How Can We Have Better Conversations About Race?
- OPINION By SCOTT CORLEY-
The unfortunately tragic, yet typical, events in Georgia, Minneapolis, Louisville, and NYC are but a few of many recent examples as to why we are here, again, prompting a national discussion about race, race relations, and racism.
Boiled-over tensions raised by constantly persistent police killings of African Americans are recent flashpoints that ignited another round of protests and demonstrations as well as obligatory and reactionary calls for a national conversation on race. Especially because such cyclical patterns of social unrest result in cries for reform, justice, and change to be achieved through national dialogue, it is maybe necessary to talk about the talk.
There are multiple challenges associated with convening national discussions about race, two shortcomings of which are grounded in at least two different views about them.
From one perspective, meaningful and potentially useful public dialogue has never been committed to, never lasted long enough, nor had significant impacts. Some political leaders, activists and public scholars have long argued that the nation has consistently failed to seriously hold such conversations, even when inspired by collective outrage. And when they have taken place, they have not resulted in implementing long-term, transformative policies that fundamentally alter how our institutions operate or had any measurable impact on improving collective behaviors and actions to improve the lives of those adversely affected by racism.
From a second perspective, the nation has had too many such conversations about racial difference, but grounded in too much lecturing, being talked to, and finger-pointing. From this point of view, discussions about racism unfairly exaggerate how much racism exists; fail to adequately address other sources of oppression, like class; and ignore how much progress has taken place. This position typically denounces those who seek justice as agitators who needlessly exacerbate racial tensions.
Despite the opposition of both perspectives, they actually converge in that the many flawed claims made in perspective two result in the accuracy of perspective one. Given that the 2nd perspective is supported by a devastatingly effective combination of white fragility, colorblind racism, and vigorous denial of white privilege, all three must be directly exposed and mitigated to have honest and productive exchanges. This is no small task, however, especially since this trifecta of racial-moral blindness is thoroughly embedded in U.S. culture and, therefore, profoundly influences what we see and how we make sense of social reality.
Widespread historical ignorance and selective amnesia, complimented by a willingness to place opinions on the same level as sound academic research, also ill-equips and ill-prepares many in the U.S to discuss race meaningfully outside of their own experiences with it. This prohibits many white people from accepting, seeing, and understanding racism’s profound destructiveness and, furthermore, triggers intellectual and emotional automatic responses to deflect, minimize, and dismiss claims of this destructiveness. Behavioral and communicative application of ideologies and habits that do not explicitly center systemic racism as the main explanatory reference point ends efforts for honest engagement of racism far too short of achieving any practical end.
Potentially better conversations must begin with intentionally and unambiguously naming and framing the problem: in this case, focusing on how institutions and structures produce racially unjust and unequal outcomes, which are then sustained through the interconnectedness of systems. Accurate, expert-based reports of disproportionalities that highlight racial inequality, inequity, and injustice, (despite individual people’s intentions), should, therefore, be a major consideration in the framing of any conversation about achieving justice. The rhetorical and conceptual “push back” and defensiveness described above to such framing could then be mitigated by careful facilitation.
Successfully moderating or facilitating authentic dialogues about systemic racism requires the ability to avoid various conversational pitfalls. Well-trained moderators would ideally assist discussion participants to carefully listen without dismissing marginalized perspectives that generate discomfort. Moderators would also need to learn how to identify and address microaggressions and coded language with candor and openness, while simultaneously being prepared to unpack routine personalizing, victim-blaming, mythologizing, and decontextualizing as typical rhetorical strategies in service of protecting entrenched positions. Discussion moderators would have to generally be tasked with not allowing the normalization of typical narratives that undermine the legitimacy of race-based terrorism, exclusion, harassment, and discrimination, and the trauma all of it causes.
Promoting and managing conversations about race must go beyond the typical multiculturalist postures of seeking empathy and focusing on the goal of acquiring sensitivity to cultural difference, but instead uncover and tackle patterns of power and how it operates along the lines of race. Conversations about race can and must explore why injustice remains, identify social justice goals, and help to provide opportunities to take action.
Systemic racism can only be dismantled when enough people understand it and are willing to collapse the discrepancies between the actual conditions people of color face and our many positive values including, but not limited to, fairness, freedom, and equality.
Scott Corley, a PhD student in Binghamton University’s College of Community and Public Affairs, studies conversational democracy and citizen politics. Scott is also a full professor in the History, Philosophy & Social Science Department at SUNY Broome Community College where he serves as a member of SUNY BCC’s President’s Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion and as a member of BCC’s Civic Engagement Board.