On the Danger of the Incompleteness of the Power Definition of Racism
Racism has always meant to me, intuitively, the attribution of certain immutable features, preferably degrading, to a whole group, solely based on its race or ethnicity, regardless of culture, which can but doesn’t need to, be actively expressed through power. This is not an official definition, it is just the fruit of longstanding reflections, as it seems to cover what racism entails, broadly.
The definition is changing, and quite rapidly. Scholars such as Howard Winant and Michael Omi are quite influential. Their popularizers such as Ibram X Kendi or Imani Perry even more. Today, racism has to do with power, exclusively: it “creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race.” What they often do is relegate an important part of the definition of racism to the idea of prejudice. As a result racism loses its full meaning. This is a recent trend that is fallacious and can be very dangerous.
I have three main objections with this power definition of racism: i) its incompleteness, ii) its inconsistency, and iii) its dangerousness.
The Incompleteness of the Power Definition of Racism
First, I decided to move away from my personal preferences, and reached out to the dictionary instead. Merriam-Webster includes two main definitions of racism: i) one of belief, and ii) one of power. So far so good, I am in agreement with the passive/active duality of racism: it can be a set of beliefs passively kept, or actively expressed and even enacted through power. I decided to go a bit further and explore the use of the -ism/-ist suffix in the English language. Merriam-Webster has an entry that sheds some light on the meaning of words with the -ism/-ist ending such as ‘racist’ for example. According to the dictionary, someone who actively uses the ‘harp’ tool would be referred to as a ‘harpist’. Likewise, a second definition would highlight the specialization of an individual; whereas the term ‘scientist’ can be broad, the term ‘geologist’ specifies the field in which an individual exercises his science more narrowly. Lastly, and more importantly, this suffix can designate someone who “adheres to or advocates a (specified) doctrine or system or code of behavior”. Based on both of these entries from a mainstream dictionary, I cannot help but notice the incompleteness of the power definition of racism. Instead, a good case can be made in favor of defining racism both as i) a set of beliefs/doctrines, and ii) their practical application through power, as the -ism/-ist suffixes in the English language can both point to the use of a tool, or to adherence to an ideology, both of which need not be expressed coincidentally. Rather, only active racism presupposes passive racism, while the other way can hardly be true. In that sense, anyone could potentially be racist, no matter his/her position of power.
The Inconsistency of the Power Definition of Racism
Secondly, I would like to show that the power definition of racism cuts both ways, and that using its incomplete definition leads to absurd inconsistencies. According to the US Census Bureau, the US counted 60.1% of non-Hispanic Whites in 2019. Additionally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are economic disparities between race groups. For example, in Q4 2020, the median weekly salary for Whites (between 25 and 54 yrs) was $1,036, while it was $809 for Blacks (-22%). Many thinkers, such as Ibram X Kendi gladly point out that such disparities must clearly stem from a power structure: more Whites lead to more opportunities for Whites and thus more wealth for them too, since obviously Whites support each other (!). The problem is that such readings are only correlations and focus on very limited sets of data. If you read a couple of more lines on the BLS table, you will see that Asians who represent only 5.9% of the population earned a weekly average of $1,347 in Q4 2020 (+30%!). Finally, Hispanics who represent 18.5% of the US population, earned on average 4% less than Blacks. In essence, being in majority, even in positions of power, does not lead you to the top necessarily, from an economic standpoint (economic power being a fair cross-cultural and timeless approximation of power). A clearer example would be that of the NBA. According to the 2020 NBA Racial and Gender Report Card: between 2010 and 2020, Blacks have represented consistently a 74–77% share of all NBA players, every year! It probably means they drive the salary trends too. Would this mean that only Blacks could be racists in the NBA? This would be absurd, yet this would also have to be true based a power definition of racism. Another example would be that of Ibram X Kendi himself: is his notoriety a position of power that he uses to promote his racist anti-White ideas? These are only a couple of inconsistencies of the power definition of racism, but there are (so) many more. Suffice it to say, that such a definition cuts both ways, and its incompleteness is a mockery of the history of racism.
The Danger of the Power Definition of Racism
Lastly, I want to tackle the most disturbing aspect of the power definition of racism. It is dangerous.
Indeed, any person who is part of a minority, or is vulnerable, that is, not in a position of power, can claim that he or she, cannot be racist, but only prejudiced. This is exactly what some intellectuals such as Jeffrey Robinson, repeatedly claim. This might sound unassuming, but as soon as we try to extend this logic to other minority groups, it becomes quickly very scary. In fact, per his definition, the KKK ceases to be racist simply because they are fringe and powerless today. Indeed, the KKK is not in power and does not permeate the US judicial or governmental system. This is absurd. It is obvious that the KKK must still be seen as a racist organization in spite of their having little power, simply because of the sets of beliefs they hold. If for some reasons, you do believe that the KKK permeates the US judicial and governmental system, simply pick any supremacist or racist group you know, and see if you’d feel comfortable removing the ‘racist’ label off of them. It is really worrying that this aspect is being lost through the ‘power definition’ of racism. The potential damages such a paucity could generate are spine-chilling.
To conclude, I believe the currently-trendy ‘power definition’ of racism to be i) incomplete, ii) inconsistent, and iii) dangerous. It is a very risky re-definition we should absolutely denounce and not endorse. Luckily, this is very easy to do, by simply referring to mainstream dictionaries (at least for now, but I might expect this to change as well in the near future). In those, racism can be both enacted by passively adhering to a racist set of beliefs, and/or by actively discriminating, while both need not be conincidental. Additionally, even if there are many thinkers such as Robinson, Kendi, and other academics, who focus entirely on the active and incomplete definition, there are other ones who pay attention to the importance of language. I highly recommend reading or listening to Jonathan McWhorther or Coleman Hughes, for example, two extremely bright academics and thinkers. The insistence on ‘power’ is very recent and trendy, but completely unsubstantiated. And it is very dangerous. Take heed!
drsobko
