Tacit racism and demonization of problems

Eugene Matusov (ematusov who-is-at cats.ucsc.edu)
Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:16:36 -0700

Hello Judy and everybody (long message, sorry)=97

I want to thank Judy for raising important (almost taboo) topic. Judy
recently wrote:
>[I've been] musing about=20
>the "sensitivity" of race-specific topics. It's kind of scary,
>and I'm trying to figure out why. I assume that it has to do
>with the systematic cover-up for racism, with the "unconscious"
>racism that (m.c.) whites in this country get to "find out" about=20
>inadvertently if at all.

When I came to the US, I was amazed how little people talk publicly about
racial problems in the US and how they are afraid to talk. Here I try to
think why people are so scared. So far, and I agree with Judy that as an
immigrant I may miss something in understanding the problem, I came to the
conclusion that the discourse is hindered to high extend by, what can be
called, "witch hunt" on "tacit racism" in white middle class folks
(especially males).

The phenomenon goes far beyond the issues of what is "tacit racism," whether
it exists, or how much it is spread in the American society. I believe that
the phenomenon is constituted by demonization of the problem: unlimited
accusation in "tacit racism" of any white person. Or speaking
metaphorically, "tacit racism" like red glasses =96 you wear glasses and see
everything in red. If you wear glasses of "tacit racism," you see "tacit
racism" in any white person (but especially in any white guy). Of course,
even without red glasses, red color exists in the world =96 so the tacit
racism -- but it has its limits and contours. With the glasses, the red
color is everywhere, so the tacit racism.

Demonization of problems is not a new (or specifically American) phenomenon.
Let me give several examples. People do behave out of egoistic motives
without regard of other people's welfare, but if you demonize the problem
and wear glasses of "tacit egoism," you would see egoism and self-interests
at the bottom of any human deed or behavior. The person who wears this
glasses of "tacit egoism" often becomes cynical or indifferent. Similarly,
people do conspire against other people (and even sometimes rather
successfully). However, if you demonize the problem and wear glasses of
"tacit conspiracy," you would see conspiracy and manipulation at the bottom
of any human deed or behavior. The person who wears this glasses of "tacit
conspiracy" often becomes paranoiac or conspiratorial him/herself . People
who wear glasses of "tacit racism" often become "eaten" by guilt or "eaten"
by suspicion and rage. (Because of lack of space, I'm not giving Soviet
historical examples of people wearing glasses of "tacit
contra-revolutionary" or "tacit people enemy" or American historical example
of "tacit communist").

I think that, to some degree, the "old, good" positivism, experienced in its
struggle with religious fundamentalism, is right when it insists on a
verification procedure for any legitimate statement. Although, I disagree
with the positivism that there is the universal verification procedure
(e.g., falsification), I think that setting limitations grounded in local
sociocultural context is important to shake away any "demonizing glasses."
I believe that phenomenon should be described by description of its
boundary, counter of what is the phenomenon and what isn't rather than by,
what I'd call, "generative interpretation."

I'd heuristically define racism (or nationalism, or anti-Semitism, or
sexism, etc.) as a judgment of person's inferiority (moral, cognitive,
emotional, etc.) *totally* based on the person's biological belongingness to
a specific social group. The word "totally" means that whatever the judged
person does it would not change the inferiority judgment. I'm sure that it
is possible to find examples that are either over-covered or under-covered
by my definition. However, I think it is the way to go =96 clarifying the
boundary (the counter) of the phenomenon.

Let me give an (Russian) example that I comfortably judge as tacit racism.
A sister of my grandma called herself as "progressive and internationalist."
Once she came from outside and told that her internationalism had been
challenged by a neighbor who had bluntly and racially scolded black people
(we used to live in Moscow against some African embassy that bothered our
neighbors by noisy night parties). The sister of my grandma had tried to
defend black people against neighbor's racial slur when the neighbor asked
if she wanted that her granddaughter would get married to a black guy. The
sister of my grandma realized that she did not want that that. I asked her
"what if=85" questions naming very famous black men but it did not undermine
her judgment (however, she insisted on equality of all rights).

Now let me give examples of what I comfortably not consider "tacit racism."
When my son was 2.5-year old he encountered about same age black toddler in
Moscow (the toddler was from some African embassy that was around place we
used to live). My son cried to death when the toddler came up to my son.
My son referred to him as "unclean baby boy" ("gryazny mal'chik"). I guess
my son was scared not only unfamiliar color of boy's skin, but also by
foreign language never experienced before (this boy did not speak Russian)
and by unfamiliar motorics of the boy (the boy seemed to be much more
energetic than typical Russian male and female children of this age).

I also do not consider as "tacit racism" people's desires to live in safe
neighborhood, or to move away life threatening situations by avoiding young
black males on streets or public transportation, or to find good school for
their own children and so on. =20

I believe that far not all prejudices are racist (or nationalist, or sexist,
etc.). Moreover, I believe that, in general, prejudices are extremely
useful and important in navigating in potentially dangerous ambiguous
situations as well as in situations when we lack of recourses but forced (by
time or circumstances) to make a choice. However, decision making based on
prejudices hurt other people and even themselves. For example, if I have
choice to read a book out of two books on some topic: first book is written
by a researcher working in a cognitive tradition and the second book is
written by a researcher working in a sociocultural tradition, my personal
prejudice forces me to choose the second book. However, I'm aware that the
second book can be shallow while the first book can be superb. This
awareness pushes me to widen my reading rather than avoiding prejudice. In
sum, I think the issue is how to manage prejudices rather than how to avoid
them.

In conclusion, I'd like to share some personal anecdote. Once I had a very
interesting discussion with an American Christian fundamentalist (she does
not allow her kids to read fairy tales because these stories are "a bunch of
lies"). She asked me how I'd differentiate legitimate faith from fanaticism
(I think that fanaticism feeds on demonization of problems).
Half-seriously, I answered that healthy faith comfortably tolerates jokes at
itself while fanaticism does not =96 it is too serious. I added that when
people become too serious or too facetious about something, I usually
suspect either fanaticism or cynicism. She laughed at this.

Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz

------------------------
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz