On "Anti-Racism"
It isn’t hard to find criticisms of “anti-racism” from people who identify as conservative or Leftists. One of the popular conservative criticisms of “anti-racism” is that it divides people on the basis of race, thereby deviating from the principal of equality or colorblindness. Alternatively, they argue that we should adhere to King’s ideal of individuals being judged on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. A popular criticism from people on the Left is that “anti-racism” tends to really be a way for employers and managers to promote their ideologies and advance their interests, thereby displacing class consciousness. In other words, “anti-racism” is a class project by employers and the professional-managerial class. Alternatively, we should organize workers in order to build the collective power necessary to address their practical needs (including freedom from domination and exploitation by their employers).
I think one issue with the former criticism is that it ignores the source of race: racism. In other words, I do believe that racial ideology persists because racism (which the Fields sisters define as the social, civic, and/or legal practice of a double standard on the basis of ancestry) remains a social problem. At times, I have definitely agreed with the latter criticism. I think it’s hard to deny that, at least from my vantage point as a graduate student, what is considered “anti-racism” tends to leave many of the sources of political and economic inequality (including exploitation) largely intact. This is what makes the claim that “anti-racism” in schools is a radical Marxist plot seem confused even if you grant that such a criticism is a good-faith argument; what counts as “anti-racism” is usually defined by employers and managers, and you would thus have to find it plausible that employers and managers are trying to overthrow existing class hierarchies and the structure of capitalism in covert ways (while still wanting nothing to do with labor unions).
Yet I do wonder: isn’t it better that we live in a world where “anti-racism” and other anti-discrimination logics and strategies for action are becoming normal? If so, what version of “anti-racism” would we prefer or find more useful than others? For example, it is undeniable that I truly benefitted from an “anti-racist” initiative at a university; I was a part of an undergraduate scholars program that dramatically cut my tuition costs, provided me with opportunities to travel to other countries and see how other scholars and activists were working to address social problems, gave me an in-depth education on the debates and organizing by members of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. It was in that program that I learned about the critical social analysis and theory of change advanced by Dr. King; the idea that racism (along with colorism), materialism (profit over people), and militarism are tied together that, when viewed in this light, the vast majority of us have a stake in ending—and the idea that these problems can be addressed with the organizing of hopeful, anti-essentialist, nonviolent social actors after data collection, purification, and negotiation—continues to be a part of my guiding principles. The program was started by someone who worked in offices for multiculturalism and diversity, and I know that this program helped many students of color thrive—including students like myself, who come from a working class family.
Furthermore, I am reviewing my interviews with diversity administrators and I keep hearing “love the people and hate the system” in the late Michael Brooks’ voice. It is true that economic injustice and the exploitation of workers will not be solved by an anti-racist administration; the imperatives of working in a bureaucratic (and capitalist) social order operate as constraints on what they can say and do. As a consequence, there are a lot of things that MLK said and did—particularly the promotion of civil disobedience, criticisms of employers and economic injustice—that would be “irrational” for diversity administrators to do. Yet there are diversity administrators who offer interpersonal benefits that are pretty hard to dismiss, like persuading a president to not call the police on students demanding institutional changes, providing some support when students are called the n-word and don’t feel like they have some other people to talk to who won’t question their sanity, or translating students’ grievances about discrimination, harassment, and a Eurocentric curriculum to other managers. These seem like pretty good things that would count as “anti-racism.”
What are your thoughts? Is this pretty obvious? Concerning? Am I just suffering from false consciousness?
I hope all is well with you and your loved ones.