The new Racism and Sexism: Jerky definitions for Jerks
Welcome, to the world of tomorrow! Your dictionary will (apparently) be useless.
Earlier today Belinda and I were looking over a post that she'd happened across, on a Livejournal Community called simply
feminist . The post itself was in essence the personal incredulity of a woman who learned in a Social Psychology class that partner-abuse, contrary to popular belief, was surprisingly equal between men and women, both in incidence and in harm done. Her 'counter' to this was that there are necessarily oppressive power-dynamics involved whenever a man abuses a woman that cannot necessarily be the case when women are abusing men, because... Well, 'women don't do that', would be her answer.
This was a community called 'feminist' after all, so I thought to myself "All right, bit cheeky", and prepared a reply for her post intended to draw attention to some of the fallacious implications of such assumptions, particularly in regard to 'potential harm' vs. 'harm done'. I found, however, that posting in
feminist was a 'friends (members) only' privilege, so in my momentary zeal I readied myself to join this community. "After all," I thought to myself, "I am strongly in favour of gender-equality myself, what could it hurt?"
Belinda drew my attention to an extensive list of membership rules that this community insisted members observe, lest they receive warnings, bannings, and so-on, so being the contract-loving fellow that I am, I began to read them over. It was here that I learned something, my friends, something that I apparently should've learned some time ago, being an almost educated sort.
There were new definitions of both 'Racism' and 'Sexism' that I'd never heard of before.
This wasn't a shock to me because I believed I was particularly up to date on modern Sociology (not my kind of 'ology', frankly), nor because I lack any understanding of how the meanings of words transform over time. I was shocked, essentially because of how intensely different these 'new' definitions were from the ones I currently held (hold, to be honest).
Apparently, some time in the not-to-recent history of the sociological discourse about racism, some more insidious and (I'm told) serious properties of racism became more and more salient, to the point where a number (I honestly can't say how many) of academics in the field began to explicitly include these facets into the core meaning of the word 'racism'. Now, it seems, in the eyes of some (I can only assume sociology and women's studies students, but this is not for certain), these facets of racial issues have completely replaced the original, and as I saw it, standard definition of racism, to the point where those subscribing to this newer meaning will maintain that it is now the true meaning of the word (you know, as if we held a vote) and that the other meaning is not only more simplistic, its wrong! It would then seem that this definitional framework was also adopted by those who wrote about sexist issues, so that a similar meaning-substitution has taken place (again, for some) in regard to the word 'sexism'.
But what are these new definitions you (presuming the same ignorance on these matters that I had) ask?
Original, mainstream, semantically intuitive definitions:
Racism: Prejudice on the basis of race, often in the form of subscription to racial stereotypes. A belief that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually (or often) involving the idea that one's own race is superior and/or has the right to rule others.
Sexism: Prejudice on the basis of gender, often in the form of traditional stereotypes of sexual roles, or the assertion that one gender is superior to the other. A belief that gender determines the normative abilities, rights and intrinsic value of a person, beyond the scope of their sex-typed physiology.
Really, these seemed all right to me. Descriptive, quite intuitive, useful in a variety of situations, and always indicative of injustice or potential suffering. But, apparently I (and the majority of people) are behind the times, semantically. These are the definitions I encountered today.
Newer, less commonly used, highly restrictive definitions:
Racism: Prejudice + Power. The institutionalised White supremacy that takes Anglo values as the norm and discriminates on this basis. Racism is not only prejudices, but covert and overt, conscious and unconscious, actions, speech, and beliefs, regardless of stated intent. A world-view that ranks people based on unequally powerful and undeserved categories.
Sexism: Prejudice + Power. The institutionalised male supremacy that takes masculine values as the norm and discriminates on this basis. Sexism is not only prejudices, but covert and overt, conscious and unconscious, actions, speech, and beliefs, regardless of stated intent. A world-view that ranks people based on unequally powerful and undeserved categories.
Turns out, this is not the first time I've heard of this 'prejudice + power' formula. There was once an African-American gent on The Daily Show, who during his interview for his book 'corrected' Jon Stewart's application of the intuitive definition of racism, claiming that racism isn't racism unless it is institutionalised and unidirectional. I recall reacting with a Daily Show appropriate "Whaaaaa?", but quickly forgetting the issue when the commercials came.
Upon learning this, I attempted to keep an open mind, thinking "A shift like this wouldn't be in the literature if it wasn't important", but ultimately couldn't get past some of the problems this set of definitions seemed to generate. In the community's clarification as to why this is their policy, they linked several sources to justify that their definitions were in fact the 'real' ones. This one in particular stuck out to me, for some of the additional definitions it cited from 'educator Louise Derman-Sparks', to clear up what they're talking about:
"PREJUDICE: belief in stereotypes" (a little simplistic, but ok)
"BIGOTRY: belief in White supremacy" (wait, you mean like.. only that?)
"RACISM: attitude, action, or way of life whose outcome oppresses people of color and benefits White people, regardless of stated intent" (you're saying that this is the only kind of racism there can be??)
Similar to their definition of prejudice, the other definition they had that was approximately true (at least in my understanding) was:
"WHITE PRIVILEGE: the consequences of historical institutionalised racism; the benefits that Whites receive (economic, social, cultural, political)."
And it was at this point that it hit me.
Their new definition of racism (which extends through subject and prefix substitution into sexism) focusses extensively on the concept of oppression, and intends to make the framework of oppression the central issue of racism (or sexism). Historical racial (and genderal) biases, and their modern consequences, are of course undeniable in their injustice, their impact on people's lives, and their resistance to change due to conservative mindsets. The identification of this was no doubt a great step in the right direction for addressing both racial and sexual issues. What concerns me, however, is how upon its discovery, it wasn't given a unique term (I myself think that the dichotomous phrases 'Racial Privilege' and 'Racial Oppression' would cover all of it nicely), it was instead roped, in its entirety, into the core-concept of Racism.
This was presumably due to the way in which issues of racism and sexism get discussed in the modern discourse. As the literal 'isms' by their intuitive meanings became less and less common in our (Western) society, the focus of such discussions naturally shifted in focus to the remaining issues, which would in essence be the residual effects of past (and covert contemporary) prejudices on socio-economic structure and cultural attitudes. Those who discussed racism, in the media in which they discussed racism, where now (for the sake of relevance) discussing something that wasn't encompassed in the intuitive definition of racism, so the wise thing to do would seem to be to broaden your definition to both stay on topic, and add the power of your previous works to your current ones. What could go wrong with that?
What has gone wrong with that is plain to see in the comments of the post I mentioned above. The evolution of this new definition, from these origins, is approaching something both dysfunctional and ignoble. This new definition, according to its users, is now the definition for their money, and part of this vicious affirmation is the exclusion of the original (need I remind you, intuitive) definition from it. This attempted retcon of the very words 'Racism' and 'Sexism' lead to discussions characterised by this form of exchange:
Person 1: This claim is racist.
Person 2: That is not racism, racism is playing into the social acceptance of white supremacy, willfully or not. What you're describing is 'prejudice'.
Person 1: Yeah.. prejudice, on the criteria of race. Also known as 'racism'.
Person 2: NO! Your conception is ignorant and insulting to the suffering of people of colour! Racism is Prejudice + Power, so someone without social privilege and power cannot be racist!
Person 1: But I'm talking about discrimination against Africans in Asian communities.
Person 2: Social privilege belongs to white people in the west. Asian people henceforth can't be racist here, they can only be prejudice.
Person 1: But prejudice against other races?
Person 2: Yeah.
Person 1: ...
One, of course, can expect problems such as this (essentially one group demanding that another group use more words than they want to, for the sake of a definition they don't share) when one reviews some of the details mentioned in the 'study' I linked to above:
"When asked to define racism, the majority of students responded with a definition similar to those under Racism Definition #1 (the intuitive one). This definition focuses only on prejudice, but not on systems of power and disadvantage."
"A small number of Pomona College students responded with the following definitions, which represent a more comprehensive understanding of racism. This definition focuses on the role of power in a system that disadvantages or benefits certain people based on their race."
Very literally, this means that the original, intuitive definition, is definitively (ha!) the most commonly used. It also more closely resembles the general linguistic application of 'isms' to the ends of words, to denote either 'pertaining to the issues of' or 'judgment on the criteria of'. So on what rationale, exactly, are the proponents of this newer definition insisting that theirs is the 'true' definition, to the blunt exclusion of the other? While one may evoke an argument of "Racism should describe the most pressing racial issue, which is currently the residual effects of Racial Oppression", this both literally and in principle downplays the significance of 'old-school' race-hatred and prejudice. Why is so much exclusivity invoked, as if there is any 'true' meaning to any word that extends beyond the way in which it is commonly used? Is this really just a matter of some kind of 'semantic elitism'? Do these people want to continually tell people their definition or racism or sexism is wrong, just for the fun of it?
Beyond these problems of counter-intuitiveness and the fostering of needless misconceptions and arguments, my main problem with these definitions are there implication for how the words 'racism' and 'sexism' can be used "properly". These definitions are inclusive of the inuitive definitions of either word, but only when the incidence of prejudice (as stated above) is happening in the appropriate direction down a sort of 'power gradient'. The same prejudice, under other contexts, can now only be called that, "prejudice", as the oppressive element that has become central to the words themselves cannot (I'm told) ever be said to be true. The troubling implications can essentially be summed up in the following statements. According to the newer definitions:
- Only white people can be racist, as only white people, and only ever white people, are in a position of social privilege and power over other races.
- "People of colour" can never be racist, only prejudice, as racism requires cultural support, privilege and power, which only white people have.
- As racism is also the supporting of Anglo-centric culture, explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, and all western culture is defined as necessarily Anglo-centric, any actions undertaken by a white person that are not explicitly racially-compensating, can be considered racist.
Also:
- Only men can be sexist, as only men possess social privilege over women, which is necessary for sexism.
- Women can never be sexist, only prejudice, as women do not possess the social privilege and power necessary to make prejudice on the basis of gender 'sexism'.
- Since society is fundamentally biased in favour of men, and thus supporting the structure of society explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, is therefore sexist, any actions undertaken by men that are not explicitly gender-compensating, can be considered sexist.
Given that both terms, racism and sexism, are (contemporarily) considered to be highly pejorative and indicative of personal fault, I hope the irony of these words being restricted solely to some groups, on the basis of their race or gender alone, is not lost on you.
I would think that, inuitively, being sexist and racist about who can be sexist and racist was the kind of thing Douglas Adams would write about. You know, to be funny... Because it's insane!
The feminists on
feministraise an immense fuss about the 'fiction' of being 'colour-blind'. As if not regarding race as important is impossible. This seems to stem from the idea that to consider race unimportant is to belittle the suffering of people who have suffered solely because of their race. Did it ever occur to them, that ongoing race and gender fixation are the only definitive recipe for on-going race and gender issues and discontinuous considerations? They seem to earnestly care more about cringing in awe at how terrible racism and sexism are, than about finding a way to end such problems so that the suffering may end with it...
I put it to you (and you know who you are), that these 'new' definitions are implicitly pejorative, unintuitive, non-constructive, and destroy the utility of the words in their original meanings (which remain common, rightfully so, today). Does anyone else think these terms need to be 'taken back' from the likes of
feminist ?Or do we need to now invent entirely new words to represent 'racial prejudice' and 'gender prejudice' instead?
Tim.
Earlier today Belinda and I were looking over a post that she'd happened across, on a Livejournal Community called simply
feminist . The post itself was in essence the personal incredulity of a woman who learned in a Social Psychology class that partner-abuse, contrary to popular belief, was surprisingly equal between men and women, both in incidence and in harm done. Her 'counter' to this was that there are necessarily oppressive power-dynamics involved whenever a man abuses a woman that cannot necessarily be the case when women are abusing men, because... Well, 'women don't do that', would be her answer.
This was a community called 'feminist' after all, so I thought to myself "All right, bit cheeky", and prepared a reply for her post intended to draw attention to some of the fallacious implications of such assumptions, particularly in regard to 'potential harm' vs. 'harm done'. I found, however, that posting in
feminist was a 'friends (members) only' privilege, so in my momentary zeal I readied myself to join this community. "After all," I thought to myself, "I am strongly in favour of gender-equality myself, what could it hurt?"
Belinda drew my attention to an extensive list of membership rules that this community insisted members observe, lest they receive warnings, bannings, and so-on, so being the contract-loving fellow that I am, I began to read them over. It was here that I learned something, my friends, something that I apparently should've learned some time ago, being an almost educated sort.
There were new definitions of both 'Racism' and 'Sexism' that I'd never heard of before.
This wasn't a shock to me because I believed I was particularly up to date on modern Sociology (not my kind of 'ology', frankly), nor because I lack any understanding of how the meanings of words transform over time. I was shocked, essentially because of how intensely different these 'new' definitions were from the ones I currently held (hold, to be honest).
Apparently, some time in the not-to-recent history of the sociological discourse about racism, some more insidious and (I'm told) serious properties of racism became more and more salient, to the point where a number (I honestly can't say how many) of academics in the field began to explicitly include these facets into the core meaning of the word 'racism'. Now, it seems, in the eyes of some (I can only assume sociology and women's studies students, but this is not for certain), these facets of racial issues have completely replaced the original, and as I saw it, standard definition of racism, to the point where those subscribing to this newer meaning will maintain that it is now the true meaning of the word (you know, as if we held a vote) and that the other meaning is not only more simplistic, its wrong! It would then seem that this definitional framework was also adopted by those who wrote about sexist issues, so that a similar meaning-substitution has taken place (again, for some) in regard to the word 'sexism'.
But what are these new definitions you (presuming the same ignorance on these matters that I had) ask?
Original, mainstream, semantically intuitive definitions:
Racism: Prejudice on the basis of race, often in the form of subscription to racial stereotypes. A belief that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually (or often) involving the idea that one's own race is superior and/or has the right to rule others.
Sexism: Prejudice on the basis of gender, often in the form of traditional stereotypes of sexual roles, or the assertion that one gender is superior to the other. A belief that gender determines the normative abilities, rights and intrinsic value of a person, beyond the scope of their sex-typed physiology.
Really, these seemed all right to me. Descriptive, quite intuitive, useful in a variety of situations, and always indicative of injustice or potential suffering. But, apparently I (and the majority of people) are behind the times, semantically. These are the definitions I encountered today.
Newer, less commonly used, highly restrictive definitions:
Racism: Prejudice + Power. The institutionalised White supremacy that takes Anglo values as the norm and discriminates on this basis. Racism is not only prejudices, but covert and overt, conscious and unconscious, actions, speech, and beliefs, regardless of stated intent. A world-view that ranks people based on unequally powerful and undeserved categories.
Sexism: Prejudice + Power. The institutionalised male supremacy that takes masculine values as the norm and discriminates on this basis. Sexism is not only prejudices, but covert and overt, conscious and unconscious, actions, speech, and beliefs, regardless of stated intent. A world-view that ranks people based on unequally powerful and undeserved categories.
Turns out, this is not the first time I've heard of this 'prejudice + power' formula. There was once an African-American gent on The Daily Show, who during his interview for his book 'corrected' Jon Stewart's application of the intuitive definition of racism, claiming that racism isn't racism unless it is institutionalised and unidirectional. I recall reacting with a Daily Show appropriate "Whaaaaa?", but quickly forgetting the issue when the commercials came.
Upon learning this, I attempted to keep an open mind, thinking "A shift like this wouldn't be in the literature if it wasn't important", but ultimately couldn't get past some of the problems this set of definitions seemed to generate. In the community's clarification as to why this is their policy, they linked several sources to justify that their definitions were in fact the 'real' ones. This one in particular stuck out to me, for some of the additional definitions it cited from 'educator Louise Derman-Sparks', to clear up what they're talking about:
"PREJUDICE: belief in stereotypes" (a little simplistic, but ok)
"BIGOTRY: belief in White supremacy" (wait, you mean like.. only that?)
"RACISM: attitude, action, or way of life whose outcome oppresses people of color and benefits White people, regardless of stated intent" (you're saying that this is the only kind of racism there can be??)
Similar to their definition of prejudice, the other definition they had that was approximately true (at least in my understanding) was:
"WHITE PRIVILEGE: the consequences of historical institutionalised racism; the benefits that Whites receive (economic, social, cultural, political)."
And it was at this point that it hit me.
Their new definition of racism (which extends through subject and prefix substitution into sexism) focusses extensively on the concept of oppression, and intends to make the framework of oppression the central issue of racism (or sexism). Historical racial (and genderal) biases, and their modern consequences, are of course undeniable in their injustice, their impact on people's lives, and their resistance to change due to conservative mindsets. The identification of this was no doubt a great step in the right direction for addressing both racial and sexual issues. What concerns me, however, is how upon its discovery, it wasn't given a unique term (I myself think that the dichotomous phrases 'Racial Privilege' and 'Racial Oppression' would cover all of it nicely), it was instead roped, in its entirety, into the core-concept of Racism.
This was presumably due to the way in which issues of racism and sexism get discussed in the modern discourse. As the literal 'isms' by their intuitive meanings became less and less common in our (Western) society, the focus of such discussions naturally shifted in focus to the remaining issues, which would in essence be the residual effects of past (and covert contemporary) prejudices on socio-economic structure and cultural attitudes. Those who discussed racism, in the media in which they discussed racism, where now (for the sake of relevance) discussing something that wasn't encompassed in the intuitive definition of racism, so the wise thing to do would seem to be to broaden your definition to both stay on topic, and add the power of your previous works to your current ones. What could go wrong with that?
What has gone wrong with that is plain to see in the comments of the post I mentioned above. The evolution of this new definition, from these origins, is approaching something both dysfunctional and ignoble. This new definition, according to its users, is now the definition for their money, and part of this vicious affirmation is the exclusion of the original (need I remind you, intuitive) definition from it. This attempted retcon of the very words 'Racism' and 'Sexism' lead to discussions characterised by this form of exchange:
Person 1: This claim is racist.
Person 2: That is not racism, racism is playing into the social acceptance of white supremacy, willfully or not. What you're describing is 'prejudice'.
Person 1: Yeah.. prejudice, on the criteria of race. Also known as 'racism'.
Person 2: NO! Your conception is ignorant and insulting to the suffering of people of colour! Racism is Prejudice + Power, so someone without social privilege and power cannot be racist!
Person 1: But I'm talking about discrimination against Africans in Asian communities.
Person 2: Social privilege belongs to white people in the west. Asian people henceforth can't be racist here, they can only be prejudice.
Person 1: But prejudice against other races?
Person 2: Yeah.
Person 1: ...
One, of course, can expect problems such as this (essentially one group demanding that another group use more words than they want to, for the sake of a definition they don't share) when one reviews some of the details mentioned in the 'study' I linked to above:
"When asked to define racism, the majority of students responded with a definition similar to those under Racism Definition #1 (the intuitive one). This definition focuses only on prejudice, but not on systems of power and disadvantage."
"A small number of Pomona College students responded with the following definitions, which represent a more comprehensive understanding of racism. This definition focuses on the role of power in a system that disadvantages or benefits certain people based on their race."
Very literally, this means that the original, intuitive definition, is definitively (ha!) the most commonly used. It also more closely resembles the general linguistic application of 'isms' to the ends of words, to denote either 'pertaining to the issues of' or 'judgment on the criteria of'. So on what rationale, exactly, are the proponents of this newer definition insisting that theirs is the 'true' definition, to the blunt exclusion of the other? While one may evoke an argument of "Racism should describe the most pressing racial issue, which is currently the residual effects of Racial Oppression", this both literally and in principle downplays the significance of 'old-school' race-hatred and prejudice. Why is so much exclusivity invoked, as if there is any 'true' meaning to any word that extends beyond the way in which it is commonly used? Is this really just a matter of some kind of 'semantic elitism'? Do these people want to continually tell people their definition or racism or sexism is wrong, just for the fun of it?
Beyond these problems of counter-intuitiveness and the fostering of needless misconceptions and arguments, my main problem with these definitions are there implication for how the words 'racism' and 'sexism' can be used "properly". These definitions are inclusive of the inuitive definitions of either word, but only when the incidence of prejudice (as stated above) is happening in the appropriate direction down a sort of 'power gradient'. The same prejudice, under other contexts, can now only be called that, "prejudice", as the oppressive element that has become central to the words themselves cannot (I'm told) ever be said to be true. The troubling implications can essentially be summed up in the following statements. According to the newer definitions:
- Only white people can be racist, as only white people, and only ever white people, are in a position of social privilege and power over other races.
- "People of colour" can never be racist, only prejudice, as racism requires cultural support, privilege and power, which only white people have.
- As racism is also the supporting of Anglo-centric culture, explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, and all western culture is defined as necessarily Anglo-centric, any actions undertaken by a white person that are not explicitly racially-compensating, can be considered racist.
Also:
- Only men can be sexist, as only men possess social privilege over women, which is necessary for sexism.
- Women can never be sexist, only prejudice, as women do not possess the social privilege and power necessary to make prejudice on the basis of gender 'sexism'.
- Since society is fundamentally biased in favour of men, and thus supporting the structure of society explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, is therefore sexist, any actions undertaken by men that are not explicitly gender-compensating, can be considered sexist.
Given that both terms, racism and sexism, are (contemporarily) considered to be highly pejorative and indicative of personal fault, I hope the irony of these words being restricted solely to some groups, on the basis of their race or gender alone, is not lost on you.
I would think that, inuitively, being sexist and racist about who can be sexist and racist was the kind of thing Douglas Adams would write about. You know, to be funny... Because it's insane!
The feminists on
feministraise an immense fuss about the 'fiction' of being 'colour-blind'. As if not regarding race as important is impossible. This seems to stem from the idea that to consider race unimportant is to belittle the suffering of people who have suffered solely because of their race. Did it ever occur to them, that ongoing race and gender fixation are the only definitive recipe for on-going race and gender issues and discontinuous considerations? They seem to earnestly care more about cringing in awe at how terrible racism and sexism are, than about finding a way to end such problems so that the suffering may end with it...
I put it to you (and you know who you are), that these 'new' definitions are implicitly pejorative, unintuitive, non-constructive, and destroy the utility of the words in their original meanings (which remain common, rightfully so, today). Does anyone else think these terms need to be 'taken back' from the likes of
feminist ?Or do we need to now invent entirely new words to represent 'racial prejudice' and 'gender prejudice' instead?
Tim.