A Theoretical Introduction
When Barack Obama was elected President of the USA, the media celebrated entering a new era, in which racism became an irreversible past. After long decades of struggle for civil rights and equality, America is living in a post-racial political era. This celebration of Obama’s election took different forms, at times it was considered to be an overcoming of centuries of inequality, while at other times it was considered a manifestation of color blindness –so to speak– that is, the disappearance of the influence of skin color in the public sphere.
While it cannot be said that Obama’s presidency did not open the doors to major changes regarding some domestic policies, claiming that we have entered a post-racial era or an era without colorism is still very unrealistic. America is still racist, and racism is still part of the American social structure. In 2012, Trayvon Martin (17 years old) was killed by a neighborhood watch captain. In July 2014, Eric Garner (43 years old) was strangled to death by police. In August 2014, Michael Brown (18 years old) was shot and killed by a police officer. In September 2015, Ahmed Mohamed (14 years old) was arrested from his school after it was suspected that his homemade watch was a bomb. There are two main common denominators: first, the perpetrator was always of legal authority, and second, the victims were always people of color. All of these events occurred during Obama’s presidency, and if these examples have topped the media, there is no doubt that there are dozens or hundreds of other examples that are hidden in daily events and are ignored by the media. Anyone could survey the details of the various events, and it would not be difficult to conclude that these four (and dozens of others) are victims of racial discrimination, meaning, the main reason they were suspected was because they belong to a certain racial group.
The idea that America is post-racial may now seem more questionable, or that it is color blind may seem more rhetorical for media consumption than an indication of what is actually going on. In reality, this article examines in part the fact that these two ideas are part of an authoritarian discourse supported and preached by the dominant group, a discourse that aims primarily to maintain the status quo and prevent any tangible structural changes through obfuscation and ignorance. The reader has the right to wonder what this current situation is or to wonder about the nature of the structure of the racial society I address. I will provide a tentative answer – which I will discuss in more detail later. The thesis of the article is that American society is still racial to this day, this racism is structural or institutional in its essence, meaning that it is part of the foundations on which institutions in the American political system are built. By “political system”, I do not mean that it is limited to the direct political space only, rather, I approach the matter from a general angle that considers everything related to organizing people as part of politics, even if it is called otherwise.
To say that racism “still exists” assumes continuity of some kind. This continuity forms the essence of the historical approach that I will adopt in this article, i.e., the approach that originates from the fact that analyzing contemporary phenomena requires research not only into their manifestations and origins, but also includes the assumptions based on which these phenomena are analyzed. Because I argue that the seeds of modern racism have been planted since the founding of the USA, primary historical sources will form the focus of the second part of the article.
Perhaps, the first problem with regard to the historical approach is related to what can be called non-temporal theorizing. While tracing the roots of any contemporary phenomenon, the researcher may fall into the trap of diminishing the values of his era or its intellectual frameworks onto the past he is trying to analyze. I do not claim that we can be completely freed from this tendency, but I believe that its consequences can be reduced by focusing on the relationships between phenomena rather than addressing the individual judgments individually. In other words, instead of making value judgments or negating certain ideas, these judgments and ideas must be reviewed as manifestations of a larger fabric, as part of the interactions of the intellectual structures existing at that time.
Clarifying this relational analysis and resolving the problem resulting from the historical approach requires a quick review of three of what can be called meta-theories, the theory whose subject is another theory (or theoretical approach). The first of these meta-theories is related to the German philosopher Hans Vaihinger’s thesis about the fictionalism in his book “The Philosophy of ‘as if’”. As he says in the introduction, fiction is what exists on the theoretical (or mental) level not the physical, i.e., what we know that does not have a physical existence. Nevertheless, the fact that it does not exist physically does not mean that it is wrong or useless. Rather, it can be practically useful, to have physical consequences. Vaihinger includes in Chapter Four that fictions are nothing but mental structures, stressing that they are mentally necessary means to achieve physical results that would not otherwise be possible.
Vaihinger embodies these notions by the mathematical concept of infinity and the philosophical concept of things-in-themselves, to which we can add the concept of society as well. All these concepts are fiction, meaning that they do not indicate an objective, materialistic reality. However, treating fiction as if it were physical facts leads to tangible, realistic results. This idea can be understood most clearly in relation to racial studies. Race itself is a fictional concept, it is a social construct that aims to classify people according to certain superficial characteristics without having physical foundations. This concept has long been used to subjugate certain groups to the interests of others.
The second meta-theory is inspired by Slavoj Žižek’s hierarchical conceptualization of violence. Žižek points to three different levels of violence, so to speak. First, subjective violence, which refers to violence that is enacted by a clear agent. Second, symbolic violence, such as the violence contained in language in its various forms. Third, objective or systemic violence, which is violence resulting from the working mechanisms of economic and political systems. Racism can be conceptualized in light of the same three levels. In this context, interpersonal name calling, for example, becomes part of self-racialism, as individuals can be referred to and labeled as racists (regardless of whether this is true or not). In the same context, the racial division of residential areas and districts becomes part of objective or systemic racialism, the processes take place in a systematic manner that affects all dimensions of people’s lives without necessarily being linked to a clear agent.
The third meta-theory is related to conflicts between groups and is inspired by the Marxist theory of self-alienation. In his essay “Alienation and Social Classes,” Marx draws an antagonistic relationship between the proletariat and wealth even though they arise from the same conditions. In other words, the proletariat cannot exist in isolation from a bourgeois class that monopolizes wealth, but this does not mean that their interests are equal; the bourgeoisie rises as the proletariat falls, and vice versa. But this fall is not limited to the economic aspect only, but it is related to the surrounding conditions in general. Put another way, the same conditions that produce the proletariat also cause their de-humanization: “The proletariat represents complete dehumanization, from even the appearance of humanization.”
Racism can be understood through Marx’s thesis on the basis of these two matters. The conditions that non-whites experienced in America stripped them of their humanity to varying degrees across different time periods. In addition, as the white-versus-non-white dichotomy becomes clearer, the distribution of resources follows the same pattern, with whites gaining more supremacy. What we conclude out of this – despite the limitations – is that whites benefit from the existing conditions and they will try to preserve this state at any cost, which partly explains the change in the identity of the white man in the USA historically according to economic interests.
The three aforementioned meta-theories aim to prepare an initial intellectual ground upon which future concepts about racism and the historical criticism of sources will be built.
We can begin by analyzing the concept of race itself. According to Golash-Boza, race can be defined as “the socially constructed belief that the human race can be divided into biologically discrete and exclusive groups based on physical and cultural traits.” In other words, the concept of race includes the belief that apparent physical traits are linked to cultural dimensions, such as intelligence, moral values, etc. Although superficial differences and even discrimination based on skin color are historically ancient, Golash-Boza points out that the concept of race itself is a modern concept and is a product of colonial encounters.
Why is this important? First of all, racism and its consequences cannot be separated from race. Put it differently, the belief that the biological traits responsible for determining human skin color are linked to cultural dimensions, building identities based on these traits will ultimately lead to racism; to discrimination based on race. So, what is racism? It is possible to approach the concept of racism in two ways: First, racism can be considered an ideology that emphasizes the organic connection between physical traits and cultural and social characteristics. In addition, it can be described as practices aimed at subjugating races that are believed to be inferior, whether these practices are on the macro or micro level.
The macro and micro levels of racism are best understood through Žižek’s hierarchical system of violence, mentioned in the first part of the article. Just as violence can be classified into subjective and objective violence, racial practices can be divided into two levels, as Golash-Boza points out: “The first is the individual level, the second is at the institutional level, where racism becomes a normalized social ideology, operating within the organizations, institutions and processes of the larger society.”
Both of these definitions (i.e., racism as ideology and racism as practices of subjugation) start from the hypothesis that racism is a phenomenon that already exists, and these definitions seek to characterize it and define its boundaries. However, the question about its origin still remains: How was racism formed?
It is possible to use two theories here that attempt to explain the matter. The first one is the theory of racial formation, as proposed by researchers Winant and Omi. From their point of view, racial formation can be defined as a socio-historical process related to racial groups, as this process creates, prepares, transforms, and marginalizes these groups. This process reshapes the authoritarian regime which racial groups fall under, where historical transformations affect their status by levelling up some groups and marginalizing others.
This does not mean that the process exists everywhere and all the time, but rather it is conditional on the existence of a “racialized” social system, as Bonilla-Silva calls it. According to him, societies in which economic, political, social, and ideological levels are partially structured by the placement of actors in racial categories or races. It means that the distribution of resources and interests in general is affected by factors involved in the formation of racial identities, which also means that conflicts between groups have a racial character. Since these conflicts are part of a complex process of interaction, it is not surprising that relations between different races are changing and complex. Before reaching its contemporary form, American society was subjected to many processes of racialization, and in the following lines I will attempt to explore some of the roots for these processes.
The reader may wonder about the importance of focusing on the USA and American society, especially since racism is a worldwide phenomenon. There are two main reasons behind this focus. First, it is naive to underestimate the American cultural invasion at all levels, whether this invasion is overt or covert. One aspect of this invasion lies in the export of philosophical and social theoretical concepts as consumer products, so that these concepts appear as if they are the latest, best theories, and that the world must ‘adopt’ them until a better theory comes along. Personally, I believe that criticizing theories and concepts is part of resisting this invasion, and a necessary process to dismantle cultural hegemony. Explaining the connection between contemporary American society and historically racial practices may shed light on the connection between these theories themselves and the circumstances of history itself, which may also mean clarifying aspects of their relativity.
The second main reason for focusing on America is that it was a ‘special case’ in its origins. In Tocqueville’s words, “America is the only country in which it has been possible to witness the natural and tranquil growth of society, and where the influences exercised on the future condition of states by their origin is clearly distinguishable.” This means that witnessing the origins of race and the development of racial institutions is clearer in the case of the USA. As long as the roots of today’s institutional racism remain hidden, racism will remain and will continue to shape the future.
It is now possible to begin analyzing some historical sources, and there is nothing better than the Declaration of Independence as a starting point. The Declaration of Independence has long been portrayed as a universal humanitarian document aimed at overthrowing tyranny and achieving innate freedom. This is what the first lines of the document want to convey, as it demands that people regain the natural state of independence and equality granted by nature and its creator. The document also express its belief “that these truths are self-evident, all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [these rights include] the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The text appears to be neutral on the surface, meaning that the discussion here is about all of humanity. But the truth is that examining the historical and linguistic contexts of the text reveals to us that this neutrality is merely a normalization of the whites’ monopoly on humanity. In other words, the term “human beings” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence does not include all races, but rather glorifies the white race alone and excludes other “inferior” races. It is necessary to dive deeper in order to clarify this point.
David Hume wrote in one of his writings: “I am apt to suspect the negroes, and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites.” In his book on the history of Jamaica, Edward Long says that Africa is the source of every brutal thing in nature, he calls Africans “creatures” as if they were not actually human. In one of his short stories, Voltaire satirizes the then-popular idea that “innate” differences between white and black people were a cause of innate antagonism. And last – but not least –, quoting Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s Founding Fathers: “I advanced it, therefore, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time or circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind.”
This brief review is sufficient to clarify the previous point: the term “human beings” does not include all people. If we go back to the Declaration of Independence, we can conclude that all terms such as “we,” “individuals,” or “people” refer specifically to white people, and not to anyone else.
The Declaration of Independence is not the only document that enshrines this idea or uses it in similar contexts.In the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, a political community was defined as a voluntary association of individuals and considered a social contract by which the whole people conclude covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. The distinction between individual and citizen is not linguistic, but rather indicates that the political community does not actually include all individuals within the community. The question here becomes: Who exactly are the citizens? The Massachusetts Constitution and the Constitution of Georgia (1777) share a similar idea in answering this question: Citizens are males who have reached the age of 21 – an additional condition may be added regarding the minimum level of private property.
Therefore, there is also discrimination against women and minors with regard to the formation of political society. However, can these constitutions and what they insinuate be generalized to society? In other words, can it be assumed that black males who are twenty-one years old and meet the remaining conditions are also excluded from political participation?
The truth is that this is not an assumption, but rather it is based on a reality that was experienced at that time. I cite here the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott was a slave, and he filed a case for his and his family’s freedom. The Supreme Court ruled that case as a mistrial because Scott is not a US citizen, meaning he is unable to file a case in federal court. In response to any doubt the reader may have about the happenings of this case, I quote the following:
“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.”
And I also quote:
“[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
If this is the Supreme Court’s opinion, we can only imagine the pivotal role that race has played in daily life throughout history.
It should not be understood from the aforementioned documents that black people are the only ones affected by racism, whether on a macro or micro level. Regardless of how the concept of race has changed throughout history, it can be said that most non-Anglo-Saxon racial groups (this includes second-class white Eastern European people) have suffered throughout history. Here, I recall the various naturalization laws that limit the naturalization of non-whites throughout history. I also refer, for example, to the laws of 1882 that prevented the arrival of Chinese immigrants for ten years. Further, I mention here the Congress’s decision in 1921 to divide immigrants according to their nationalities. It is even possible to raise the GI Bill law, which is the policy that is said to have created the middle class in America. This policy refers to the benefits given to soldiers who participated in World War II, while its recipients were able to secure many educational and employment opportunities, the majority of non-whites were denied access to its advantages. Even the contemporary paradox between white neighborhoods and others is not an exception, as the National Housing Act of 1934 was originally drawn on the boundaries of racial segregation, meaning that the current racial segregation and revolutionary explosions are nothing but the result of an accumulated past.
Through this article, it becomes clear that racism is part of the institutional structure of the USA, and not just individual practices that can be easily overcome. In addition, this systemic legitimacy normalizes racism and makes it a part of the current philosophy, blurring its lines. When Du Bois said that “The problem of the Twentieth Century [In America] is the problem of the color-line,” he was not exaggerating. When he says “Daily the Negro is coming more and more to look upon law and justice, not as protecting safeguards, but as sources of humiliation and oppression,” he is presenting his own view of race as part of the institutional structure. The danger of institutional racism is that it is hidden and inconspicuous; it normalizes these practices as if they were non-racial.
In this article, I have tried to prove that contemporary racism in the USA is nothing but an extension of its origins since the founding of the country. In addition, I attempted to review evidence of a close relationship between theoretical concepts regarding society, race, and so on, and the structure of those societies themselves. If there is a solution to the contemporary racial crisis, there is no doubt that criticizing the working mechanism of racial institutions is an integral part of criticizing the concepts and theories that enshrine the current status in one way or another. Any attempt to spin this around merely provides a greater opportunity for the dominant group to recover and become more dominant.
T1612
