racism in periodswhereinracial practicesare subtle,indi-rect, or fluid. For instance,many analystshavesuggestedthat in thecontemporaryUnited Statesracialpracticesare manifestedcovertly62

andracial attitudestend to be symbolic.63Therefore,it is a wasteof

36 White Supremacy & Racism In the Post-Civil Rights Era What Is Racism? 37

Racialized Social SystemApproach to Racismtime to attemptto detect“racism” by askingquestionssuchas “Howstrongly would you object if a memberof your family wantedtobring a Black friend home to dinner?”64Also, many such questionsweredevelopedto measurethe extentof racistattitudesin the popu-lationduring the Jim Crow era of racerelations;theyare not suitablefor thepost-1960speriod.

Furthermore,this emphasison overt behaviorlimits the possibil-ity of analyzingracial phenomenain Latin American societiessuchas Brazil, Cuba,andPuertoRico whereracerelationsdo not haveaclear,overt character.The form of race relations—overtor covert—dependson the patternof racializationthat structureda particularsociety55andon how the processof racial contestationandothersocial dynamicsaffectedthatpattern.

6. Contemporaryracism is viewedasan expressionof “originalsin”—as a remnantofpasthistorical racial situations,In thecaseofthe United States,some analystsarguethat racismprecededslaveryandcapitalism.66Others,suchas NathanGlazerand Moynihan,viewit as the result of slavery.67Even in promising new avenuesofresearch,such as thatpresentedby Roedigerin The Wagesof White-ness,contemporaryracismis viewedasone of the “legaciesof whiteworkerism.”68By consideringracism as a legacy all theseanalystsdownplay the significanceof its contemporarymaterial foundationandstructure.

Again the Marxist perspectivesharesthis limitation. Marxistsbelievethat racismdevelopedin the fifteenth centuryand has beenusedsince then by capitalistsor white workers to further their own

classinterests,All otherapproachesrecognizethe historic signifi-canceof this “discovery” but associatecontemporaryracial ideologywith contemporaryraciallybasedinequalities.

7. Racismis analyzedin a circular manner“If racismis definedas the behaviorthat results from the belief, its discoverybecomesensnaredin a circularity—racismis a belief that producesbehavior,which is itself racism.”69Racism is establishedby racist behavior,which itself is proved by the existenceof racism. This circularity

results from not grounding racism in social relations amongtheraces. If racism,viewed as an ideology, were seenas possessingastructural70foundation,its examinationcould be associatedwithracial practicesratherthanwith mereideasand the problemof circu-larity would beavoided.

In order to capturethe society-wide,organized,and institutionalcharacterof racism1 build my ~raciahzedsocial systems.7’This term refers to societiesin whichec~homic,political, social, and ideologicallevelsare partially struc-turedby thep±~~~icaLiici~i~i~’a~ç~~gprj~sorraces.Racestypically are identified by theirpheno~ype,but (as we seelater) theselectionoflom P~ ant tstodesigp~tearaca1~ro~pisalwgyssoclilily rather

‘these systemsare structuredpartially by racebecausemodemsocial systemsincorporatetwo or more forms of hierarchicalpat-terns.Although processesof racializationare alwaysembeddedinother fonnso hierarchy, they acquireautonomyandhaveindepen-dentsocial effects. This implies that thephenomenonthat has beenconceivedasafree-flóiiIng ideology in tact has its q~iniSrucwralfoundation.

Tiall racializedsocial systemsthe placementof actorsin racialcategoriesinvolves someform of hierarchy72that producesdefinitesocial relationsamongthe races.The raceplacedi~th~iwvcriprposition tends to receivegreaterecon icem neratioriand accessto better0ccupationsand p~qsp~in the labor market, occupie aprimary position in the political system,is grantedhighersocialestimatlcm (e.g., is viewed as “smarter” or “better looking”), often hasthe licenseto draw physical(segregation)as well as social(racial eti-quette)boundariesbetweenitself andotherraces,andreceiveswhatW.E.B. Du Bois called a “psychologicalwage.”73 The totality oftheseracializedsocial relations andpracticesconstitutesthe racialstructureof a society.

Although all racializedsocial systemsare hierarchical,the par-ticular characterof the hierarchy,and,thus,of the racial structure,isvariable.For example,the dominationof blacksin the United States

was achievedthroughdictatorial meansduring slavery,but in thepost—civil rights period this dominationhasbeenhegemonic,that isin the Gramsciansenseof the term, achievedthroughconsent_ratherthan coercion.74Similarly, the form of securingdominationandwhite privilege is variabletoo. For instance,the racial practicesandmechanismsthat kept blacks subordinatedchangedfrom overt andeminentlyracist in the JimCrow era to covertandindirectly racist in

38 White Supremacy & Rsclsm in the Post-CM Rights Era What Is Racism? 39

the contemporaryperiod(seeChapter3). The unchangingelementofthesesystemsis racial inequality—thatthe subordinatedraces’ lifechancesare significantly lower thanthoseof the dominantrace.Thisis the featurethat ultimately distinguishesthis form of hierarchicalsocial organization.Generally,the higherthe levelof racial inequali-ty, themoreracializedthesocial system,andviceversa.

Becausethe racesreceivedifferent social rewardsat all levels,they developdifferentinterests,which canbe detectedin their strug-gles to eithertransformor maintain a particularracial order. Theseinterestsare collectiverather than individual, are basedon relations

amongracesratherthan on particulargroupneeds,and are practical;that is, they are related to concretestruggles.Although onerace’sgeneralinterestsmay ultimately lie in the completeeliminationof asociety’s racial structure,its array of alternativesmay not includethat possibility. For instance,the historical struggleagainstchattelslavery led not to the developmentof race-freesocietiesbut to the

establishmentof social systemswith a different kind of racialization.Race-freesocietieswere not amongthe available alternativesbecausethe nonslavepopulationshadthe capacityto preservesome

type of racial privilege. The historical “exceptions”occurredinracializedsocietiesin which the nonslaves’powerwas almostcom-pletelysupersededby thatof the slavepopulation.75

A simplecriticism of theargumentI haveadvancedsofar is thatit ignores the internaldivisions of the racesalong classand genderlines. Suchcriticism, however,doesnot dealsquarelywith the issueat hand.The fact that not all membersof the dominantracereceivethe samelevel of rewardsand (conversely)that not all membersofthe subordinateraceor racesare at the bottom of the social orderdoesnot negatethe fact that races, as social groups, are in either asuperordinateor a subordinateposition in a social system.Histo-rically the racializationof socialsystemsdid notimply the exclusionof otherforms of oppression.In fact, racializationoccurredin socialformationsalso structuredby classand gender.Hence,in thesesoci-eties,the racializationof subjectsis fragmentedalong classand gen-der lines. The importantquestion—Whichinterestsmove actorstostruggle?—ishistorically contingentand cannotbe ascertaineda pri-

ori.76 Dependingon the characterof racializationin a social order,class interestsmay take precedenceover racial interestsas in con-temporaryBrazil, Cuba, and PuertoRico. In other situations,racial

interestsmay takeprecedenceover classinterestsas in the caseofblacksthroughoutmostof U.S. history.

In general,the systemic salienceof classin relation to raceincreaseswhenthe econom olitical, and social inequality amongthe racesdecreasessubstantially.Yet this broadargumentgeneratesat least one warning: The narrowing of within-class differencesamong racial actorsusually causesmoreratherthan less racial con-flict, at least in the short run, as the competitionfor resourcesincreases.77More significantly, even whenclass-basedconflictbecomesmore salient in a social order, this cannotbe interpretedasprima facie evidencethat race has subsidedas a social factor Forinstince becauseof the way in which Latni kmertcanracial fotmations rearticulatedraceand racial discoursein the nineteenth-century—post-emancipationera,78thesesocietiessilencedfrom abovethe political spacefor public racial contestationYet more than 100yearsafter theseso ic e developedthe myth ofrmocracy,they havemore ratherthan less racial ir equality thancountriessuchas theUnitedStates.79

Becauseracial actorsare also classedandgendered(that is, theybelongto classand gendergroups), analystsmust control for classandgenderto ascertainthe materialadvantagesenjoyedby a domi-nant race.In a racializedsociety such as the United States,the inde-pendenteffectsof raceare assessedby analyst who (I~comparedatabetweenwhites andnonwhitesin the ,sameclass and genderpositions,(2) evaluatethepropoition as well as the generalcharacterofthe races’partic1ipkition in some domain of life, and(3) examineracial dátàat all levels—iociàl, political economic,and ideological—to ascertainthe general position of racial groups in a socialsystem.

Tbe first of theseprocedureshas becomestandardpracticeinsociology.No serioussociologistwould presentracial statisticswith-out controlling for genderandclass(or at least the classof persons’

socioeconomicstatus).By doing this, analystsassumethey canmeasurethe unadulteratedeffectsof “discrimination” manifestedinunexplained“residuals.”Despite its usefulness,however, this tech-nique providesOnly a partial accountof the “raceeffect” because(1)a significant amountof racial datacannotbe retrieved through sur-veys and(2) the techniqueof “controlling for” a variableneglectstheobvious—whya group is over- or underrepresentedin certain cate-

40 WhIte Supremacy & Racism In the Post-Civil RIgS Era What Is Racism? 41

gories of the control variablesin the first place.50Moreover,theseanalystspresumethat it is possibleto analyzethe amountof discrim-ination in one domain (e.g., income, occupationalstatus) “withoutanalyzingthe extentto which discriminationalso affects the factorsthey hold constant.”8tHenceto evaluate“race effects” in anydomain,analystsmust attempt to makesenseof their findings inrelationto a race’sstandingin otherdomains.

But what is the nature of racesor, moreproperly, of racializedsocial groups?Omi and Winant state that racesare the outcome ofthe racializationprocess,which they define as “the extensionofracial meaningto a previouslyracially unclassifiedrelationship,socialpractice,or group.”82Historically the classificationof a peoplein racial terms has beena highly political act associatedwith prac-tices such as conquestand colonization, enslavement,peonage,indenturedservitude,and,more recently,colonial andneocoloniallabor immigration,Categoriessuchas “Indians” and“Negroes”wereinventedin the sixteenthandseventeenthcenturiesto justify the con-questandexploitationof various peoples.83The invention of suchcategoriesentails a dialectical processof construction;that is, thecreationof the category“Other” involvesthe creationof a category“Same.”If “Indians” are depictedas “savages,”Europeansare char-acterizedas “civilized”; if “blacks” are definedas naturalcandidatesfor slavery,“whites” are definedas free subjects.8’Yet although theracializationof peopleswas socially inventedand did not overridepreviousforms of social distinctionbasedon classor gender,it didnot lead to imaginary relationsbut generatednew forms of humanassociationwith definite statusdifferences.After the processofattachingmeaningto a “people” is instituted, racebecomesa realcategoryof groupassociationandidentity.85

Becauseracial classificationspartially organizeand limit actors’life chances,racial practicesof oppositionemerge.Regardlessof theform of racial interaction(overt, covert,or inert), racescanbe recog-nized in the realm of racial relationsand positions.Viewed in thislight, racesare the effect of racial practicesof opposition(“we” ver-sus “them”) at the economic,political, social, and ideological lev-els.86

Races,as mostsocialscientistsacknowledge,are not biological-ly but socially determinedcategoriesof identity and group associa-tion. Tin this regard,they ate analogousto classandgender.87kctorsin racialpositionsdo not occupythosepositionsbecausethey are of

X or Y race,butbecauseX or Y hasbeensocially definedas a race.Actors’ phenotypic(i.e., biologically inherited)characteristics,suchas skin tone and hair color and texture, are usually, although notalways, usedto denoteracial distinctions.88For example,Jews inmany Europeannationsand the Irish in Englandhavebeentreatedasracial groups.89Also, Indians in the United Stateshavebeenviewedas oneracedespitethe tremendousphenotypicandcultural variationamong nations.Becauseracesare socially constructed,both themeaningand theposition assignedto racesin the racial structurearealwayscontested.Who is to be black or white or Indian reflects andaffects the social, political, ideological, and economicstrugglesamongthe races.The globaleffectsof thesestrugglescanchangethemeaningof theracial categoriesas well asthe positionof a racializedgroupin a socialformation.

This latter point is illustratedclearly by the historical strugglesof several“white ethnic” groups in the United Statesin their effortsto become~ whites or “Americans.”9°Neitherlight skinnednor for thatmatter dark skinnedimmigrantsnecessarily came to this country as membersof X or Y race Light skinnedEuropeans,after brief periodsof “not-yet white,” became“white”but did not lose their “ethnic” character.9’Their struggle for inclu-sion had specific implications: racial inclusion as membersof thewhite community allowedAmericanizationand classmobility. Onthe otherhand, amongdark-skinnedimmigrants from Africa, LatinAmerica, and the Caribbean,the strugglewasto avoid classificationas “black.” Theseimmigrantschallengedthe reclassificationof theiridentity for a simplereason:In the United States“black” signified asubordinatestatusin society.Hencemany of thesegroupsstruggledto keep their own ethnic or cultural identity, as denotedin expres-sionssuchas “I am not black; I amJamaican,”or “I am not black; Iam Senegalese.”92Yet eventuallymany of thesegroupsresolvedthiscontradictorysituationby acceptingthe duality of their situation: Inthe United States,they were classifiedsocially as black yet theyretainedandnourishedtheir own cultural or ethnic heritage—aher-itagedeeplyinfluencedby African traditions.

Although the contentof racial categorieschangesover timethrough manifold processesand struggles,race is not a secondarycategoryof group association.The meaningof black and white, the“racial formation,” changeswithin the larger racial structure.Thisdoesnot meanthat the racial structureis immutableandcompletely

42 White Supremacy & Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era What Is Racism? 43

independentof the action of racializedactors.It meansonly that thesocial relationsamongthe racesbecomeinstitutionalized(form astructureas well as a culture) and affect social life whetheror notindividual membersof the raceswant it to. In FrederickBarth’swords,“Ethnic identity implies aseriesof constraintson the kindsofrolesanindividual is allowedto play land) is similar to sex arid rank,in that it constrainsthe incumbent in all his activities.”93 Forinstance,free blacks during the slavery periodstruggledto changethe meaningof “blackness,”specifically to dissociateit from slavery.Yet they could not escapethe larger racial structurethat restrictedtheir life chancesandtheirfreedom.94

Theplacementof a groupof peoplein a racial categorystemmedinitially95 from the interestsof powerful actorsin the social system(e.g., the capitalist class,the planterclass,and colonizers).Afterracial categorieswereemployedto organizesocial relationsin soci-eties,however,racebecameanindependentelementof the operationof the social system. Here I departfrom analystssuchas WinthropJordan,CedricRobinson,andRobertMiles, who take the mereexis-tenceof a racial discourseasmanifestingthe presenceof a racialorder.96Such a position allows them to speakof racism in medievaltimes(Jordan)and to classifythe antipeasantviewsof Frenchurban-ites (Miles) or the prejudicesof the aristocracyagainstpeasantsinthe Middle Ages (Robinson)as expressionsof racism. In my view,we can speakof racialized ordersonly when a racial discourseisaccompaniedby social relationsof subordinationand superordina-tion amongtheraces.Theavailableevidencesuggeststhat theracial-ization of the world-systememergedafter the imperialistexpansionof Europeto the New World andAfrica.97 Furthermore,this racial-ization led to the developmentof what CharlesW. Mills callsglobalwhite supremacy(racial ordersstructuredalong the axis of “white,”

or European,and“nonwhite,” or non-European)in the world-system.What are the dynamicsof racial issuesin racializedsystems?

Most important, after a social formation is racialized,its “normal”dynamics always include a racial component.Societal strugglesbasedon classor gendercontaina racial componentbecausebothofthesesocial categoriesare alsoracialized;that is, bothclassandgen-derare constructedalong racial lines. In 1922, for example,whiteSouthAfrican workers in the middle of a strike inspired by theRussianrevolution rallied under the slogan“Workers of the worldunite for a white SouthAfrica.” Oneof the state’s“concessions”to

this “class” strugglewasthe passageof the ApprenticeshipAct of1922,“which preventedBlack workersacquiringapprenticeships.”98

In anotherexample,the struggleof women in the United Statestoattain their civil andhumanrights has alwaysbeenplaguedby deepracial tensions.99

Nonetheless,some of the strife that existsin a racializedsocialformationhasa distinctracial character;I call suchstrife racial con-testation—thestruggleof racial groupsfor systemicchangesregard-ing their position at one or more levels. Such a strugglemay besocial (Who can be here?Who belongshere?),political (Who canvote?How much powershouldthey have?Shouldthey be citizens?),economic(Who should work, and what should they do? They aretaking ourjobs!), or ideological(Black is beautiful!).

Although much of this contestationis expressedat the individuallevel and is disjointed,sometimesit becomescollective andgeneraland can effect meaningfulsystemicchangesin a society’s racialorganization.Theform of contestationmaybe relatively passiveandsubtle(e.g., in situationsof fundamentalovert racialdominationsuchas slaveryand apartheid)or more activeand overt (e.g., in quasi-democraticsituationssuch as the contemporaryUnitedStates).As arule, however,fundamentalchangesin racializedsocial systemsareaccompaniedby strugglesthat reachthe point of overt protest.10°This doesnot meanthat a violent racially basedrevolution is theonly way of accomplishingeffective changesin the relative positionof racial groups.lt is simply an extensionof the argumentthat socialsystemsand their supportersmustbe “shaken” if fundamentaltrans-formationsare to takeplace)0’ On this structuralfoundationreststhephenomenonlabeledracismby social scientists.

I reservethe term racial ideologyfor the segmentof the ideolog-ical structureof a social systemthat crystallizesracial notions andstereotypes.Racial ideology providesthe rationalizationfor social,political, andeconomicinteractionsamongthe races.Dependingonthe particularcharacterof a racializedsocialsystemandon the strug-gles of the subordinatedraces,racial ideology may be developedhighly (as in apartheid)or loosely (as in slavery) and its contentexpressedin overt orcovertterms.

Although racial ideology originatesin race relations,it acquiresrelativeautonomyin the social systemand performspracticalfunc-tions.102In PaulGilroy’s words, racial ideology “mediatesthe worldof agentsand the structureswhich are createdby their social prax-

44 White Supremacy& Racism in the Post—Civil Rights Era What Is Racism? 45

is.”103 Racismcrystallizesthe changing“dogma” on which actorsinthe social systemoperateand becomes“common sense”;it providesthe rules for perceivingand dealing with the Otherin a racializedsociety. In the United States,for instance,becauseracial notionsabout what blacks and whites are or ought to be pervadetheirencounters,whites still havedifficulty in dealingwith black bankers,lawyers,professors,and doctors.’°4Thus,althoughracistideology isultimately false, it fulfills a practical role in racializedsocieties.(Becauseof the centrality of racial ideology in the maintenanceofwhite supremacy,I dedicateChapter3 to a detaileddiscussiononthis matter.)

At this point it is possibleto sketchthe frameworkof the racial-ized social system.First, racializedsocial systemsare societiesthatallocatedifferential economic,political, social, andevenpsychologi-cal rewardsto groupsalong racial lines, lin~sthat are socially con-structed.After a society becomesracialized,a set of social relationsandpracticesbasedon racial distinctionsdevelopsat all societallev-els. I designatethe aggregateof thoserelations andpracticesas theracialstructureof a society.Second,raceshistorically areconstitutedaccordingto the processof racialization; theybecomethe effect ofrelations of oppositionamong racializedgroupsat all levels of asocial formation.Third, on thebasisof this structure,a racial ideolo-gy develops.This ideology is not simply a “superstructural”phe-nomenon(a merereflection of the racializedsystem)but becomesthe organizationalmap thatguidesactionsof racial actorsin society.It becomesas real as the racial relationsit organizes.Fourth, moststrugglesin a racializedsocial systemcontain a racial component,but sometimesthey acquireor exhibit a distinct racial character.Racialcontestationis the logical outcomeof a society with a racialhierarchy.A socialformation that includessomeform of racializationwill always exhibit someform of racial contestation.Finally, theprocessof racial contestationrevealsthedifferent objectiveinterestsof the racesin a racializedsocialsystem.

Conclusion

My centralargumentin this chapteris that the commonsenseunder-standingof racism, which is not much different than the definition

developedby mainstreamsocial scientistsor evenby many criticalanalysts,doesnot provide ~.. adequat fieoretica ioundatjonjorunderstandingracj~plwac,mcna.With notable exceptions,’°5ana-lystsin academ are sullentangledin ungroundedideopretationsof racism. Lackingastrucura1,yj~,~,they tend to reduceracial phen6menato a deriyationof the classstruc!ure~asMarxistinterpretersdo) or the resultof an irrational ideoiqgy (ac mainsfreamsocial scientistsdo).

In the racializedsocial systemframework, I suggest,as do OmiandWinant, that racismshould be studied from theyj~ointofracialization.I contendthatafter a societybecomesracialized,racial-i~iionde~eopsa life of its, own.106Although racisminteractswithclassand genderstructurationsin~ocjety, it becomesan organizingprmcipleof social relation~1nitselt Race,as most analystssuggS,is a social constrtiict but that construct like classand,,jencI~r,hasindependenteffects in social life. After racial stratificationis estab-lished, racebecomesan independentcriterion for verticalhierarchyin society Thereforedifferent racesexperiencepositionsof sub rdination and~perorçlination in society anddevelop,,differentinterests.This fr meworkha the foliov nga4vof racism:

Racial phenomenaare regardedas the “normal” outcomeofthe racial structureofasociety. Thuswecanaccount‘for all racialmanifestations.Insteadof explaining racial phenomenaasderivingfrom otherstructuresor from racism(conceivedof as a free-float-ing ideology), we can trace cultural political economic socialandevenpsychoiogjcaLr~si!Lpi~enomenato the racialorganizationof that soci~y.~t7~changing nature of what analysts label “racism” is

explainedas the normaloutcomeof racial contestationin a racial-ized social system. In this framework, changesin racism areexplainedrather thandescribed.Changesare due to specific strug-gles at differentlevelsamongthe_races,resulting from differencesin

interestsSuchcha~g~srngy~ransfo~~~enatureof racializationandthe globalcharacterof racialrelations ih yst (theracialstruc-ture). Therefore,chang~is viewed as a normal componentof theracializedsystem.

The racialized social systemframework allows analyststo

46 White Supremacy& Racism in thePost—CivilRights Era What Is Racism? 47

explain overt aswell as covertracial behavior The covertor overtnatureof racial contactsdependson how the processof racializationis manifested;this in turns dependson how ra inaH iu-lated in a social formation and on_flue processof racialç,qgtestgttonThis point implies that ratherthanconçeving of racismj,&aj~i~gsaland uniformly orchestratedphenomenon,analystsshouldstudj “his-torically-specificracisrns.’”°7This insight is’ riot new: RobertPark,Oliver Cox, PierrevandenBergue,andMarvin Harrisdescribedvari-eties of situations of race,,rela,tjons with distinct forms of racialinteraction.

Racially motivatedbehavior, whetheror not the actors are con-sciousof it, is regardedas “rational”—chat is, basedon the givenrace’s individual interests.105 This frameworkaccountsfor ArchieBunker—typeracialbehavioraswell as for more“sophisticated”vari-eties of racial conduct.Racial phenomenaare viewed as systemic;therefore all actors in the systemparticipate in racial affairs. Somemembersof the dominantracial group tend to exhibit lessvirulencetowardmembersof the subordinatedracesbecausethey have’irea~ercontrol over the form and outcomeof theirracial interactionsWhenthey cannotcontrol that interaction—asin the caseof revolts orblacks moving into “their” neighborhood—theybehavemuch likeothermembersof the dominantrace.

Thereproductionofracial phenomenain contemporarysocietiesis explainedin thisframeworknotby referenceto a long-distantpastbut in relation to its contemporarystructure. Becauseracism isviewed as systemic(possessinga racial structure)and as organizedaroundthe races’different interests,racial aspectsof social systemstoday are viewed as fundamentallyrelated to hierarchicalrelationsamongthe racesin thosesystems.Elimination of the racializedchar-acterof a social systementailsthe endof racialization,and henceofra&i~’iftrig~’ther.This argumentclasheswith social scientists’ mostpopularpolicy prescriptionfor “curing” racism, namely education.This “solution is the logical outcomeof defining racismas abeliefMost analystsregardracismas a matterof indivi4p_Ql,~,~~~c1ibing,ipaifTii-~iiionalview, thus the cure is educatin,gthem to realize thatFá~11thii wrong Educationis also the choice pill prescribedbyMarxists for healing workers from racism The alternativethe’&yofferedhereimplies that becausethe phenomenonhasstructuralcon-sequencesfor the races,the only way to curesociety of racism is by

eliminating its systemic roots. Whetherthis can be accomplisheddemocraticallyor only throughrevolutionarymeansis an openques-tion, and one that dependson the particular racial structureof thesocietyin question.

A racializationframeworkaccountsfor the ways in which racialand ethnic stereotypesemerge,are transformed,and disappearRacial stereotypesare crystallizedat the ideologicallevel of a socialsystem.Theseimagesultimately indicate—althoughin distortedways—andjustify the stereotypedgroup’s position in a society.Stereotypesmay’ originateoutof (1) material realities or conditionsenduredby the group, (2) genuineignoranceabout the group,or (3)rigid, distortedviews on the group’s physical,cultural, or moralnature.Once they emerge,however, stereotypesmust relate—although not necessarilyfit perfectly—to the group’s true socialposition in the racializedsystemif they areto perform their ideologi-cal function. Stereotypesthat do not tend to reflect a group’s situa-tion do not work and.areboundto disappear.Forexample,notionsofthe Irish asstupidor of Jewsas athleticallytalentedhaveall butvan-ished sincethe 1940s, as the Irish moved up the educationalladderand Jews gainedaccessto multiple routesof social mobility.Generally,then, stereotypesare reproducedbecausethey reflect agroup’s distinct position andstatusin society.As a corollary, racialor ethnic notionsabouta groupdisappearonly when the group’ssta-tus mirrorsthat of thedominantracial or ethnicgroup in the society.

The frameworkof the racializedsocial systemis not a universaltheory explaining racial phenomenain societies.lt is intended totrigger a seriousdiscussionof how racesha,pessocial systems.Moreover,the importantquestionof how raceinteractsand intersectswitW’~5lás~and2ender Gus not yet beenaddressedsatisfactorilyPro~ThionuilyI maintain thatanonfunctionalistreadingof the con-ceptof social systemmay give us cluesfor com_prehendingsocietiesstructu~éd7ñ7Ohijnjz’,~touse StuartHall’s term. If societiesarevièWë issysiemsthat articulatedifferent structures(organizingprinciples‘6n”which sets of social relationsare systematicallypatterned),iH~ is~ibi~toclaim that race—aswell asgender—ha,~bothindividual andcombined(interactive)effectsin society.

To testthe usefulnessof the racializedsocial systemframeworkas a theoreticalbasis for research,we must perform comparative

48 White Supremacy & Racism in the Post—Civil Rights Era What Ii Racism? 49

work on racializationinvarioussocieties.Oneof the main objectivesof this comparativework shouldbe to determinethe specific mecha-nisms,practices,and social relationsthat produceand reproduceracial inequality at all levels—thatis, uncoverthe society’s racialstructure.Although this systematiccomparativeanalysisis beyondthe scopeof this book, I perform someof it in Chapter4. In thatchapter,for example,I comparethe racialstructureof the Jim Crowperiodwith the onewe havetoday. Unlike analystswho believethat“racism” has witheredaway, I argue that the persistentinequalityexperiencedby blacksandotherracial minorities in theUnited Statestoday is due to the continued albeit changedexistenceof a racialstructure.In contrastto racerelationsin the Jim Crow period, how-ever,racial practicesthat reproduceracial inequalityin contemporaryAmerica are (I) increasinglycovert,(2) embeddedin normal opera-tions of institutions,(3) void of direct racial terminology,and (4)invisible to mostwhites.

In the next chapterI criticize the survey-basedstudy of racialmatters,a perspectivethat is central to the analysisand understand-ing of contemporaryracialmatters.Specifically, I arguethat this tra-dition is weddedto an individualistic view of racial actorsand thus~ I ~bnnig~mUhenbfion of racial ideology and providepractical g~ldanceon how it

canbe usedin research.

Notes

1. RuthF. Benedict,Raceand Racism(London: RoutledgeandKeganPaul, 1945),p. 85.

2. Pierrevan den Berghe,Raceand Racism:A ComparativePer-spective(New York: JohnWiley & Sons,1967),p. 11.

3. RichardT. Schaefer,Racial and Ethnic Minorities (Glencoe,IL:Scott/Foresman/LittleBrown HigherEducation,1990),p. 16.

4. A review suchas this one is necessarilyincomplete.I leave out theimportantwork of Europeanwriters such as Paul Gilroy and Pierre A.Taguieff as well as the work of Latin Americanwriters such as FlorestanFemandes,Carlos Hansenbalg,andNelsondo Valle Silva.

5. StanleyAronowitz, The Politics ofIdentity: Class,Culture, SocialMovements(New York: Routledge,1992).

6, Oneof the best representativesof the orthodox Marxist view onraceandracism isVictor Perlo,EconomicsofRacismU.S.A.:Rootsof Black

Inequality (New York: InternationalPublishers,1975). But alongsidethisorthodox view, someAfrican American Marxists like WEB. Du Bois,C.L.R, James,and, more recently, Manning Marableand Robin 0. Kelleyhavequestionedthesimplisticanalysisof racismof their white counterparts.For particularly biting criticisms of the traditional Marxist view on racialmattersseeJamesBoggs, Racismand the ClassStruggle(New York:Monthly Review Press,1970); Robert L. Allen, ReluctantReformers(Washington,D.C.: Howard University Press,1974); and Harold Cruse,RebellionorRevolution(New York: William Morrow & Company,1968).

7. Albert Szymanski,ClassStructure:A Critical Perspective(NewYork: PraegerPublishers,1983),p.402.

8. Despite my multiple disagreementswith Cox’s approachto race, Iregardhis oeuvre as phenomenal,particularly consideringthat he did mostof his work underJim Crow. In his Caste,Class,and Race(New YostDoubleday,1948),Cox developeda competentclassanalysisof post—WorldWar II classmatters in theUnited Statesandelsewhere.AlthoughI disagreewith the essenceof his racial analysisin this book,I agreewith much of hiscritique of Myrdal’s work, the caste-schoolof racerelations,and think thathis analysisof lynching is brilliant. I also believethat he shouldreceivemore credit forhis,world-systemanalysis.On this lattermatter,seehis TheFoundationsof Capitalism(New York: PhilosophicalLibrary, 1959).

9. Cox, Caste,Class,and Race,393.10. Ibid., 330.11. Ibid., 336.12. EdnaBonacich,“A Theoryof EthnicAntagonism:The Split Labor

MarketApproach,”AmericanSociologicalReview37 (1980): 547—559.Seealso her“AdvancedCapitalismand Black/WhiteRelationsin the UnitedStates:A Split LaborMarket Interpretation,”in The Sociologyof RaceRelations:ReflectionandReform,edited by T. Pettigrew (New York: FreePress,1980).

13. Bonacich,“A Theoryof Ethnic Antagonism,”343—344.14. Ibid., 347. This argumentstrikes me as blamingthe victim in dis-

guise. Fortwo excellentaltemativeMarxist readingsof why blacksdid notjoin unionswith their “brothers and sisters,”seePhilip Foner’s excellentOrganizedLabor and the Black Worker, 1619-1981 (New York: Interna-tional Publishers,1981) and David Roediger’sThe Wagesof Whiteness:Raceand the Making of theAmericanWorking Class (London and NewYork: Verso, 1991).Fora morerecentbook showingthe racializedcharacterof working-classpolitics, see Michael Goldfield’s The Color of Politics:Raceand theMainspringsofAmericanPolitics (New York: The New Press,1997).

15, Bonacich,downplays interpretationsof this “resistance”basedonracial prejudice againstblacks. Therefore,she explains the raceriots thatoccurredin the 1919—1940period as expressionsof class protectionismfrom whites facing“threats” from blackworkers.This interpretationnatural-izes the racist white view symbolizedin the statement“they are taking our

50 WhiteSupremacy& Racism in the Post—civil RightsEra What Is Racism? 51

jobs” and ignoresthe racial aspectof classformation (seeRoediger’sTheWagesof Whiteness,1992). On this point, black historian Carter0.Woodson,TheNegro in Our History (Washington,DC,: The AssociatedPublishers,1947),commenteda long time agothat

as Negroesin the North and West, therefore,were pitted againstthe tradesunions,theyengenderedmuch feelingbetweenthe racesby allying themselveswith the capitalists to serveas strikebreak-ers. In this case,however,the tradesunions themselveswere to beblamed.The only timethe Negroescould workundersuchcircum-stancewas when the whites were striking, and it is not surprisingthat someof them easily yielded then to the temptation. In thoseunionsinwhich theNegroeswererecognized,theystoodwith theirwhiteco-workersinevery instanceof making a reasonabledemandof their employers.Someof theseunions, however,acceptedNegroesmerelyas a subterfugeto preventthem from engaginginstrikebreaking.When the Negroesappealedfor work, identifyingthemselvesas membersof the union in control, they were tumedaway with the subterfugethat no vacanciesexisted,while at thesametimewhite menweregladly received.(My emphasis,439)

16. Bonacich, “A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism,”358. For a morenuancedMarxist analysisof racepost-l930s,seeJill Quadagno’sThe Colorof Welfare:Flow RacismUnderminedthe War on Poverty (New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1994).

17. A few EuropeanMarxists (e.g., JohnSolomos,Harold Wolpe,Robert Miles, and PaulGilroy), following the pivotal work of Stuart Hall,haveattemptedto overcomethe limitation of orthodox Marxism as it per-tainsto racial matters.Yet,despiteproviding somehonestindictmentsof theclass-reductionistreadingof racialphenomena,theseanalystssharemanyofthe limitationsof orthodoxMarxists.Forexample,theystill give primacytothe classstructureby conceiving thecontextof racializationas purely capi-talist. They also stressa priori classas the central organizingprinciple ofsocietiesand, hence,regard raceas a secondaryelementthat fracturesorstratifiesclasses.Finally, they still interpretracismasa fundamentallyideo-logical phenomenon.

18. On this point, seeMichael Omi and Howard Winant’s biting cri-tique in Racial Formationin the United States(New York and London:Routledge,1994).

19. Some of the premier authors in this tradition are StokelyCannichaeland CharlesHamilton, BlackPower: ThePolitics ofLiberationin America(New York: VintageBooks, 1967); Louis Knowles and KennethPrewitt, InstitutionalRacismin America (Patterson,NJ: PrenticeHall,1969);Mark Chesler,“ContemporarySociologicalTheoriesof Racism,”pp.21—71 in Towardsthe Elimination of Racism,editedby Phyllis A. Katz(New York: Pergamon,1976); David Wellman, Portraits of White Racism(Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress,1977);RodolfoAlvarez,

Kenneth0. Lutterman,andAssociates,Discrimination i.n Organizations:Using SocialIndicators to Manage Social Change(San Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass,1979).

20. CarmichaelandHamilton,BlackPower,3.21. Chesler,“ContemporarySociologicalTheoriesof Racism,”22.22. See,particularly, Knowles and Prewitt, Institutional Racism in

America.23. This point has beenraisedby Miles, Racism(London and New

York: Routledge,1989).24. My emphasis.TureandHamilton,BlackPower, 5.25. If everything is or canbe conceivedas “racist,” then the term has

no boundaries;phenomenaof clearly class,gender,or pertainingto anyother form of social associationare reducedto race.In political terms,theassumptionthat all whites areracistsled to a suicidalpolitical strategy,par-ticularly for blacksin the United States,wherecoalition politics werebasi-cally dismissed(seechapter3 in Carmichael and Hamilton, 1967). Yet,Miles goestoo far here.Thisview didhelp blacksto mobilize, organize,andrally behindthe (ill-defined) notionof blackpower.

26. For an exampleof the negativeracializationexperiencedby theIrish in Ireland, seeTheodoreW. Allen, TheInvention of theWhiteRace(London andNewYork: Verso, 1994).

27. This point hasbeenraisedby Omi and Winant,Racial Formationin theUnisedStates.

28. Despite the radicalismof Carmichaeland Hamilton’s approach,their book is written within the pluralist view of powersopopular amongpolitical scientists.That is why they seemcontent with advocatingfor apower-sharingnationalistelectoralstrategyas if this were possiblein asocial formation wherepower is structurally basedand organizedaroundracial, class,and gendergroup-level domination.For a fascinatingcritiqueof myopic nationalistperspectives(whetherAfrocentric, Islam-centered,orelite-based),seeRod Bush, WeAre Not What We Seem:BlackNationalismand Class Strugglein theAmericanCentury (New York: New YorkUniversity Press,1999). Seealso WahneemaLnbiano, “Black Nationalismand Black Common Sense,”pp. 232—252 in The HouseThat RaceBuilt,editedby WahneemanLubiano(New York: PantheonBooks, 1997).

29. JoanW. Moore, “Colonialism: The Caseof the Mexican-Americans,”SocialProblems17 (1970): 463—472; Mario Barrera,RaceandClass in the Southwest:A Theory of Racial Inequality (Notre Dame,IN:Universityof NotreDamePress,1979); RobertBlauner, Racial Oppressionin America(New York: HarperandRow, 1972).

30. Blauneradvancedseveraldefinitions of racism in his book, Themostcomprehensiveregardedracismas“a principleof socialdominationbywhich a group seenas inferior in allegedbiological characteristicsisexploited,controlled,andoppressedsociallyand psychicallyby a superordi-nategroup.”RacialOppressionin America,84.

31. Blauner,Racial Oppressionin America,22.32. Ibid., 21,

52 WhiteSupremacy& Racismin the Post—Civil Rights Era What Is Racism? 55

33. tbid., 23.34. On racecycles,seeRobertE. Park,Raceand Culture(Glencoe,IL:

FreePress,1950). On ethnicpatterns,seeNathanGlazerandDaniel P.Moynihan,BeyondtheMelting Pot (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press,1970).

35. Blauner,Racial OppressioninAmerica,10.36. On this matterBlaunerstated,

Theliberal-humanistvaluethat violenceis theworst sin cannotbedefendedtoday if oneis committedsquarelyagainstracismandforself-determination.Someviolence is almostinevitable in thedecolonizationprocess;unfortunatelyracism in America hasbeensoeffectivethat the greatestpowerAfro-Americanswield today isthepowerto disrupt. (RacialOppressionin America,104)

37. Blaunerwas very awareof this limitation and said so in the intro-duction to his book. What was neededwas a “new theoreticalmodelbasedon the combinedexistenceof historical interactionand mutualinter-penetrationof thecolonial-racialand thecapitalistclassrealities” given that“America is clearly a mixed society that might be termedcolonialcapitalistor racial capitalist.”Racial Oppressionin America,13. Barreraattemptedtodealwith this limitation by suggestingthat thereis an interactiveclassandracestructureand that racial minorities constitutesubordinatedsegmentsorfractionsof all theclassesin the structure.Raceand Class in theSouthwest.

38. Omi and Winant,Racial Formationin the United States;Wilson,TheTruly Disadvantaged:The InnerCity, the Underclass,and Public Policy(University of Chicago Press,1987), and WhenWork Disappears(NewYork: VintageBooks,1996).

39. Omi andWinant,RacialFormationin the UnitedStates,61.40. Ibid., 23.41. ibid., 64.42, In Winant’s recentbook, Racial Conditions, the fundamentally

political characterof racializationis attributedto the factthat “elites, popu-lar movements,stateagencies,cultural and religious organizations,andintellectualsof all typesdevelopracial projects,which interpretandreinter-pretthe meaningof race Theseprojectsareoften explicitly, butalwaysimplicitly, political” (Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress,1994),p.24.

43. Theother importanttheoreticalspring of radical writings on raceinthis periodhasbeenStuartHall.

44. Oneof the earlieststatementson the constructionistcharacterofraceis foundin Max Weber, “Ethnic Groups,”in Economyand Society,edit-ed by HerbertRoth and ClausWittich (Berkeley,CA: University of Cali-fornia Press,1978).

45. In Racial Conditions(1994), Winant comescloseto enunciatingastructuralconceptionof race.He criticizesthepurely ideologicalconceptionof racebecauseit fails to (I) appreciatethesignificancethat a constructcanacquireover a thousandyears of existenceand (2) recognizethat race

shapesour identity andeverydayexperiences(16). However,Winanteschewsa truly structuralreadingof racebecausehe thinkssucha readingwould reify thecategory.As I arguein this chapter,anobjectiveunderstand-ingof race(similar to thecaseof classor gender)baseduponthenotion thatthesesocial groupshavedifferent interestsdoesnotnecessarilyentail freez-ing thecontentor meaningof thecategoryitself.

46. Omi andWinant,RacialFormationin the UnitedStates,55.47. Omi andWinantdefineracial projectsas “simultaneouslyan inter-

pretation,representation,or explanationof racialdynamics,andan effort toreorganizeand redistributeresourcesalong particular racial lines.” RacialFormationin the UnitedStates,56.

48. Ibid., 66.49. This problem is partially addressedin Howard Winant’s Racial

Conditionsthroughthe Gramscianconceptof hegemony,which he definesas “a form of rule that operatesby constructingits subjectsand incorporat-ing contestation”(113). According to Winant, this form of rule prevails inmost“modern” socieiiesandorganizes,amongotherthings,cleavagesbasedonclass,race,andgender.

50. Joe R. Feagin and HernanVera, White Racism(New York andLondon:Routledge,1995),p. 7. FeaginandVera’semphasis.

51. JoeR. Feagin,RacistAmerica(London:Routledge,2000),p.6.52. This is the argumentof authorsin the dependencyandworld-sys-

tem tradition. It is alsothe argumentof CedricRobinsonin BlackMarxism(London: ZedPress,1983) andof CharlesMills.

53. Seehis work in StevenShulmanand William Darity, Jr., TheQuestionof Discrimination: Racial Inequality in the U.S. Labor Market(Middletown, CT: WesleyanUniversity Press,1989).For theoppositeargu-ment,seeMichael Reich,Racial Incquality: A Political-EconomicAnalysis(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981).

54. For a critique of the moral interpretationof racial matters,seeLawrenceBobo, JamesKluegel, and Ryan Smith, “Laissez-FaireRacism:The Crystallizationof a Kinder, Gentler,Antiblack Ideology,” pp. 15—42 inRacialAttitudesin the l990s, editedby StevenA. Tuch andJackK. Martin(Westport,CT: Praeger,1997).

55. SeeTony Brown, “Being Black and FeelingBlue’: The MentalHealth Consequencesof Racial Discrimination,” Race& Society2, no. 2(2000): 117—131.

56. Examplesof this approachare Howard Schumanet al., RacialAttitudesin America (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press,1997);Paul Snidermanand ThomasPiazza,The ScareofRace(Cambridge,Mk:HarvardUniversityPress,1993).

57. This is the,finding of analystssuchas Snidermanin his variousbooksas well as that of GlennFirehaughandKennethE. Davis, “Trends inAntiblack Prejudice, 1972—1984,”AmericanJournal of Sociology94(1988): 251—274.

58. SeeJohn Rex, Race, Colonialism, and the City (London:Routledge,1973) andRaceRelationsin SociologicalTheory (London:WeidenfeldandNicolson,1986).

54 White Supremacy & Racism In the Pout-Civil Rights Era What Is RacIsm? 55

59. This has beenHoward Schuman’sargumentfor a long time, Forstatementsof this argument,seeany of the editionsof RacialAttitudes inAmerica.

60. There is now an explosionof survey-basedauthorsfighting thisindividualistic tradition, See,for example,DonaldR. Kinder and LynnSanders,Divided by Color (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1996)andmostof theauthorsin RacializedPolitics, editedby David 0. Sears,JimSidanius,and LawrenceBobo (Chicago:University of ChicagoPress,2000).

61. This tradition is very old but was clearly statedin TheodoreW.Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harperand Row,1950). Seealso Gordon W. Allport, TheNature ofPrejudice (New York:Doubleday,1958). Forexcellentcritiques,seeBlauner,Racial Oppressionin America,andDavidWeliman,Portrait ofWhiteRacism,

62, Roy Brooks,Rethinkingthe AmericanRaceProblem (Berkeley,Los Angeles,and Oxford: University of CaliforniaPress,1990); Robert C.Smith,Racismin thePost—CivilRightsEra (New York: StateUniversity ofNewYork Press,1995).

63. For earlystatementsof this view, seeDavid 0. Searsand DonaldR. Kinder, “RacialTensionsand Voting in Los Angeles,”pp. 5 1—88 in LosAngeles:Viability and Prospectsfor MetropolitanLeadership,edited byWernerZ. Hirsch (New York: Praeger,1971). For a maturereview of thesymbolic racism tradition, seeDavid 0. Sears,“Symbolic Racism,” pp.53—84 in EliminatingRacism:Profiles in Controversy,editedby P. A. Katzand D, A. Taylor (New York: Plenum, 1988). Seealso Pettigrew,TheSociologyofRaceRelations.

64. This questionis usedby the NationalOpinion ResearchCenter(NORC) and has beenemployedby Schumanet at., Racial AttitudesinAmerica,66.

65, This point hasbeenmadeby Oliver Cox, Caste,Class,and Race;Marvin Harris, PatternsofRaceRelationsin the Americas(New York:Walker, 1964);JohnRex, RaceRelationsin SociologicalTheory;andPierrevan denBerghe,Raceand Racism:A ComparativePerspective(New York:JohnWiley andSons,1967).

66. WinthropJordan,WhiteoverBlack:AmericanAttitudesTowardtheNegro (NewYork: W. W. Norton,1968); ManningMarable,HowCapitalismUnderdevelopedBlackAmerica (Boston: SouthEnd Press,2000 [1983));CedricJ. Robinson,Black Marxism: The Making of the Black RadicalTradition (London: Zed, 1983).

67. GlazerandMoynihan,BeyondtheMelting Pot.68. Roediger,The WagesofWhiteness,176.69. This quotecomesfrom Yehudi 0. Webster’sbook The Racial-

izationofAmerica(New York: St.Martin’s, 1992),p. 84.70. By structure I mean, following JosephWhitmeyer, “the networks

of (interactional)relationshipsamong actorsas well as the distributionsofsocially meaningfulcharacteristicsof actorsand aggregatesof actors.”“Why Actors Are Integral to StructuralAnalysis,” SociologicalTheory 12

(1994): 153—163.For similar but more complex conceptionsof the term,which are relationaland that incorporatethe agencyof actors,seePierreBourdieu,Distinction (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press,1984);and William H. Sewell,Jr, “A Theory of Structure:Duality, Agency, andTransfonnation,”AmericanJournal ofSociology98 (1992): 1—29. I reservethe term material to refer to the economic,social, political, or ideologicalrewardsor penaltiesreceivedby social actors for their participation(whetherwilling, unwilling, or indifferent) in socialstructuralarrangements.

71. All racializedsocialsystemsoperatealong white supremacistlines.SeeMills, BlacknessVisible (Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press,1998).

72, 1 makeadistinctionbetweenraceandethnicity. Ethnicity hasa pri-marily socioculturalfoundation,and ethnic groups have exhibitedtremen-dousmalleability in terms of who belongs.In contrast,racial ascriptions(iniUally) are imposedexternallyto justify the collective exploitationof apeopleand aremaintainedto preservestatusdifferences.The distinction Imake was part of a debatethat appearedrecently in the AmericanSocio-logical Review.For specialistsinterestedin this matter, seeBonilla-Silva,“The EssentialSocialFact of Race,”AmericanSociologicalReview64, no.6(1999):899—906.

73. HerbertBlumerwas one of the first analyststo makethis argumentaboutsystematicrewardsreceivedby the racesascribedthe primarypositionin a racial order. See Herbert Blumer, “Reflectionson Theory of RaceRelations,”pp. 3—21 in RaceRelationsin World Perspective,edited byA. W. Lind (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press,1955). Du Bois’sargumentaboutthe psychologicalwagesof whitenesshasbeenusedrecent-ly by Manning Marable, How CapitalismUnderdevelopedBlackAmerica;andby DavidRoediger,TheWagesofWhiteness.

74. This point hasbeenmadeby Omi andWinant,RacialFormationinthe UnitedStates;Winant,RacialConditions,

75. I am referringto casessuchas Haiti. Nonetheless,recentresearchhassuggestedthat evenin suchplaces,the abolition of slaverydid notendthe racializedcharacterof the socialformation, SeeMichel-Rolph Troillot,Haiti, StateAgainstNation: Originsand LegacyofDuvalierism(New YorLMonthly ReviewPress,1990),

76. For a similarargument,seeFloya Anthias and Nira Yuval-Davis,RacializedBoundaries:Race,Nation, Gender,Colout; and the Anti-RacistStruggle(London,England:Tavistock,1992).

77. For an early statementon this matter, see HubertM. Blalock, Jr~Toward a Theory of Minority-Majority Gi’oup Relations(New York: JohnWiley and Sons,1967).For a more recentstatement,seeSusanOlzack,TheDynamicsof Ethnic CompetitionandConflict (Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress,1992).

78. Nineteenth-centurynation-buildingprocessesthroughoutLatinAmerica includedthe myth of racial democracyand color- or race-blind-ness.This facilitatedthestrugglesfor independenceand the maintenanceofwhite supremacyin societieswhereinwhite elites were demographicaUyinsignificant. For discussionspertinentto this argumentsee the excellent

56 WhIte Supremacy & Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era What Is RacIsm? 57

collection editedby Michael Hanchard,Racial Politics in ContemporaryBrazil (DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1999).

79. Seemy “The EssentialSocial Fact of Race,”AmericanSocio-logical Review64, no. 6 (December1999): 899—906.

80. On this point, seeWarrenWhatleyandGavinWright, Race,HumanCapital, and Labor Marketsin AmericanHistory, Working Paper#7 (AnnArbor, MI: Center for Afroamericanand African Studies,University ofMichigan, 1994). For an incisive discussion,seeSamuelL. Myers, Jr.,“MeasuringandDetectingDiscrimination in thePost—Civil Rights Era,” pp.172—197 in RaceandEthnicity in ResearchMethods,editedby JohnH.StanfieldII andRutledgeM. Dennis(London:SagePublications,1993).

81. Michael Reich,“The Economicsof Racism,”in Racial Conflict,Discrimination,and Power:Historical and ContemporaryStudies,editedbyWilliam Barclay,Krsihma Kumar, and Ruth P. Simms (New York: AMSPress,1976),p. 224,

82. Omi andWinant,RacialFormationin the UnitedStates,64.83. On the invention of the white race, seeTheodoreW, Allen, The

Inventionof theWhiteRace,Vol. 1 (London: Verso, 1994).On the inventionof the “Indian” race, seeRobertE. Berkhoffer,The White Man’s Indian(New York: Vintage, 1978).On the inventionof the black and white races,seeWinthropJordan,White overBlack.

84. A classicbook on the ideologicalbinary constructionof the racesin the United Statesis ThomasGossett,Race: The History of an Idea inAmerica(Dallas, TX: SouthernMethodist UniversityPress,1963). For ananalysisof the earlierperiod in the Americas,seeTzevetanTodorov,TheConquestof America: The Question of the Other (New York: HarperColophon,1984).

85. On this matter, I statedin my recentdebatein the pagesof theAmericanSociologicalReviewwith Mara Lovemanthat “race,’ like ‘class’or ‘gender,’ is alwayscontingentbut is alsosocially real. Raceoperates‘as ashuttle betweensocially constructedmeaningsand practices,betweensub-jective and lived, materialreality’ (Hanchard1994: 4).” (901). Michael G.Hanchard,Orpheusand Power (Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press,1994).

86. This lastpoint is an extensionof Poulantzas’sview on class.Races—asclasses—arenot an “empirical thing”; they denoteracializedsocialrelationsor racial practicesat all levels,Poulantzas,Political Powerand SocialClasses(London:Verso, 1982),p. 67.

87. For a full discussion,seemy “The EssentialSocial Fact of Race.”Fora similar argument,seeTeresaAmott andJulie Matthaei,Race,Gender,and Work:A Multicultural EconomicHistory of Womenin the UnitedStates(Boston,MA: SouthEndPress,1996).

88. FrederickBarth, “Introduction,” pp. 9—38 in Ethnic Groups andBoundaries:The Social Organization of Culture Difference, editedby F.Barth (Bergen,Norway:Universitetsforlaget,1969).

89. For the caseof the Jews,seeMiles, Racismand RacismAfter“Race Relations” (London: Routledge,1993).For thecaseof the Irish, seeAllen, TheInventionofthe WhiteRace.

90. Fora recentexcellentdiscussionon ethnicity with manyexamplesfrom the United States,seeStephenCornell and DouglasHartmann,Ethnicity and Race:Making Identities in a ChangingWorld (London: PineForgePress,1998).

91. Roediger,The Wagesof Whiteness.See also Noel Ignatiev, Howthe Irish BecameWhite (New York: Routledge,1995).

92. For identity issuesamongCaribbeanimmigrants,seetheexcellenteditedcollection by ConstanceR. Sutton and E. M. Chaney,CaribbeanLifein New York City: SocioculturalDimensions(New York: CenterforMigration Studiesof NewYork, 1987).

93. Barth,“Introduction,” 17.94. A few notablediscussionson this matterare Ira Berlin, Slaves

WithoutMa.sters.:The Free Negro in AntebellumSouth(New York:Pantheon,1975); JohnHopeFranklin,From Slaveryto Freedom:A Historyof theNegroAmericans(New York: Alfred Knopf, 1974);AugustMeir andElliot Rudwick, From Plantation to Ghetto (New York: Hill and Wang,1970).

95. Themotivationfor racializing humanrelationsmayhaveoriginat-ed in the interestsof powerful actors,hutaftersocial systemsareracialized,all membersof the dominantraceparticipatein defendingand reproducingthe racial structure.This is the crucial reasonwhy Marxist analysts(e.g.,Cox, Reich)havenot succeededin successfullyanalyzingracism. Theyhavenot beenable to acceptthe fact that after the phenomenonoriginatedwith theexpansionof Europeancapitalisminto theNewWorld, it acquiredalife of its own.The subjectswho wereracializedasbelonging to the superi-or race,whetheror not they were membersof the dominantclass,becamezealousdefendersof the racial order.For an interestingMarxist-inspiredtreatment,seeBush, WeAre Not WhatWe Seem.

96. Jordan,White over Black; Robinson,Black Marxism; Miles,RacismAfter “Race Relations.”

97. BernardM. Magubane,The Political EconomyofRaceand Classin SouthAmerica (New York: Monthly Review Press,1990); RichardWilliams, HierarchicalStructuresand Social Value (Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversity Press,1990). For two recent valuablecontributions,seeRobinBlackburn,TheMaking ofNewWorld Slavery:From theBaroqueto the Modern, 1492—1800 (London: Verso, 1997); and Ian Hannaford,Race:The History of an Idea in the West (Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press,1996),

98. Hillel Ticktin, The Politics of Race:Discrimination in SouthAfrica (London: Pluto,1991),p.26.

99. The classicbook on this is PaulaGiddings, Whenand Where1Enter: TheImpactofBlack Womenon Raceand Sexin America(New York:Bantam, 1984). See also Nancy Caraway,SegregatedSisterhood:Racismand the Politics of AmericanFeminism(Knoxville, TN: University ofTennesseePress,1991).

100. This argumentis not new. Analysts of the racial history of theUnited Stateshavealwayspointedout that most of the significant historicalchangesin this country’s racerelationswere accompaniedby somedegree

58 White Supremacy& Racism in the Post—Civil Rights Era

of overt violence. SeeHarold Cruse,Rebellionor Revolution (New York:William Morrow, 1968); Franklin,From Slaveryto Freedom;andJamesW.Button,Blacks and SocialChange:Impactof the Civil RightsMovementinSouthernCommunities(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989).

101. Thispoint is importantin literatureon revolutionsanddemocracy.On the role of violencein the establishmentof bourgeoisdemocracies,seeBarrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorshipand Democracy(Boston,MA: BeaconPress,1966).On thepivotal roleof violencein socialmovements,seeFrancesFox Pivenand RichardA. Cloward,Poor People’sMovements:WhyTheySucceed,HowTheyFail (New York: Vintage, 1979).

102. The notion of relative autonomycomesfrom the work ofPoulantzas(Powerand Social Classes)and implies that the ideologicalandpolitical levels in a societyare partially autonomousin relation to the eco-nomic level; that is, theyarenotmerelyexpressionsof theeconomiclevel.

103. Paul Gilroy, “There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack”: TheCultural Politics of Raceand Nation (Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress,1991),p. 17.

104. SeeEllis Cose,1’lie Rageof a Privileged Class: WhyAre BlackMiddle ClassAngry?WhyShouldAmericaCare? (New York: HarperCollins,1993);LawrenceOils-Graham,Memberofthe Club: Reflectionson Life in aRaciallyPolarizedWorld (New York: HarperCollins,1993).

105. In additionto thework by Joe R. FeaginandHerndnVera alreadycited,seeLawrenceBobo, J.Kluegel, andR. Smith,“LaissezFaireRacism:The Crystallizationof a Kinder, Gentler,Antiblack Ideology,” and,particu-larly, Mary R. Jackman,VelvetGlove:Paternalismand Conflict in Gender,Class, and RaceRelations(Berkeley,CA: University of California Press,1994).

106. Curiously,historianEugeneGenovesemadea similarargumentinhis book Redand Black. Although he still regardedracismas an ideology,he statedthat once it “arises it altersprofoundly the materialreality andinfact becomesapartially autonomousfeatureof that reality.”Redand Black:Marxian Explorations in Southernand AfroamericanHistory (New York:Pantheon,1971),p.340.

107. HaIl, “RaceArticulation and SocietiesStructuredin Dominance,”in SociologicalTheories:Raceand Colonialism,editedby UNESCO(Paris:UNESCO,1980),p.336.

108. Actions by the Ku Klux Klan havean unmistakablyracial tone,but many otheractions(choosingto live in a suburbanneighborhood,send-ing one’schildrento a private school,and opposinggovernmentinterven-tion in hiring policies) alsohaveracial undertones.