Sage Publications, Inc

The Heart of the Politics of Race: Centering Black People in the Study of White Racial Attitudes Author(s): Melissa
V. Harris-Lacewell Source: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 222-249 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180905 . Accessed: 13/09/2013 10:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Black Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 121.54.54.60 on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:32:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE HEARTOF THE POLITICSOF RACE CenteringBlack People in the Study of White Racial Attitudes
MELISSA V. HARRIS-LACEWELL
Universityof Chicago
on racialpolitics. This piece confrontsa seriousdeficiency in the literature The defining works of White racial attitudesfail to grapplewith the complexities of African Americanpolitical thoughtand life. In these studies, Black people are a static object aboutwhich White people form opinions. This articleoffersa critiqueof the field of racepolitics by outliningthe consequencesof a failureto seriouslyincludeAfricanAmericansin theoretical and empiricalanalyses of Americanrace. Keywords: race and politics; AfricanAmerican;Americanpolitics
For more than a half century, social scientistshave been examining the contoursof Americanracialopinion. More recently,scholarsof racepolitics have been innovatingnew techniquesfor studying the complex ways that White racial attitudes shape national politics and public policy. Although there is serious, fractious, ongoing debatewithinthis research,thereis also nearlyunanimous consent among these scholars that, to borrowfrom Cornel West, race matters.Social scientists may disagree about how or why it matters,but there is a broad agreementthat racial considerations continueto influencethe ways thatWhitecitizens thinkaboutpolitics and policy in America. There is another,far more insidious agreementamong scholars of race politics. It is usually unstated andimplicit,butthe consensusexists nonethelessthatBlackpeople don't matter.
JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES, Vol. 34 No. 2, November2003 222-249 DOI: 10.1177/0021934703255596 ? 2003 Sage Publications 222
Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 223
Althoughthe idea thatBlack people aremarginalto the studyof race has been an implicit assumptionunderlyingmuch of the last decade's work on race politics, it has finally been unambiguously in a 2000 volume on the stateof the field. In a chapterof articulated Racialized Politics, Sniderman, Crosby, and Howell (in Sears, Sidanius, & Bobo, 2000) assertthat
concentratingon the cleavage between Blacks and Whites misses the heart of the politics of race. There is a political contest over racialpolicy becauseWhiteAmericansthemselvesdifferas to what shouldbe done. If the cleavage over racialpolitics were fundamentally racial,it would not be possible to assemblea winning majority in behalf of politics to assist Blacks. On the contrary, just so faras a coalitionis formedacrossraciallines, racialpolicies areeffectively contestable.The nub of the analyticproblem,it follows is to understandwhy some Whites favor and othersoppose an arrayof different policies to assist Blacks. (p. 272)
This assertionby Sniderman andhis colleagues makesexplicit a belief in the irrelevance of Black people to the actualpolitics of race and,by extension,to the academicstudyof race.My projectin this articleis not to add anothervoice to the debateabouthow andwhy race matters.Rather,I offer a critiqueof the contemporarysocial scientific study of race by showing how the omission of Black agency from the study of race causes researchers to ask the wrong questionsand to fail to interrogate the assumptionson which their empiricalwork and conclusions are based. I am not the first to offer this criticism.Sociologist LarryBobo (in Searset al., 2000) has criticizedscholarsof racefor "thoroughly marginalizingthe opinions of AfricanAmericans"and arguesthat "ignoringthe voices of people of color results chiefly in a severe underestimation of the role of groupinterestsin the politics of affirmative action" (p. 139). Political scientist Michael Dawson (in Sears et al., 2000) argues that there is a racial structureto the researchcommunityon racethatallows researchers of Whiteracial attitudesto ignore the contributionsof scholars of Black public opinion.In this article,I offer a specific accountingof the ways that
224 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003
AfricanAmericanshavebeen marginalized in the studyof raceand suggest the consequencesfor these omissions. This article is organizedinto five sections. First, I give a brief overview of the contemporary terrainof the study of White racial attitudes. Second, I offer a diagnosis of the problem of Black marginalization within this literature. Third,I outline the potential theoretical and empirical consequences for failing to deal with African Americanagency. I then review the shortcomingsof curBlacks in the studyof rentscholarshipthatattemptsto incorporate race. And finally, I offer remediesfor futureresearchin the field.
THE STUDY OF WHITE RACIAL ATTITUDES
The empirical,quantitative studyof Americanracialattitudesis rooted in the surveys begun in 1942 by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. These investigationsgave social scientists the first systematic, reliable, iterativesource of data on the beliefs of White Americanstoward the issue of race. The researchemerging from these early studies has grown into a body of scholarshipnow nearly 60 years old. In these decades,cognitiveandsocial psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists have engaged in debates about the cognitive basis of prejudice (Kutner & Gordon, 1964; Linville & Jones, 1980; Tajfel, 1970), the role of stereotypesin attitudedevelopment (Aronson& Bridgeman,1979; Fiske & Taylor,1991; Sherif, 1956; Tajfel, 1982), the sources of change in racial attitudes(Adorno, Frankel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Stanford,1950; Altemeyer,1994; Campbell, 1965), and the contours of Black political attitudes (Dawson, 1994; Sigelman & Welch, 1991; Smith & Seltzer, 1992; Tate, 1994). In the most recentdecade, many scholarshave turned to questioningthe relationshipbetween White racial attitudesand affect supportfor variouspublicpolicies, which disproportionately people of color in the United States (Bobo, 1988; Brigham & Weissbach, 1972; Kinder, 1986; Kuklinski et al., 1997; Peffley, Hurwitz, & Sniderman, 1997; Schuman, Steeth, & Bobo, 1985; Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991). This policy-
focused study of White racial attitudesis often referredto as the study of "racepolitics." Scholarsof Americanracialattitudeshavebeen in agreementfor morethan30 years aboutseveralfeaturesof Whitepublic opinion. The GeneralSocial Survey(GSS) from 1940 to 1972 shows a clear trendtowardincreasingacceptanceof racialintegration acrossseveral aspects of personal interactionincluding integratedschools, marriages,and housing. This liberalizationof White attitudesis steadyand steep in the first 30 years of GSS measures(Brigham& Weissbach,1972; Condran,1979). This trendof increasedsupport for integrationis pairedwith a sharpdecrease in supportof traditional, biological explanations of racial inferiority.' These two trends have continued into the turn of the new century. More Whites thanever now repudiateold-fashionedracism(Schumanet al., 1985; Sears et al., 2000; Sniderman& Carmines,1997). The puzzle for scholarsof race is the fact thattherehas not been an equivalentrise in supportfor liberalracialpolicies amongWhite Americans.White supportfor federalpolicies to ensureschool and workplaceintegrationhas stagnatedsince the 1960S2 (Sears et al., 2000). Explaining this paradoxis where the contentious debates arise for scholarsof racial politics. There are severalcompeting schools of thoughtin the study of White racial attitudes. First, there are sociopsychological approaches, including the subtle or ambivalent racism school denoted by the work of Meertens and Pettigrew (Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). This approach arguesthatWhite racialattitudesare characterized by a defense of traditional values, exaggeration of cultural differences, and absence of positive emotions toward outgroups. The work of Adorno et al. (1950) and Altemeyer (1994) on the authoritarian personalityis among the psychological approaches.They identify a constellationof personalitycharacteristics includingintolerance, submissiveness to authority,and cognitive rigidity that is associated with White racial attitudes.Finally, the work of Kinderand Sears (1981) and their coauthorshas offered the symbolic racism theory arguing that a blend of anti-Black affect and traditional American values contributesto White resistance towardaffirma-
remedies for racial tive action and other government-sponsored inequality. A second set of theories in the study of White racial attitudes approaches.Among grows out of the traditionof social structural conflict theory group these theoriesis Campbell's(1965) realistic attitudesreflectthe natureof the relationship statingthatintergroup between groups' material interests and that threat or perceived threatis the engine of differencein racialattitudes.A secondtheory in the social-structuralapproaches, advanced by Bobo and his coauthors(Bobo et al., in Tuch & Martin, 1997), is the theory of laissez-faireracism.Laissez-faireracismarguesthatformsof dominationare more loosely coupled, complex, and permeablethanin the past, but that African Americans remain uniquely disadvantaged and that this disadvantageis accompaniedby widespread acceptanceof notions of Black inferiority.Social dominancetheory, developed by Sidanius and Pratto(1999), argues that groupbased social hierarchiesare reproducedby interactionand reinforcementof inequalityby individualsor institutionsof the dominantgroup. The final school of thoughtin the debateaboutWhiteracialattitudes are political theoriesmost often associatedwith the work of Snidermanet al. (1991), Carminesand Stimson (1989), and their various coauthors.Their principledpolitics approachargues that disagreementsover racial policies are often about political rather than racial attitudes.They argue that the politics of race revolves by aroundpolicy agendas and that White attitudesare structured the choice sets providedby these policy agendas.For these scholars, prejudiceis not a meaningful explanatoryvariablein White policy attitudes.Principledpolitical positions explain the bulk of the variationamong Whites. In the past decade, the debatesbetween these scholarshave not been characterized by friendly intellectualexchange. Rather,race politics hasbeen a battlefieldof vicious criticismsandintenseargument, largely centeredon a disagreementbetween Snidermanand and sociopsychological his colleagues versus the social structural is of debate the questionof whetherattiThe core the researchers. by principledpositions tudes towardracial policies are structured
aboutthe appropriate role of governmentor by lingeringracialanimosity and group interests. Although the debate rages about measurementof attitudes, of empiricalfindings, specification of models, and interpretation there is an insidious trendcompromisingthe heartof the study of race politics that has gone largely undiscussed: the stunning absenceof AfricanAmericansfromthe studyof race.It is an omission that substantiallyplagues the field on all sides of the politics versus racism debate. Not all scholars are equally guilty of it, but thereis a pervasivefailureto deal with Black people in the studyof raceandthis failurecompromisesthe scholarlyintegrityof the field more than many of the more technical aspects of research that scholarsof race debate.
DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM
The problematicposition of AfricanAmericansin the study of race politics takes severalforms: * Blacksas irrelevant or invisible * Blacksas the"other" to White"citizens" * Blacksas norm-violating, assistance seekers
BLACKS AS IRRELEVANT AND INVISIBLE
African Americans are renderedirrelevantor invisible in the study of race politics in two ways: (a) througha failureto account for Black agency in affecting White attitudesand (b) througha refusal of scholars of race to grapplewith the literatureon Black public opinion. One of the moreegregiousexamplesof the invisibilityexclusion occurs in the very well received and regardedwork by Carmines andStimson (1989). In Issue Evolution,CarminesandStimsonuse a biological theory of evolution to model change over time in the issue of racein nationalU.S. politics. They arguethatstrategicpoliticians manipulateissues, politicizing those that benefit the party
andde-emphasizingthose thatdon't benefitthe party.Dissatisfied, out-parties have a constant motive to overturn the status quo durthroughthe use of issues. They arguethatrace was important and came to be seen as a ing Reconstructionand then disappeared regional issue. The New Deal coalition began to force the DemocraticPartyto addressthe issue of race,butin the 1950s therewas a returnto traditionalpartypositions. Then in the 1960s, propelled by the civil rights movement, the parties staked out very distinct positions on the issue of raceandbroughtracialpolitics back to the center of Americanpolitics. renThis analysisis a clearexampleof the racepolitics literature The idea thatraceis only "an deringAfricanAmericansirrelevant. issue" when it is seen as such by national,White political actors requiresblindness to the lives and politics of Black people. Race was an issue for the millions of African Americans who experienced andresistedthe repressiveJimCrowSouthandthe humiliating, violent Northern and West (Kelley, 1990; Payne, 1995). Carmines and Stimson's argumentonly works if we ignore the activism of African American elites and masses throughoutthe periodsthey perceiveas havingno racepolitics. Local andnational AfricanAmericanorganizationsworkedfuriouslyto secure racial progress during the 40s and 50s (Kluger, 1975), a period that to normalcy"void of a poliCarminesand Stimson label a "return tics of race. In theirentirebook, which is subtitledRace and the Transformation of AmericanPolitics, not one Black personor Black organization is evermentioned,muchless analyzed.This is a fundamentally bankrupt approach to the study of racial politics in America because it willfully strips African Americans of any meaningful role in American racial politics. At the turn of the last century, DuBois (1903) mused that Black people in Americaknow how it feels to be a problem.Myrdal(1944) called the Negro "anAmeriThis is also how Black people aretreatedin muchof can dilemma." the workon race. But AfricanAmericansarenot merelya problem or dilemma. Black people are political agents with attitudesand to the politics of America,even when they strategiesthatcontribute to by Whites. are unobservedand unattended
A second form of Black invisibility in the study of race occurs when scholars of White racial attitudes choose to ignore the researchof scholarsof Black public opinion. When discussing the fields of race politics and Black politics, Dawson (in Sears et al., 2000) observes, "Thereareraciallyseparateresearchcommunities with some, butnot abundant crossover"(p. 355). This pointis made clear in a recentvolume on racepolitics (Tuch& Martin,1997). In this volume (Tuch& Martin,1997), the late A. WadeSmith states that"although the majorityof scholarswrestlingwith issues of race and racism remain White, African American and other minority scholarsnow hold prominent places in discussionof raceandracial change" (p. 14). Although Smith is making an attempt to be inclusionary, this statementreflectsthe continuingfailureto recognize researchon Black public opinion as relevantto the body of literatureon race. Although it is not my goal to essentialize Black people by arguingthatanythingwrittenaboutAfricanAmericans is aboutrace,it mustbe acknowledgedthatmuchof the researchon Black public opinion deals with AfricanAmericanracialattitudes (Bracey,Meier, & Rudwick, 1970; Carlisle, 1975; Dawson, 1994, 2001; Sigelman & Welch, 1991; Smith & Seltzer, 1992; Tate, 1994). And this research,conductedmostly by Black scholars,is willfully ignored by race politics researchers.The notion that Black scholars are only now emerging in the discussions on race requires an ignorance of decades of work by Black scholars on Black public opinion. Writingon the notion of invisibility in Ellison's InvisibleMan, Roberts (1999) correctlynotes that "in Ellison's narrative, invisibility is not a trope for nonexistence, nonfunctionality,or even meaninglessness.It is a metaphorthatfigures a state of being that comes into existence when othersrefuse to see us, to acknowledge our existence, to acceptour presenceas makinga contribution to a world of meaning"(p. 121). By this understanding, it is clear that scholarsof racehaverenderedAfricanAmericansinvisible in their scholarship.The refusalto grapplewith AfricanAmericanpolitical history,attitudes,or strategieswithin the study of Americanracial politics imposes invisibility on Black people.
BLACKS AS "OTHER" TO THE WHITE CITIZEN
A second problemwith the presentationof Blacks in race politics scholarshipis the pervasiveuse of the termcitizenorAmerican when referringonly to White citizens. It is a problemthathappens in tables of empiricalresults,titles of books and articles,and even theoretical discussion about racial attitudes (Alvarez & Brehm, 1997; Carmines& Stimson, 1989; Gilens, 1999; Snidermanet al., 1991). Race politics scholarshave been sloppy.Insteadof specifying their findings as researchon White racial attitudes,they have claimed knowledge of Americanracial attitudes. but some examples This is a pervasiveproblemin this literature, stand out as particularlyegregious. One is Gilens's book entitled AmericansHate Welfare (1999). This piece is a clearexample Why of this common practice of excluding Blacks from the category "American." Using data from several national surveys including the NES, GSS, andNationalRace andPolitics Study,Gilens (1999) examines White racial attitudeswhile asserting, "I examine the preferencefor increasingand decreasingwelfare spendingamong Americans with difference perceptions of race" (p. 68, italics added). Using several different analytic techniques, Gilens concludes that White American attitudestowardwelfare are largely shapedby theirperceptionsof the deservingandundeservingpoor and furtherthat this notion of deservednessis linked to racial stereotypes (bolstered by media portrayals) of Blacks as lazy. Throughoutthe text, Gilens utterly fails to acknowledge that his work is not about why Americans hate welfare, it is about why White Americanshate welfare. My point here is not to critiqueeither his underlyingtheory or his generally convincing empirical evidence but to point out the ease with which Blacks are dismissed as irrelevanteven in a text, which fundamentally deals with Americannotionsof Blackness as portrayedin popular culture. It is possible that Black attitudes towardwelfare are structured by processes similarto those Gilens proposes for White opinion. It is conceivablethat AfricanAmericans also believe welfarerecipientsarelazy andthatBlack attitudes
are affectedby media images of the poor.But we certainlyhave no way of assessing this hypothesis from Gilens's evidence. I would arguethat the more interestingquestion is the Further, broaderone that Gilens's title suggests he will address.Why do Americans,notjust WhiteAmericans,resistwelfare?Perhapsboth WhitesandBlacksrespondto notionsof theundeserving poor.Maybe Black attitudestowardwelfarearestructured by a differentset of andpride.These areresearchconcerns,suchas racialindependence worthyquestions,but they seem neverto occur to Gilens, because for him the notion of White and Americanare synonymous. It is impossible to imagine thatan authorof a volume on Black public opinion would be able to title her workAmericanPolitical Attitudes.Publishers,reviewers,andpeers would note thatthe title is misleading,becausethe book is not aboutAmericanattitudesbut about African American attitudes. This criticism, however, is rarelyleveled at scholarslike Gilens who studyWhiteattitudesand thenpurport to have researchedAmericans.This linkageof Whiteness andcitizenshipoccurson all sides of the racepolitics debates; it is not a shortcomingof a particular ideological or scholarlyposition, ratherit is an implicit notion thatinfects much of the work of many race scholars.
BLACKS AS NORM VIOLATING, ASSISTANCE SEEKERS
In additionto renderingBlacks invisibleor excludingthemfrom the category "citizen," race politics scholars often base their researchon erroneousassumptionsabout the content of African American politics. This occurs primarilythrough the uninterrogated notions (a) thatAfricanAmericansviolate normsof American individualityand industriousnessand (b) thatAfrican Americans want governmentassistancein any availableform. A central claim of researchers from the sociopsychological school of symbolic racism is that White policy attitudes are affectedby a new racism,which is a blend of traditional American values and anti-Blackaffect. Symbolic racismhas been hotly criticized since its introduction(see critiqueby Sniderman& Tetlock, 1986). And the major figures associated with the theory have
backed off of some of the original propositions (Kinder, 1986; Sears, 1988). But race researchersin this tradition continue to maintainthat"theconjunctionof being Black andviolating fundamental individualisticvalues seems to be the lightning rod that attracts opposition to liberal racial policies" (Sears, Henry, & Kosterman,in Sears et al., 2000, p. 113). This proposition reflects another way that Black people are in the studyof race.When symbolicracismresearchmarginalized ers talk aboutthe blend of anti-Blackaffect and traditional American values,the "traditions," "America," and"values" they arereferring to are always racialized. Although these scholars present individualism,meritocracy, and the work ethic as if they are raceneutral values, any careful observer of American history recognizes thatthis is an erroneousassumption.Notions of individuality andsuccess throughhardworkarefundamentally intertwined with maintenanceof White dominationand AfricanAmericansubordination (Smith, 1997). Therefore,therearetwo important processes thatraceresearchers ignore. First, by assuming that the values of the "American creed"are race neutral,they fail to accountfor the implicit racism inherentin Americanconstructionsof individualismand meritocracy. Thus, they underestimate the effects of racism by assuming that Americanideals are free from racial animus.They fail to see that Blackness itself is a violation of traditionalWhite American values.The principledpolitics researchers fall into the sametrapby assumingthatpolitical conservatismis a race-neutral idea, when in fact Americanpoliticalhistoryshows it to be linkedwith racialideology (Smith, 1997). AmeriSecond, raceresearchers ignorethattherearetraditional can values associatedwith marginalized groupsin Americansocial order.These are traditionalAmericanvalues rarelyconsideredin discussions of the American creed. My point here is not to essentializeBlackness andclaim thatAfricanAmericanshave biologically inheritedan Afrocentricworldview,which is more communal.But I do wantto suggest thatthe historyof Blacks in America has led to a set of Americanvalues, which are not uniformly similarto those of White Americans(Levine, 1977). For example,
AfricanAmericansdisplay consistentlyhigherlevels of religiosity thanWhite Americans(Smith& Seltzer, 1992). andegalitarianism to assumethatcitizen meansWhite, it is also Justas it is inaccurate erroneousto assume that "traditional Americanvalues"only refer to the traditionsandvaluesof WhiteAmericans.Blacks arenot violatorsof Americannorms,they aresimplyboundby a uniqueset of Americannorms. Anothermistakenassumptionunderlyingmuch of the research on race is the notion thatBlacks uniformlysupportpolicies of governmentassistance. Race researchersspend a great deal of time asking why Whites continueto oppose policies such as affirmative action and welfare. Different hypotheses are offered for why Whites, who are less racist than at any time in Americanhistory, remain unwilling to provide policy assistance to Blacks (Edley, 1996). But, these writersrarelyinterrogate the notion thatsupporting affirmativeaction, welfare, or busing is a show of racial supandhis colleagues in the principledpolitics school port.Sniderman arguethatfailureto supportredistributive policies is not necessarily racistbut insteadis a reflectionof deeply held political values. But even that assertion begins with defending itself against the assumptionthatwhatBlack people wantis help andthatnot giving Black people help requiresdefense against a chargeof racism. If we look more carefullyat Black people themselves,it is clear that not all Blacks are in favor of all forms of governmentassistance. The range of responses to racial injustice among Black Americansis equal to thatof Whites (Appiah& Gutman,1996). A full thirdof Blacks do not supportincreasesin federalspendingto assist Blacks; nearly40% do not believe thatthe governmenthas a of living; morethan special obligationto improveBlacks' standard half believe that Blacks should work their way up with no special favors;and more thana thirdoppose hiringpreferencesfor Blacks (Tuchet al., in Tuch & Martin,1997). These figuresdo not diminish the importantracial gap that continues to exist in the political attitudesof Whites and Blacks. These figures do not indicate that Whites who oppose governmentassistanceto Blacks arenot racist. These figures do demandrecognitionthat African Americansare not a monolithic political community.Not all Blacks believe that
government assistance is the best strategy for addressing racial inequality. In fact, recent research suggests that some form of nationalism,not integrationism,is the most pervasiveworldview among AfricanAmericans(Dawson, 2001). When race researchersassume that all Blacks are assistance seekers,they assumethatwe can illuminateracialattitudesthrough an explorationof White views towardgovernmentassistance.The belief in a unitaryBlack populationis false, which means that to Whiteattitudes racialpolitics we mustunderstand fully understand towarda varietyof differentstrategiesproposedby Blacks. But as long as race researcherspush Black people to the marginsof race research,this deeper analysis can never occur.
WHAT IS AT STAKE
I have shown thatin the study of race politics Black people are either invisible, wrongly excluded from the category "American," or wrongly portrayedas monolithic assistance seekers. In this highly contentiousfield of racepolitics, these could appearto some observersas little morethana scholarof Black publicopinion begging for attentionfromthe "bigboys"in racepolitics. Therefore,it is reasonable to ask whether there are any substantive consequencesfor failingto includeBlack people in the studyof racepolitics. There are several: about 1. Erroneous conclusions processes 2. Unexplored alternative hypotheses historical accounts 3. Inaccurate empiriArguably,the most seriousproblemfacing quantitative, is the problemof model misspecification.No matter cal researchers how sophisticatedthe statistical technique used to estimate it, a model thatfails to include relevantvariableswill consistentlylead to biased results. In a like manner,this is the problemfacing race researchers when they ignore Black agency.Failing to accountfor of Black people to the politics of race the meaningfulcontributions
leads these investigators to draw conclusions based on biased information. Forexample,raceresearchers rarelydiscuss a simplerealityilluDavid minatedby journalist Shipler(1997) in his accountof racein America. Whites, on average, because they have the privilege of being the racialnorm,spendconsiderablyless time thinkingabout issues of racethanAfricanAmericans.In his experienceof discussing race over the course of severalyears with many differentkinds of Americans, Shipler concludes "thata Black person cannot go very long without thinkingaboutrace; she has alreadyasked herself every question that I could possibly pose. By contrast,most Whites rarelyhave to give race much thought"(p. 10). Any public knows thatthereare seriopinion or social psychology researcher ous consequences to this asymmetry.If Shipler's observationis correct,when surveyorsask AfricanAmericansaboutracialissues, they are tappinginto well-developed beliefs, whereas Whites are offering attitudes formed more immediately. This means that White respondentswill be significantlymore susceptibleto measurementerrorintroducedthroughprimingandquestionnaire artifacts. White racial attitudes would need to be analyzed in an entirely differentlight if investigatorslearned that they were not tappingdeeply held beliefs but quickly formedresponses.This, of course,is a testablenotion andits effects could be controlledfor by using measures that control for the frequency and intensity with which different Whites normally think about race in their daily lives. But because Black people and their experience with race is neverconsidered,raceresearchers fail to see this excludedvariable and thus cannot diagnose the misspecification in their models. Instead,they continueto argueaboutthe sophisticationof the estimation of biased models. The failureto deal with African Americanscreates a blindness that allows race researchersto fail to explore alternative hypotheses. The principled politics literatureasserts that many Whites oppose liberal policies for Blacks because they have a principled stance against governmentinterventionmore generally.But there is an importantalternativeto this notion that these researchers nevertest. A significantportionof AfricanAmericanssupport,not
2003 STUDIES / NOVEMBER OFBLACK 236 JOURNAL
governmentintervention,but Black autonomy.They believe that the best strategy for addressinginequality is autonomousBlack economies, andpolitics in predominately controlof organizations, Black communities.If Whites oppose liberalpolicies becausethey thenthey oughtto be supportareproponentsof small government, ive of Black nationalistagendas.On the other hand, if Whites are reallymotivatedby racialdistrustanddislike,thenthey will oppose nationalistagendasas much or possibly more thanliberalpolicies. This is a reasonableand obvious question to ask, but it is one that the principled politics researchersnever ask because they never consider the diversityof Black political thought. Historicalaccountsin race researchrarelyoccur,but when they do they areoften inaccurate or incompletebecause of the failureto accountfor the role of AfricanAmericans.For example, I submit that Carminesand Stimson would have to fundamentallyrethink the questionof how raceoperatesas a politicalissue if they were to consider the activities of African Americancivil rights organizations. Their neat story about how race fades into the background would have to be substantiallyrewrittenif they accountedfor the state repressionof NAACP (Kluger, 1975) and labor organizing amongBlacks in the Northand South (Kelley, 1990). These events demonstrate thatthereis a continuingpolitics of race even in periods whereCarminesand Stimsonassertthatthereis not. Similarly, the assertionby Snidermanand his colleagues that the politics of governmentnoninterventionis a race-neutralvalue can only be made because they ignore the history of government-supported racism and inequalityin America. Symbolicracismassertsthatit is a commonWhite stereotypefor Whitesto believe Blacks to be lazy. But it is a stereotypewith a specific history in America(Jordan,1968). The historyof this idea is never investigated or commented on by these researchers,and thereforethe stereotypeof Black laziness is presentedas an uncontested, ahistoricaltruth,when in fact it is not. Shipler(1997), quoting James Baldwin, writes, "The country's image of the Negro, which hasn't very much to do with the Negro, has never failed to reflect, with frighteningaccuracy,the stateof mindof the country" (p. 299). This suggests to us that public opinion race researchers
should more closely interrogatethe assumption that Blacks are norm violators because it will reveal something about the White people who believe it. Asking why Whites believe thatBlacks are lazy and unattachedto the Protestantwork ethic would requirea historical accounting of Black and White relations in the United States, a projectthatthese investigationsdo not even attempt.
FAILED ATTEMPTS AT BLACK AGENCY
Not all scholarsof race marginalizeAfrican Americans.There are several scholars who have not ignoredAfricanAmericansbut who have takenBlack people seriously as agents in the politics of race. I submit,however,thatmost of these attemptshave failed to adequately address the problems that arise from exclusion and invisibility. There are two major categories of attemptsat Black agency: * BlackBodies:AfricanAmerican Populations andRaceof InterviewerEffects * BlackCo-Conspirators in Racism: SocialDominance Theory in each of these categoriesretrieveAfricanAmericans Researchers from the shadowsof complete obscurity,but none wholly account for the role of Black people in the politics of race.
BLACK BODIES: AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATIONS AND RACE OF INTERVIEWER EFFECTS
Therearetwo literatures thatinvestigatehow Black bodies influence White racial attitudes.First, there is work that investigates how variouslevels of integration affectWhitepeople's perceptions of race and policy (Kinder & Mendelberg, 1995; Massey & Denton, 1993; Taylor,2000). Second, there is a body of research that specifies how the race of intervieweraffects White responses to surveyquestions(Kinder& Sanders,1996; Sanders,1996). The scholarshipproduced from these approacheshas been useful in
238 JOURNAL OFBLACK STUDIES / NOVEMBER 2003
manyways butcontinuesto stripBlack people of full agency in the politics of race. Analyzing datafrom the 1990 and 1994 GeneralSocial Survey, MarleeTaylorfindsthat"Whitenegativityswells as the local Black population grows, especially outside the South" (in Sears et al., 2000, p. 119). She finds that there are a numberof racial policy dimensions for which White attitudesare very sensitive to local racialcontext.It is particularly interestingthatshe actuallyfinds an increase in traditionalracism when there is a high proportionof Blacks, andthis effect is not sensitiveto economic context.Thatis, a poor Black populationis not any morethreatening thana middleclass Black population.Her workreinforcesthe earlierfindingsof Massey and Denton (1993), thatWhites avoid AfricanAmericans, and challenges the work of Kinder and Mendelberg(1995), that racial isolation, not integration,enhances the role of prejudicein White attitudes. The second type of race politics researchconcernedwith Black bodies is the researchon race of interviewereffects, most notably the work of Sanders (Kinder & Sanders, 1996; Sanders, 1996). Sanders (1996) is sincerely concerned with the ways that Black presencealtersthe expressionandmeasurement of Whiteattitudes. She arguesthat surveyinterviewsare one site of racialintegration worthyof studyas a politicalphenomenon.Whenthe interviewer is of a racedifferentfromthe respondent, it createsan integratedsituation, a circumstancethat may be common or uncommonfor the respondent."Explicitlyand intentionallyvaryinginterviewerrace provides a way for political analysts to investigatethe effects of integration and segregation on American political thinking" effects (Sanders,1996, p. 6). Sandersshows thatraceof interviewer are so powerful that they can actually alter White perceptionsof fact-basedreality. Survey respondentsasked about the economic realitiesof Blacks andWhitesresponddifferentlydependingon the race of the person asking them the question.In theirjoint volume, Kinder and Sanders (1996) show that liberal views on race are andless expressedmoreoften in the presenceof Black interviewers often in the presence of White interviewersfor both Black and White respondents.
These approachesare a minimum way of reincorporating the meaningfulnessof Blackness into the discussion of White racial attitudes.ThatWhite attitudesare sensitive to racialcontext is the lesson of both Taylor and Sanders. Their findings are a strong empiricalrefutationto Sniderman'sassertionthatBlack people do not matterin the politics of race. But the problemwith Black populationandraceof interviewresearchis thatBlack agencyis reduced to the presenceof the Black body.Throughtheirphysicalpresence, African Americanschange White racial thinking.This is itself a provocativefinding, but these authorsnever fully interrogatethe meaning of the fact that a Black body, devoid of political or ideological content,can affectWhite attitudes.Neitherthe Black populationnorthe raceof interviewerworkgoes farenoughin determining the intricate relations of real Black people with real White attitudes.Black people still have no voice, only bodies. Although this is a greatimprovementover theirinvisibility,it still falls short of specifying the complex relationsof race.
FOOT SHUFFLING, DISSEMBLING, AND BAD PARENTING: BLACKS IN SOCIAL DOMINANCE THEORY
At first glance, social dominancetheoryappearsto be a promising approach for centering Black people in the study of race. Sidaniuset al. (in Searset al., 2000) arguethat"thereis strongevidence thatthe contemporary Americanracialhierarchy is drivenby what it has always been drivenby, namely the establishmentand maintenanceof dominion,superiority, andthe powerof the collective US overthe collective THEM"(p. 23 1). This approach appears to be fundamentallyconcerned both with the attitudesof White Americansand with the agency of African Americans.Certainly, the social dominance theorists have rightly emphasizedthe vital role of groupinterestsin racialpolitics, but a deeperinvestigation of social dominancetheoryrevealsa very troublingnotionof Black agency. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) provide a deeply problematic account of African American complicity in racial oppression. Underthe headingof what they call "behavioral asymmetry," they
240 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES / NOVEMBER2003
groups identifyways thatAfricanAmericansandothersubordinate status.They arguethatthrough to theirown subordinate contribute (a) deferenceor outgroupfavoritismand (b) self-debilitation,subordinategroups contributeto negative self-fulfilling prophecies. The social dominancetheoristsargue"thatthe self-destructiveand self-debilitatingbehaviorsare theprimarymeans by which suborin andcontribute to theirown continued dinatesactivelyparticipate subordination" (p. 260, italics added).The social dominancetheorists rescue Black people from invisibilityonly to label them footto theirown subshufflingUncle Toms(deference)who contribute practices,academiclaziness, ordination throughpoorchild-rearing and criminalactivity (self-debilitation). This portrayalof Black agency is not only disturbing,it is simplistic and ahistorical. For example, Sidanius and his coauthor arguethatBlack parentsaremorepunitivethanWhiteparents,failing to allow their children the freedom to challenge authority (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The authors, quoting contemporary scholars,suggest thatthis parentingstyle is deficient. child-rearing First,they fail Two criticismscan be leveled againstthis argument. to provideconvincingempiricalevidence to supporttheirclaims of a raceor class differencein parentingstyles.3Second, if they could to be true, Sidaniusand Prattostill fail prove this characterization to accountfor the historicalnecessity thatunderliesthis parenting style. In this country, the consequences for Black children who challenge the authorityof Whites are severe. Emmett Till was lynched for breakingthe unspokenrules of the Jim Crow South. Amadou Diallo was shot 42 times because he did not know that Black men are not allowed to reach for their wallets when confronted by White police. And it is a daily occurrence in U.S. schools thatlittle Black boys andgirls aretrackedinto special eduwhen theirquestioningof Whiteacademicauthorcationprograms Ratherthanpointingout thatBlackparents is labeled disruptive. ity have used punitivenessto help their children learn to negotiate a complex anddangerousracialcode, the social dominancetheorists simply suggest thatBlack people areplayinginto racialstereotypes and thereforereinforcingtheirown oppression.Social dominance theoryrevives Black people in the study of race, but theiranalysis
Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATI1TUDES 241
looks little different than Moynihan's (1965) description of a pathologicalBlack family,Wilson's(1996) argument aboutghettorelatedbehaviors, or the Thernstromand Thernstrom(1997) discussion of unqualified Black college students. It certainly does nothing to enrichour understanding of the complex and multifaceted relationshipof Blacks to Americanrace politics.
TOWARD A NEW MODEL OF INQUIRY
I am not the firstscholarto level these criticismsagainstthe field of racepolitics. Bobo (in Searset al., 2000) says thatraceandracial group interests must be repositioned to a more central analytic place and multiracialanalysis needs to be more commonplace.In the same volume, Dawson criticizes the study of race politics by arguing(a) thatthe traditional left-rightdivide does not capturethe entire range of effects of ideological thinking on the politics of race, (b) thatthereis a racial separatismin the researchcommunities of largely White scholars studying race politics and largely African Americanscholarsstudying "Black"politics, and (c) that there needs to be a more careful attentionto historicalanalysis in social scientific race research(in Sears et al., 2000). Formy part,I would like to suggest thatthereareseveralways to center Black people in the study of race and to suggest that these changes in approachwill improve the quality of race scholarship.
1. Scholars must recognize that Blacks are neither a monolithic group at any given time period nor are Black people the same on averageacross time. 2. Researchersmust recognize that White attitudestowardBlacks are structured, in part,by the contentof White's interactionswith Black people. 3. Scholarsshouldexplorethe idea thatsupposedlyrace-neutral values such as self-relianceandmeritocracy arein fact racializedand they shouldbe morecarefulin theiruse of universallanguagesuch as Americanor citizen.
4.
5.
Race researchersshould include a genderedanalysis thatreflects how the intersections of gender complicate the relationships between Whites and AfricanAmericans. shouldmove beyond the Black-Whiteparadigm Race researchers throughcarefullytheorizedmultiracialanalysis.
Raceresearchneeds to accountfor variationin politicalattitudes of racial amongBlacks at anygiven historicalmoment.The portrait politics will be incompleteas long as racescholarsassumethatattitudes towardliberal racial policies are the only meaningfulracial attitudes.It is importantto examine White attitudestowardother Black political strategies.What are the limits to White women's support of cross-racial alliances around feminist agendas? Are Whites supportiveof Black nationalistattemptsto create autonofields of inquiryare mous Black institutions?These understudied at least as meaningfulas the questionof White supportfor affirmative action. race politics should give greaterattentionto historical Further, analysis that accounts for the ways that African Americanshave contributedto the politics of race in America and the ways that Whites have historicallyunderstoodandrespondedto those activities. Race researchers agree aboutmany aspectsof White attitudes toward Blacks across time. There is a dramaticliberalizationof Whites' general racial perspectives followed by a stagnation of White support for governmentpolicies (Schuman et al., 1985). Whereasthe field has been deeply dividedaboutthe causes of these trends,it has generallyignoredthe fact thatthe Black people whom Whites arerespondingto in the 1940s arenot the same as Blacks in the 1970s or 1990s. The AfricanAmericanpopulationis not inert. The political leadership, demands, strategies, and rhetoric have shifteddramatically duringthe years thatsurveyorshave been asking Whites aboutrace. I hypothesizethatWhites respondingto surveyquestionsabout racein the late 1940s beforethe adventof the civil rightsmovement thought of the average Black person differently than Whites respondingto those same questions in the late 1960s during the summersof urbanunrest.Race scholarshave looked solely to char-
acteristicsof respondents (e.g., age, level of education,ideology) to theirracialattitudes.But it is also reasonableto believe understand that characteristicsof the "object"have also affected patternsin White attitudes.Race researchersneed to begin placing their survey data in historicalcontext with respect to public portrayalsof Black political agendas.How Whites respondto a primarilysocial agendamay be quitedifferentfromhow they respondto a primarily economic one. In addition to accounting for White responses to variationin Black politics over time, race politics researchshould analyze the racial context of White respondentsthemselves. This country is still deeply raciallydivided,but in contemporary Americathereis now considerablevariationin Whites' personal experiences with African Americans. Within any respondentsample there will be some Whites who areengagedin romanticor familialrelationships with Blacks, Whites who work in highly integratedworkplaces, Whites who have neverhad a meal with a Black person, and some Whites who have never met a Black person. It is worth analyzing how these variouslife experiencesaffect not only the substanceof White political andracialattitudesbut also the strengthwith which they hold them. Journalist David Shipler's (1997) book is disconcerting for social scientists because much of what he discovers about White attitudessimply is not reflectedin much of the social science work on Whiteracialattitudes.The tensions andcomplexitieshe reveals are far more texturedthanmost social scientific accounts.Further, the tenacityof old-style racismthathe uncoversin his ethnographic workis stunningcomparedto surveyresearch'sagreement thatbiological, old-fashionedracism is dead. It is worth ponderingwhy respondentsaremost willing to expressdisturbing racialviews in a face-to-face discussion than they are when asked in anonymous surveys.It forces us to examinewhethersocial scientific processes are woefully disconnectedfrom reality.I do believe thatquantitative social science is powerful in a way thatjournalisticaccounts like Shipler'sarenot, butthe disconnectis worrisomefor researchers of race.
Partof the reason that Shipler's account provides a more textured picture is because of his insistence on placing people in meaningfulracial contexts. Even within the constraintsof survey research,investigatorscan measurethe ways thatintegratedinteractionsaffectWhite attitudes.Further, experimental methodsoffer the opportunityto manipulateracial contexts in ways that mimic aspects of real-worldracial life. Experimentalprocesses can be used to test the ways that Black and White people affect one anotherin the politics of race. In additionto placingrespondents in theirhistoricalandcontemporaryracial context, race researchersneed to be sensitive to the historyof ideas and languagethatthey claim is race neutral.At the most mundane level, this means carefully specifying theories, and "White"are not assumed tables, and titles so that"American" to be synonymous.More substantively, this means thatnotions of individuality and meritocracycannot be assumed to be free of racialcontent.Jordan's(1968) formidablehistoriography convincthatattitudestowardBlackness andBlack peoingly demonstrates ple areintricatelyboundto Americanfoundingideals. I amnot suggesting that conservatism, individualism, or meritocracy are or necessarilyracistideas. I am arguingthatthe neat fundamentally divisionbetweenraceandpolitics suggestedby the principledpolitics researchersis overly simplistic and ahistorical.The particular be morecareracialhistoryof this countryrequiresthatresearchers ful in their assumptions of neutrality. At a minimum, these researchers must engage the historicalevidence and offer an alternativeaccount.Ignoringthe historyof Black people andracialized political ideologies is insufficient. I have writtenat lengthaboutthe invisibilityor flawed portrayal of African Americansin the researchon race. But gender is also nearly always ignored in discussions of Americanracial politics. All Blacks arenot men andall women arenot White (referencinga volume by Hull, Scott, & Smith, 1982). At a bareminimum,scholars should accountfor gendereddifferencesin White respondents' attitudestowardracial policies and should develop measuresthat allow investigationof differences in attitudestowardBlack men a genderedanalysis would and Black women. More substantively,
Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIALATTITUDES 245
tease out the complicated intersections of race and gender that affectracepolicy. Forexample,racepolitics scholarshave failed to adequatelyaddressthe ways that images of both race and gender affect perceptionsof Americanwelfare policy. Policy makersand media develop narrativesnot just about Black welfare recipients but,morespecifically,aboutBlack womenwelfarerecipients.Similarly, images of Black violent crime are more specifically about Black male crime.Much of Americanracialdiscourseis gendered, andthese gendereddiscoursesmustbe specificallyaddressedin the study of White racial attitudes. In additionto ignoringgender,race researchers seem inexplicably bound to the Black-Whiteparadigmof Americanracial politics. In this piece, I am guilty of the same omission. The United States is becoming an increasinglyracially diverse nation. South Asian, Pacific, Latino, Chicano, PuertoRican, and CubanAmericans andimmigrantsarefundamentally alteringthe complexionof America'scities. The politics of racein Americais now multiracial, even in the South. Ignoring the ways that these racial and ethnic groupsaffect racialattitudesandpolicies leads researchers to erroneous conclusions. But, dealingwith the increasinglycomplex terrain of American race must occur at the level of theory, not just empirical work. Race researcherscannot simply add additional "dummyvariables"to equationsthat estimate models based on a Black-Whitedyad. It is time for moreresearchthatcarefullytheorizes the connectionsbetween these groups.Thereis an increasing body of work producedwith serious theorizingof our multiracial society, but it must become more the norm than the exception (Cain,Kiewiet,& Uhlaner,1991;Gilliam, 1996;Link& Oldendick, 1996). The social scientific studyof race politics is a methodologically innovativeandincrediblyproductivefield of research.But it is fundamentallyflawed.As long as these researchers choose to ignoreor mischaracterize African Americans,there will be gaping holes in our understandingof American racial politics. When African Americans are rendered invisible, portrayed as monolithic, or excludedas Americans,thepictureof raceis hopelessly inaccurate. As long as the contributionsof Black public opinion scholars are
ignored, the literatureremains incomplete. But through careful attention to historical and contemporary Black agency, race researchers can finallycapturethe trueheartof thepolitics of race.
NOTES
90%of Whites do not thinkthatBlacks have less inbornabilityto learn(up 1. Currently, from 74% in the 1970s), 96% think that Black and White studentsshould go to the same schools (up from 32%in the 1940s), and97%believe thatBlacks andWhites shouldhave an equalchanceto get anykindofjob (upfrom45% in the 1940s) (Schumanet al., 1985). These consistentlyhigh levels of White racial openness on these and similarmeasureshave been replicatedin otherlarge and small, nationaland local surveys (e.g., GeneralSocial Survey, DetroitArea Study,GallupPolls, HarrisPolls, NationalRace and Politics Study). 2. In the 1990s, only 38%of Whites believed thatthe federalgovernmentshouldensure shouldensurefairjob treatintegrated schools andonly 44%thoughtthe federalgovernment only 12%of Whites favoredpreferencesin hiringor promotionfor Blacks to ment.Further, redresspast discriminationand only 25% thoughtthe federal governmentshould work to improveBlack social and economic position (Schumanet al., 1985). Again, these consisracialpolicies havebeen replicatedin tentlylow levels of supportfor government-sponsored other large, nationaland smaller,regionalsurveys. cases of child abuseandneglect.These dataare cite 1967 dataon reported 3. The authors not only woefully out of date but deeply biased because they are based on reportedcases. Poorer,Black parentsare significantlymore likely to be reportedby schools and doctorsto child welfare agencies. The pathologiesof the middleclass are invisible.This is a pointthat social dominancescholars ought to know well, but they choose to ignore it when making groups. these sweeping claims aboutthe behaviorof subordinate
REFERENCES
R. N. (1950). Theauthoritarian E., Levinson,D., & Stanford, Adorno,T., Frankel-Brunswik, personality.New York:Harperand Row. In M. Zanna & J. Altemeyer,B. (1994). Reducing prejudicein right-wingauthoritarians. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice (pp. 131-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. aboutracialpolicies? Alvarez,R. M., & Brehm,J. (1997, April).Are Americansambivalent AmericanJournalof Political Science, 41(2), 345-374. Appiah,K. A., & Gutman,A. (1996). Color consciousness: Thepolitical moralityof race. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Aronson, E., & Bridgeman,D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregatedclassroom: In pursuitof common goals. Personalityand Social PsychologyBulletin,5, 438-446.
Bobo, L. (1988). Attitudes toward the Black political movement: Trends, meaning, and effects on racial policy preferences.Social Psychology Quarterly,51(4), 287-302. Bracey,J. H., Meier, A., & Rudwick,E. (Eds.). (1970). Blacknationalismin America.New York:Bobbs-MerrilCompany. Brigham,J., & Weissbach,T. (1972). Racial attitudesin America:Analysesandfindings of social psychology.New York:Harperand Row. Cain, B., Kiewiet, D. R., & Uhlaner,C. (1991). The acquisitionof partisanship by Latinos and Asian Americans.AmericanJournalof Political Science, 35(2), 390-422. andotheraltruisticmotives.In R. Levine(Ed.),Nebraska Campbell,D. (1965). Ethnocentric symposiumon motivation(pp. 283-311). Lincoln: Universityof NebraskaPress. Carlisle, R. (1975). The roots of Black nationalism.New York:Kennikat. Carmines,E., & Stimson,J. (1989). Issue evolution:Race and the transformation ofAmerican politics. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Condran,J. G. (1979). Changesin White attitudestowardBlacks: 1963-1977. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 463-476. Dawson, M. (1994). Behindthe mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress. Dawson, M. (2001). Black visions. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. DuBois, W.E.B. (1903). Souls of Blackfolk. New York:PenguinBooks. Edley, C. (1996). Not all Black and White:Affirmative action and American values. New York:Hill and Wang. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor,S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York:McGraw-Hill. hate welfare:Race, media,and thepolitics ofantipoverty Gilens, M. (1999). WhyAmericans policy. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Gilliam, F. D. (1996). Exploring minority empowerment:Symbolic politics, governing coalitionsandtracesof political style in Los Angeles. AmericanJournalof Political Science, 40(1), 56-81. Hull, G., Scott, P.B., & Smith,B. (Eds.). (1982). All the womenare White,all the Blacksare men, but some of us are brave. New York:Feminist Press at CUNY W. (1968). White overBlack:American attitudestowardthe Negro, 1550-1812. ChaJordan, pel Hill: Universityof NorthCarolinaPress. Kelley,R. (1990). Hammerandhoe:Alabamacommunist duringthe GreatDepression.Chapel Hill: Universityof NorthCarolinaPress. Kinder,D. (1986). The continuingAmerican dilemma:White resistanceto racial change forty years afterMyrdal.Journal of Social Issues, 42, 151-171. Kinder,D., & Mendelberg,T. (1995). Cracksin Americanapartheid: The politicalimpactof prejudiceamong desegregatedWhites. Journalof Politics, 57(2), 401-424. Kinder,D., & Sanders,L. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democraticideals. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Kinder,D., & Sears,D. (1981). Prejudiceandpolitics:Symbolic racismversusracialthreats to the good life. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology,40, 414-431. Kluger,R. (1975). Simplejustice: The history of Brownv. Board of Education.New York: RandomHouse. Kuklinski,J., Sniderman, P., Knight,K., Piazza, T., Tetlock,P.,Lawrence,G., & Mellers,B. (1997). Racial prejudiceand attitudestowardaffirmativeaction. AmericanJournal of Political Science, 41(2), 402-419. Kutner,B., & Gordon,N. (1964). Cognitivefunctioningand prejudice:A nine-yearfollowup study.Sociometry,27(1), 66-74.
folk thoughtfrom Levine, L. (1977). Black cultureand Blackconsciousness:Afro-American slavery tofreedom. New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Link, M., & Oldendick,R. (1996). Social constructionand White attitudestowardequal Journalof Politics, 58, 149-168. opportunityand multiculturalism. of outgroupmembers.Journalof Linville,P.W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarizedappraisals Personalityand Social Psychology,38, 689-703. Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). Americanapartheid:Segregationand the makingof an UniversityPress. underclass.Cambridge:Harvard T. (1997). Is subtleprejudicereallyprejudice?Public Opinion Meertens,R. W., & Pettigrew, Quarterly,61, 54-71. Moynihan,D. P. (1965). TheNegrofamily: The case for national action. Washington,DC: of Labor,Greenwood Office of Policy PlanningandResearch,UnitedStatesDepartment PublishingGroup. Myrdal,G. (1944). AnAmericandilemma:TheNegroproblemand moderndemocracy.New York:Harperand Row. Payne,C. (1995). I've got the light offreedom:Organizingtraditionand theMississippifreedom struggle. Los Angeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress. Peffley, M., Hurwitz,J., & Sniderman,P. (1997). Racial stereotypesand Whites' political views of Blacks in the context of welfare and crime.AmericanJournalof Political Science, 41(1), 30-60. Pettigrew, T., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Blatant and subtle prejudice in Western Europe.EuropeanJournalof Social Psychology,25, 57-75. Roberts,J. (1999) ..... hiddenrightout in the open":The field of folkloreandthe problemof address.JournalofAmerican invisibility-1998 AmericanFolkloreSociety presidential Folklore,112(444), 119-139. models:How differentlyWhites think interviews,alternative Sanders,L. (1996). Integrated when they discuss politics with Blacks. Unpublishedmanuscript. Schuman,H., Steeth,C., & Bobo, L. (1985). Racial attitudesin America: Trendsand interUniversityPress. pretations.Cambridge:Harvard Sears,D. (1988). Symbolic racism.In P A. Katz & D. A. Taylor(Eds.), Eliminatingracism: Profiles in controversy(pp. 53-84). New York:PlenumPress. Sears,D., Sidanius,J., & Bobo, L. (Eds.). (2000). Racializedpolitics: Thedebateabout racism in America.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Sherif, M. (1956). Experimentsin groupconflict. ScientificAmerican,195, 54-58. Shipler,D. (1997). A countryofstrangers:Blacksand WhitesinAmerica.New York:Alfred A. Knopf. theoryof social hierarchy Sidanius,J., & Pratto,F. (1999). Social dominance:Anintergroup and oppression.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress. Sigelman,L., & Welch, S. (1991). BlackAmericans'viewsof racial inequality:Thedream deferred.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress. Smith,R. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflictingvisions of citizenshipin U.S.history.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. Smith, R., & Seltzer, R. (1992). Race, class, and culture.Albany:State Universityof New YorkPress. UniverHarvard Sniderman, P., & Carmines,E. (1997). Reachingbeyondrace. Cambridge: sity Press. Sniderman,P., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P., & Kendrick,A. (1991). The new racism.American Journalof Political Science, 35, 423-447.
/ STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 249 Harris-Lacewell
in Sniderman,P., & Tetlock, P. (1986). Symbolic racism: Problems of motive attribution political analysis.Journal of Social Issues, 42, 129-150. discrimination.ScientificAmerican,223, 96Tajfel, H. (1970). Experimentsin intergroup 102. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identityand intergrouprelations.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Tate, K. (1994). Fromprotest to politics: The new Black voters in Americanelections. New York:Russell Sage. Taylor,M. (2000). The significance of racial context. In D. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racializedpolitics: Thedebateabout racismin America(pp. 118-136). Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. A. (1997). Americain Blackand White:Onenation,indivisiThernstrom, S., & Thernstrom, ble. New York:Simon and Schuster. Tuch, S., & Martin,J. (Eds.). (1997). Racial attitudesin the 1990s: Continuity and change. Westport:Praeger. Wilson, W. J. (1996). Whenworkdisappears:Theworld of the new urbanpoor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Melissa V Harris-Lacewellearneda B.A. in Englishfrom Wake ForestUniversityin Winston-Salem, North Carolina(1994) and a Ph.D. in political science from Duke Universityin Durham,NorthCarolina(1999). She servedas an adjunctprofessorof political science at North Carolina Central University(1997-1999). Shejoined the faculty of the Universityof Chicagoin 1999 as an assistantprofessorofpolitical science. At the Universityof Chicago,she is an associated memberof the Department of Psychologyand an affiliatedmemberofthe CenterforGenderStudiesand the Center for the Studyof Race, Politics,and Culture.She lives in the HydeParkneighborhood of Chicago with her husbandand daughter

Sage Publications, Inc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sage Publications, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Heart of the Politics of Race: Centering Black People in the Study of White Racial Attitudes Author(s): Melissa

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 223

224 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003

THE STUDY OF WHITE RACIAL ATTITUDES

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 225

226 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 227

DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM

228 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 229

230 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003

BLACKS AS "OTHER" TO THE WHITE CITIZEN

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 231

232 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 233

234 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 235

2003 STUDIES / NOVEMBER OFBLACK 236 JOURNAL

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 237

FAILED ATTEMPTS AT BLACK AGENCY

238 JOURNAL OFBLACK STUDIES / NOVEMBER 2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 239

240 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES / NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATI1TUDES 241

TOWARD A NEW MODEL OF INQUIRY

242 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES / NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 243

244 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES / NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIALATTITUDES 245

246 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES / NOVEMBER2003

Harris-Lacewell / STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 247

248 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES/ NOVEMBER2003

/ STUDY OF WHITERACIAL ATTITUDES 249 Harris-Lacewell

You might also like